Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Cliffsky Limited

SNETTERTON

8

2

J R Rix & Sons Ltd

ATTLEBOROUGH

9-13

3

Mr Brendan Larwood

ROUDHAM/LARLING

14-16

4

Cliffsky Ltd

SNETTERTON

17

5

Caring Homes Group

SCARNING

18-22

6

Mr N Medler

TITTLESHALL

23-25

7

Ms N Gilbert

SHIPDHAM

26-28

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: Snetterton: Land at Snetterton Park and Land at Ships Galley Restaurant, Harling Road: Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 4 B1 units, car parking, laying out of access and servicing roads, landscape, etc for Cliffsky Limited: Reference: 3PL/2007/1820/O

 

Approved, See Minute No 59/10.

(b)               Item 2: Attleborough: Victory Park, London Road: Proposed fuel depot including erection of office/amenity building and gantry, installation of fuel tanks and change of use of land for J R Rix & Sons Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2009/1166/F

Deferred, see Minute No 54/10.

(c)        Item 3: Roudham/Larling: Oak House Farm, Larling: Erection of agricultural building for Mr Brendan Larwood: Reference: 3PL/2009/1173/F

            The PPO MP introduced this item, which was a major application for an agricultural building to house livestock in the winter and store machinery during the summer.  

            It was noted that the proposed building would sit neatly amongst a group of existing buildings.

            Approved, as recommended.

(d)       Item 4: Snetterton: Snetterton Park, Harling Road: Erection of model and toy expo building, garden centre, tank museum, covered market and café, relocate market and play areas, etc for Cliffsky Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2009/1204/F

Approved, see Minute No 59/10.

(e)       Item 5: Scarning: Oak Manor, Dereham Road: 24 assisted care bungalows for Caring Homes Group: Reference: 3PL/2010/0035/O

            Mrs D. Irving declared a personal interest as the NC Councillor responsible for Adult Social Services.

            The PPO MP presented the report.  The application sought outline planning permission for the erection of 24 assisted care bungalows within the grounds of an existing residential care home.   The layout proposed was almost identical to that approved by the Committee in 2005 but which had not been developed. 

            NCC Social Services were supportive of this development as there was clear evidence of a need for these bungalows and assistance could be provided from the adjacent Care Home.   Similar schemes had identified this type of accommodation as akin to C2 use (“residential home”), which did not warrant an affordable housing element. 

            The application was recommended for approval, subject to a legal agreement and conditions.

            Discussion focussed on access for ambulances and wheelchair users, and the amount of parking to be available (including covered areas for mobility scooters).   However, Ms Thornton, speaking on behalf of the applicants, confirmed that the scheme was indicative only at this stage and these concerns, alongside other internal design elements, would be addressed at reserved matters stage.

            As the Ward representative, the Chairman said that the Parish Council were very supportive of the scheme – but noted that they wished more garages had been built at a similar scheme in Swanton Morley. 

            Approved, subject to a legal agreement and conditions.

(f)                 Item 6: Tittleshall: 13 High Street: Domestic extension and wall and pedestrian access for Mr N Medlar: 3PL/2010/0084/F

Mr P. Francis declared a prejudicial interest as Chairman of the Appeals Committee which had dealt with the Tree Preservation Order.

The Principal Development Control Officer (PDCO) presented the report, explaining that this concerned a re-submission of an application which had first been considered in November 2009.   That application had been refused.  Whilst there had been no objection to the design itself, the proposed extension would have resulted in the loss of a mature Ash which was the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The application was recommended for refusal as these elements still applied.

The PDCO said that the only change to the original application was to replace the Ash tree with a semi-mature field maple, as well as plant two trees and holly hedge in the front garden.

A photo-montage, provided by the applicant, was shown to the Committee, illustrating the impact of the removal of the Ash tree and the proposed new planting.

The Parish Council strongly supported the revised application.

Objections had been received from the Tree & Countryside Officer, as well as two letters concerning ownership and access rights to the drive, and the impact/change of character.   

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr Yardley explained that the Ash was not suitable for its location and would impact on any potential attempt to increase the current property to a reasonable-sized family home. 

The proposed replacement trees would range between 16-20 feet and could be protected by TPOs.  They would also have a greater visibility splay and impact on the street scene.   He added that there was strong local support for this amended application. 

Mr Garner, on behalf of the Parish Council, expressed some concern that this development had not been allowed to progress, not least because it would enable a young family to make their home in the village. 

As Ward Representative, Mr J. Labouchere said that the tree, which was in an inappropriate position, was between 40-50 years old and would clearly grow much larger.  He strongly concurred with the PC view that the proposed replacement planting would enhance the overall street scene, and was therefore in support of this application.

The Tree & Countryside Officer showed Members photographs comparing the current tree cover at the site, with that in 2006.  He pointed out that the Ash was the only remaining tree.  The proposed replacement for the Ash tree would actually be planted where another tree had previously stood: i.e. there would be a net loss of tree cover in what was a conservation area. 

Approved, contrary to the recommendation on the grounds that the loss of the Ash tree would be counterbalanced by a gain through the increased visibility splay on the High Street, as well as to the local environment.

(g)               Item 7: Shipdham: The Gilbert Stud, Ash Farm, King Row: Extension to farmhouse, replacement garage, tractor shed and workshop: Reference: 3PL/2010/0100/F

The PPO MP explained that this application concerned a substantial extension to an existing farmhouse.  In addition, there would be the erection of a detached pitched roof garage and tack room, as well as a detached pitched roof tractor garage and workshop (the latter necessitating the demolition of an existing poultry unit). 

 

No objections had been received as a result of consultations.   However, the PPO drew attention to the two key policies which were relevant for this application: DC3 (which concerned extensions to dwellings in the countryside); and DC16 (with regard to design). 

Policy DC3 could be satisfied provided the proposal was not deemed “..disproportionate to the scale of the original dwelling”.   Policy DC16 existed to ensure the “preservation and enhancement of the existing character of the area, as well as to complement the natural landscape”.

Bearing these in mind, Officers felt that the proposed extension was excessive (effectively a 150% increase in the floor area of the dwelling).  Also, the existing farmhouse was built in a fairly simple style.  There was therefore some concern about the range of design materials and features proposed, not least for the outbuildings which were utilitarian and should not, therefore, be unduly fussy or domestic in appearance.  

The PPO concluded by saying that their recommendation was therefore one of refusal.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr Thorne gave some background to the application, explaining that this was part of a project which had involved major investment in Shipdham.  He and his fiancé were running an international business, including breeding falcons and keeping horses.   They had acquired the site some three years ago and had since been gradually improving and developing it.  However, as their clientele included very wealthy visitors from abroad, they wanted to have an impressive site with suitable facilities and the ability to offer hospitality.  He argued that, in that context, the proposed buildings were not overly fussy in terms of design or material.

Finally, he added that they currently employed two full-time and six part-time staff, and also had contacts with a local agricultural college. 

Speaking as the Ward Representative, Mr P. Hewett endorsed this application, not least as he believed that such a business was likely to be of benefit to the local and wider community.    He drew Members’ attention to the fact that no external objections had been received, so the decision essentially revolved around Breckland planning policies.  Highlighting some key ones, he drew attention to the fact that the proposal would help raise the quality of life; offer local employment opportunities; and would not have a negative impact on the local amenities.   With regard to DC3, he said that the buildings being removed were larger than the ones proposed to replace them.  

On DC16, Mr Hewett reminded Members that the Planning Inspectors had said that there should not be too much emphasis placed on maintaining the character of the local area.  He argued that this, alongside PPS1 (concerning improving the character and quality of an area), meant that this sort of application should perhaps be considered from a more rounded perspective.   Finally, he felt that the designs were not over-fussy in terms of the nature of the business, and the fact that it would attract a global clientele, as well as bring clear economic benefits to the area.  

In general discussion it appeared that Members were somewhat indecisive, many agreeing that the overall development would be positive for Shipdham and the wider area, but also having reservations about the proposed design.   Other points included:

·        This application would effectively involve a change of use from agriculture to ‘equiculture’.

·        Whilst some felt that it would be a shame to lose the existing old farm building; others acknowledged that many such buildings were no longer suitable for modern agricultural purposes. 

·        The standard of work already undertaken on the site was of an extremely high quality, including fencing and current reconstruction work, etc.

A Member pointed out that there was another recent example where the general view had been that some of the existing policy was not entirely satisfactory.  However, the Development Services Manager (DSM) reminded Members that, reservations notwithstanding, the planning policies had been adopted by full Council in December 2009 and therefore had to be complied with.  That said, they were open to interpretation with regard to design issues.  He also added that the Planning Officers had no objection in principle to this application. 

Deferred, for further discussions about the proposed design.

Notes to the Schedule

 

Item No

Speaker

1 & 4

Agenda Item 9

Ms Spencer – Agent

Mr Hill – Agent

Mr Askew – Ward Representative

5

Ms Thornton – for Applicant

6

Mr Addison – Tree Officer

Mr Yardley – For Applicant

Mr Garner – Parish Council

7

Mr Hewett – Ward Representative

Mr Thorne – For Applicant

Agenda Item 8a

Mr Stasiak – Ward Representative

Mr Shaw – NCC Highways

Mrs Hammond – EHO

Mr Irvine – Objector

Mr Evans – For Applicant

Mr Keymer - Agent

Agenda Item 8b

Mr Mossop – Objector

Mr Nolan - Agent

Written Representations taken into account

 

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2009/0977/F

5

3PL/2009/1143/F

150

3PL/2009/1204/F

1

3PL/2010/0084/F

2

 

Supporting documents: