To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2007.

The following corrections were made:

• Minute 69/07: North Tuddenham: Proposed 62-bed nursing home adjacent The Lodge, Main Road: Reference 3PL/2006/1889/F – On page 3, paragraph 2), line 2: corrected to read “…- the site lay between …”

• Minute 70/07: Roudham & Larling/Bridgham: Camp Farm: Change of use of farm buildings to hemp processing plant: Reference 3PL/2007/0139/CU – On page 6, paragraph 4, line 3: corrected to read “…people who wanted the factory to be approved …”
  
  

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th April 2007, as amended, were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Messrs. B. Rose and N. Wilkin.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Members were asked to declare any interests as appropriate at the time as applications were considered.

a)     Members were notified of arrangements for the Town and Country Planning Summer School to take place at Swansea from 31 August to 4 September 2007.  Three places were available and any members interested in attending were asked to give their names to the Chairman or Development Services Manager.  Further details of the event were available upon request.

b)     The member training day on 18^th May had been successful and members were asked to note that further training sessions would be held over the coming months.  Members were invited to let the officers know if there were any specific issues or items that they would like covered.

c)      Members were asked to ignore pages 22-26 of the agenda, which had inadvertently been included in error.

d)     Notice was given of submission of a forthcoming application to the next meeting regarding a proposal for six wind turbines at Swaffham.  The application file was a large document and the report being prepared for Committee would of necessity be a précis of the details of the application.  However, the full application file was available for viewing upon request.

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.

Attleborough: Proposed residential development, London Road/New Road: Reference 3PL/2007/0301/O (Agenda Item 9 & Item 6 of the Schedule of Applications)

The following public speakers were present for this item:

-          Mr S. Westaway, Applicant’s Agent

-          Mrs Olive, Objector

The applicant’s agent had asked for this application to be deferred to enable them to take into account late information received by them from consultees.

The officers advised that deferral of the item meant that it would miss the statutory deadline for determining applications.  The onus was on applicants to ensure that they had all relevant information when submitting applications.  While it was reasonable for an application to be withdrawn to enable further information to be included in a new application, a deferral of the matter was not supported in this case.

The Committee supported the officers’ view in the matter and accordingly it was

         RESOLVED that the request for deferral of this application be not agreed.

In the light of this decision, the application was withdrawn by the applicant’s agent.

Report of the Development Services Manager.

The following public speakers were in attendance for this item:

• Mr S. Askew, Ward Representative
• Mr Snow, Objector

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of this prior approval application for the siting and appearance of a 13.7m high monopole and equipment at Heath Road, Banham.  It was recommended that prior approval was not required.

The relevant policies and precautionary approach requirements relevant to this application, as set out in the report, were explained.

Mr. Snow spoke against the application, on the grounds that the proposed location of the mast within a 300m radius of residential properties was too close and raised health risks and there were other potential sites that should be considered.

Mr. Askew, the Ward Member, also spoke against the application, stating that he was unconvinced the applicants had investigated all potential sites.  He felt that existing research did not fully rule out the health risks associated with such equipment and cited a previous similar application for a mast in Wendling which had been refused on grounds that the effect on residents remained a concern.

Having regard to the fact that there were potential alternative sites which could be considered and that there was a perceived risk to health from the proximity of the proposal to the nearby school, the Committee

         RESOLVED that the application for prior approval be refused.

Report of the Development Services Manager

The following public speakers were present for this item:

• Mr Ulrych, Parish Council representative
• Victoria Finch, Applicant’s Agent

The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects), who explained the proposals for the expansion of Wayland Prison, which were recommended for approval.

Mr. Ulrych spoke on behalf of the Griston Parish Council, who had raised concerns about the impact of the extension on neighbouring residences and in relation to the Parish Council’s request for contributions to be made towards community facilities in the village and the proposed Watton-Griston cycle path.

Ms Finch confirmed that the Ministry of Justice had since written to the Parish to open discussions regarding the issue of community facilities and that a commuted sum of £40,000 would be attached to the Section 106 legal agreement.

Given the size of the development, members felt that it would not be unreasonable to seek a larger contribution to the commuted sum and it was suggested that £100,000 might be a more realistic figure.

In noting the position regarding the provision of replacement open amenity areas for the village, members also agreed that the Ministry of Justice should be pressed to conclude the discussions with the Parish Council as soon as possible. 

         RESOLVED that

(1)   the application be deferred; however, the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant planning permission for the proposed development, subject to conditions relating to: landscaping, external lighting, the specification of the proposed substation/generator, site investigation, drainage, provision of car parking and a Travel Plan, and subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a contribution towards the Watton-Griston cycle path, such contribution to be as currently proposed or such higher figure as may be negotiated by the officers; and

(2)   a letter be sent to the Ministry of Justice strongly pressing for the discussions on the provision of open amenity areas to be concluded with the Parish Council.

Report of the Development Services Manager

This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant’s agent (see minute no. 78/77 above).

Report of the Development Services Manager

The Enforcement Assistant presented the report, which related to a enforcement of a condition concerning an access at the above property.

It was explained that only one complaint had been received about the matter and that the matter did not meet the public interest test to warrant legal action.

It was recommended that enforcement action be not pursued and it was noted that the Ward Member concurred with this view.

         RESOLVED that enforcement action in this instance is not pursued for the reasons given by the Enforcement Assistant but the owners be informed that any further development on the site would require planning consent.

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

The following persons were present to speak to this item:

• Lady Fisher, Ward Member
• Mr J. Baskerville, County Councillor
• Mrs Chapman, Objector
• Mrs Jolly, Parish Council Representative
• Mr Cunnane, Applicant’s Agent
• Mr Higgins, Norfolk County Council, Highways Representative

The Solicitor advised that, on the previous Friday, the Solicitors for the Parish Council had raised a legal point regarding the issue of an Environmental Impact Assessment on which this Council would need to seek Counsel’s Opinion.  Therefore, in the event the Committee decided to grant permission for this proposal, it would be subject to taking Counsel’s Opinion on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) then presented the full details of the application, which had been deferred at the last meeting to enable further information to be obtained (previous minute no. 70/07 refers).   Following further discussions with the applicant, additional information had been submitted in support of the planning application, as set out in the report. 

Lady Fisher, Mr J. Baskerville, Mrs Chapman and Mrs Jolly all spoke against the application on the various grounds of increased traffic on local roads, hours of operation, noise from night working, inappropriate change of use outside the settlement boundary, environmental impact, non-compliance with farm diversification policies.

Mr Cunnane spoke in support of the application, adding that he was happy to discuss the issues with the Parish Council and to accept a condition to restrict the use to hemp processing only.

Mr Higgins outlined the results of the highways consultations, which had concluded that the revision of the proposals to provide four passing bays was adequate.  He clarified that the classification of quiet lanes did not mean that such roads were restricted in use but that they remained public highways.  So far as the railway crossing and river bridge were concerned, it was acknowledged that there could be problems at these locations but that, on balance, it was not felt that the additional 16 HGVs made the proposed development unacceptable.  He confirmed that any legal routing agreements were enforceable.  Mr Higgins also did not agree that the existing roads were unsafe or unsuitable.

During the ensuing discussions, the following points were noted:

• The hours of operation could be limited by condition, although an application to vary these could be submitted.  The Council would have power to determine the application for variation in the light of experience.  If problems had been experienced, it would be reasonable not to agree to an extension.  However, the Committee could not impose more onerous conditions.  The applicants had stated that such an application would not be likely for at least 12 months.
  
  
• A routing agreement would be enforceable but it would require good local evidence to support enforcement.  However, given that the increase in the number of vehicles was just 16, the need for such an agreement was questioned.  In this connection, Mr Cunnane stated that his client would be willing to agree a condition covering all vehicles from the site, which would remove any need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83a

The following persons were in attendance to speak to this item:

• Mr S. Askew, Ward Member
• Mr Bensley, Objector
• Mr Simonds, Applicant

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of this application, which had been deferred at the last meeting to enable further investigations and discussions to take place with the Environmental Health Officer and the applicant regarding the imposition of appropriate conditions to reduce the impact of the development on the amenity of the area.

The report explained the acoustic attenuation measures that had been undertaken on the chimneys to reduce noise emissions, as a result of which, Environmental Health Officers had confirmed that noise level readings were acceptable and did not constitute a statutory nuisance.  For practical reasons, it was not possible to set a condition as to noise levels.  Furthermore, it was considered unreasonable to impose a restriction on the hours of operation of machinery on the site given the existing permission.

For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be approved.

Mr Bensley read out a statement on behalf of Banham Residents Association, raising concerns as to noise nuisance and asking that the application be deferred until those issues had been resolved.

Mr Simonds spoke in support of the application, stating that the works had been carried out in consultation and as agreed with the Environmental Health Officers to resolve the problems.

Mr Askew also raised concerns about noise emissions.  He queried the position about noise level restrictions, citing an earlier letter from the Development Control Officer regarding a restriction on the western boundary.  He urged that the application be deferred to clarify the position and to enable all parties to negotiate a resolution to the problems.

The Principal Planning Officer felt that the letter referred to by the Ward Member related to a previous application in 2005 and confirmed that the current permission had no restrictions on it.

In answer to a question from the Chairman on whether he would be prepared to meet with the various parties to discuss the issues further, Mr Simonds felt that he had done everything requested to comply with requirements and their business was being affected.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that meetings had been held with the Parish Council and local residents and he felt there was little further to be gained from another meeting.

Following other questions, it was noted that there would be no further increase in the height of the flues, other measures had been introduced to reduce noise levels and the boundary landscaping measures introduced would provide a further buffer against noise from the site.

In conclusion, it was

         RESOLVED that the application be approved.

The following persons were present to speak to this item:

• Councillor Mr A. Stasiak, Applicant
• Mr Chapman, Objector
• Mr Cumming, Applicant’s Agent
• Mr Westaway, Objector

Mr Stasiak declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter as the Applicant and left the room once he had addressed the Committee under the rules on public speaking.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of this application, which had been deferred at the last meeting to enable further consultations to be carried out on the amended design for the proposed alterations to the front elevation of the property.

Objections to the amended design had been received on the grounds of the impact on the character of the existing building.  Concerns about the proposed alterations to the main façade of the building had also been raised by the Historic Buildings Officer, as set out in the report.

It was noted that the property was not a listed building but it was in a conservation area.

It was considered that the proposed alterations to the front elevation would compensate for the amended window design and loss of door surround and accordingly the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Historic Buildings Officer explained that he maintained his concern regarding the treatment to the ground floor, although some amendments had been agreed.  He recommended that a tripartite sash window arrangement with a horizontal bar be required, similar to the upstairs window arrangement, to retain a more traditional approach.  He acknowledged the reasons for the changes to the doorcase where additional width was required to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Objections to the proposals were then put by Mr Chapman and Mr Westaway.  Mr Chapman’s views were that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on this prominent town building.  Mr Westaway raised concerns about the brick and flint walls, which he stated were an intrinsic element of this building and he felt that full glazing on the ground floor to match the top floor would be the best solution to the window arrangements.

The Historic Buildings Officer explained that the building was not listed and was not in its original condition and had been altered several times over the years.  There was a flat roof extension to the rear which was considered not to impact on the Conservation Area.  The windows were uPVC and the door was not timber.  Larger window panes, in a tripartite sash arrangement, with or without glazing bars, were acceptable.  It was also felt that the proposals were acceptable in the historical context.  Since 1997, there were reduced controls over partial demolition of walls in Conservation Areas.

Mr Stasiak spoke in support of his application.  Following the deferral of the application at the last meeting, the window design had been revised.  He disputed claims that this was a Georgian building and stated that the Georgian Society had expressed no interest in the property.  Existing windows were plastic, the window shutters were false and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83c

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

Item     Applicant                             Parish                            Page

1          T-Mobile (UK) Ltd              Banham                         29       

2          Dennis Tallon                      Swaffham                      30

3          Janet Pritchard                   Narborough                   32

4          Parkland Properties          Swaffham                      37

5          RLMH Ltd                            Swaffham                      40

6          R Foulger                            Attleborough                 42

7          G & D Wall                          Mileham                        43

8          Admiral Homes                  Hockering                     46

9          Bennett Plc                         Mundford                       50

10        Alan Powley                        South Lopham              54

11        Walnut Farm Dev               Swaffham                      57

12        Paul Newbold                     Scarning                        60

13        National Offenders Mgt     Griston                           62

14        S C Hopkins                       Thetford                         63

15`      S C Hopkins                       Thetford                         66

         RESOLVED that the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations contained in the schedule, subject to the following conditions and amendments:

(a)    Item 1: 3BT/2007/003/BTM: Banham: Alexander Industrial Estate, Heath Road: Installation of a new slimline monopole 13.7m high and associated equipment cabinets for T-Mobile (UK) Ltd

See minute no. 79/07 above.

(b)    Item 2: 3PL/2007/0017/LB: Swaffham: Assembly Rooms, Market Place: Erection of sign (retrospective) for Dennis Tallon

Refused as recommended and enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of the unauthorised sign.

(c)    Item 3: 3PL/2007/0233/F: Narborough: Narborough Trout & Coarse Lakes, Main Road: Proposed hardstanding and driveway access for touring caravans with lighting, electricity and water points and two hatchery polytunnels for Janet Pritchard

Approved contrary to the recommendation subject to conditions to provide a more environmentally sustainable hardstanding, lighting, treatment plant and limiting the number of touring caravans to 20.

Members felt that the application, subject to conditions, was acceptable having regard to the benefits to tourism in the area.

(d)    Item 6: 3PL/2007/0301/O: Attleborough: Land at junction of London Road and New Road: Residential development for R. Foulger, Mrs M. Goldsmith, Mr & Mrs H. Woolston

Application withdrawn - see minute no. 81/07 above.

(e)    Item 7: 3PL/2007/0318/F: Mileham: Coronation Farm, Litcham Road: Conversion and re-use of part of barn for class B8 with ancillary residential and parking for Messrs G & D Wall

Deferred; however the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to tie the new accommodation to the commercial use and to require that the commercial use commences first.

Contrary to the recommendation, the Committee felt that the proposed residential development was subservient to the commercial use in line with policy HOU11 and was therefore acceptable.

(f)      Item 8: 3PL/2007/0342/F: Hockering: The Old Granary, The Street: Demolition of former packaging building and construction of 12 dwellings for Admiral Homes

Deferred; however, the Development Services be authorised to grant permission, as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report and to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the terms of affordable housing provision.

(g)    Item 10: 3PL/2007/0405/F: South Lopham: Brick Kiln Lane, Low Common Road: Erection of shed/workshop for Mr Alan Powley

Refused, contrary to the recommendation, on grounds that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and would fail to enhance the character of the area.

(h)    Item 11: 3PL/2007/0433/F: Swaffham: Greenborders, North Pickenham Road: Construction of two detached houses after demolition of existing bungalow for Walnut Farm Developments Ltd

Deferred; however, subject to the Highways Authority confirming that the applicant’s proposal to amend the design to extend the footpath to the junction with the highway overcomes their objection, the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission, subject to a condition requiring the footpath to be constructed first.

(i)      Item 13: 3PL/2007/0473/F: Griston: HMP Wayland, Thompson Road: Five two-storey prison accommodation blocks and associated facilities, replacement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Verbal report of the Development Services Manager.

To nominate representatives to the following Liaison Groups for the ensuing year (no political balance).

Snetterton Circuit Liaison Group (Existing/previous members: Mr A Stasiak (Chairman), Mr S Askew, Mr J P Cowen)

Old Buckenham Airfield Consultative Committee (Existing/previous members: Mr S Askew (Chairman), Mr A Joel, Mr K Martin, Mrs S Howard-Alpe, Mr P Francis)

Fibrothetford Liaison Group (Existing/previous members: Mr T Lamb (Chairman), Mrs M Chapman-Allen, Mr R Kybird, Mr R Key, Mr J P Cowen, Mr A Paines)

         RESOLVED that the following members be nominated to represent the Committee on the under-mentioned Liaison Groups for the ensuing year:

§         Snetterton Circuit Liaison Group –
Mrs A. Steward (Chairman), Mr S. Askew and Mr J.P. Cowen

§         Old Buckenham Airfield Consultative Committee –
Mr S. Askew (Chairman), Mr A.P. Joel, Mr K. Martin, Mrs S.R. Howard-Alpe and Mr P.S. Francis.

§         Fibrothetford Liaison Group -
Mr T.J. Lamb (Chairman), Mrs M.P. Chapman-Allen, Mr R.G. Kybird, Mr D.G. Mortimer, Mr J.P. Cowen and Mr M. Spencer

Report of the Development Services Manager.

Noted.

3CM/2006/0061/F - North Pickenham: St Andrew’s Primary School: Erectionof wind turbine & installation of ancillary equipment for Director of Children’sServices, County Hall

Decision:  Conditional Approval

Noted.

For information

Noted.

APP/F2605/A/06/2028480: Land adjacent 56/58 Richmond Road, Saham Toney: Appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of two cottages for Mrs J. Stagles (Application ref. 3PL/2006/0925/F).

Decision: Allowed subject to conditions.

APP/F2605/A/06/2029836: Land to rear of Swaffham Conservative Club, 23 London Street, Swaffham: Appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of 6 no. 2-storey houses and 16 no. flats in a 2-storey building for Equity Holdings & Investments Ltd. (Application ref. 3PL/2006/0540/F).

Decision:  Dismissed.

APP/F2605/A/06/2029910: Catoria, The Street, Beeston: Appeals against refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings and erection of 2 detached and 2 semi-detached cottages and cart lodge garages for Neil McLeod (Application ref. 3PL/2006/0705/F).

Decision:  Allowed subject to conditions.

APP/F2605/A/06/2030561: 3 Stanton Close, Dereham: Appeals against refusal of outline planning permission for proposed house and garage for Mr A. Stewart and Ms C. Hulett (Application ref. 3PL/2006/0514/O).

Decision:  Dismissed.

Noted.