Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr Peter Anthony

Dereham

22-27

2

Mr T Gray

Necton

28-34

3

Mr J Ogilvy

Beeston

35-38

4

Mr N Pettit

Thetford

39-43

5

Mr Barrie Hall

Great Ellingham

44-48

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: DEREHAM: 54 & 56 Yaxham Road: Proposed development of land for three new dwellings and detached single garage for each plot: Applicant: Mr Peter Anthony: Reference: 3PL/2013/0545/F

 

This application proposed three new dwellings on land to the rear of 54 and 56 Yaxham Road, accessed from the existing driveway to No 54.  An existing doorway onto the drive would be blocked up and additional soundproofing would be provided to reduce noise from vehicles using the driveway. 

 

Similar development had taken place to the north and it was considered that the separation distances were sufficient to protect amenity.  A S106 agreement had been completed.

 

Mr Anthony (Applicant) noted that the nearest properties on the Industrial Estate over the railway line were for warehouse not manufacturing use.  He also advised that the proposed density was lower than on a nearby site.

 

Councillors Spencer, North and Richmond raised queries about the access drive and whether it would be wide enough.  It was confirmed that it had a type three turning head and complied with highway requirements.

 

Councillor Armes asked whether the driveway would be a permeable material and was advised that the tar sprayed shingle being used to reduce noise was not permeable but there was a surface water management scheme.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(b)       Item 2: NECTON: The Necton Diner, Norwich Road: Residential development: Applicant: Mr T Gray: Reference: 3PL/2013/0983/O

 

This application had been deferred for procedural matters.

 

(c)        Item 3: BEESTON: Valley Farm, Watery Lane: Proposed permanent agricultural dwelling: Applicant: Mr J Ogilvy: Reference: 3PL/2013/1104/O

 

This was an Outline application with all matters reserved and just the principle of a permanent agricultural dwelling to be considered.

 

Plans had been amended to move the proposed dwelling closer to existing buildings to minimise its impact on the landscape.  Temporary permission for a mobile home had previously been granted, on appeal.  Since then the enterprise had expanded beyond expected levels and the numbers of livestock had increased to a level requiring 24/7 care and supervision.

 

The Parish Council had requested more landscaping, and that permitted development rights should be removed.  If Members were minded to approve the application those additional conditions would be included.

 

Councillor Bowes thought it was important to ensure that the house was of an attractive design rather than limiting it to a single storey.

 

Councillor North felt that as the dwelling was outside the Settlement Boundary on an exposed site it should be limited to a single storey.  She also requested a condition requiring the removal of the existing mobile home.

 

Councillor Carter agreed that it should be a single storey dwelling as it would be visible from a long way away.

 

Approved, as recommended, subject to additional conditions including a condition for single storey.

 

(d)       Item 4: THETFORD: Land behind No 10 Bridge Street: Proposed two storey dwelling house: Applicant: Mr N Pettit: Reference: 3PL/2013/1159/F

 

Councillor Robinson declared that he had had dealings with the Applicant and his business. 

 

This application proposed the infill of a space behind No 10 Bridge Street, which backed on to a supermarket car park.  The new dwelling would have pedestrian access only through an archway to Bridge Street and would not be visible to the road.  The proposed design was contemporary and would be a stark contrast to the surrounding Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Buildings.  However, there would be little public view of the property and it was an innovative idea providing a modest property in the town centre with good access to all services and public transport.

 

Councillor Robinson knew the area well and was concerned about the lack of amenity space and car parking provision.  The access passageway was in an area of anti-social behaviour and he also thought the design was out of keeping with the area.

 

Councillor Spencer upheld the Town Council’s views.  She was not against small buildings but not of this design which she did not consider would fit well in the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Carter pointed out that the building would not be contributing to the street scene.  It was hidden and would therefore not affect the Conservation Area.  It had to fit the space available and he thought it might work.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen asked for clarification of the term ‘air tight’ in the application.  The Officer explained that the aim was to prevent loss of heat from the building thereby improving its eco-credentials.

 

Councillor North could see both sides of the argument and had concerns about the access especially during construction.

 

Councillor Claussen did not have problems with the design but was concerned about the existing walls which had lime mortar which would not survive without air.

 

Councillor Bowes was concerned about setting a precedent of infilling between Listed Buildings.

 

Councillor Armes was also concerned about the ancient walls.  The Historic Buildings Officer had been against such a scheme in the past and she wondered why he had not objected to the proposal.

 

The Planning Manager asked Members if they would have the same concerns if the proposal was to extend the existing building into the space.  In that case they would not be expecting amenity space or parking.  It was not the applicant’s fault that the area was subject to anti-social behaviour and filling in the space might limit that in future.

 

With regard to the design, he asked Members to look again at the elevations.  Only one wall would be visible.  Conservation Area legislation required applications to conserve or enhance the area.  The existing space was ‘scruffy’ and did nothing for the Conservation Area so the new building would not detract from it.  That was why the Historic Buildings Officer had not objected to the application.

 

He asked Members to reconsider their objections because he was struggling to find sound planning grounds to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman asked about the possible problems with neighbouring walls being sealed in without ventilation.

 

The Planning Manager advised that water was one of the biggest problems.  The walls had been frequently patched and the lime had already been partially covered.  The new building would only be fixed to the back wall.  It was set apart from the rest.  He accepted that conventional plastering could damage an internal lime wall and suggested that battens could be used then insulation and plaster to maintain ventilation. 

 

Mr Petit (Applicant, who had arrived late) confirmed that a ventilated void had been designed to protect the stability of the existing wall and box guttering would overlap the wall to keep it dry and protected.  He was also able to confirm that large materials, such as roof trusses would be delivered to site from the supermarket car park to avoid traffic disruption.  He was applying for permission from the supermarket to do that.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(e)       Item 5: GREAT ELLINGHAM: Bow Street (adjacent to The Bungalows): Erection of a four bedroom bungalow and new vehicular access: Applicant: Mr Barrie Hall: Reference: 3PL/2014/0077/O

 

This was an Outline application with all matters reserved to establish the principle of development on the site and providing a new access.  The existing field access was not part of the application site.

 

The site was within a loose knit development of traditional farmhouses, cottages and barn conversions and close to a development of five, large, new houses on a former sawmill site.  A nearby bungalow was in the process of being replaced by a large two storey dwelling.  Officers considered that single storey development was inappropriate in the area.

 

Officers felt that the site did not meet the required criteria in the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to sustainability.  The new access would also lead to the loss of most of the trees to the frontage. 

 

Mrs Hall (Applicant) addressed the objections raised. 

1.      There was a need for one, four and five bedroom homes and single storey was more appropriate for older people. 

2.      The site did meet sustainable requirements; economic – it was the right type of land; social – sited in amongst other dwellings; environment – eco-friendly and energy efficient design with woodland to be planted to the rear.

3.      Rural character – the precedent had already been set with 19 properties allowed in the last 15 years.  There had also been two properties on the land in living memory.

4.      Insufficient Housing Land Supply – better to develop outside the Settlement Boundary on unproductive land.

5.      Visual intrusion – the site was bordered on three sides by properties.

6.      Highways – the lane had been used by articulated lorries accessing the wood yard until the year 2000.

 

Mrs Banks (Objector) had lived in the adjacent dwelling since 1984.  The land had previously been cropped and had only been laid to meadow for two years.  She was concerned that the drainage ditches were overstretched and she did not know if they would cope with the additional inflow.  They had already overflowed onto the road.  The trees would be lost.  They acted as a wind break and also took up water from the ditch.  Land was needed to feed the population there were other brownfield sites available.  The development might cause damage to her ancient dwelling. It was a single track road with no passing places.

 

Councillor Richmond asked what the six letters of support had said and it was explained that they were on a printed proforma with the option to agree or disagree with the development.

 

Several Councillors thought that one more dwelling would not make a difference.  However, the Planning Manager advised that the Local Plan aimed to concentrate new dwellings in towns and service centres.  The five new properties on a former sawmill site had been granted as they had a better impact on the environment and reduced vehicular movements.  He thought that the Committee needed to be consistent.  He pointed out that they were looking at a single new dwelling in the countryside but nearby sites had the opportunity for two or three dwellings.  The Council had been consistent in the past.  This was a new dwelling on a Greenfield site.

 

Members were split five against and five for the recommendation of refusal.  The Chairman agreed with the Planning Manager’s comments and used his casting vote to support the recommendation.

 

Refused, as recommended.

 

Notes to the Schedule

Item No

Speaker

1

Mr Anthony – Applicant

Mr Bix - Agent

3

Mr Ogilvy - Applcant

4

Mr Pettit - Applicant

5

Mrs Hall – Applicant

Mr & Mrs Banks - Objectors

 

Written Representations taken into Account

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2013/1159/F

1

3PL/2013/0545/F

2

3PL/2014/0077/O

4

 

Supporting documents: