Planning Regulatory Committee

Date: Friday 25 January 2013

Time: 2pm ** (Please note afternoon start time) **

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich

Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.

Membership

Mr B Bremner Mrs J Leggett Mrs H Cox Mr P Rice Mr P Duigan Mr J Rogers (Chairman) Mr A Gunson Mr J Shrimplin (Vice-Chairman) Mr R Hanton Mr B Stone Mr D Harrison Mr T Tomkinson Mr M Hemsley Mrs J Virgo Mr B Iles Mr M Wilby Ms A Kemp

For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Julie Mortimer on 01603 223055 or email committees@norfolk.gov.uk

Where the County Council have received letters of objection in respect of any application, these are summarised in the report. If you wish to read them in full, Members can do so either at the meeting itself or beforehand in the Department of Environment, Transport and Development on the 3rd Floor, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich. Planning Regulatory Committee 25 January 2013

A g e n d a 1 To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending.

2 Minutes:

To receive and agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November (Page 1) 2012.

3 Members to Declare any Interests

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter

In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with.

If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects

- your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward.

If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter.

4 To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency

5 Applications referred to the Committee for Determination

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

5a South Norfolk District: C/7/2011/7020:Manor Farm, land off B1136, (Page 11) Loddon Road, Haddiscoe, Norwich, NR14 6PN – Extraction, Processing, Bagging and Sale of Sand and Gravel with Concrete Batching and erection of solar panels within plant site void. Earsham Gravels Ltd. Planning Regulatory Committee 25 January 2013

5b South Norfolk District: C/7/2011/7018: Crossways Waste (Page 49) Management Facility, Thurlton, Norwich: – Consolidation, update and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations, to include the following retrospective development: biofilter; extension to compost building; clarifier, shaker, conveyor, odour abatement system liquid scrubber; alteration to waste transfer building; relocation of trommel and filter press; office block; alterations to parking; ancillary buildings, equipment and storage. Proposed new development to include lagoon; raised northern bund; treated trade effluent discharge pipeline; reedbed; biofilter/air extraction; access road; ancillary buildings and equipment. M Gaze and Co. Ltd.

5c South Norfolk District: Y/7/2012/7012 – Bracon Ash/Wreningham: (Page 87) Two storey extension to existing engineering facility to provide 16 incubator units, biomass plant including fuel storage and flue to rear, carparking, extended service yard, attenuation swale, landscaping and associated works at Hethel Engineering Centre.

Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH

Date Agenda Published: Thursday 17 January 2013

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help. Planning Regulatory Committee 25 January 2013

STANDING DUTIES

In assessing the merits of the proposals and reaching the recommendation made for each application, due regard has been given to the following duties and in determining the applications the members of the committee will also have due regard to these duties.

Equality Act 2010

It is unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when providing a service or when exercising a public function. Prohibited conduct includes direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation and discrimination arising from a disability (treating a person unfavourably as a result of their disability, not because of the disability itself).

Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is because of a protected characteristic.

The act notes the protected characteristics of: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The introduction of the general equality duties under this Act in April 2011 requires that the Council must in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by this Act.

• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

• Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

The relevant protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 (S17)

Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of the County Council to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

Human Rights Act 1998

The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered.

The human rights of the adjoining residents under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property are engaged. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity.

The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. A refusal of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents.

Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes of the Meeting Held on 16 November 2012

Present: Mr J Rogers (Chairman)

Mr B Bremner Mr J Shrimplin (Vice-Chairman) Mrs J Chamberlin Mr T Tomkinson Mr P Duigan Miss J Virgo Mr A Gunson Mr J Ward Mr D Harrison Mr M Wilby Mr M Hemsley Mr B Iles

1 Apologies and Substitution

Apologies for absence were received from Mr R Hanton, Mr J Joyce, Mrs J Leggett (Mr J Ward substituted), Mr B Stone and Ms H Thompson (Mrs J Chamberlin substituted).

2 Minutes from the meeting held on 12 October 2012

The minutes from the meeting held on 12 October 2012 were agreed as a correct record by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3 Declarations of Interest

Mr Hemsley declared an interest in item 6b (Henderson Green Primary School, Irstead Road, Norwich: Change of use Nelm Car Park). As Local Member for the primary school he had campaigned, collected 800 signatures and then presented a petition to Cabinet about the site. Mr Hemsley did not speak or vote on this item.

Mr Bremner declared an interest in item 6b (Henderson Green Primary School, Irstead Road, Norwich: Change of use Nelm Car Park). Mr Bremner was a Cabinet Member for Planning at Norwich City Council. He confirmed he had taken no part in any discussions regarding this topic.

4 Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

5 Applications referred to the Committee for Determination

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 1

6 Y/2/2012/2009: King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough: Marshland St James: Townsend’s Farm, Middle Drove, Marshland St James: Installation of 3 no. microscale wind turbines (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades): Norfolk Energy Futures and Norfolk County Council.

6.1 During the presentation of the report, the following points were noted:

• The site map which had been omitted from the printed agenda papers is attached to these minutes at Appendix A.

• An email had been received from Marshland St James Parish Council accepting the report showing evidence of bats including the rare species of Daubenton bat and asking the Committee to recommend the turbines are located elsewhere on the property, for example 400m further along the concrete track. They had also suggested that a survey be undertaken near to Neeps Bridge as this was where the bats roost.

6.2 The following points were noted in response to Member questions:

• The nearest properties from the turbines were at Townsend House and at Neets bridge which was approximately 280m from the site. All the residents at these properties had objected to the planning application.

• The noise emissions from the turbines would vary according to the windspeed, as the turbines went faster the noise would increase slightly, although the Environmental Health Officer had confirmed the noise from the turbines would not exceed the current level of background noise.

• The existing background noise level for a quiet rural location was approximately 26db. If the wind speed increased the noise from the turbines could rise to over 30db which was still considered an acceptable level.

• The inaccuracies referred to within the report related to the design and access statement and the distances of the turbines from the nearest properties. One inaccuracy was the name of the road quoted in the report as Marshland Fen Road should have read Middle Drove.

6.4 The following explanations were given as to how the objections had been considered within the report:

Visual impact. The response had been included in the design and landscape statement.
Noise impact was covered within the report.
Risk to birds/bats was covered in the ecology report.
No previous discussion with local residents. There was no evidence to show that the applicant had discussed the application with residents before it was

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 2

submitted.
Townsends Farm only had two barns which had little need for electricity. Surplus energy generated would be fed into the grid. As the planning authority, Norfolk County Council did not need to justify this.
Road access had been covered in the response from the Highway Authority.
Inaccuracies in the application had already been covered at paragraph 6.3 above.
The noise assessment had been confirmed by the Environment Health Officer.
The proximity to residential properties had already been covered.
Concern over the number of turbines in the area. There were no other wind turbines in close proximity to this proposal.
Effect on use by horse riders and fishermen was covered under the noise assessment by the EHO.
Flickering from blades – the turbines were located a significant distance away from properties so it was unlikely they would notice an adverse effect from flicker.

6.5 • The Ecologist had completed a night time survey which had identified the probability that bats used the barns and trees around that area. The Ecologist had confirmed that the level of activity of wind turbines was not cause for concern.

• No evidence had been found that wind turbines were responsible for killing bats or any other birds.

6.6 The recommendation was moved by Mr Duigan and seconded by Mr Tomkinson. It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in Section 11 of the report. ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commenced, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Miss Virgo did not vote on this item as she had not been present during the whole discussion.

7 Y/2/2012/2013: King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough: Clenchwarton: Gull Hole Farm, Smallholdings Road, Clenchwarton. Installation of 2no. microscale wind turbines (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades). Norfolk Energy Futures and Norfolk County Council.

7.1 The site map which had been omitted from the printed agenda papers is attached at

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 3

Appendix B to these minutes.

7.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:

• The application needed to be considered using the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

• The residents of 3 The Holdings had confirmed they did not oppose wind turbines in principle but they had concerns about the siting of the wind turbines in this particular application.

• The application needed to be determined as it had been submitted. There was no remit to ask the applicant to move the turbines so they were screened from public view.

• As the application had been submitted by Norfolk Energy Futures in conjunction with Norfolk County Council, the application needed to be determined by the County Council. If the County Council had not been the applicant, the application would have been determined by the Borough Council.

• A condition was included in the recommendation stating that the planning approval would cease either when energy stopped being produced, or if the wind turbine was not used for a period of six months or more.

• It was confirmed that there was no loss of public amenity, as the site was not used for football or any other leisure activities.

7.3 Alexandra Kemp, County Councillor for Clenchwarton and King’s Lynn South addressed the Committee on behalf of Clenchwarton Parish Council. During her presentation the following points were noted:

• The Energy Minister, John Hayes, had recently said that wind turbines should not be imposed on local communities but should subject to local consent.

• Lincolnshire County Council, Norfolk’s rural neighbour, had set criteria that they would not approve wind farms within 1.2 miles of the nearest dwellings.

• The Parish Council would prefer the wind turbines to be situated at a different location on the site.

7.4 The following points were noted in response to questions to Miss Kemp:

• The Secretary of State had effectively asked Mr Hayes to withdraw his statement that wind turbines should not be imposed on local communities as the Government supported wind farms.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 4

• The Planning (Regulatory) Committee needed to take into account the current law when considering the applications presented to them, although it was acknowledged that a certain amount of discretion could be taken into account.

• The Committee were reassured that two wind turbines did not double the amount of noise emitted. The increase in noise is logarithmic.

• It was not known how tall the wind turbines were that Lincolnshire County Council would not approve, although they had made a commitment not to allow them to be sited too close to residences and to ensure local amenities were safeguarded.

• There were four dwellings within the vicinity of the wind turbines and only one of the residents had objected to the application. It was unknown why they had not sent a letter of objection.

• There was no statutory definition for the amount of wind turbines required to constitute a wind farm.

• The Planning Services Team had no authority to request an applicant to alter the siting of the wind turbines within the terms of the application submitted, therefore the application needed to be considered as it had been presented. If the applicant did want to change the siting of the turbines, a fresh planning application would need to be submitted. The applicant had been made aware of the concerns raised, but wanted the application to be considered as it stood.

• The Planning Services Team always recommend that pre-application conversations took place, although they were not compulsory.

7.5 The recommendation was moved by Mr Tomkinson and seconded by Mr Wilby. With 10 votes for, 3 against and 0 abstentions, it was RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in Section 11 of the report. ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commenced, or within a specific date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

8 Developments by the County Council

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 5

9 Y/6/2012/6003: Great Yarmouth: Edward Worlledge Community school: Provision of 12 bay modular accommodation to provide 3 no. nursery rooms and associated facilities, access ramp and steps, erection o 3 no. external canopies and formation of 2 no. soft play areas; landscaping, installation of external lighting, 16 no. car parking spaces and associated works. Provision of 1 bay modular accommodation to provide changing and toilet facilities. Works to the existing playfield field to alter the levels.

9.1 During the presentation of the report, the Committee was asked to note that if the application was approved Condition 11.2.2j would be removed.

9.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:

• The playing field at the application site was currently grassed over but due to it being in a flood risk area and had the tendency to get very boggy and unusable during the winter months, it was not used very often. Improvement in the levels and the drainage would make it a more useable space.

• The Committee requested that if the application was approved a condition was included that the proposed lighting scheme be switched off one hour after the site closed.

• In the absence of an up to date Local Development Plan by Great Yarmouth Borough Council, the Committee were advised that this was a balanced recommendation. There were constraints of the site that dictated the siting of the proposed development. Members needed to consider the needs of the children of Norfolk and the provision of the additional child places at the nursery together with the wider benefits. Sport England and Natural England had made no objection to the application.

• All the places at the nursery were for the junior school and college staff and college users as well as for the benefit of the wider community. The development was in an area which had been identified as having a high social need.

• Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed scheme would be submitted to ensure that the playing fields would be brought up to an acceptable standard approved by Sport England and the County Planning Authority. Such condition would be imposed on any grant of planning permission.

9.3 Mrs Margaret Tills, a resident living on Tollgate Road, spoke in objection to the application during which the following points were noted:

• Mrs Tills was representing the residents of Tollgate Road and wished to draw to the Committee’s attention the danger posed by traffic using the road to get to the nursery. The access road was a private road through the college and

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 6

anyone walking to the college would need to cross this busy road twice.

• Students driving to the college used Tollgate Road which was not suitable for the amount of traffic using it. Cars parking along Tollgate Road also caused problems for residents trying to access their homes.

• A total of thirteen letters of objection had been received in response to this application.

• The residents of Tollgate Road were not against the provision of the nursery, but thought a different access route should be used which did not go through Tollgate Road. A suitable route had been identified on the other side of Suffolk Road which had better in/out access and had no houses or private roads for travellers to negotiate.

• The cost of providing this nursery was much higher than updating the existing nursery building and residents had asked why the existing building could not be improved.

9.4 The following points were noted in response to questions to Mrs Tills:

• Suffolk Road was a dual carriageway road and not a single carriageway.

• The main objection of the residents to the application was the additional traffic caused by people using Tollgate Road, which is a cul-de-sac, to drop off pupils at the college and nursery and then turn around to exit the road.

9.5 The Local Member for Yarmouth Nelson and Southtown, Mr Rex Parkinson-Hare, spoke in objection to the application, during which the following points were noted:

• Mr Parkinson-Hare reiterated the objections from the residents of Tollgate Road and reemphasised that Tollgate Road was a small cul-de-sac which was already a dangerous road to negotiate.

• There was a nursery only a few yards from that proposed which had recently had approximately £250,000 spent on it. He asked the Committee to consider why it was proposed to spend approximately £1m on a new building when a nursery was already up and running only a short distance away.

• There was capacity for only 6 or 7 new places at the proposed development site and these places could easily be accommodated within the existing nursery building.

9.6 Following a question to Mr Parkinson-Hare, it was noted that the entrance to the old nursery was not the same as that proposed to access the new nursery building.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 7

9.7 In response to a question as to why the existing nursery could not be adapted to accommodate the extra 6 or 7 pupils, the Planning Services Manager said that the application had been submitted and needed to be determined as proposed. There was no facility to question the reasons for the application for a new nursery as opposed to upgrading the existing nursery.

9.8 The Highways Authority had raised no objection to the application and felt there was no impact on safety with approval of the application.

9.9 Members proposed that the following extra condition be included if the Committee approved the application:

• External lighting should be switched off at least one hour after the closure of the site, with the exception of any lighting for security requirements to save electricity and light pollution.

9.10 With 8 votes for the extra condition and 4 votes against, the amendment was carried.

9.11 The recommendation was moved by Mr Ward and seconded by Mr Tomkinson. With 9 votes for, 3 against and 0 abstentions, it was RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 11 of the report. ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commenced, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted. iii) Delegate powers to offers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted. iv) Add an extra condition that external lighting should be switched off at least one hour after the closure of the site, with the exception of any lighting required for security purposes.

10 Y/4/2012/4016: Norwich City Council: Henderson Green Primary School, Irstead Road, Norwich, NR5 8DZ: Change of use Nelm Car Park, the former Ranworth Middle School site and open space to playing fields and car park, provision of fence, gates, steps, ramp and relocation of pedestrian access to park.

10.1 Mr Hemsley, having declared an interest on this item, did not take part in any discussion and did not vote on the matter.

10.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:

• With regard to the extant permission referred to in paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18 of the report, the Henderson Trust who owned the car park area of the existing site had confirmed that the site would not be developed for use as a community

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 8

building as the funding had now been withdrawn, although there may be an application for a smaller scheme in the future. Members were reminded that there was a need to consider the application as it stood, and that there was currently no indication that a community building scheme would be progressed in the future.

• Landscaping would be included to cover the fencing, although the exact details of the landscaping scheme needed to be submitted and agreed after consultation with the landscape architect.

• The height of the new fencing had been reduced to 2.5m high which was 0.5m lower than the existing fencing.

• The car parking standards used by the planning team at Norwich City Council differed from those used by Norfolk County Council. Members agreed that it was the determining authority car parking standards that should be used to determine this application.

• This application prevented the community centre being built in the future as there would be an impact on the number of car parking spaces available as car parking provision had not been included in the current planning permission.

• To safeguard arboriculture interests, protection for the important trees at the site had been included within condition 6 and stated that there would be no changes in ground level within the root protection area of trees to be retained.

• Access to the site remained from Ranworth Road.

• Blackthorn hedging was considered unsuitable for an educational establishment as it was a thorn bush and very fast growing, therefore had been excluded from the landscaping conditions.

• To allow hedgehogs to access the site, the advice of the Arborist had been followed and either gateways would be created in the new fence every 20-30m, or gaps under the fencing would be provided. Should the application be approved an informative would be imposed on the decision notice as set out in section 13 of the report.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 13 of the report. ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 9

planning permission being granted. iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

The meeting ended at 11.45 am

CHAIRMAN

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 16 November 2012 10 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 25 January 2013 Item No. 5a

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District: Application C/7/2011/7020: Manor Farm, Land off B1136, Loddon Road, Haddiscoe, Norwich. NR14 6PN: Extraction, Processing, Bagging and Sale of Sand and Gravel with Concrete Batching and erection of solar panels within plant site void: Earsham Gravels Ltd Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The proposal is a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe. It is proposed to extract 1,450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel in a phased manner over a 21 year period, with progressive restoration to a combination of a nature conservation and agricultural after-use. The proposal is before the Planning (Regulatory) Committee due to it being subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and due to the number of objections received.

The application has resulted in a significant level of local objection, including from South Norfolk District Council. The main planning reasons for objection include concerns about impacts on the countryside, residential amenity, St. Mary’s Church, highway traffic and safety, biodiversity, the river valley and the fact the site was considered unsuitable for inclusion within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document.

The proposed quarry and associated landscaping would result in impacts upon the character of the local landscape and some harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. There would be a degree of increase in noise, traffic, and activity associated with the mineral operations. However no material harm to the countryside, environment, highways and neighbouring amenity would arise, due to the substantial mitigation measures proposed.

On balance, the need for the development in helping to address the current shortfall in the County’s sand and gravel land bank of permitted reserves and the economic benefits of the scheme in the context of guidance within the NPPF are important material considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal. The proposal accords with the thrust of local and national planning policy and therefore is recommended for approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of the provision of restoration features and aftercare and the conditions outlined in Section 12: (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location: : Manor Farm, Land off B1136, Loddon Road, Haddiscoe, Norwich. NR14 6PN 1.2 Type of Development: : Extraction, processing, bagging and sale of sand and gravel with concrete batching. 1.3 Estimated reserve : 1,450,000 tonnes

1.4 Total Site Area : 28.7 hectares

1.5 Estimated average annual : 75,000 tonnes output 1.6 Expected commencement date : 2013

1.7 Expected duration of operations : 21 years

1.8 Depth of workings : Maximum 13.3 metres, average 7.1 metres. 1.9 Market Served : 15 mile radius of site.

1.10 Buildings/Plant : Processing plant, office and weighbridge on adjacent land. 1.11 Hours of Working : Monday – Friday: 07.00 -17.00 Saturdays: 07.00-13.00 No operations Sundays or Public Holidays 1.12 Predicted vehicle movements : Total 76. generated per day Includes approximately 32 HGV movements, 14 MGV movements, 30 movements of cars and light goods vehicles. 1.13 Routes they will normally follow : East to A143 and Great Yarmouth (66%) West to A146 and towards Norwich (34%) 1.14 Restoration/After-use : Nature conservation / agriculture with woodland. 2. Constraints

2.1 The site is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority. There are a number of listed buildings within close proximity to the site, including St. Mary’s church and St. Matthias church. There is a public bridleway (Haddiscoe BR5) on the proposed main extraction area and there is a public footpath (Haddiscoe FP7) to the south of the proposed plant site. Part of the site is within a ‘Core River Valley’ as designated by the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. It is also adjacent to a County Wildlife Site – Devils End Meadow. 3. Planning History

3.1 There is no record held by the County Council of any planning applications affecting the site. 3.2 The site was put forward to the County Council to be considered for allocation for mineral development during the preparation of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. This matter is covered in more detail in paragraphs 6.16-6.21. 4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy : National Planning Policy Framework Statements - Chapter 3 Building a strong, competitive economy - Chapter 7 Requiring good design - Chapter 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Chapter 13 Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals 4.2 Norfolk Minerals and Waste : CS1 – Minerals extraction Development Framework CS2 – General locations for mineral extraction and associated facilities Core Strategy and Minerals and CS13 – Climate change and renewable Waste Development energy generation Management Policies CS14 – Environmental protection Development Plan Document CS15 – Transport 2010-2026 (2011) DM1 – Nature conservation DM2 – Core river valleys DM3 – Groundwater and surface water DM4 – Flood risk DM8 – Design, local landscape and townscape character DM9 – Archaeological sites DM10 – Transport DM11 – Sustainable construction and operations DM12 – Amenity DM13 – Air quality DM14 – Progressive working, restoration and after-use DM15 – Cumulative impacts DM16 – Soils

4.3 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 1 – Addressing climate change Broadland, Norwich and South and protecting environmental assets Norfolk (2011) Policy 2 – Promoting good design Policy 5 – The economy Policy 18 – The Broads 4.4 South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV3 – River valleys Policies 2007 Policy ENV8 – Development in the open countryside Policy ENV13 – Sites of regional and local nature conservation interest and geological/geomorphological value. Policy IMP 2 – Landscaping Policy IMP9 – Residential amenity Policy IMP10 - Noise Policy IMP16 – Setting of listed buildings 5. Consultations 5.1 South Norfolk District Council : Object: - The visual intrusion caused by the proposal, including the proposed bunding and scale of the proposal; - The impact on the setting of the Grade I listed church - Concern about the impact on the amenities of adjoining and nearby residential properties, particularly given the proximity of the site to the village of Haddiscoe. 5.2 Suffolk County Council : No objections

5.3 Waveney District Council : Although the proposal would not have a (adjoining authority) direct effect upon Waveney district, there are likely to be more localised issues that need to be considered such as impact on residential amenity. 5.4 South Norfolk District Council : No objection. Conditions recommended Environmental Health Officer controlling noise, dust and contamination. 5.5 Haddiscoe Parish Council : Object: - Proposed quarry was deemed “not acceptable” in the Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD. - No need for the site locally or county- wide, the [Local Development Framework process] has identified sites to meet requirements until 2026. - The site is too close to the village, it is inevitable there will be an increase in noise, dust and other particulates. - Impact on St. Mary’s Church. - Loss of farmland. - Increased traffic - Visual impact of the site in winter months, from the west along Loddon Road and from the east from Hall road. - Impact on river valley - Concern regarding health effects caused by dust and particulates. 5.6 Bradwell Parish Council : The Council would draw attention to the potential impact of heavy traffic movement locally, which may increase each year. Norfolk County Council should impose a maximum limit on the total extraction output, to prevent an undue increase in heavy goods vehicle impact on the local highways. 5.7 Highway Authority : No objection subject to conditions relating (Development Control) to: - provision of suitable vehicle access - provision of visibility splays - provision of suitable wheel cleaning facilities - a scheme of off-site highway improvement works to be submitted, approved and completed 5.8 Highway Authority (Bridge : In principle, the proposed form of Engineer) structure [for the conveyor tunnel] meets with our satisfaction. However, in order to formalise the approval process the applicant would need to apply for highway technical approval in accordance with the Highway Agency standard. 5.9 Natural England : Although the site lies close to designated sites in The Broads, due to the nature and location of the proposal, it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on them, and we do not consider this application meets the criteria of ‘significant environmental effects’ under our remit. From the information provided, the proposal does not appear to significantly affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. 5.10 Norwich Airport : The development lies below or beyond the volume of protected airspace that surrounds Norwich International Airport and it does not lay within the bird circle shown on the aerodrome safeguarding map. Therefore from a safeguarding viewpoint this development will not provide a significant collision risk to aircraft operating in the vicinity of Norwich Airport. 5.11 English Heritage : In considering the contribution to the historic significance of the church made by its setting, it is clear that some harm will result from the proposed quarry, both during its period of activity and from the permanent change to the landscape. However, the relative importance of the different parts of the building’s setting and the quality of the proposals for short term reinstatement of the construction site and long term landscaping of the extraction site have been considered. It is concluded that on balance the degree of harm is less than substantial, as defined in PPS5 policy HE.9.2 [since superceded by guidance within the NPPF]. Policy HE10.1 [superceded by NPPF paragraph 133] asks local planning authorities to weigh the harm to those aspects of setting that contributes to a building’s historic significance against the ‘wider benefits’ of the proposal. English Heritage is not in a position to assess these benefits or weigh them against the harm to the listed church. However it is considered that the proposed landscaping will, in the long term, mitigate the impact of the quarry pit on the landscape to the north of the church. 5.12 Environment Agency : No objection. Conditions recommended relating to: - a scheme to secure the maintenance of spring-fed flows. - a surface water drainage 5.13 The Broads Authority : No objection. It is considered that Phase 1 has the most potential for negative visual impacts. Although Phase 1 will not be directly visible from The Broads it does exist on Loddon Road which provides a main access point to The Broads. It is considered that the entrance point should be well laid out and planted to avoid oblique views into the site towards processing plant and stockpiles. Subject to this being taken into consideration it is not considered that there will be any significant visual impacts on the Broads. The proposed solar array will not impact upon the Broads. 5.14 Anglian Water : No response received.

5.15 Third party representations : Objection letters received from 156 individuals. Summary of reasons for objection: - Concern about proximity to Haddiscoe village - Concerns about noise pollution - Concerns about dust pollution and impact on health - Concerns about odours - Concern of impact on St. Mary’s Church - Contrary to Norfolk County Council’s recommendation within the Site Allocation process of the Local Development Framework - Concerns about increased traffic and highway safety issues - Impact on the countryside and landscape - Cumulative effect of other quarries in the area - No new jobs will be created - There are other sites in the area such as Norton Subcourse which provide sufficient minerals - Concerns that the site will not be restored properly - Loss of agricultural land - Impact on The Broads - Site will offer no benefits to the village - Concerns regarding possible light pollution - Concerns regarding possible groundwater contamination - Impact on local wildlife, including County Wildlife Site - Concerns regarding possible destabilisation of land - Impact on local school from increased traffic, noise and dust. - Cumulative impact of this application and application for expansion of Crossways Farm waste site. - Concern that C516 between Thurlton and Beccles would be used by quarry vehicles. 2 Letters of support. Summary of reasons for support: - The site will be screened from view with low level working and there will be minimal impact on the surrounding area - The site will be worked in phases allowing planting and wildlife to be established from an early stage of the development. - The planned restoration will have a far greater ecological enhancement than that of arable land. - The road network is more than capable of accommodating the additional traffic. - The land is poor grade agricultural land - The additional revenue would assist the viability of the farming activities. 5.16 County Councillor (Tony : To be reported orally. Tomkinson)

6. Assessment 6.1 The application is before the Planning (Regulatory) Committee, in accordance with the County Council’s Scheme of Delegation, because it is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The application must also be determined by Committee due to the level of public objection, and because an objection has been received from a statutory consultee, South Norfolk District Council. The Committee’s decision must take into account the environmental information contained within the Environmental Statement, and any representations made about the environmental effects of the development. The environmental information is described in the following paragraphs, and the representations made are summarised above. Site

6.2 The site is 28.7 hectares in size and comprises two parcels of land either side of the B1136 Loddon Road at Manor Farm, on the edge of the village of Haddiscoe, in South Norfolk District. The site is 13km to the west of Great Yarmouth and 24km to the south east of Norwich. The towns of Beccles and Bungay are approximately 7km to the south and 13km to the south west respectively. The town of Loddon is approximately 8km to the west. The site is currently in agricultural use with arable farming taking place on the majority of the land, primarily the growth of wheat and barley. 6.3 To the north of the site is Thorpe Road, beyond which is open countryside within the Broads. The site itself is not within the Broads, however it is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads. To the east is the former “Parish Pit”, the farmhouse and other buildings of Manor Farm, and beyond that a number of residential properties within the village on The Loke, Thorpe Road and The Street. To the south east is St. Mary’s Church and further residential properties in Church Lane, Church Hill and Rectory Road. To the south is a public footpath, open countryside within the valley of Landspring Beck, and beyond that the A143 road. To the south east is Haddiscoe Hall, and to the east there is open farmland, the Loddon Road, and Crab Apple Lane. Proposal

6.4 The proposal is the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe, Norfolk. The proposal comprises mineral extraction from two parcels of land to the north and south of the B1136 Loddon Road. The plant site would be located on the area to the south of the B1136 and the processing, stockpiling and sale of mineral would take place from this point. The main extraction area would be to the north, between the B1136 and Thorpe Road. 6.5 Extraction would take place gradually in ten phases over a twenty one year period, beginning with the excavation of the proposed plant site. Mineral extracted from the northern area would be transported to the plant site via a ground conveyer which would be routed through a tunnel beneath Loddon Road. A new vehicular access would be formed from Loddon Road to the proposed plant site. The existing access from Crab Apple Lane would be used for machinery and service vehicles involved in the mineral operations. A mobile dry screen would be used within the extraction areas, and a mobile processing plant would be used for a temporary period during the phased development of the plant site. 6.6 Development proposed within the plant site includes the formation of a new site access from Loddon Road with gates and an internal access track. Also proposed is a quarry office, car parking area, weighbridge, concrete batching plant (with associated administration/mess/WC facility), aggregates bagging plant (with storage area for bagged aggregates), temporary mobile aggregates processing plant, aggregates and sand processing plants, silt filter press, aggregates storage area, a water abstraction borehole, water tank, ground conveyor with hopper and motor, generator and substation, containers and signage. Following negotiation with the applicant during the application process, there would also be an array of 210 solar panels covering an area of 350m² positioned towards the top of the northern embankment within the plant site. 6.7 Restoration of the main extraction area to the north of Loddon Road would take place progressively in a phased manner. It is intended to restore this area to nature conservation after use, including the creation of a number of new footpaths, a public parking and picnic area, and a small lake. The plant site would be restored last, once all the minerals have been processed and sold off site. It is the intention to return this area to a mixed after use of woodland and farmland. Principle of Development

6.8 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“ if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.9 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 (the “Minerals and Waste Core Strategy”) the policies contained within the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) and the saved policies of the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003). In addition, the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is material to the consideration of the application. Mineral Supply/Need 6.10 Guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to “give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction”. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF requires Mineral Planning Authorities to make provision for the maintenance of at least a 7 year supply of Sand and Gravel. Policy CS1 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the requirement for the sand and gravel landbank to be maintained at between a 7 and 10 year supply.

6.11 As of December 2012, the estimated landbank for sand and gravel stands at approximately 5.3 years of permitted reserves and is therefore below the minimum target of seven years supply referred to in both the NPPF and Policy CS1. If approved, the proposed development would add approximately 0.56 years worth of mineral resource, taking the landbank figure to approximately 5.86 years, closer to the minimum requirement. This is a significant material consideration that weighs in favour of the proposal.

6.12 There is a further quarry, approximately 4km away, at Norton Subcourse. The current planning permission is due to expire on 1 August 2014 but further extensions to this quarry have been allocated within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, which could deliver almost 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel. Although this site currently serves a similar local area that would be served by the application site, it does not change the fact that the County landbank of permitted reserves is below the required level and the proposed site at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe would assist in addressing this.

Principle of Location

6.13 Policy CS2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the main principles for the location of mineral extraction in the County. The Policy states “there will be a clear preference for sites which are close and/or particularly well related via appropriate transport infrastructure” to the main urban areas and market towns. “Close” is defined in paragraph 6.8 of the Core Strategy as being within 10 miles (16km) or less, but it is recognised that sand and gravel can only be extracted where the reserves exists, and that sites further away than 10 miles (16km) may be acceptable if they are well connected. The policy contains a preference for extensions to existing sites rather than new sites. 6.14 The site is well connected to the strategic road network, with a site access onto the B1136, a road classified by the Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy as a main distributor (others) road and being within 0.5km of the A143, a principal road which has the highest category on the hierarchy. In addition the site is within 14km (8 miles) of Great Yarmouth, so complies with the requirements of Policy CS2 in this respect. The policy states a preference for extensions to existing sites, but does not rule out new sites. 6.15 In principle, therefore, the location of the proposed site is considered acceptable in relation to the requirements of Policy CS2.

Principle of development in the context of the Local Development Framework Minerals Site Specific Allocations Process 6.16 The site has been promoted by the Applicant in recent years as being suitable for allocation within the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). When adopted, the document will set out the County Council’s preferred sites for mineral extraction within Norfolk over the 15 year period to the end of 2026. 6.17 Within the “Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD: Further Revised Issues and Options” consultation document dated May 2011, the Council concluded that the site was unsuitable for allocation on the grounds of landscape, highway, amenity and potential groundwater impacts. 6.18 Within the “Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission Document”, dated April 2011, the proposed site was not allocated. The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD - Sustainability Appraisal Report (Dec 2011) summarises the reasons for each proposed site being allocated, or not allocated in section 8.3 of the report. Regarding the site, section 8.3.6 states: "This site is concluded to be inappropriate for allocation due to potential landscape, amenity and highways impacts”. 6.19 The fact that the site was not considered suitable for allocation has been raised by many of the objectors to the planning application. However, the assessment of whether the site was suitable for allocation was carried out without the benefit of the detailed mitigation proposals that are contained within the current planning application as a result of discussions with the County Planning Authority. 6.20 The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD has not gone through the formal Examination process or been adopted by the Council and therefore does not form part of the current development plan. However, no representations were received, in response to the Pre-Submission version of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, objecting to site MIN 25 at Haddiscoe not being allocated. 6.21 It is therefore considered that although weight can be attached to the fact that the site at Haddiscoe has not been identified as being suitable for allocation, the planning application must be assessed on its own merits. As this report will demonstrate, the concerns relating to landscape, highways, water resources and amenity that were raised when the site was considered during the allocations process have been overcome within the planning application. Landscape and Visual Impact

6.22 Policy CS14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires the protection of Norfolk’s natural and built environments. Unacceptable adverse impacts to the character and quality of the landscape and also heritage assets and their setting should be avoided. The highest standards of design, operation, restoration and aftercare must be practiced. 6.23 Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “Development will be permitted if will not harm the conservation of, or prevent the enhancement of, key characteristics of its surroundings with regard to the character of the landscape and townscape”. The policy requires a high standard of design which is compatible with the surrounding landscape. In addition Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy expects development proposals to respect local distinctiveness, including the landscape setting of settlements, the treatment of gateways, the landscape character and historic environment, taking account of the wider countryside. 6.24 Saved policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires all development to be of a high standard of design, and in keeping with its surroundings. Policy IMP2 expects all new development to incorporate high standards of landscaping. 6.25 During the application process additional details relating to the landscape and visual impact were requested. This resulted in further detailed plans, photomontages and timelines being provided by the Applicant to supplement the Environmental Statement and demonstrate the impacts that would arise during the various phases of development and upon restoration. 6.26 The following section sets out the characteristics of the site and its surrounds and then examines the various potential landscape impacts that may arise from the proposal. Many of the local objections raise concerns about the landscape impact that would result from the proposed quarry. Landscape and Visual Impact - Landscape Character Areas

6.27 In terms of National Character Areas (NCA), the site lies within the South Norfolk and Suffolk Claylands National Character Area (NCA) 83 and adjacent to the Broads NCA 80 . In the South Norfolk Landscape Assessment (2001), the site is identified as being within C2: Thurlton Tributary Farmland with Parkland landscape character. 6.28 The Landscape Assessment within the Environmental Statement recognises that the site and its surrounds display many of the characteristics identified as typical of the aforementioned landscape character areas. Of particular value to the character of the area are the isolated medieval round tower churches at Haddiscoe and Thorpe, the distinctive, intimate, part wooded/part pasture landscape of Landspring Beck and its relationship with dwellings within Haddiscoe village, the parkland setting of Haddiscoe Hall, a sense of tranquillity away from the A143, and the areas role as part of the setting to The Broads. 6.29 Features which are said to detract from the landscape character are identified as being the disturbance of traffic on the A143 and B1136, the lack of hedgerows to define field pattern either side of the B1136, the part restored/part derelict sand and gravel workings to the east of Haddiscoe, and a paucity of woodland cover. 6.30 The Landscape Assessment concludes that the landscape impacts of the proposal on the Thurlton Tributary Farmland with Parkland would be ‘moderately adverse’ during the lifetime of the quarry and ‘slightly beneficial’ following restoration. 6.31 The land immediately to the north of the site is identified being within the Yare/Waveney Valley – Norton Marshes to Haddiscoe Dismantled Railway Landscape Character Area within the Broads Authority Landscape Character Assessment. This is part of The Broads and the report recognises that the sensitivity of this landscape is high. However, the Environmental Statement concludes that the landscape impact of the proposal on this area would be negligible, due to the existing perimeter planting and progressive restoration measures. Landscape and Visual Impact – Proposed mitigation

6.32 The application proposes substantial measures to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed quarry. 6.33 To screen the mineral operations within the proposed plant site, it is proposed to land-raise the areas to the south, east and west. This would be done to gentle gradients, enabling the continued agricultural use of the land. A 2 metre high bund would be formed to the north alongside Loddon Road which would be grass seeded and maintained. New hedgerows and trees would be planted along the frontage with Loddon Road and along the western boundary. The site entrance would be formed in such a way to prevent views of the operational area. The base of the plant site would be reduced to a level of 7.0m AOD, this would typically be 6-7 metres below original ground levels. 6.34 Measures to reduce the impact of the main extraction area would include the retention and maintenance of the existing boundary planting, combined with supplementary planting. There would be unworked margins to reduce impacts on residential properties and extraction would be phased, with working confined to a single phase at any point in time. Temporary screen bunding would be used where necessary on the boundaries of individual phases to give additional protection to sensitive receptors. The use of a conveyor to transport materials would reduce vehicle movements between the extraction and processing areas. The conveyor would be positioned several metres below ground level and maintained to ensure its quiet operation. 6.35 It is considered that the proposed land-raising, screen bunds and planting would be successful in screening the mineral operations from public view. Photomontages have been submitted with the application demonstrating that the quarrying activities within the proposed plant site would not be seen from the main public vantage points. The existing and proposed screening around the proposed main extraction area is considered sufficient to effectively screen the quarrying activities that would take place. 6.36 Although the measures proposed would be effective in screening the mineral activities, it is recognised that they would in themselves create landscape impacts. In consultation with the County Council’s Landscape Officer, it is considered that the screen bunds proposed would not cause material harm to the surrounding landscape setting. It is recognised that the bunds would affect views of the surrounding landscape, but the proposals would still allow for wider landscape views looking towards Haddiscoe village and St. Mary’s Church. In addition the appearance of the bunds would be less intrusive as the hedges and hedgerow trees mature. The land-raised areas would have shallower gradients than the bunds, would be cultivated and would blend in sympathetically with the surrounding landscape. 6.37 On balance, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed would change the appearance of the site and result in a degree of harm, arising particularly from the introduction of the proposed bunds before the planting has matured. However, the adverse impact would reduce over the lifetime of the quarry and taking everything into account, it is concluded that the proposed landscaping would not cause significant material harm to the landscape and visual character of the area throughout the operational life of the site. Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and relevant policies in the Joint Core Strategy. Landscape and Visual Impact: Restoration

6.38 Following completion of operations at the plant site, the land-raised areas would be graded back into the void, new woodland would be planted along the southern boundary to merge with existing woodland, and all remaining land would be returned to agricultural use. The boundary hedgerows and trees would remain, which is considered a further enhancement. 6.39 For the proposed main extraction area, restoration measures would make a positive contribution to the landscape, including the planting of hedgerows, woodland, the creation of acid grassland and wetland areas, increasing the biodiversity value of the site. Furthermore a number of new public footpaths would increase access and provide a greater opportunity for the public to enjoy the landscape. 6.40 The mineral operations and restoration proposals would result in the main extraction area transforming from a plateau landform to a valley landform. There is a public bridleway, Haddiscoe BR5, which crosses the site and from which views of the Broads and St. Mary’s Church can currently be enjoyed. It is proposed that this Bridleway would be re-routed for the duration of mineral operations, and upon restoration that the Bridleway would be returned to a lower level within a valley landform with wooded upper slopes. This would result in the loss of the some of the views that currently exist from the bridleway along much of the route. The Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer raises no objection to this and it is considered that the biodiversity and landscape enhancements that would be enjoyed from the new footpath mitigate this change. Impact on The Broads

6.41 A significant level of local objection relates to the perceived impacts that would arise from the proposal on The Broads, an area which benefits from the highest level of protection within the planning system. The application site is not within this area; however The Broads is situated immediately to the north and east of the site. 6.42 Policy CS14 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires there to be “no unacceptable adverse impacts on, and ideally improvements to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Policy 18 of the Joint Core Strategy states, “In areas in close proximity to the Broads Authority Area particular regard will be applied to maintaining and enhancing the economy, environment, tranquillity, setting, visual amenity, recreational value and navigational use of the Broads.” 6.43 The Landscape and Visual Impact Statement submitted with the application concludes that the proposal would only slightly affect the setting of The Broads during its operational life and this effect would diminish as the restoration operations are completed. 6.44 The Broads Authority is satisfied that the extensive boundary screening and existing topography limits the likelihood of the wider Broads area to be impacted upon due to its situation on a plateau. The Broads Authority concludes that there will be no significant visual impacts on The Broads and therefore no objection is raised. 6.45 It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy CS14. It does not comply with all of the criteria within Policy 18 of the Joint Core Strategy, for example it cannot be said it will maintain the tranquillity of the area. However it is considered that no material harm will be caused to The Broads or its setting and the proposal therefore broadly complies with the requirements of the policy. Impact on the Historic Environment

6.46 Policy DM8 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “Development will only be permitted where it would be within, or could affect the setting of, nationally or locally registered Historic Parks or Gardens, registered battlefields, conservation areas, listed buildings, or the North Norfolk Heritage Coast, where the applicant can demonstrate that the development would not adversely impact on the historic form, character and/or setting of these locations, taking into account any mitigation measures.” 6.47 In addition policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy requires development proposals to respect the historic environment, while saved policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires special attention to be paid to the design, scale and impact of proposals affecting the setting of a listed building. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states, “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s significance”. 6.48 There are no designated heritage assets within the boundary of the proposed site. However there are a number of listed buildings and structures in the surrounding area. Grade I listed buildings in close proximity to the site include St Mary’s Church at Haddiscoe and St. Matthias Church at Thorpe. Grade II listed buildings include Thorpe Hall, Walnut Tree Cottage and White House Farmhouse, and there is a Grade II listed monument to William Salter located at Haddiscoe Church. 6.49 The Inspector of Historic Buildings at English Heritage has considered the impact on the various listed buildings and considers that “it is probably only in the case of St. Mary’s that real harm to significance could result because of its proximity”. 6.50 In his response to the initial consultation process, in a letter dated 7 February 2012, the Inspector expressed concern that some harm would result from the proposed quarry, particularly as a result of the change to the topography of the landscape to the north, from a plateau to more of a valley landform. Concern was raised about a “permanent and harmful change” to the land to the north (the proposed main extraction area) which forms part of the setting of the church. However, the Inspector recognised that the landscaping scheme “will soften the profile of the pit left by quarrying” and that the immediate setting of the church would “be defined more strongly by the proposed tree screen”. 6.51 The Inspector has considered the contribution to the historic significance of the church made by its setting, and has concluded that although some harm will occur from the proposal, that, “on balance, the degree of harm to the church’s significance is less than substantial”. The Inspector advises that the application should be considered in terms of guidance within national policy. In response to the second stage of consultation, dated 17 July 2012, the Inspector reaffirmed his view in the context of guidance within the NPPF. 6.52 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.” 6.53 Substantial local objection has been received to the proposal, and many objectors have made the point that there is no little or no public benefit for local people. 6.54 However, there are wider public benefits, as recognised by paragraph 142 of the NPPF, which states: “Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs”. Mineral extraction benefits local people as well as the wider population, through providing materials for local housing, business and community facilities. Helping to meet the current shortfall in terms of the minerals landbank is therefore considered a public benefit which is a strong material consideration. 6.55 Further public benefits arising from the proposal include the notable biodiversity and landscape enhancements proposed, together with the creation of new public footpaths, enhancing the local Rights of Way network in the long term. A small amount of new local employment would be directly generated (four full time jobs and 4 part time positions) while the proposal would also maintain employment for existing staff. 6.56 While it has been established that some harm would occur to the setting of St. Mary’s church, significant weight is attached to the Inspector’s conclusion that the harm is less than substantial and in his view “the proposed landscaping will, in the long term, mitigate the impact of the quarry pit on the landscape to the north of the church.” 6.57 On balance therefore, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposal, combined with the significant mitigation and restoration enhancements proposed, outweigh the “less than substantial” harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. 6.58 While there is considered to be a degree of conflict with Policy DM8, in that there would be an adverse impact on the setting of a listed building, the guidance within the NPPF and need for the development are material considerations which outweigh this. No material harm would be caused to any other heritage asset, and in all other respects, the proposal is considered compliant with policy DM8 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy, and saved policy IMP15 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Impact on the River Valley

6.59 The majority of the proposed plant site falls within an area designated within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy as a ‘Core River Valley’. These are locally designated areas considered important to Norfolk’s landscape character, including the floodplains of rivers and their tributaries, and in some cases they also include the lower valley slopes, as in this instance, where the designated area includes Landspring Beck and the valley slopes to the north. 6.60 Policy DM2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires any development within the Core River Valleys to not impede floodplain functionality and to enhance the local landscape/and or biodiversity (either immediately or on restoration). The policy also requires applicants to demonstrate that proposals will enhance the form, local character and distinctiveness of the landscape and natural environment of the river valley. The impacts during and after working should be considered, together with the duration of any adverse impacts, proposals for mitigation and compensatory measures and the provision of any long term asset enhancement through restoration proposals. 6.61 In addition saved Policy ENV3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan also requires the protection of identified river valleys. However, in this instance, the designated area is different to that within the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and only affects a small area to the south of Landspring Beck, outside of the proposed development site. 6.62 The application maintains that the character of the river valley would be protected and slightly enhanced during the operational period of the quarry by maintaining the visual horizon from footpath Haddiscoe FP7, defined by a new agricultural hedge, and by limited infill planting of trees within the existing wood. Both landscape character and biodiversity would be enhanced in the very long term by the restoration scheme. The exact profile of the existing upper valley side slopes would be recreated and planted with native deciduous woodland as an extension to the existing wood. 6.63 It is clear that in one sense, the proposal would have a direct adverse impact on the Core River Valley, as a result of the excavation of the void and siting of the plant site, as well as the creation of man-made bunds and land-raised areas. However, the mitigation proposed would reduce the visual impact when viewed from the surrounding area to an acceptable level. Therefore, taking into account the landscape and biodiversity enhancements proposed, together with the temporary duration of operations, it is considered that the proposal broadly complies with the provisions of Policy DM2 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and saved policy ENV3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Impact on Amenity

6.64 Policy DM12 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “The protection of amenity for people in close proximity to potential minerals extraction and associated developments and waste management facilities will be a key consideration. Where appropriate, buffer zones, advanced planting and/or screening and other mitigation measures, such as restriction on hours of working and dust suppression measures, will be required. Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the construction and or/operation of a facility.” 6.65 Guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF states local planning authorities should: “ensure, that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”. 6.66 Saved policy IMP9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires the avoidance of significantly adverse impacts on nearby residents, while IMP10 restricts development that would create significant noise disturbance. 6.67 One of the main issues raised by objectors is the impact on residential amenity that would arise from the proposal. There are several residential properties within close proximity to the site. 6.68 In terms of the distance between the proposed extraction boundary and nearby dwellings, among the closest are “Windmill Cottage” and “The Boundaries”, on Thorpe Road, just over 100m away and Low Farm and Whitehouse Farm, also on Thorpe Road which are approximately 150m from the site. There are further properties on The Loke which are between 100m and 150m from the site, with Manor Farm 100m away. House numbers 1 and 2 Loddon Road are located 100m from the site, while there are also properties on Church Lane between 150m and 200m away. 6.69 There are properties on Church Hill, Rectory Road, Rectory Lane and Church Lane, the closest of which, “Polperro” is 100m away. Other properties in the vicinity include Three Corners on Beccles Road (220m), Haddiscoe Hall (400m), and Thorpe Hall (380m). St. Mary’s Church is approximately 130 metres from the proposed main extraction area and 270m from the plant site. Amenity - Visual

6.70 As well as assisting in mitigating the impact on the landscape, the measures described in paragraphs 6.32-6.40 assist in mitigating the visual impact of the proposed quarry on local amenity to an acceptable standard, in accordance with policy DM12. Therefore the following sections focus on the noise and air quality impacts. Amenity – Noise

6.71 A Noise Assessment was included as part of the Environmental Statement and a draft Noise Management Plan has been submitted detailing measures to be taken to ensure noise nuisance would be minimised during the course of operations. 6.72 The Noise Assessment within the Environmental Statement lists the principle noise generating activities arising from the proposal as being associated with normal ongoing site operations; temporary operations such as soil stripping, overburden removal and restoration; traffic noise and the screening of aggregates. 6.73 Mitigation measures that would be employed during the operation of the site include soil mounds between excavation areas and sensitive residential receptors and the use of screen bunds and land raised areas surrounding the plant site. In addition the use of a conveyor to transport mineral from the extraction site to the plant site would minimise the need for vehicle movements within the site. 6.74 As part of the Noise Assessment, baseline noise surveys were carried out in the area around the proposed site. The background noise levels (for example from nearby roads) have been taken into account and predicted noise levels have been calculated. Scenarios were chosen to reflect potential worst case situations with plant operating at its closest to sensitive receptors 6.75 It has been shown that noise levels from long term site operations conform to Government Guidelines set out in the ‘Technical Guidance to the NPPF’. The Noise Assessment also concludes that the criterion for short duration activities such as soil stripping and permanent landform creation will be achieved. 6.76 During the course of the determining the application, it became apparent that the submitted phasing plans contained a slightly larger extraction area to that identified within the noise assessment contained within the Environmental Statement. This showed extraction taking place in closer proximity to some of the neighbouring properties than was demonstrated within the noise assessment. The applicant was asked to correct this to ensure that the plans were consistent and that there was an adequate stand-off of at least 100m to all dwellings. The relevant plans were accordingly revised. 6.77 The Environmental Protection Team at South Norfolk District Council has examined the revised plans with regard to noise impact and no objection is raised, providing the development is carried out in accordance with the Noise Management Plan submitted. 6.78 It is therefore considered that no material harm would be caused to neighbouring occupiers or sensitive receptors, in accordance with the relevant planning policies and guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Amenity – Air Quality

6.79 The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (Policy DM13) requires applicants to “submit information to demonstrate that proposals effectively minimise harmful emissions to air and would not impact negatively on existing Air Quality Management Areas”. Potentially harmful air quality impacts to human health should be mitigated. 6.80 A detailed assessment of the potential impact on air quality caused by potential dust and fumes was submitted as part of the Environmental Statement. In addition a Dust Management Plan was submitted. 6.81 The assessment notes that the soils on site are generally affected by moisture, which would reduce dust raised during stripping, stockpiling and restoration activities. However water spraying would be used to assist in the suppression of dust where necessary. Within the processing area, the plant would be positioned at a depth of 7 metres below existing ground level. The on-site screening process would remove any small particles. A number of other dust mitigation measures would be required as part of the Environmental Permitting procedures. 6.82 Erosion from bare ground would be restricted by the phased development proposed, and dust arising from on-site haulage would be reduced by the use of the conveyor. The haul road to the processing plan would be graded regularly to remove loose material from the surface. Site roads would be sprayed with water during dry and windy conditions by a mobile bowser. HGV’s transporting mineral off the site would be fitted with sheeting systems that greatly reduce the potential for dust blow-off. 6.83 The Environmental Statement explains that the majority of dust emissions from the site are expected to be large particles which do not propagate more than 100m, within which there are no sensitive receptors. However all properties within 200m were considered potentially dust sensitive, to account for smaller particle emission. 6.84 The assessment concludes that with the implementation of the mitigation measures, there would be insignificant impacts of dust on properties in close proximity to the site. It also concludes that there would be no adverse impacts on health from any increases in PM 10 levels. The application has been amended to ensure that the limit of extraction on all plans matches the limit identified within the Dust Management Plan. In addition it is proposed to use dust netting and sheeting when workings approach the neighbours within closest proximity. 6.85 The Environmental Protection Team from South Norfolk District Council has examined the amended information and raise no objection on the grounds of impact on air quality, providing the site is operated in accordance with the Dust Management Plan submitted. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy DM13 and Government guidance in paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Impact on Glebelands School

6.86 A letter was received from Glebelands Community Primary School, which is situated just under a kilometre to the south of the application site. The Headteacher has asked that the proximity of the School be taken into account, due to concerns about additional traffic using the A143, from which the School is accessed, the potential increase in noise levels and the generation of dust. 6.87 It is considered there would be no material harm caused to the School, as the increase in traffic on the A143 is negligible and there would be adequate mitigation and controls in place to limit noise and dust to an acceptable level. Highways/Traffic

6.88 Policy CS15 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states that development proposals will be satisfactory in terms of access, providing unacceptable impacts are not caused to the safety of road users and pedestrians, the capacity of the highway network, air quality, and damage to the roadside. Policy DM10 requires applicants to demonstrate that there is suitable highway access and suitable routes to the nearest major road. Concern regarding impacts on highway access, increase in traffic and highway safety has been raised by many of the objectors to the proposal.

6.89 The application proposes an increase of approximately 76 vehicle movements per day, comprising 32 HGV movements and 14 MGV movements associated with transporting the mineral away from the site, and 30 movements of cars and light goods vehicles associated with staff, site operatives, deliveries and visitors to the site. These figures account for all activities relating to the proposal, including the concrete batching.

6.90 A detailed Transport Assessment was submitted with the application, the parameters of which were agreed with Norfolk County Council as Highway Authority. This draws a number of conclusions material to the consideration of the application.

6.91 In terms of accident risk, an assessment was made of the safety record of the surrounding highway network. This has been combined with an assessment of the projected increase in vehicle movements. It is concluded that “the projected limited increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles on the highway network would not be of sufficient magnitude to significantly or materially worsen the existing safety record. Therefore, it is concluded on this basis that the development proposals are acceptable from a highway safety perspective.”

6.92 With regard to highway impact, the Transport Assessment applies the forecast of proposed traffic generation to the base traffic situation, in order to quantify the impact of the development proposal on the flows and operation of the local highway network. In terms of the key routes that quarry traffic would use, it is concluded that during the AM and PM peak periods, the increase in traffic flow is predicted to be less than 4% on the B1136 and less than 1% on the A143 north of the junction with the A143. The higher percentage increase that would arise on the B1136 is as a result of the capacity of this road being well above its current usage. It is concluded that the impact of development traffic on the operation of the highway network in this location is acceptable.

6.93 The County Highway Authority has assessed the proposal and no objections are raised, subject to a number of conditions. The highway impact of the proposed quarry is therefore considered acceptable and compliant with policies CS15 and DM10.

Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.94 Policy DM1 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires the protection of locally designated nature conservation and geodiversity sites, habitats and species identified in biodiversity action plans. Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy requires planning authorities to protect, maintain, restore and enhance the environmental assets of an area. 6.95 There are no statutorily protected ecological features within the proposed development site. In terms of internationally protected sites, the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is about 5km to the north of the site, although parts of it are associated with the Stanley and Alder Carrs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), approximately 3.8km to the south. The nearest Special Protection Area (SPA) is Broadland SPA, which covers the same area as the aforementioned Broads SAC. The nearest Ramsar site also covers the same area as the Broads SAC, while a small part of it is associated with the Stanley and Alder Carrs SSSI. 6.96 With regard to nationally designated sites, the nearest is the Stanley Alder Carrs SSSI, which is approximately 3.8km to the south. 6.97 There are six County Wildlife Sites within the vicinity of the site, four of which are within 2km of the site boundary. The closest is County Wildlife Site 2221, ‘Devil’s End Meadow’, which covers land around Landspring Beck, immediately to the south of the proposed plant site. This was designated after the planning application was originally submitted, so details were sought during the application process to assess the impact on this feature. 6.98 The Ecological Assessment within the Environmental Statement found that the site is generally of low ecological interest, due to being largely arable land surrounded by recent tree plantations. Areas of greater interest were found to occur at the edge of the site, including within the former pits to the north west of the proposed extraction area and to the south of the proposed plant site. 6.99 The Ecological Assessment identifies that the main negative ecological effects which could occur as a result of the proposal are the possible loss of part of the colony of common cudweed plant and the loss of a sandy bank used by aculeates (stinging bees/wasps/ants). 6.100 The restoration proposals include significant enhancements to biodiversity within the site. This includes areas of woodland, wetland and species rich grassland and sandy banks benefitting birds, bats, amphibians and invertebrates. Measures would be put in place to enhance bird breeding and bat roosting, and provision for expanding the population of common cudweed. The Ecological Assessment concludes that the proposed mineral development would have limited short term negative effects on the local ecology but moderate beneficial effects in the medium to long term by virtue of the progressive restoration and biodiversity enhancements. 6.101 Natural England raises no objection to the proposal, stating that, “Although the site is close to designated sites in The Broads, due to the nature and location of the proposal, it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on them, and we do not consider this application meets the criteria of “significant environmental effects” under our remit”. 6.102 The County Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposal and raises no objection. The Ecologist is satisfied with the surveys that have been carried out and the mitigation proposed. He concludes that the short to medium term negative impacts will be outweighed by the long term habitat creation and benefits to flora and fauna, including protected species. On the basis of information submitted with the application, and the consultation responses from Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant development plan policies.

Public Rights of Way

6.103 The main Rights of Way affected are the bridleway (Haddiscoe BR5) that runs across the proposed main extraction area and the footpath (Haddiscoe FP7) to the south of the proposed plant site. The bridleway would be diverted around the northern boundary of the main extraction area between Crab Apple Lane and Thorpe Road. Information has been submitted demonstrating that the visual impact on FP7 is negligible, due to the land-raising and existing woodland. 6.104 As part of the progressive restoration proposals, a number of new footpaths would be provided, and these would be formed at the earliest opportunity as part of the phased development. It is the intention that the new footpaths would become permanent public rights of way, to be adopted by the County Council. 6.105 Two new footpaths would be created enabling walks around the proposed nature conservation area, and these would link with Church Lane enabling connection with footpath FP7. The Public Rights of Way Officer welcomes the new footpaths as they would enable the opportunity for circular walks from the village. No objection is raised to the diversion of the bridleway. The impact on Public Rights of Way is considered acceptable and in the long term beneficial. Flood Risk

6.106 Policy DM4 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy expects development to minimise flood risk through site layout and design. Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy expects development to be located to minimise flood risk. Guidance within the NPPF states (paragraph 100) that “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where it is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere”. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires Flood Risk Assessments to be prepared for sites in excess of 1 hectare in size. 6.107 The site is entirely located within the Environment Agency designated Flood Zone 1, which represents areas considered to be at the lowest probability of flooding. Because the size of the site exceeds 1 hectare a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required and was included as part of the application. 6.108 The FRA identifies that there are two sources of fluvial fooding in the vicinity of the site, the Haddiscoe Marshes to the north east and the Landspring Beck to the south. It is noted that the fluvial features of these watercourses may increase as a result of climate change. However the natural topography between the site and these fluvial features would prevent them from impacting the site. 6.109 The geology and soil types of the site are such that the drainage is good and therefore there is unlikely to be any material increase in flood risk from surface water run-off and the risk from groundwater flooding is assessed as being very low. The restoration proposals for the main extraction area would result in a wetland area within a shallow ‘bowl’ and as a result surface water would generally drain towards the lake. The plant site would be restored to similar contours as existing which mean surface water would drain towards Landspring Beck as is currently the case. The FRA concludes that the proposal will not increase flood risk to neighbouring occupiers, and that the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk.

6.110 The Environment Agency has assessed the application in relation to flood risk and raises no objection, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Surface Water Drainage Scheme to be submitted. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy and guidance within the NPPF. Groundwater and Surface Water

6.111 Policy DM3 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires applicants to demonstrate that development would not cause adverse impact upon groundwater quality or resources and surface water quality or resources. The site does not lie within a designated Groundwater Protection Zone. 6.112 The application is accompanied by a Hydrological Risk Assessment providing a detailed consideration of the proposal on groundwater and surface water quality. This concludes that the proposal is unlikely to result in adverse impacts provided that basic precautionary measures are put in place. No dewatering measures are proposed. 6.113 The Environment Agency has examined the application with regard to impact on groundwater and no objections are raised, therefore the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DM3. Sustainable Construction and Operations

6.114 Minerals and Waste Policy CS13 addresses issues relating to climate change and renewable energy generation. Where possible, applicants should aim for the incorporation of renewable or low carbon energy to generate a minimum of 10 per cent of their energy needs. Where this is not considered practicable, appropriate evidence should be provided.

6.115 Following consideration of different options, the Applicant has proposed the installation of a solar photovoltaic array on the northern embankment of the plant side void, comprising a total of 210 panels covering an area of approximately 350m². This would enable the generation of 10% of the site’s energy requirements. The panels would be removed prior to the restoration of the site. 6.116 In the main, the panels would be positioned in such a way that they would not be visible from the key viewpoints. It is anticipated there would be very shallow lines of sight from Hall Road and the A143 to the south. After a few years, when the proposed hedgerow on the southern landform has matured, it is anticipated the array would be entirely obscured, including during winter. 6.117 The Applicant has further stated that LED floodlights would be used rather than the standard 50W Halogen floodlights. In addition low energy lighting would be used in all internal areas such as the site office and the use of the conveyer would also reduce carbon emissions compared to the average quarry, where minerals are usually transported from quarry face to plant site by vehicle. 6.118 The visual impact of the panels is considered acceptable. It is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy CS13. Soils

6.119 Where development is proposed on agricultural land, Policy DM16 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states a preference for it to be on sites of lower agricultural value, such as grades 3b, 4 and 5. Policy DM16 states that when development is proposed on agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3a, it will only be permitted where provision is made for high standards of soil management during restoration, or where the benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land. 6.120 The application was accompanied by a Soils and Agricultural Land Assessment. In discussion with Natural England, an Agricultural Land Classification and soil survey was undertaken. This demonstrated that the majority of the agricultural land within the proposed development site is either sub grade 3b or grade 4, with a very small percentage being grade 3a. 6.121 The proposal would result in the loss of the agricultural land where the main extraction area is proposed, as it is intended to restore this to nature conservation after use. However because the vast majority of this land is of lower agricultural grade, and significant biodiversity enhancements are proposed, the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DM16. Cumulative Impacts

6.122 Policy DM15 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires consideration of the cumulative impacts that could arise from proposals in conjunction with other existing, permitted or allocated minerals extraction sites and/or waste management facilities. 6.123 The nearest permitted mineral development is also within Haddiscoe, off Wiggs Road, approximately 250m to the south-east of the application site. Around 50 per cent of the site has been restored. The site has not been worked since 2003 and was recently sold at auction. The intentions of the new owners are unclear. The site is subject to the Review of Mineral Permissions (ROMP) legislation which required a review of the conditions by 31 December 2012. At the time of writing because a review has not been undertaken the permission for extraction has ceased. 6.124 If there site continues to be inactive, there would be a negligible cumulative impact in terms of quarrying activities. Should mineral extraction resume, although there would be an increased impact on the locality, it is considered that there are adequate conditions to control impacts on amenity and that there would be no materially harmful impact from both sites being operational. 6.125 There is a further minerals site at Norton Subcourse. This is some 4km away to the north-west, which is considered sufficient distance to ensure no material cumulative impacts would arise. There is also a waste site at Crossways Farm, 2km to the West. The County Council is currently considering an application to expand operations at this site. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the there is no objection to the cumulative impact of the two developments. Both would access directly onto the B1136 which is a main distributor road that links to the A143 and A146 which are strategic roads. The junctions of the A146/B1136 and A143/B1136 would be busier but would not be at capacity at any time of day or night. Restoration

6.126 The NPPF requires planning authorities to ensure the highest standards of restoration and aftercare are carried out at the earliest opportunity. Policy DM14 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires a scheme of restoration to be provided and there is a preference for sites to be enhanced through restoration. Restoration must be achievable in the proposed timescales and schemes that promote access to rights of way and improvements to green infrastructure are supported. 6.127 The restoration proposals are summarised in paragraph 6.7. Detailed proposals were included within the application and following negotiation with the Applicant have been further enhanced. The restoration is considered appropriate and the landscape, biodiversity, recreational and rights of way enhancements proposed are welcomed by the Council’s Landscape Officer, Ecologist and Rights of Way Officer. The proposal accords with Policy DM14 and the requirements of the NPPF in this respect. 6.128 A Section 106 Legal Agreement would secure the ten year aftercare of the site and the implementation of the restoration proposals. Other Matters

6.129 A number of objectors raised concerns about the loss of value to property and the impact on the view from a property. These are not planning matters and cannot be considered as part of the assessment of the application. 7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8. Other Implications

8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications arising from the proposal.

8.2 Human Rights

8.3 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant. 8.4 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed. 8.5 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents. 8.6 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

8.7 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 8.8 Communications : Th ere are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.9 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.10 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 9.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application. 10. Risk Implications/Assessment

10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

11.1 The proposal is for the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe, Norfolk. The proposal comprises mineral extraction from two parcels of land to the north and south of the B1136 Loddon Road. The plant site would be located on the area to the south and the main extraction area would be to the north, between the B1136 and Thorpe Road.

11.2 It is proposed to extract a total of 1,450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel in a phased manner over a 21 year period. There would be progressive restoration to a combination of a nature conservation and agricultural after-use. 11.3 The application has resulted in a significant level of local objection, including from South Norfolk District Council. The main planning issues raised in opposition include concerns about the proximity of the proposal to Haddiscoe village, amenity impacts on residential properties through increased noise, dust and traffic, impact on the landscape character of the countryside, impact on St. Mary’s Church, impact on highway safety, impact on biodiversity, concern there would be no benefit to the local community, and the fact the site was not considered suitable for allocation as part of the Local Development Framework process. 11.4 It is recognised that the proposed quarry and its associated landscaping would result in impacts upon the character of the local landscape and some harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. It is also accepted that there would be a degree of increase in noise, traffic, and activity associated with the mineral operations. However, it is notable that South Norfolk Environmental in liaison with statutory consultees, it is concluded that no significant material harm to the environment, church, highways or residential amenity would arise from the proposal. 11.5 Although the site has not been considered suitable for allocation within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, an assessment was made for the purpose of that process without the benefit of the substantial mitigation and restoration proposals that have been submitted with the planning application, as well as the detailed plans, photomontages and images that have enabled a more thorough assessment of the likely impacts.

11.6 The DPD has not been subject to an Examination by the Planning Inspectorate and is not yet formally adopted. Yet because the DPD is at an advanced stage in the process, weight can be attached to the decision not to allocate the site.

11.7 However, the application must also be assessed on its own merits, having regard to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The concerns relating to landscape, highways, water resources and amenity that were raised when the site was considered during the allocations process have been addressed and overcome within the planning application.

11.8 The need for the development, in terms of the current shortfall in the landbank, is an important material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal, as is the guidance within the NPPF, which requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. The site would have notable socio-economic benefits, such as providing materials for the local construction industry, which supports a large number of jobs and helps deliver local housing and community facilities in Norfolk.

11.9 For these reasons, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the thrust of local and national planning policy and that planning permission should be granted in accordance with the recommendation below.

12. Conditions

12.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to the following conditions: i) The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than three years from the date of this permission. Within seven days of the commencement of operations, the operator shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing of the exact starting date.

Reason: Imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

ii) The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

iii) The development to which this permission relates shall cease and the site shall be restored on or before 31 January 2034.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

iv) Prior to the commencement of mineral extraction a Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme must cover both the extraction area and the plant site, and address the surface water management during the extraction phase, and for the restoration of the site. Management of the volumes of water produced by the development site in a range of critical duration rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year return period event must be included. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is complete.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

v) No development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme as may be so agreed shall be implemented within three months of the date of the planning permission or such other period agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of size, species and spacing of trees, hedges and shrubs, arrangements for their protection and maintenance, and details of the construction and maintenance of the soil bunds. The scheme shall make provision for: a. the screening of the operations by trees, hedges and soil bunds; b. the protection and maintenance of existing trees and hedges which are to be retained on the site; c. re-seeding and re-planting where failures or damage occur within a period of five years from the date of planting; and, d. the replacement of any damaged or dead trees with trees of similar size and species at the next appropriate season.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010- 2026. vi) Measures shall be taken to prevent dust nuisance and sand blow caused by the operations, including spraying of road surfaces, plant area and stockpiles.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties and the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. vii) No operation authorised or required under this permission or under Part 23 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, including the movement of vehicles and operation of any plant, shall take place on Sundays or public holidays, or other than during the following periods:

07.00 - 17.00 Mondays to Fridays 07.00 - 13.00 Saturdays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties and the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. viii) No dewatering of excavations shall be carried out.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. ix) Any drums and small containers used for oil and other chemicals on the site shall be stored in bunded areas which do not drain to any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaways, and all oil or chemical storage tanks, ancillary handling facilities and equipment, including pumps and valves, shall be contained within an impervious bunded area of a least 110% of the total stored capacity.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. x) There shall be no discharge of contaminated surface water from the site.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xi) Vehicles leaving the site shall not be in a condition whereby they would deposit mud or other loose material on the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xii) Handling, movement and re-spreading of topsoil and subsoil shall not take place except when the soils are in a suitably dry and friable condition, and in such a way and with such equipment as to ensure minimum compaction. (No handling of topsoil and subsoil shall take place except between 1st April and 31st October unless otherwise agreed in writing beforehand by the County Planning Authority).

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xiii) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular accesses shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan (Drawing No: Fig 13.0 (1) - Proposed Access). Additionally from the site boundary to the near channel edge of the carriageway the construction specification shall be in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xiv) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular access (indicated for improvement on Drawing No: Fig 13.0 (1) - Proposed Access) shall be upgraded/widened in accordance with the Norfolk County Council industrial access construction specification for the first 15 metres as measured back from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xv) The gradient of the vehicular access(es) shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 15 metres into the site as measured from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway. Reason: In the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xvi) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted visibility splays shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan (Drawing No: 20 proposed Access) for the vehicular accesses onto Loddon Road and Crab Apple Lane. The splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xvii) No works shall commence on site until the details of Wheel Cleaning facilities associated with the proposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xviii) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the Approved Wheel Cleaning facilities shall be provided to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority and thereafter maintained and used as appropriate. Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway

xix) Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement works which should include a passing bay located on Crab Apple Lane at the junction of Loddon Road, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor. In accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xx) 1Noise emitted from the site due to mineral extraction shall not exceed the . levels indicated below at the locations identified in accordance with the Environmental Statement received on 6 October 2011 these being:- 1. St Mary’s Forge 47 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 2. Loddon Road 1 50 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 3. Church Road 1 48 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 4. Windmill Cottage 50 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 5. Windy Ridge 52 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 6. Haddiscoe Manor 55 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field The above sites are identified on the enclosed plan entitled Noise Monitoring Points produced by the County Planning Authority enclosed with this decision notice.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010- 2026. xxi) Noise emitted from the site due to topsoil and subsoil stripping and other works in connection with landscaping shall not exceed 70 dB LAeq 1h freefield as measured at any inhabited property and shall not exceed any period of 8 weeks in duration.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010- 2026. xxii) Upon restoration of the plant site an even layer of subsoil shall be re-spread to a depth of 200mm.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxiii) Upon restoration of the plant site an even layer of topsoil shall be re-spread on the subsoil layer to an even depth of at least 300mm.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxiv) Upon restoration of the plant site the subsoil shall be crossripped and any pans and compaction shall be broken up to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority before replacement of the topsoil.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxv) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate time is available to investigate any features of archaeological interest, in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxvi) The erection of the protective fencing and the creation of the bunds adjacent to the trees in Group 2 and Group 9 as shown on drawing 080211/X Rev B shall be overseen by an Arboricultural Consultant. On each occasion, a written report shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for its approval in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the protective fencing and bunds were placed correctly and that the work was carried out in accordance with BS5837:2012, in accordance with Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

(i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of restoration and aftercare and conditions outlined in Section 12 above: (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers • Application file reference: C/7/2012/7020 • National Planning Policy Framework • Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010- 2026. • Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk • South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policies • Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Name Telephone Number Email address

Robert Webb 228959 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Robert Webb or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

± Thorpe

The Application Site

The Application Site

El

Haddiscoe

Water

)

n i

a r

D ( Water

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 10 August 2012

10 August 2012

C/7/2011/7020 0 50 100 200 300 400 Planning & Transportation GIS Meters Haddiscoe Scale 1: 6000 Centred on 643823 297275 ±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 10 August 2012

10 August 2012

C/7/2011/7020 0 500 1,000 2,000 Planning & Transportation GIS Haddiscoe Meters Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 643823 297275 Planning (Regulatory) Committee January 2013 Item No. 5b

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District : Thurlton :C/7/2012/7018: Crossways Waste Management Facility, Thurlton, Norwich: Consolidation, update and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations, to include the following retrospective development: biofilter; extension to compost building; clarifier, shaker, conveyor, odour abatement system liquid scrubber; alteration to waste transfer building; relocation of trommel and filter press; office block; alterations to parking; ancillary buildings, equipment and storage.

Proposed new development to include lagoon; raised northern bund; treated trade effluent discharge pipeline; reedbed; biofilter/air extraction; access road; ancillary buildings and equipment: M Gaze and Co. Ltd.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development Summary This application seeks planning permission for the consolidation, upgrade and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations related to the waste facility; much of this is retrospective development. The proposals include the increase of waste handling at the site from 75,000 tonnes per annum up to a maximum of 175,000 tonnes per annum. The proposals also include the installation of a large woodchip bio- filter, extensions to the existing compost/waste recycling building, installation of storage tanks, installation/re-location of new plant/equipment, lagoon, reed bed extension and ancillary works and equipment to support the upgrading of the site. The application has been assessed in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation, given the nature and scale of the development. The majority of the 22 objections received relate to concerns regarding an increase in traffic, large vehicles using the minor road network to access the site, noise, dust and odour. Odour, noise and dust from the site are monitored/regulated by the Environment Agency. The applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106 routing agreement to ensure that traffic (other than local deliveries) does not use the Thurlton road (C516) or Green Lane (C390), and instead is directed straight towards the Yarmouth/Loddon Road (B1136). No objections have been raised from Statutory Consultees and the proposals are on balance considered to be acceptable, without any unacceptable impact upon residential amenity and the local highways network. The proposal is considered to accord with all relevant planning guidance and policies. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of a routing agreement, junction improvements and dedication of land to the County to maintain visibility splays, and the conditions listed in Section 12 of this report. (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Type of Development : Consolidation, update and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations, to include the following retrospective development: biofilter; extension to compost building; clarifier, shaker, conveyor, odour abatement system liquid scrubber; alteration to waste transfer building; relocation of trommel and filter press; office block; alterations to parking; ancillary buildings, equipment and storage.

Proposed new development to include lagoon; raised northern bund; treated trade effluent discharge pipeline; reedbed; biofilter/air extraction; access road; ancillary buildings and equipment. 1.2 Location and Access : The site is situated to the southern side of the B1136 Yarmouth Road, approximately 1km to the South of Thurlton. Raveningham is approximately 1.5km to the west, Haddiscoe approximately 2.5km to the east and Thurlton approximately 1km to the north. Access to the site is taken from the C516 Thurlton Road.

1.3 Total Site Area : 12.15 hectares.

1.4 Hours of Working : Monday to Friday 07:30 – 18:00 Saturday 07:30 – 13:00 2. Constraints

2.1 Special Area of Conservation - The site is situated approximately 3.7km from The Broads Special Area of Conservation and The Broadland Special Protection Area. 2.2 Agricultural land Grade 2 - The site is situated on agricultural grade 2 land. It is considered that as the proposals only involve a relatively small extension onto this agricultural land, in the form of the bio-filter. There is unlikely to be any significant impact upon this constraint. 3. Planning History

3.1 Application D/7/1991/0557 was approved in 1991 for a liquid waste transfer station.

3.2 In 1992 permission was granted for and enlargement of floor/roof to accommodate vehicle drum storage and crusher bay, reference C/7/1992/7026.

3.3 In 1995 permission was granted for the provision of tanker washdown/cleansing facilities complete with earth banks and concrete base sump, reference C/7/1995/7007.

3.4 Application C/7/1995/7024 was approved in 1995 for the variation of condition 3 of permission C/7/1992/7026 to include emergency working hours.

3.5 Planning permission was granted in 1995 for the construction of a new sump to facilitate waste collection & disposal, within the premises of the existing transfer station, reference C/7/1995/7030.

3.6 In 1995 planning permission was granted for the temporary storage of north sea drilling mud within 7no. designed waterproof silos, reference C/7/1995/7031.

3.7 In 1997 planning permission was granted for the construction of an area of hardstanding, reference C/7/1997/7009. 3.8 Planning permission reference C/7/1997/7031 was granted approval for the conversion of storage lagoon into clean water lake by addition of new settlement and aeration tanks.

3.9 Planning permission reference C/7/1998/7028 was granted in 1998 for the construction of new sumps under new mono-pitch roof housing waste barrels within east bank, and treatment tanks within west bank of waste transfer station: all structures under 5m high.

3.10 In 1999 planning permission reference C/7/1999/7012 granted permission for the variation of condition 3 on planning permission C/7/98/7028 to give amended layout and relocation of ancillary facilities. 3.11 Planning permission reference C/7/2000/7018 was approved in 2000 for an extension of time for permission C/7/1997/7031 (Storage lagoon into clear water lake).

3.12 Planning permission reference C/7/2001/7001 was granted approval in 2001 for the provision of 2no. underground holding tanks within western bank to waste transfer station.

3.13 In 2002 planning permission was granted for modifications to plant and machinery in the waste transfer station to improve recycling, planning reference C/7/2002/7010. 3.14 Planning permission reference C/7/2004/7001 was granted approval in 2004 for the consolidation of waste activities including composting in a building, waste transfer and storage.

3.15 Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the construction of a water conservation reservoir, planning reference C/7/2005/7016. 3.16 Planning permission reference C/7/2006/7003 was granted approval in 2006 for modifications within existing reed bed lagoon, addition of new reed beds together with ancillary works.

3.17 Planning permission reference C/7/2006/7018 was granted permission in 2006 for the variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission SP/C/7/2004/7001 (Consolidation of waste activities including composting in a building, waste transfer and storage) to allow the erection of a totally sealed steel thermal insulated cylindrical tank to process and remove oils from North Sea mud leaving recyclable ash product.

3.18 In 2007 planning permission reference C/7/2007/7015 was granted approval for the modification to existing waste transfer station including extensions & alterations to buildings & renewal and relocation of plant.

3.19 In 2009 planning permission reference C/7/2009/7021 was approved for the installation of a new transformer and energy generator. 4. Policy

4.1 National Planning Policy 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Framework 7 – Requiring Good Design 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Planning Policy Statements PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. 4.2 Norfolk Minerals and Waste : CS3 – Waste management capacity to be Development Framework provided Core Strategy and Minerals and CS4 – New waste management capacity Waste Development to be provided Management Policies Development Plan Document CS5 – General location of waste 2010-2026 (2011) management facilities CS6 – General waste management considerations CS7 – Recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion and waste transfer stations. CS13 – Climate change and renewable energy generation CS14 – Environmental protection CS15 – Transport CS16 – Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources DM1 - Nature Conservation DM3 – Groundwater and Surface Water DM4 - Flood Risk DM8 – Design, local landscape and townscape character DM9 – Archaeological sites DM10 – Transport DM11 – Sustainable construction and operations DM12 – Amenity DM13 – Air quality DM15 – Cumulative impacts

4.3 South Norfolk Local Plan (March : SP1 – Sustainable development 2003) Saved Policies SP2 – High standard of design SP10 – Main objective for transport and movement ENV1 – Protection of landscape IMP1 - Design IMP2 – Landscaping IM6 – Visual impact of parked cars IMP8 – Safe and free flow of traffic IMP9 – Residential Amenity IMP10 – Noise EMP6 – Alterations and extensions to existing business premises 4.4 Greater Norwich Development : Policy 1 – Addressing climate change Partnership Joint Core Strategy and protecting environmental assets. (2011) Policy 2 – Promoting good design. 5. Consultations

5.1 South Norfolk Council No objection.

5.2 Thurlton Parish Council No objections in general: • The bio-filter would seem to address the problem of odours emanating from the site. • Continued concerns regarding existing traffic and potential increased traffic from the site. • The B1140 is not suitable for heavy lorry movements. • A one way routing system should be conditioned. 5.3 Raveningham Parish Council Major point of concern is increased lorry movements along B1140. The B1140 is narrow and winding. Would the B1136 be safer for the additional lorry movements? 5.4 Haddiscoe Parish Council No response received.

5.5 Toft Monks Parish Council No response received.

5.6 Local Flood Authority No response received.

5.7 Highway Authority The application involves a significant increase in throughput from 75,000 tonnes to 175,000 tonnes. At present, the site generates 89 car/LGV movements and 116 HGV movements between 07:00 and 19:00. The traffic is shown within the TA to increase to 89 car/LGV movements and 156 HGV movements over the same 12 hour period. At present it would appear that vehicles associated with the development use the most direct route to the site which may not necessarily be the most appropriate route in terms of the County Council's Route Hierarchy. The Highway Authority wishes to see all traffic associated with the site access the strategic network at the closest point which in this case is the B1136. However other permissions at the site will allow some HGVs to continue to use the highway network as they wish. Therefore the Highway Authority would expect for this application that the applicant would enter into a S106 Routing Agreement which prohibits HGV traffic associated with the application from turning left out of the site and right into the site so that HGV traffic would only access/egress the site via the B1136 . The junction of the C516 (Thurlton Road) and B1136 Yarmouth Road has been subject to some considerable damage which needs to be addressed. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution through S106 Agreement to improvement of the kerbing and surfacing at the junction. Additionally, visibility in both directions is limited due to overgrown hedgerows and vegetation. Visibility splays will be provided by the applicant at 4.5 x 120m and land dedicated to the highway in order that the visibility can be maintained in the future. Again this will be covered by S106 Agreement. Subject to the S106 agreement being completed before the planning permission is granted, the Highway Authority would recommend no highway objection with the following conditions:-

• Construction/Traffic management routing.

• Wheel Cleaning Facilities – Temporary for Construction Vehicles

5.8 South Norfolk EHO The site is currently permitted by the Environment Agency and as such, they have the overall responsibility for enforcement of the permit, which includes issues such as noise and odour. It would appear that the future operations, along with proposed mitigation methods, described in the Environmental Statement, would reduce the noise levels at sensitive properties. From reviewing the Environmental Protection Team complaints database, there have been four odour nuisance complaints in relation to the above site since 2008. The extension of the compost building and the improvement to odour control should assist in reducing off-site odour. Recommend that comments produced by the Environment Agency in relation to flooding, noise and odour control be utilised if provided to the planning Authority. 5.9 Environment Agency Details submitted show the footprint is available for the construction of secondary containment bunds. Full details of the containment specification will be assessed through the Environmental Permit. The information submitted relating to odour will be sufficient for us to make an assessment as part of the permitting. The permit will set limits but not control how these limits are met. Have no objections to the proposed development on flood risk grounds, subject to a condition in respect of surface water. One of the three environmental permits does not currently regulate noise at the site as it was deemed unnecessary at the time due to the planning condition providing adequate control. Any permit variations would be subject to a review of noise where a more detailed evaluation of the noise assessment would be undertaken. 5.10 Natural England Since only additional developments to improve the current service of the facility are under consideration, we think it unlikely that there will be adverse effects incurred to the Broads wetland (1.4km away). Any effects would have been more likely during the full construction of the waste management facility, or if a change of operation was in progress. To protect the wetland it is imperative that Norfolk County Council is happy with the water source and drainage elements associated with the development. The facility currently appears to be well screened by trees. Providing all trees are replaced and the applicant carries out mitigation as suggested, we do not consider that there will be adverse effects to landscape character or visual amenity. The surveys have been completed according to good practice guidelines and we are satisfied that European protected species are unlikely to be adversely affected by this development. Mitigation for bats, reptiles and amphibians should be outlined in the construction management plan, which should be secured by planning condition. This development has great potential to support local wildlife, but there is little provision of Green Infrastructure (GI) in any of the reports. We are pleased that an attenuation lagoon is proposed and that the applicant intends to plant screening trees, but there are also opportunities to incorporate other enhancements such as green or brown walls and roofs, bird and bat boxes, reptile hibernacula, suitable habitat for reptiles and invertebrates (such as patches of long grass, south facing slopes and bare ground), wildlife corridors and hedges, shrubs and areas seeded with natural flower mix to attract birds and insects. We recommended securing a Landscape management Plan detailing all of the above green infrastructure/enhancement and providing details of new planting and maintenance regimes. 5.11 Anglian Water No response received.

5.12 Ecology Have no objections to the application with regard to ecology.

The Ecological Risk Assessment and Bat Survey are satisfactory and I agree with the conclusion that other than taking care when carrying out work with potential to disturb reptiles and nesting birds, no protected species are likely to be effected.

The applicant should follow the mitigation and enhancement advice suggested by their appointed ecologists to avoid causing disturbance or harm to wildlife during construction phases.

5.13 Landscape and Tree Officer The plant forms an established waste management facility. The existing and proposed operational area is relatively well screened from the wider countryside and has well established planting areas surrounding many parts of the site. There is an existing screen bund with well established planting along the B1136, however there are some partial views of buildings within the site. It is understood that the existing bunds within parts of this area are proposed to have additional height to appropriate gradients added as part of the application. Additional planting should also be planted on the mound and it is important to ensure that the established trees and shrubs near the existing bunds are retained. BS5837 Recommendations for trees in relation to construction should also be followed when the bunds are constructed. The application is satisfactory in landscape terms, subject to appropriate conditions. 5.14 Cllr T Tomkinson To be reported orally.

5.15 A public consultation has been • Highways concerns. carried out with those properties • Damage to highways and verges. closest to the site, a site notice has been posted and an advert • Damage to a rural environment. placed in local press. 22 • Vibration from HGVs. objections have been received from the Public/Third party • Welcome the potential consultations. Concerns in employment/increased employment summary are: security that this may bring to local area, but serious concerns regarding future industrial traffic. • Breach of planning law. • Vermin problems. • Loss of property value. • The current road system around the facility is not able to sustain the projected increase in traffic. • Cumulative impact - Consideration needs to be given to the pending application C/7/2011/7020. This application made by Manor Farm in conjunction with Earsham Gravel will result if granted in a further 80 daily heavy lorry movements along the same B roads. • There are positively no routes adequate or able to withstand the types and volume of transportation that this application will generate without catastrophic consequences. • Increase in traffic will result in a definite increase in accidents and fatalities. • Overdevelopment. • Odour. • Pollution from discharge pipeline. • Statements made throughout the application are in fact guess work and optimistic estimates, without much if any foundation in fact; all are designed to make the application look good. • The accident statement is out of date. • Light pollution. • Noise. 6. Assessment Site

6.1 The site at Crossways Farm is an established waste management facility, originally permitted in 1992 as a liquid transfer station. Numerous permissions have been granted since, for new and upgraded plant, equipment and buildings, including an enclosed composting process. Waste management is now the primary activity. Other separate uses at Crossways Farm include haulage depot, and engineering; these are outside the scope of the planning permissions issued by the County Council.

The application is for planning permission for a range of additional waste management infrastructure, some of which has already been installed, some of which has planning permission but has not been built in accordance with the approval and other elements that the applicant seeks to carry out at the site.

The proposed throughput of waste (commercial and industrial) is 175,000 tonnes per annum. Current planning permissions at the site are for 75,000 tonnes per annum. The Environmental Statement advises that the site is currently operating at a throughput of 130,000 tonnes per annum.

6.2 The waste facility operates between the hours of 07:30 – 18:00 hours during the week (Monday – Friday) and 07:30 – 13:00 hours on a Saturday.

6.3 The site is situated to the southern side of the B1136 Yarmouth Road, approximately 1km to the South of Thurlton. Raveningham is approximately 1.5km to the west, Haddiscoe approximately 2.5km to the east and Thurlton approximately 1km to the north. Access to the site is taken from the C516 Thurlton Road.

The site is situated approximately 3.7km from The Broads Special Area of Conservation and The Broadland Special Protection Area.

Proposal

6.4 The application seeks planning permission for the consolidation, update and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations, to include the following retrospective development: woodchip biofilter; extension to compost building; clarifier, shaker, conveyor, odour abatement system liquid scrubber; alteration to waste transfer building; relocation of trommel and filter press; office block; alterations to parking; ancillary buildings, equipment and storage.

The application also includes the following proposed development: lagoon; raised northern bund; treated trade effluent discharge pipeline; reedbed; biofilter/air extraction; access road; ancillary buildings and equipment.

6.5 The site is over 0.5ha and constitutes a development for the purposes of the disposal of waste. The application therefore falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations. It has been deemed that the development has the potential to have significant environmental effects and an Environmental Impact Assessment has therefore been submitted to support the application.

6.6 The site deals with a high number of different waste types, requiring many different waste processes to be performed in order to deal with the waste streams. On the site a wide range of development has taken place, some of which is unauthorised, some which has consent and some which has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Given the size of the site and the complexity of each process, for the purposes of this planning application it has been necessary to divide the site into eight process areas. There are four primary process areas which facilitate the treatment of the waste streams (1-4) and a further four process areas (5-8) which support the four primary process areas. A summary of these areas and a brief description of the process and what is being proposed is as follows:

6.7 Process Area 1: Compost and Packaged Food Waste Recycling Facility

This area is mainly comprised of an enclosed building with an attached canopy to provide shelter to parked trailers. There is also a large external yard area. Within the building there is a range of equipment including a shredder, trommels, conveyor and compost processing bays. Within the yard area there are further composting bays with fans to draw the air out of the material. There are also areas for the storage of screened products. This yard area is enclosed with bunding, the northern bund would be increased in height to match that of the eastern and southern bund. The whole of area 1 has been designed so that all surface water is fully contained.

6.8 The proposals seek permission to use the outside yard area for shredding, composting and storage. A covered bio-filter is also proposed along with the installation of other infrastructure to accommodate these uses. A storm water attenuation lagoon is also proposed to the northern part of the site behind existing hedging but adjacent to the B1136. 6.9 Process Area 2: Waste Sludge, Soil Washing and Separating facility This area is comprised of two underground waste reception bays, a trommel, four large underground settlement bays and three large above ground storage tanks. This application proposes to improve the use of this area by installing additional equipment in the form of a shaker, clarifier, storage tank and screen, odour abatement scrubber and waste reception access along with other supporting infrastructure. All of this equipment is currently in situ and functioning. This area is enclosed with existing bunding to the south and east. 6.10 Processes Area 3: Waste Transfer Station and Oil Recovery Comprised of three waste management processes, operating within the same area. These operations include waste transfer, oil recovery/Dissolved air flotation and oily rag washing. The existing waste transfer station building would remain and has now had alterations to the roof to provide additional space to the mezzanine level. A number of existing tanks would be decommissioned, a range of other tanks have been installed which would be complimented by a further 5 storage tanks. The existing oily rag plant would be relocated and an access has been created running south from the main entrance into the site. This area is screened by an embankment to the north and south and extensive tree cover along the western boundary. 6.11 Process Area 4: Waste Water Treatment Works This area receives and treats trade effluent generated from process areas 1, 2 and 3 of the waste facility. The effluent is in general pre-treated via the DAF unit situated within process Area 3. Third party waste waters are also treated in process area 4, arriving and discharging directly into this area. The application seeks permission for the installation of a number of tanks, ancillary equipment, filtration equipment reedbed extension and a boom pier and pontoon over the existing lagoon. The proposals also detail a discharge pipe which would run from the waste water treatment works in a south easterly direction, crossing Loddon Road and terminating at the discharge point. The liquid discharged would be the treated effluent from the works. This process area is located to the southern most point of the application site. There are a number of existing trees which provide useful coverage to the majority of the waste water treatment works. 6.12 Process Area 5: Amenities The amenities area is comprised of four main functions – an 8 space visitor car park, a new office block with meeting room, storage facilities and toilet facilities, the third area comprises of a weighbridge and single toilet and a new cycle rack. All four of these elements are situated to the south of the access road into the site and are already in situ with the exception of the cycle rack. 6.13 Process Area 6: Agricultural and Equipment Storage The site requires the use of agricultural machinery in order to carry out a number of operations such as annual ditch maintenance, hedgerow and tree management and cultivation of land. It is therefore required to have an area where these agricultural items can be stored. In addition to the agricultural machinery it is also proposed to use this area as a dedicated storage area for decommissioned/cleaned equipment not currently required for use by the site. It is proposed that this will continue to take place within a defined location fairly centrally within the site. 6.14 Process Area 7: Utilities Across the site there are a number of utilities in place to support the functioning of the site and the plant/machinery. These utilities are largely already in place consisting of service cables, transformer and generator equipment, gantry, internal access roads, crash barriers, staff car parking and site entrance gates. Additional utilities proposed to be installed at the site include additional crash barriers, utilities support structure and a fire water and pump house storage tank. 6.15 Process Area 8: Primary Odour Abatement System To improve the odour profile of the site a new large bio filter has been installed. The biofilter is a woodchip filter, with walls constructed of earth mounds, lined with an impermeable liner. The top of the biofilter has been grassed. Two fans are proposed to draw air into the biofilter. One of the fans would be situated centrally within the site in an area of existing planting next to the new bio filter, this fan would be capable of drawing 100% of the extraction required for process areas 1, 2 and 3. The secondary fan would draw odours from the oil plant recovery and would be situated within the ducting serving process areas 2 and 3. Emissions from specified tanks within areas 2 and 3 would be passed through a liquid scrubber to pre-teat the air prior to entry into the bio-filter. Principle of Development

6.16 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“ if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.17 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2016 (the “Minerals and Waste Core Strategy”), the saved policies of the South Norfolk District Local Plan (2006), Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011). National Planning Guidance which needs to be considered in determining this application is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. Whilst PPS10 remains the principal national document for assessing applications relating to waste, there are a number of NPPF policies that are also considered applicable.

6.18 The principle of this site being used as a Waste Management facility was established in 1992, through the grant of the original permission for the site to operate as a liquid waste transfer station. Numerous permissions have been granted since, for new and upgraded plant, equipment, buildings, including an enclosed composting process. Waste management is the primary activity at the site, however the farm also includes a haulage depot and engineering activities; these are outside of the scope of planning permissions issued by the county council. 6.19 This application seeks to bring together all aspects of the site within a single permission. There have been applications approved in the past for elements of the site, however some of the development is not authorised on the site and some has not be constructed in accordance with the approved detail. This application seeks to regularise this by seeking a single permission for the whole site with accurate plans detailing the different process areas and the equipment/plant which they contain.

6.20 The site is safeguarded under policy CS16 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy as it constitutes a waste site with a permitted input of over 20,000 tonnes per annum. It is therefore acknowledged that this site is an important facility which requires safeguarding.

6.21 National guidance on waste management is set out in PPS10. This encourages the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy, towards reducing, re-using, recycling and recovering value from waste. PPS10 also advises that where development plans are up to date and proposed waste development is consistent with the plan then LPA’s should not require applicants to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal.

6.22 This application seeks to improve the operation of the site and equipment, with a focus on moving waste further up the waste hierarchy and reducing the amount which would be directed to landfill. In this respect the proposals would accord with aims of PPS10.

6.23 The development proposed is for additional capacity for recycling, treatment and recovery of wastes, with the objective of minimising the amount which is subsequently destined for disposal. In terms of the national planning policy the proposals would be consistent with aims of the NPPF and PPS10 in promoting sustainable development and moving waste further up the waste hierarchy.

6.24 Policy CS3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the strategy for providing waste management capacity to meet that expected to arise from municipal and commercial and industrial waste. It advises that the expansion of existing recycling, composting and waste transfer sites will be considered favourable, providing they do not cause unacceptable harm to the environment, amenity and highways impact. Policy CS4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets the capacity of waste management capacity to be provided by the end of 2026. It also states that,

‘Appropriate handling, transfer and management capacity will also be provided for hazardous waste, but it is recognised that the specialist facilities required to treat and/or dispose of different hazardous waste streams may not be practicable to develop in Norfolk.’

The facility handles hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, and specialises in handling liquid wastes including oils. It undertakes recycling, treatment and recovery operations. The proposals include continued composting operations, enclosed within a building. There are no facilities in Norfolk for the final disposal of hazardous wastes and once separated from non-hazardous fractions, hazardous residues for disposal are exported from the County. The development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3 and CS4, in that the proposals seek expansion of a specialist existing waste site. The impact upon amenity, the environment and highways will be discussed later in this report.

6.25 Policy CS5 sets out the policy drive towards the general location in which waste management facilities should be located. It states: “Strategic” or “major” waste facilities should be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area, Great Yarmouth urban area, King’s Lynn or Thetford. There is a particular need for recovery (residual waste treatment) capacity to manage waste arising from these settlements. “Non-strategic” waste facilities – which will include most of the other types of waste facilities – should be well-related to one of these settlements or to the main market towns of Attleborough, Aylsham, Cromer, Dereham, Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham, Hunstanton, North Walsham, Sheringham, Swaffham, or Watton. Notwithstanding the general locational preference above, given the largely rural nature of Norfolk, it is acknowledged that there may also be some potential sites which are less well related to the major centres of population. Proposals in these locations should demonstrate that they would: i) be well-related to the major road network; or ii) take advantage of cross border opportunities for the efficient management of waste; or iii) enable the re-use of brownfield sites unsuitable for other uses. Agricultural waste treatment plants, windrow (open-air) composting plants, community composting plants, small scale local facilities (including “bring” sites for the collection of recyclables) will, due to their characteristics, be acceptable in locations more distant from the county’s main settlements. Such proposals will still need to be in compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies”.

The site is in the rural area, outside any settlement. By virtue of the throughput proposed being above 10,000 tonnes per annum, it is “strategic” or “major” as defined in paragraph 6.20 of the Core Strategy. It is 13km from Great Yarmouth and 20km from Norwich (11km from the edge of the Norwich Policy Area), and in the context of policy CS5 the site is not particularly well-related to the Norwich Policy Area or to Great Yarmouth. Core Strategy paragraph, supporting policy CS5, explains that “well-related is intended to mean: 10 miles or less from the four main settlements (apart from the Norwich Policy Area, which due to its size would not have such a zone)...” It further notes that “however it is not intended that these distances must be adhered to rigidly in all circumstances, without any potential flexibility”. The site lies on the B1136, approximately 3km from its junction with the A143 at Haddiscoe to the east and approximately 4km from the A146 at Hales to the west. In the context of policy CS5, sub para i), it would be reasonable to accept that it is well- related to the major local road network. With regard to the distance from the Norwich Policy Area and Great Yarmouth, its location is such that it reasonably serves both areas, and in view of the intended flexibility in the application of policy CS5, it can be concluded that the proposals are consistent with it.

6.26 Policy CS6 sets out the general waste management considerations in determining applications and states, “Waste sites will need to be developed in accordance with policy CS3 and will be acceptable, provided they would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts, on the following types of land: a) land already in waste management use; b) existing industrial/employment land or land identified for these uses in a Local Plan or Development Plan Document; c) other previously-developed land; and d) contaminated or derelict land. Unused or under-used agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages will also be suitable, in principle, for waste management uses, subject to impacts on the rural environment being acceptable.”

The development proposed is largely within an area developed as a waste management site and haulage depot. A new bio-filter is however proposed outside but adjacent to the existing developed area. Given that the proposal is largely for the upgrading of waste management facilities within an existing developed site, the development would be in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS6.

6.27 Policy CS7 advises that: “The expansion of, or development of new, recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, and waste transfer stations to handle all types of waste (inert, hazardous and non-hazardous) will be considered favourably so long as they would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and/or highways impacts. Proposals for composting plants (both enclosed and open- air) will need to be accompanied by a site-specific risk assessment based on clear evidence which shows that bio-aerosol levels can be maintained throughout the life of the operations, at appropriate levels at dwellings or workplaces within 250m of a facility”.

It is considered that subject to the development adhering to the amenity requirements of this policy in terms of light, odour, noise and highways issues the proposals would be generally in accordance with the aims of this policy.

Design/Landscape

6.28 The Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy DM8 states: “Development will be permitted if it will not harm the conservation of, or prevent the enhancement of, key characteristics of its surroundings with regard to the character of the landscape and townscape”. The policy requires a high standard of design which is compatible with the surrounding landscape.

6.29 Local Plan Policies SP2 and IMP1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies, also seek to maintain the quality of the appearance of sites, for new development within the district. Policy ENV1 of the plan also puts an emphasis on ensuring that new development is only permitted where it would not significantly harm the assets important to the character of the area.

6.30 National Guidance in the form of Part 7 (requiring good design) of the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Part 7 states that, decisions should aim to ensure that developments: “will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; “ PPS10 also requires waste management facilities to be well designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located.

6.31 The application site is well screened by existing mounding and planted woodland areas. The site is of an industrial appearance containing a wide range of buildings, storage tanks, machinery and infrastructure. Planting has taken place over a number of years and is now well established providing a good level of screening from views outside of the site. The existing mounding is mainly located around the boundaries and process areas to prevent the site from being overly intrusive within the landscape.

6.32 From outside of the site there are some features which are intermittently visible between and above the existing vegetation and mounds. Those features which are most prominent are the blue tank within process area 3, the extended and altered compost building within process area 1, some of the tanks relating to the waste water treatment works in area 4 and the bio filter and associated ducting within process area 8. The Environmental Statement acknowledges that these structures are visible in some views from identified sensitive receptors.

6.33 It is considered that as the site is of an industrial nature within a rural landscape it is important that the development detailed in this application does not unacceptably harm the appearance or character of the landscape in which it is located. The existing mounds and tree planting provide useful screening of the site. In addition to this the perimeter of the site is well planted with hedging and woodland. Views of the site are mainly medium to long distance, given the land ownership of the applicant forming a buffer around the site. The high tank within area 3 is to be painted green to reduce its visual impact and the composting building is also finished in a dark green colour to limit its prominence within the locality. The bio-filter is situated on the edge of the existing site and extends into what was an open field. The bio-filter is however formed with bunds that are grassed so the main part of the filter is not overly obtrusive. The ducting above ground is however visible from long range views, although as it has the backdrop of the industrial waste site it is not considered to have an unacceptable impact upon the appearance of the wider countryside setting. Additional planting will also in time provide additional screening to soften the appearance of the filter and associated ducting. The proposals in the context of the site and its surroundings are considered to be generally in- keeping with the scale and form of the development already permitted at the site. The bunding and tree planting will continue to offer a good level of screening and limit views from public areas and sensitive receptors. The proposed development are for these reasons considered to accord with the principles of Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, NPPF part 7 and South Norfolk Local Plan policies ENV1 and IMP1.

6.34 The car parking detailed in this application has already been constructed and has been sited so that the vehicles are not seen from outside of the site, with the exception of short range views of the visitor carparking from the main entrance to the site. The proposals in this respect are therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and IMP6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan.

6.35 The landscape and tree officer has advised that the plant forms an established waste management facility. And that the existing and proposed operational areas are relatively well screened from the wider countryside with well established planting areas surrounding many parts of the site. It has however been requested that replanting take place, where alterations to bunding and removal of trees for the access visibility splay are to take place. The arborist has also raised no objections to the proposals subject to the existing trees and hedging being protected during development and replanting provided for the loss of any trees as a result of the provision of the visibility splay.

6.36 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application contains a Landscape and visual impact assessment, which concludes that:

‘The proposed development will be absorbed into the existing Waste Facility. Boundary planting and mounds will be retained and, with time, strengthened to ensure the facility continues to be screened from potential visual receptors and to preserve the character of the surrounding agricultural landscape.’

6.37 It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions the proposals would not have any unacceptable impact upon the appearance of the local landscape and the comments from the landscape section are in line with the findings in the Environmental Statement.

Amenity

6.38 Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “The protection of amenity for people in close proximity to potential minerals extraction and associated developments and waste management facilities will be a key consideration. Where appropriate, buffer zones, advanced planting and/or screening and other mitigation measures, such as restriction on hours of working and dust suppression measures, will be required. Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the construction and or/operation of a facility.” 6.39 South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policy IMP9 also seeks to protect the amenities of nearby residents from development that would have significant adverse impacts.

6.40 In terms of amenity there have been objections raised regarding an increase in odour, noise, light and traffic from the site, as a result of the proposed development. Odour, noise and light issues will be discussed in this section and concerns relating to traffic will be addressed later in the report.

6.41 It has been confirmed by statutory consultees that in the past there have been complaints received relating to odour and noise. The Environmental Statement advises that as a result of the complaints, the EA, as regulator of the facility, has issued an enforcement notice to M. Gaze and Co. Ltd, requiring the production of a formal Odour Management Plan. The OMP is to include details of best practice measures, along with the improvements in odour abatement plant proposed within this application that will be implemented to eliminate and control odour emissions from the process. As the site is regulated by the Environment Agency under their permitting regime, they ultimately have responsibility for regulating noise and odour from the site. The EA operate three permits at the site these cover hazardous waste treatment and storage operations, non-hazardous waste treatment and storage operations together with composting activities.

6.42 It is acknowledged that the processes carried out at the site namely within the waste water treatment works, reed beds, oil reception pits, trommels and the composting areas release odour, bio-aerosols and volatile organic compounds. An air quality assessment with odour modelling has been submitted as part of the Environmental Statement. The EA initially requested additional information as the odour modelling which had been carried out with the assessment has not fully addressed the potential changes in odour relating to seasonal factors. Further odour modelling was carried out and the EA have advised that they are now satisfied with the findings and are raising no objection to the application on these grounds.

6.43 The application seeks to install an odour collection and abatement system, primarily consisting of a new bio-filter with associated ducting and fan to draw air through the system. The Environmental Statement advises that the new bio-filter would collect 125,000 m3 of air per hour extracted from a number of odorous sources within Process areas 1, 2 and 3. The ES further states that whilst the installation of the bio-filter is to reduce emissions taken from the processes, research has also shown that they are effective in reducing emissions from bio-aerolsols and VOC’s. The upgraded extraction system at the composting building would ensure that this building would operate under negative pressure, with waste arriving into the building fitted with a rapid roller shutter door. The air extraction system is detailed within the ES as being capable of enabling three air changes of the volume of the building per hour. The used air would be pulled through a series of pipes before being processed through the new bio-filter.

6.44 The EHO has advised that they have received 4 odour nuisance complaints in relation to the site since 2008. They have also advised that the extension to the compost building and improvement to odour control should assist in reducing off-site odour. Advice regarding noise states that the site has a low background noise level and that Environmental Statement shows that noise from the site would be below this level. The EHO has not raised any objection to the proposals and state,

‘It would appear that the future operations, along with proposed mitigation methods, described in the ES, would reduce the noise levels at sensitive properties.’

In considering the advice provided by the EHO the proposals are considered to be in accordance with Policy DM12, as there would be an improvement to the existing odour and noise controls at the site.

6.45 As the site is regulated by the EA, they ultimately have responsibility for the control of noise and odour. They have a statutory obligation to monitor and regulate these. In their comments on this application they have advised that the existing permits will need to be renewed and permit variation applications submitted as necessary. The EA have raised no objections to the application on either noise or odour grounds. NPPF paragraph 122 advises that: ‘Local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.’

6.46 Para 122 of the NPPF advises that LPA’s should assume that regimes controlling noise, odour and pollution will operate effectively and should not be focused on in determining planning applications. It is therefore considered that as this is an established use of land and the EA, who ultimately have a statutory duty to regulate this site through their environmental permitting regime have not raised any objection to the application, then the proposals are acceptable and would comply with para 122 of the NPPF.

6.47 The development proposed in this application would result in an increase in waste being processed at the site. The existing permission allow for 75,000 tonnes per annum. This application seeks to increase this to 175,000 tonnes per annum. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is a significant increase, there have been no objections from statutory consultees who are in agreement with the findings of the ES in that the impact of noise and odour to properties close to the site should improve with the introduction of the new odour abatement system and noise mitigation measures. In order to reduce noise levels a number of measures have taken place including placing the ducting for the bio- filter at ground level where possible, bunding would be situated around the extractor fan for the bio-filter, machinery contained within buildings where possible and doors shut on the main composting building, both to maintain the negative pressure and reduce noise emanating from the operations inside.

6.48 Policy CS7 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states, the expansion of, or development of new recycling facilities will be considered favourably, so long as they would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and/or highways impacts. These issues have been discussed within the report and it is considered that the proposals would accord with the principles of this policy.

6.49 Lighting has also been raised as an issue of potential concern from third party consultations. The Environmental Statement advises that:

‘Lighting within the site is limited to the operational areas within the northern part and south eastern corner, comprising low-intensity, internal lighting to buildings and higher-intensity, external floodlighting to working areas. The remainder of the site is unlit.’

No objections have been received from statutory consultees in respect of the lighting. A condition is however proposed to ensure that the angle of the lighting is such that it illuminates only the areas in which it is situated and does not cause unnecessary glare beyond the site boundaries and spill into the open countryside. The proposals in this respect are considered to accord with policy DM8, in that unnecessary visual intrusion into the countryside will not be caused by the proposed development.

6.50 It is acknowledged that there have been a number of objections received in respect of odour and noise arising from the proposals for this site. However, as these issues are regulated by the Environment Agency, through the permitting regime and national planning guidance states that this is not a matter to be dealt with in determining the planning application.

6.51 In summary it is considered the variations sought will cause no material harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the local area and wider countryside setting that cannot be controlled through the Environment Agency permitting regime, the proposals would therefore comply with Policies DM12 and CS7 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and para 122 of the NPPF.

Highways

6.52 Policies CS15 and DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy require proposals to demonstrate that there is suitable highway access, will not generate unacceptable impacts on the capacity and/or efficiency of the highway network, and that proposals do not cause unacceptable risks including to the safety of road users. South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policy IMP8 also only permits development which would not endanger highway safety or prejudice the free flow of traffic on the highway network.

6.53 PPS10 advises that in determining applications for enhanced waste management facilities consideration will need to include the suitability of the road network and extent to which the access would require reliance on local roads.

6.54 The application involves a significant increase in permitted throughput from 75,000 tonnes per annum to 175,000 tonnes per annum. The site is currently operating at a throughput of 130,000 tpa, which the Environmental Statement advises is within the EA permit thresholds but outside of the permitted planning permission limits.

6.55 The Transport Statement indicates that the site currently generates 89car/LGV movements and 116 HGV movements between 07:00 and 19:00. The Transport Statement shows that this would increase to 89car/LGV movements and 156 HGV movements over the same 12 hour period.

6.56 It is understood and has been confirmed by a high number of objections that vehicles travelling to and from this site use the most direct route which is not always the most appropriate route in terms of the County Council’s Route Hierarchy. The highways authority have advised that:

‘The Highway Authority wishes to see all traffic associated with the site access the strategic network at the closest point which in this case is the B1136. However other permissions at the site will allow some HGVs to continue to use the highway network as they wish.’

The highways authority has therefore requested that the applicant enter into a Section 106 routing agreement, which would prohibit HGV traffic associated with this development from turning left out of the site and right into the site. This would therefore mean that traffic would only access/egress the site via the shortest route possible to the B1136.

6.57 The junction which traffic would be required to use in order to access the site would be the C516 (Thurlton Road) and B1136 (Yarmouth Road) junction. The highways authority have confirmed that in the past this junction has suffered considerable damage and this application provides an opportunity to address this. The applicant has advised that they are willing to make a financial contribution towards improving the kerbing and surfacing at the junction. This could also be controlled through the S106 agreement. In addition to this the visibility at the junction is not currently of an acceptable standard in both directions. The highways authority have therefore requested that the visibility splays be improved to 4.5m x 120m, and the land dedicated to the highways so that the splays can be maintained in the future. Again this could also be covered with the S106 agreement.

6.58 The Highway Authority are now satisfied with the proposals and offer no objection subject to the completion of the S106 covering the details outlined above. The Highways Authority have also requested that conditions relating to construction management routing and wheel washing are also applied to this application. These conditions are set out in full in the conditions schedule and are typical of those applied to other similar types of development, with an aim to reduce any adverse impacts upon the highways network during any construction works. The highway impact resulting from the proposals set out in this application are therefore considered acceptable, and should result in a reduction of HGV’s from this site using inappropriate roads. Subject to conditions and completion of a S106 agreement the proposals are considered to be compliant with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

6.59 A high number of objections received from the public consultations in respect of this application, detail HGV traffic as being a major concern. Strong objection has been expressed advising particularly that the road network around the site including the B1136 is not capable of supporting the proposed development. The objections also state that the C516 (Thurlton Road) is not suitable for HGV’s, and is regularly used as a ‘rat-run’, with vehicles causing damage to properties, the highway and making this a very dangerous road.

