Shipdham : Land off Parklands Avenue : Residential Development : Applicant : Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1096/0
Report of the Deputy Chief Executive
The application sought outline planning permission for residential development consisting of 15 dwellings. However, the Applicant had agreed to withdraw the layout, so the Committee were required to consider access and scale only at the meeting. The site was outside the settlement boundary but was one of the preferred sites. It provided 40% affordable housing, but no designs were shown at the meeting and layout was not looked at in depth.
Existing trees would be retained and enhanced. A £5000 payment towards a pedestrian crossing would be required.
17 letters of support and 2 letters of objection had been received along with a petition containing 33 signatures of objection. A good level of consultation had been undertaken consisting of site notices, press advert and all neighbours notified.
Mrs Jordan, Objector said the development would be at the bottom of gardens, and most of the affected residents were elderly and unable to attend the meeting or send emails. She advised that most of the objections were with regard to sewerage, access (huge volume of traffic already), village infrastructure, increased noise and disturbance. She queried whether the consultation had been made available to all residents, and asked whether a heritage statement would now be required. She had attended all previous Parish Council meetings and was aware that the development had been formally known as SH3 which had been rejected by Shipdham Parish Council.
Mr Irvine, Agent stated that the proposal had been changed from 20 dwellings to 15.
Mr Hewett, Ward Representative asked that the Committee should consider and listen to the voices and messages of those affected. Parklands was a quiet area and full of elderly residents. Should the application be approved he requested that it be subject to the very clear concerns of residents and would want the significant conditions covered of timing, access, noise and open space.
A Councillor had concern with car parking and that it was an outline planning application. From the layout shown he felt that the end properties had been pushed there because of garages. He felt that the end of the site should be looked at carefully to pull away from properties at the end of Watton Road, and wished that a soft boundary be retained.
Other concerns were that the development should be of low height housing or bungalows, about drainage (due to the problems reported at the south edge of Shipdham), and access to the main road. Also, the proposal to move a bridleway would involve making a TRO, which would require Norfolk County Council’s approval which might not be received. The Solicitor and Standards Consultant confirmed it would have to be formally diverted, but that a process had to be followed.
Breckland had a 1.7 year supply of land available and a Councillor did not understand the emphasis on continuously having a 5 year supply. The Development Services Manager explained the process, and that LDFs had to be reviewed on a regular basis and the PPS expected the Council to find 5 years supply.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers be authorised to approve it on completion of the Section 106 Agreement subject to the conditions set out in the report as well as the following additional conditions :
(1) A time limit condition of one year
(2) 10% energy on site
(3) Single storey properties to be defined
(4) Relating to archaeology