Agenda item

EAST GUILTCROSS WARD (APPENDIX E)

East Guiltcross (Banham, Quidenham, Snetterton).

Minutes:

Banham

 

In answer to a question, it was confirmed that no written representations had been received from the Parish Council.

 

Quidenham (Eccles Road)

 

Mr. Lotarius made representations on behalf of the Parish Council.  While the Parish Council was happy with the existing policy of no settlement boundary for Wilby, Hargham and Quidenham, the case was put forward for the inclusion of a site to provide for some natural growth to the existing cluster of housing supporting the school at Eccles Road. 

 

Other factors supporting the need for some provision for growth included the neighbouring employment area at Snetterton, the railway stop, three schools, village hall and proximity to the A11 trunk road.

 

Mr. Lotarius felt that a further review of the boundary should be made to take account of the special nature and location of the area as outlined above.

 

A member asked how key workers for the planned housing and employment growth at Attleborough and Snetterton respectively would be met.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the proposals for Attleborough and Snetterton would be dealt with under the Attleborough and Snetterton Area Action Plan.

 

So far as the former Council houses at Wilby Road were concerned, there was only limited scope for further development in that location.  There was only one developable site and that could accommodate more than the limit of five houses which would not be in line with the approved Core Strategy.

 

There was some scope for growth to the south of the main village area for the future.

 

Views were expressed in support of the Parish Council’s desire for some limited growth and attention was drawn to a site at Station Farm which was the subject of an existing planning application for nine dwellings.

 

Mr. Lotarius was asked if the Parish Council supported that application for nine dwellings and replied that it was felt that the village could sustain more than nine.  The absence of a settlement boundary meant there was no possibility of development.

 

The Chairman suggested the position could be reviewed in three years’ time by when the results of the Snetterton expansion would be known.

 

The Development Services Manager said that he would inform the Development Control team about the Parish Council’s views in support of the application for nine dwellings at the Station Farm site.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer advised that policies in the Core Strategy made provision to enable affordable housing to come forward without the need to expand commercial housing allocations.

 

Snetterton (North End)

 

Mr. S. Askew, Ward Member, expressed concerns that deletion of the settlement boundary removed any scope for development.

 

Notwithstanding the reasons for the recommendation to remove the boundary, members supported an alternative option of no change to the existing.

 

Conclusion

 

(a)      Banham – Endorse recommended amendments to the existing settlement boundary as per BAN.1 and BAN.2

(b)      Quidenham (Eccles Road) – Endorse recommendation of no change to existing boundary but note the Parish Council’s support for development of nine dwellings at Station Farm and the position be reviewed again in three years’ time.

(c)       Snetterton (North End) - Proposed deletion of boundary not supported and alternatively recommend that no change is made to the existing settlement boundary.

Supporting documents: