Agenda item

HARLING AND HEATHLANDS WARD (APPENDIX B)

Harling and Heathlands (Brettenham & Kilverstone, Bridgham, Garboldisham, Harling, Riddlesworth, Roudham & Larling).

Minutes:

Brettenham

 

No representations were made.

 

Bridgham

 

A member of the Parish Council enquired what removal of the settlement boundary meant for extensions and outbuildings.  Following confirmation that the settlement boundary did not affect such proposals, the Parish Council representative confirmed they had no objection.

 

No other representations were made.

 

Gasthorpe (Riddlesworth)

 

No representations were made.

 

Garboldisham

 

Mrs. M. Feakes for the Parish Council stated that the Parish wished to see some small scale development.  The amended boundary as proposed was, she felt, cosmetic and offered no real opportunity for the village to expand.  She was concerned that the majority of the sites put forward by the Parish Council had not been included.  Mrs. Feakes also raised the issue of social housing development in the village and the density of housing on a particular exception site.

 

The Development Services Manager advised that exception sites fell outside the scope of the matter being considered by the Task and Finish Group.  Exception sites were, as the name implied, exceptions to the settlement boundary and had to meet a proven need.

 

The Development Services Manager stated he was not aware of a formal proposal for the exception site indicated by Mrs. Feakes but was happy to investigate the position with the Housing Department and provide the information to the Parish Clerk.

 

Members asked about village facilities and were informed that there was a primary school and a shop.  The village pub was presently vacant but there was a consortium interested in its purchase.  The Parish Council would wish to see the pub retained as such in the village.

 

A member felt the pub facility was something that should be protected and asked whether it was possible to achieve this by excluding it from the settlement boundary. 

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer replied that while it was not an issue previously raised, the exclusion of the pub was an option as it would not be inconsistent with the landscape character of that part of the village.

 

A point was also made that the village hall was also a significant facility in the village.

 

So far as the question of the sites previously put forward by the Parish Council was concerned, the Senior Planning Policy Officer advised that these were considered to conflict with policies in the approved Core Strategy.  A number of them would be harmful to the form and character of the village.  Hence they had been excluded.

 

It was proposed that a way forward would be for the officers to consult further with the Parish Council with a view to identifying a site or sites for development (up to 5 dwellings), bearing in mind that there would be a periodic review of the LDF in four to five years’ time.

 

The proposed amendments GA1 and GA2 were supported.

 

Harling

 

The Parish Council representatives put forward a case for the inclusion of site HAR.2 on the West Harling Road.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that planning permission for 5 houses on this site had recently been refused on the grounds that it was outside the settlement boundary.  The site had not been included in the present review on the basis of concerns that it showed evidence of being a former pit/excavation area and for its wildlife/biodiversity value.  The site was also located on the edge of the river valley flood plain.

 

(Mrs. M. Chapman-Allen declared a personal interest at this point as a family member lived in the area.)

 

It was noted from the Parish Council representatives that their Council had always supported this site for development.  In reply to a question, they stated that they had assumed that the site would not be included in the overall housing allocation for Harling but would fall into the social housing category.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that the site was one of a number of sites in this location previously identified as unreasonable sites.  The site in question could deliver up to five houses and, if included, would be a windfall allocation in addition to the overall allocation.  There were no issues with the site from an infrastructure point of view.  The objections to development of the site related to issues of landscape and loss of biodiversity value.

 

The Parish representative stated that from a recent survey of the site, no evidence had been found to support the objections on wildlife grounds.

 

In support of the Parish Council, a proposition to include HAR.2 as an additional amendment to the settlement boundary was agreed.

 

Harling Road (Roudham and Larling Parish)

 

With regard to the General Employment Area, it was explained that there was no evidence of current need for expansion of the site but that the approved Core Strategy contained policies which would enable the expansion of employment in the countryside.

 

The Chairman of the Parish Council gave his personal view that the removal of the settlement boundary as proposed meant that it would prevent any expansion and the area could stagnate as a result.

 

It was noted that no formal representations had been received from the Parish Council.

 

The Chairman of the Parish Council was advised that there would be opportunity for the Parish Council to challenge the proposals during the public consultation period.

 

Larling

 

No representations were made.

 

Roudham

 

No representations were made.

 

Rushford

 

No representations were made.

 

Conclusion

 

(a)     Garboldisham – Proposed amendments GA.1 and GA.2 be endorsed.  In addition, further consultation take place with the Parish Council to identify other site options to accommodate up to five dwellings, and to agree an amendment to exclude the public house from the settlement boundary.

(b)     Harling – Proposed amendment HAR.1 be endorsed and site HAR.2 be included as an additional amendment.

(c)      Subject to (a) and (b) above, the remaining recommendations as set out in Appendix B be endorsed as follows:

 

Brettenham – No settlement boundary (no change)

Bridgham – Delete existing settlement boundary

Gasthorpe (Riddlesworth) – No settlement boundary (no change)

Harling Road – Delete existing settlement boundary

Larling – No settlement boundary (no change)

Roudham – No settlement boundary (no change)

Rushford – No settlement boundary (no change)

Supporting documents: