Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

25.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 145 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2015.

Minutes:

Councillor Claussen requested an amendment to clarify the comments he had made on the two Hockering applications (Schedule Items 4 and 6)(Minute No 22/15d and f).  He had said that insufficient water pressure was a material planning consideration in determining the applications.

 

Councillor Robinson noted that at Schedule Item 2 Attleborough (Minute No 22/15 b) he had referred to a permission for 350 (not 250) homes on London Road.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) also clarified that in the Resolution to Agenda Item 8b – Watton (Minute No 21/15b) the increased flood risk related to the Highway works not to the site itself.

 

Subject to those amendments the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 February 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

26.

Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T Carter and Lamb.  Councillor W Richmond was present as Substitute for Councillor Carter.

 

27.

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 North declared that she was Ward Representative for Agenda Item 8a - Attleborough.

Councillor Bowes declared that she was Ward Representative for Agenda Item 9, Schedule Item 3 – Watton.

 

28.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)

Minutes:

None.

 

29.

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Schedule Item 1 – Banham had been withdrawn from the Agenda for legal advice.  It was expected that it would be presented to the next meeting.

 

30.

Urgent Business (Agenda Item 6)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

None.

 

31.

Local Plan Update (Agenda Item 7) pdf icon PDF 32 KB

Update from the Director of Planning & Business Manager.

Minutes:

The Director of Planning & Business Manager read out the Local Plan update from the Agenda.  He informed Members that a new scheme of delegations would be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 24 March, due to the changes in regulations regarding Neighbourhood Plans.

 

Councillor Duigan asked if the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) would be a verbal or written report to the Local Plan Working Group (LPWG).  He was advised that it would be a verbal report.  The written report would not be available until the end of April and was expected to be presented to Council in May.

 

Councillor Duigan asked when the land options for the site specifics document would be looked at and it was pointed out that the criteria for site selection would need to be agreed by the LPWG before a full assessment of all the sites that had been submitted could be carried out.  The Spatial strategy would be looked at first.

 

Councillor W Richmond asked why Suffolk and West Norfolk were not included in the SHMA preparation and it was explained that the joint initiative was being prepared centred around Norwich.  However, it was recognised that areas to the west and south west of the district including King’s Lynn and Brandon also influenced the housing markets.  Further work might be needed to define the joint initiative area.  Other authorities were being contacted.

 

Councillor Claussen asked what the strategic housing numbers were based on as they had previously been based on social housing.

 

The Government had set clear guidelines for local authorities to use to set housing market need.  The process would be explained in the report to the LPWG and Cabinet.

 

Councillor Claussen said that Members needed to be kept informed of what weight to give to local and national policies as the Local Plan progressed.

 

The Director of Planning & Business Manager confirmed that all current adopted plans were weighted in accordance with their compliance to the NPPF.  All of the Council’s policies were compliant except the settlement boundary and housing policies which were out of date.

 

32.

Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 40 KB

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

32a

ATTLEBOROUGH: Land north of Norwich Road: Residential development of up to 350 dwellings: Applicant: Gladedale Estates: Reference: 3PL/2013/1161/O pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Report of the Executive Director Place.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application had been deferred from the meeting held on 16 February for further information on drainage issues/flood risk and impact on town centre traffic flows.  Members were given a run-through of the application details.

 

Additional information had been provided and the Applicant’s engineers were present to answer any technical questions about drainage.  The intention was to realign the flood plain through attenuation works which would include basins, swales and crates.  Anglian Water had confirmed that the development would require upgrading works to the Carver Lane pumping station and a new rising main.  The costs would be met by the developer. 

 

Other concerns were addressed in the report provided in the Agenda supplement. 

 

Mr Morgan (owner of the garage site affected by the application) again requested Members’ support to secure the future of his business by applying a condition requiring mitigation works before development started.

 

Mr Armstrong (Agent) confirmed for the record that they were happy for a suitably worded condition to be included and for those works to be done at the start of development.

 

Mr Parfitt (Applicant’s Transport Consultant) said that traffic signals would be provided at the Norwich Road junction along with a pedestrian crossing.  A new footway link would be provided to the schools and town centre.  Additionally land had been safeguarded to allow for future improvement works to the A11 junction.

 

Mr Totman (Applicant’s Drainage Consultant) said that modelling had been carried out to cover a worst case scenario in relation to flooding and surface and waste water management.  With regard to the Internal Drainage Board’s (IDB) concerns about discharge to the Besthorpe Stream, additional on-site storage would ensure that flows to the stream would not increase. 

 

Councillor North, who was also Ward Representative, thanked the Agent for confirming that Mr Morgan’s premises would be safeguarded.  She was still very concerned about flooding especially with regard to the cemetery extension which appeared to be within the flood zone and graves would be below the water table.  She thought there would be safety issues for young children with the large attenuation tanks.  She also thought that signalisation would add to the traffic problems.  The aim was to keep vehicles moving.

 

Mr Totman agreed that the west end of the site was the most susceptible to flooding and the cemetery extension would have to be carefully considered.  He also acknowledged that there would be large areas of water on site.  However, they had been designed to be shallow water with shallow side slopes and to be well over-looked.  The bulk of the large quantities of water to be stored would be above ground, but there would also be underground crate storage.  At the reserved matters stage the levels above and below ground might change, but it had all been designed to completely contain the water on site with no outflow for 24 hours.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen was also concerned about flooding and noted that the IDB did not think that surface water drainage was achievable.  She asked what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

33.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 71 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

MLN (Land and Properties Ltd

Banham

22-36

2

Mr D J Barham

Rocklands

37-42

3

Serruys Property Company Ltd

Watton

43-50

4

Mr & Mrs John Bristow

Sporle

41-56

5

Mr & Mrs Goodley

Snetterton

57-61

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

a)         Item 1: BANHAM: Land adjacent to Kenninghall Road: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 43 dwellings: Applicant: MLN (Land and Properties) Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/1006/O

 

This application had been withdrawn from the Agenda.  See Minute No 29/15 above.

 

b)         Item 2: ROCKLANDS: Land adjacent to 17 The Street: Erection of 2 detached dwellings & garages: Applicant: Mr D J Barham: Reference: 3PL/2014/1225/F

 

This was a site adjacent the Settlement Boundary in open countryside.  It was considered to be a sustainable location as it was close to a shop, school, Post Office and bus stop.  It was therefore recommended for approval.

 

Councillor Smith (Ward Representative) had been asked to speak against the application on behalf of the Parish Council as they had concerns about flooding in the village; the impact of the development on the adjacent property; and setting a precedent of development outside the Settlement Boundary. 

 

It was noted that there was no condition about flooding and the Officers advised that they had been unaware of any concerns as the Parish Council had not commented on the application.  A drainage condition would be included if the application was approved.

 

Approved, as recommended, subject to an additional condition requiring drainage details.

 

c)         Item 3: WATTON: Plaswood, Griston Road: Erection of 31 residential units (comprising of 18 flats and 13 houses, estate road, parking areas and open space): Applicant: Serruys Property Company Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/1314/O

 

This site already had planning permission for 31 dwellings.  The main difference in the proposal was an increase in floorspace to improve the viability of the site.  The application did not provide any affordable housing or financial contributions.  If Members were minded to approve the application a legal agreement was suggested with a claw-back clause requiring contributions if profit exceeded 17.5%.

 

Mr Osborne (Objector) raised concerns about inadequate footpath provision.  The road was busy and a footpath was desperately needed.  The existing footpath was on the wrong side of the road for the site and was too narrow in places.

 

Mr Watling (Objector) spoke on behalf of residents of the adjacent estate.  They strongly objected to the proposed footpath link co-joining the estates and asked for the link to be via Wood Lane.

 

Mr Futter (Agent) pointed out that the site already had permission for 31 dwellings and there was no less open space proposed and no changes to the footpath links.  The brownfield site would provide sustainable development.  In its current form it would deliver a loss.  The Leader of the Council had asked why Breckland was being targeted by developers and he thought there were two reasons: 1) the lack of a five year housing land supply and 2) the amount of money required by town and parish councils for planning obligations.  The site was available and the developer was ready to build.  The applicant was happy to accept the claw-back legal agreement and a two year time limit for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

Applications determined by the Executive Director of Place (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 102 KB

Report of the Executive Director of 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.

 

35.

Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Minutes:

Noted.