Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

75.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 127 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2014.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2014 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

76.

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:

Schedule Item 4 (Gressenhall) – All Members had received direct representation.

 

77.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that there was to be a flag raising ceremony at 10.00am to commemorate the start of the Great War.  He would close the meeting in time to give everyone the opportunity to attend the ceremony which would last for about 10 minutes and would include a one minute’s silence.  The meeting would then reconvene.

 

78.

Local Plan Update (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The Planning Manager advised Members that a project meeting of the Local Plan Working Group would take place at 11.00am to consider Issues and Options, starting with Housing and Employment.  The next meeting would be held on 9 September 2014 and would consider the Natural and Historic Environment.  The Annual Monitoring Report would also be presented to that meeting.

 

A Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment was currently being prepared between Breckland, Broadland, Norwich City, North Norfolk and South Norfolk Councils.  It would objectively assess housing need and would be used to provide Breckland’s Housing target for the Local Plan.

 

The Open Space consultation with the Parish Councils was ongoing.  It would inform the audit of all Open Spaces and future policy provision.

 

Councillor North expressed her dismay that the LPWG was being held at the same time as the Planning Meeting.  Although she was not a Member of the Group she would have liked to attend as the matters discussed affected all Wards.

 

The Planning Manager had made the same comments and he had asked that future meetings should avoid such a clash.

 

 

The meeting was suspended at 09.40 and reconvened at 10.08am.

 

 

79.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 91 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr T Gray

Necton

16 - 23

2

Abel Homes Ltd

Watton

24 - 33

3

Abel Homes Ltd

Swaffham

34 - 39

4

Mr & Mrs Greenwood

Gressenhall

40 - 48

5

Mr & Mrs P J Plummer

Mattishall

49 -56

6

Reads Nurseries

Dereham

57 - 64

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)    Item 1: NECTON: The Necton Diner, Norwich Road: Residential Development: Applicant: Mr T Gray: Reference: 3PL/2013/0983/O

 

The redevelopment of this former diner was acceptable in principle.  The application had been independently assessed and was only marginally viable; therefore no affordable housing was included.  It was proposed that the application be approved subject to a legal agreement which would include a viability review.  Members were requested to delegate authority to Officers to refuse the application if the legal agreement was not completed within three months, unless the Planning Manager agreed to an extension.

 

Mr Richardson (for Objector) spoke on behalf of the owners of the adjacent garage, raising concerns about encroachment on their land.  They owned a fully functioning business and were concerned that no restrictions should be applied to their operations.

 

Mr Evans (Agent) advised that the Highways preferred option had been for a staggered junction at the access point but that could not be achieved.  However, Highways had not objected to the revised scheme.  The site was an eyesore and development would improve views from the A47.

 

In response to a question about the effect of the development on the adjacent business the Planning Manager advised Members that mitigation measures including screening and acoustic fencing were proposed.  However, there could be future complaints from residents about noise, etc.  It would be appropriate to condition double glazing to the rear of the houses to try to overcome that, but there was no certainty that it would prevent future complaints.

 

Councillor Sharp was concerned that there was no direct benefit to Necton from the proposals. 

 

The Planning Manager explained that the Independent District Valuer had confirmed that the site could not deliver affordable housing, only a library and recreation contribution.  It was up to Members to decide if that money should be put towards affordable housing.

 

Members discussed the viability of brownfield sites and Councillor Duigan pointed out that if they insisted on affordable housing, such sites would be left redundant eyesores.  The benefit to the community was in getting rid of that.

 

In response to further concerns about the access the Applicant’s Solicitor Mr Fowler confirmed that the adjacent garage had right of access over the land which would be preserved.  They would still have unfettered access.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

It was agreed that the Reserved Matters application should come back to Committee for approval.

 

(b)    Item 2: WATTON: The Warren, Watton Green: Erection of 18 houses with garages, ancillary works and landscaping: Applicant: Abel Homes Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/0330/F

 

This was an amendment to a previously approved, recently expired scheme for 19 houses.  The site area had been reduced to exclude Drone Garage. 

 

The affordable housing bungalows would be built as lifetime homes making them easily adaptable to the changing needs of occupants.

 

In response to concerns about the impact of such developments on the doctors’ surgeries the Planning Manager advised that health and wellbeing were matters that could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

Applications determined by the Executive Director (Place) (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Report of the Executive Director (Place).

 

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.

 

81.

Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 30 KB

Minutes:

Noted.

 

82.

Appeals Decisions (Agenda Item 12)

Appeal decisions in relation to Billingford were included as a Supplementary Report item to Planning Committee on 7th July, 2014.

 

Appeal A:  APP/F2605/C/13/2199946:  BILLINGFORD:  Land adjoining Billingford Hall, Elmham Road:  Appeal by Mr. Todd against enforcement notice in respect of a single storey general purpose agricultural building:  The requirements of the notice are to (i)  remove the building from the land and (ii) remove all associated building materials, rubble and spoil arising from the construction and removal of the building.  The time period for compliance is 3 calendar months.

Decision:  The appeal does not succeed.  The enforcement notice is varied to extend period for compliance to 9 months and upheld.

Summary:   In respect of ground c:  The Inspector concluded that the structure which exists is not the "prior notification" building.  There is no express planning permission for the building nor does it amount to permitted development.  There has been a breach of planning control and the appeal should not succeed on ground c of the Town and Country Planning Act.  

 

In respect of ground a and the deemed planning application (the building as a whole) and Appeal B (the extensions):  The Inspector concluded that the extent of existing agricultural activity on the holding is very limited.  Whilst planned agricultural activities are relevant, the extent of those activities is not markedly different to those put forward for the smaller "prior notification" building.  No business plan or agricultural assessment has been submitted.  The balance of evidence does not support the appellant's contention that the building as a whole, or the lean to elements in Appeal B, are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

 

In respect of the effect on the character and appearance of the area, the Inspector gives limited weight to the visual impact of the building.  However the Inspector concludes that the addition of a building of this scale, character and appearance results in material harm to the character of the river valley.

 

The Inspector did not consider that planning permission should be granted for that part of the appeal building which would be equivalent to the "prior notification " building  (which  would amount to the appeal building minus the lean-to elements on the side and end elevations).  This would nevertheless be materially harmful to the area's character.  The balance of evidence does not suggest that such a building would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

 

In respect of ground f Appeal A:  The appellant contends that the requirements of the enforcement notice should be varied to allow the prior notification element of the building to remain.   The Inspector concluded that the building is not permitted development.  There is no fall back position to erect an agricultural building of the same size as the "prior notification " building to comply with permitted development rights as it is not considered that the building would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.   The requirements of the notice do not exceed what is necessary to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 82.

Minutes:

Noted.