6.60 In response to the objections it is considered that as there are currently no restrictions on the route the vehicles take to and from this site, then this application provides an opportunity to address this. The highways officer considers that the B1136 is suitable for the acceptance of the levels of traffic detailed in the application. And subject to a routing agreement there should be an improvement for those living along the C516 (Thurlton Road), which by its nature is not suitable for accommodating high numbers of HGV’s. The proposals are in this respect considered to have no unacceptable impact upon the highways network, and there have been no objections form statutory consultees subject to conditions and S106 agreement being completed.

Cumulative Impact

6.61 A number of objections have been raised on the cumulative impact of this application and application C/7/2011/7020, which is an application for sand and gravel extraction at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe. The highways officer has been consulted in this issue and has provided the following comments:

‘The cumulative impact of these two developments would not be grounds for a highways objections. Both access directly onto the B1136 which is a Main Distributor Road that links to the A146 and the A143 which are Strategic Roads. These are absolutely the type of roads that HGV traffic from minerals and waste developments should access onto. The junctions of the A146/B1136 and A143/B1136 will be busier but will not be not at capacity at any time of day or night.’

It is therefore considered that the cumulative impact in terms of traffic increase within the locality would not be grounds for refusal of this application, and the proposals would accord with the principles of policy DM15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026.

Ecology

6.62 The Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS14 states: “The protection and enhancement of Norfolk’s natural and built environments is a vital consideration for future minerals extraction and associated development and waste management facilities in the county. In particular, developments must ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on, and ideally improvements to biodiversity and geodiversity, including nationally and internationally designated sites and species, habitats and sites identified in Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plans.”

6.63 The Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy DM1 seeks to safeguard locally designated nature conservation and geodiversity sites and/or habitats, species or features identified in UK and Norfolk biodiversity and geodiversity action plans. An Ecological Risk Assessment and Bat Survey has been submitted with the application and concludes that there are no statutory or non-statutory protected species likely to be affected by the proposed development.

6.64 Mitigation measures have been included within the assessment to address and remove the limited ecological risks associated with the site. The council’s ecologist has advised that the risk assessment is satisfactory and is in agreement with the conclusions made in the assessment. Subject to work on the site being carried out with care taken not to disturb reptiles and nesting birds, no protected species are likely to be affected by the proposed development in accordance with the principles of policies CS14 and DM1.

6.65 Natural England have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection to the proposals, advising that they think it unlikely that there will be adverse effects incurred to the wetlands, landscape character or visual amenity and European protected species as a result of this development. In line with policy CS14 and NPPF-11, Natural England have identified that whilst there is unlikely to be harm to local wildlife, ideally there should be enhancements incorporated into the development to improve the Green Infrastructure at this site. It is suggested that a Landscape management Plan, detailing Green Infrastructure enhancements and new planting/maintenance regimes in agreed by way of condition. Natural England have also requested that mitigation for bats, reptiles and amphibians should be detailed in a construction management plan, again this can be controlled by condition. The proposals and suggested conditions are considered to be acceptable and would help in protecting and improving habitats within the site.

6.66 NPPF - 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; sets the key decision making objectives in relation to ecology and biodiversity. The key test is whether a development proposal is consistent with the objectives of sustainable development by ensuring that biological diversity is conserved and that decisions about development and use of land integrate biodiversity with other considerations.

The aim is to conserve and enhance diversity by sustaining, and where possible, improving the quality and extent of natural habitats and the populations of naturally occurring species which they support. The NPPF further advises that development which would result in significant harm to biodiversity and areas offered specific protection, such as SPA/SAC/SSSI, should be refused.

6.67 The application site is within approximately 3.7km from The Broads Special Area of Conservation which is a European protected habitat. The application has been assessed in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and based on the information submitted to the County Planning Authority (CPA) it is considered that the development does not have a significant impact on the integrity of any protected habitat. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the CPA to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development.

Flood Risk and Pollution

6.68 Policy DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and NPPF -10 require a Flood Risk Assessment to accompany the application as the site exceeds 1 hectare in size. The site is situated entirely within flood Zone 1, which the Flood Risk assessment advises has a less than 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability of river or sea flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the overall runoff from the proposed site is no greater than the existing site. The Environment Agency have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the applicant to submit details of the surface water drainage, which is considered to be reasonable and in accordance with the aims of NPPF-10 and Policy DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

6.69 Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy advises that applicants will need to give due regard to the policies within the Environment Agency’s document ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice GP3’. Policy DM3 also advises that sites for waste management will not be permitted in Groundwater Protection Zone 1. This site is not within Groundwater Protection Zone 1 so would accord with that part of Policy DM3.

6.70 The Environment Agency initially objected to the proposals as the there was no secondary containment proposed around existing and proposed tanks. The applicant has further submitted plans detailing the secondary containment which the EA have confirmed they find acceptable, with full details/specification being required through agreement of the Environmental Permit. In summary, no objection has been received from the EA in respect of flooding, groundwater and surface water, which cannot be controlled by condition or detailed at a later date through the permitting regime. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with Policy DM3 and DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

6.71 This application also details a treated trade effluent discharge pipeline running from the waste water treatment works, in a south easterly direction, crossing Loddon Road and terminating within a field which is within the applicant’s ownership. The Environmental permits states that the site currently benefits from a discharge consent at this location which the treated trade effluent will meet. The Environment Agency have raised no objections to this part of the proposals and the discharge will be monitored/regulated by the EA permitting regime.

6.72 Sustainability

Policy CS13 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy advises that:

“All opportunities for new minerals and waste developments (both brand new sites and extensions to existing sites) to generate renewable energy on-site will be welcomed and should be explored fully, with a minimum of 10 per cent generated from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, wherever this is practicable. Where it is not considered practicable to meet this 10 per cent minimum – perhaps because of financial reasons, site size, physiographical restraints of a site, and/or other environmental considerations/constraints (e.g. landscape impacts) – appropriate evidence must be provided to the County Planning Authority.

National planning guidance in the form of the NPPF also puts an emphasis on the need to achieve sustainable development, through increasing the supply and use of renewable and low carbon energy. The guidance also expects where there is new development taking place applicants should comply with the local plan requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that this is not feasible.

6.73 In terms of this application the planning statement advises the development would produce ‘useful bi-products, for example refined oil and high quality compost, which can be used as a nutrient-rich fertiliser’ and ‘there will be limited waste arising from the construction of the Waste Facility, and construction materials will be sourced locally as far is possible’. Whilst these are noted as positive factors they do not fully address the requirements of Policy CS13 which requires investigation into renewable energy generation on site. The applicant has however agreed to source 10% of the sites energy consumption from a renewable source (green energy tariff). Whilst no energy generation is proposed on site this commitment, which can be controlled by way of condition is considered to accord with the general aim in promoting and using green energy.

6.74 Response to Objections

Issues relating to increase in traffic and highways safety/damage around the local road network have been discussed in the report. In summary the highways authority have raised no objection subject to conditions, improvements to the junction between the C516 and the B1136 and a S106 routing agreement being completed so that traffic is prohibited from using the C516 and is directed towards the strategic road network via the shortest route.

Odour and noise have been discussed in the application. The site is regulated by the Environment Agency who have the ultimate responsibility for odour and noise. The EA have raised no objections to the proposals and are satisfied with the additional odour modelling and secondary containment details which have been submitted as part of the application. It is expected that the new bio-filter will improve odour issues previously experienced around the site.

Objections regarding house price and the retrospective nature of the application are not material planning considerations in determining this application. Light pollution has been discussed in the report as has pollution from the discharge point.

7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance: The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.2 Staff: The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.3 Property: The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT: The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8. Other Implications

8.1 Legal Implications There are no Legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.2 Human Rights

8.3 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant. 8.4 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed. 8.5 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents. 8.6 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

8.7 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 8.8 Communications: There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.9 Health and Safety Implications: There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.10 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

9.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application. 10. Risk Implications/Assessment

10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

11.1 The application is for planning permission for a range of additional waste management infrastructure, some of which has already been installed, some of which has planning permission but has not been built in accordance with the approval and other elements that the applicant seeks to carry out at the site. A number of the items proposed in the application are to accommodate the variety of waste processes carried out at the site and the increase in waste being handled which would increase from the permitted 75,000 tpa to 175,000 tpa. Other measures such as a large new bio-filter are proposed in order to deal with the greater quantities of waste being handled and also to adequately deal with amenity issues off site. The overall application seeks to consolidate everything relating to the waste management at the site under a single permission, accurately identifying all aspects of the site.

11.2 The proposals in terms of noise, odour, light pollution and highways have attracted objection, these objections have been discussed in the report. The Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officer have not raised any objections to the proposals. The site is regulated by the Environment Agency and the National Planning Policy Framework advises, these concerns should not be focused on in the planning considerations but should be dealt with through the Environmental permit.

11.3 No objections have been raised by statutory consultees and the highway authority considers the proposals to be acceptable subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement requiring access improvements and a vehicle routing agreement, taking traffic to the strategic highway network via the shortest route possible. No objections have been received from statutory consultees in respect of landscape impact or protected species. The application in summary is therefore considered to constitute an acceptable form of development, in accordance with local, regional and national planning policy as discussed within the report.

12. Conditions 12.1 It is recommended that planning permission for the application should be granted subject to the following conditions: i) The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plans and documentation.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ii) The plant hereby permitted shall be limited to that described in the planning application Ref. C/7/2011/7018, and shall not be materially altered, or relocated except with permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Reason: To ensure orderly working in the interest of protecting the amenities of nearby properties and the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. iii) No operation authorised or required under this permission shall take place on Sundays or public holidays, or other than during the following periods:-

07.30 - 18.00 Mondays to Fridays 07.30 - 13.00 Saturdays

Other than those activities and operations required to be carried out outside these hours, the scope of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA within one month of the date of this permission.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. iv) No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste per annum shall be brought onto the site and from the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of their monthly imported materials and shall make them available to the County Planning Authority at any time upon request. All records shall be kept for at least 12 months.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. v) Measures shall be taken to minimise dust nuisance caused by the operations, including spraying of road surfaces and operational areas as necessary.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. vi) All external lighting on the site shall be maintained and installed such that it will not cause glare beyond the site boundaries.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. vii) No plant or machinery shall be used on the site unless it is maintained in a condition whereby it is efficiently silenced.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. vii) Any drums and small containers used for oil and other chemicals on the site shall be stored in bunded areas which do not drain to any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaways and all oil or chemical storage tanks, ancillary handling facilities and equipment including pumps and valves shall be contained within an impervious bunded area of at least 110% of the total stored capacity

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. ix) No materials shall be placed or stored on the site such that their height would enable them to be visible from outside the application site.

Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policies CS14 and DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. x) No food waste composting shall be carried out on any part of the site other than in the purpose built compost building.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, to accord with the Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xi) Measures shall be taken to ensure that vehicles leaving the site shall not be in a condition whereby they would deposit mud or other loose material on the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and visual amenity in accordance with Policies DM8 and DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xii) Surface water drainage, incorporating sustainable drainage principals, shall be implemented to ensure that the surface water run-off from Process Area 1 is reduced compared to the existing rates, and to ensure that attenuation storage shall be provided within an attenuation basin for the volume of surface water produced up to 1% annual probability of occurrence rainfall event (including allowances for climate change)

Details of capacity of the WWTW and storage tanks shall be provided to demonstrate that it is sufficient for the additional proposed development, to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xiii) Prior to the commencement of any further works on site, the applicant shall ensure that:

a) each tree within the vicinity of the works shall be enclosed within a protective fence in accordance with the criteria laid down in BS 5837: ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ and as detailed in the ‘Guidelines of the National Joint Utilities Group’, for the period whilst works are in progress. Such protection shall include, as necessary, trial hand digging to assess the spread of tree roots within the site and be carried out in liaison with, and to the written approval of, the County Planning Authority, shall;

b) any excavations carried out within the vicinity of the tree roots shall be carried out by hand.

Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees in the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xiv) Within one month of the date of this pemission a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk County Council Highway Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are used by construction traffic.

Reason:In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xv) For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the development will comply with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and use only the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xvi) Within one month of the date of this permission details of wheel cleaning facilities for construction vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xvii) For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the development permitted will use the approved wheel cleaning facilities provided referred to in condition 17.

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xviii) Any damaged or felled trees shall be replaced with trees of a species, size and in a precise location as to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The trees shall be planted at the next available planting season.

Reason:To protect the amenities of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010- 2026. xviv) Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a detailed planting scheme, which includes Green Infrastructure such as green or brown walls and roofs, bird and bat boxes, reptile hibernacula, suitable habitat for reptiles and invertebrates (such as patches of long grass, south facing slopes and bare ground), wildlife corridors and hedges, shrubs and areas seeded with natural flower mix to attract birds and insects shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season after the approval of the planting scheme and be thereafter retained.

Reason: To provide a additional habitats for protected or priority species in accordance with policy DM1 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xvv) 10% of the sites energy consumption shall be sourced from a renewable source (green energy tariff). Details of the tariff and energy breakdown will be made available to the Local Planning Authority upon request and kept for at least 12 months.

Reason: In order to minimise energy consumption and to comply with the aims of Policy CS13 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026. xvvi) Prior to any work being carried out within the visibility splay as shown on Plan no. 47045107 dated April 2012. Full details of the tree works shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The tree works shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and BS3998 (Tree work recommendations).

Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees in the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

(i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of a routing agreement, junction improvements and dedication of land to the County to maintain visibility splays, and the conditions listed above in Section 12.

(ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period.

(iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers • National Planning Policy Framework • Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management • Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 adopted September 2011. • South Norfolk Local Plan (2007) • Application Files as listed in Planning History Section 3.0 • Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address

Charles Colling 01603 222708 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Charles Colling or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

Land within the Applicant's Ownership ±

D e f

Crossways Farm GP L T D E e f WB

Tank The Application Site Land within the Applicant's Ownership

Farm

Def

D ef

R

C The Application Site Def

RH

k De T f C

© Crown copyright and database rights Land within the 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 11 January 2013 Applicant's Ownership

C R 11 January 2013

C/7/2011/7018 - Crossways Farm Metres 0 50 100 200 300 400 Thurlton Scale 1: 5000 Centred on 641815 296881 ±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 11 January 2013

11 January 2013

C/7/2011/7018 - Crossways Farm Metres 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 Thurlton Scale 1: 20000 Centred on 641849 296875 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 25 January 2013 Item No. 5c Development by the County Council Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk Council: Application Y/7/2012/7012: Bracon Ash/Wreningham: Two storey extension to existing engineering facility to provide 16 incubator units, biomass plant including fuel storage and flue to rear, carparking, extended service yard, attenuation swale, landscaping and associated works at Hethel Engineering Centre: Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The application relates to the erection of a 2-storey link extension to Hethel Engineering Centre to provide 16 ‘grow-on’ incubator units and associated works.

This is a revised scheme; Members may recall a similar application was presented to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee on 25 May 2012 (see attached appendix 2). Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement between the applicant and the relevant landowner in order to facilitate access works required to provide temporary vehicular access off Potash Lane during the construction period. To date, the S106 legal agreement has not been signed, therefore the planning permission has not been issued.

One objection has been received from a local resident, who has raised concerns in relation to the size, design and height of the proposed building and the increased traffic and noise. No objections have been received from any statutory consultee.

Whilst the application site lies within open countryside the principle of the development has already been established. The proposed development if granted would not only create jobs but bring wide reaching economic benefits to the County, which significant weight has been afforded to in favour of the proposal.

The application is the Director of Environment, Transport and Development; in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, the application is brought to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for determination.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 11 of this report. (ii) To discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted. (iii) Delegate powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted. 1. The Proposal

1.1 The proposal is for : • The erection of a 2-storey extension to provide 16 ‘grow-on’ incubator units; • Formation of a car park providing 95 spaces and provision for 12 cycles and motor cycles in the form of 5 fixed hoops.; • Single storey building to the rear to contain biomass plant and fuel storage; • Extension to the existing service yard to the rear of the proposed extension; • Installation of 265 photovoltaic’s to the roof; • Installation of external lighting; • Re-routing of the over head power line; • Landscaping and associated works 2. Constraints

2.1 The application site lies within open countryside in the South Norfolk Local Plan. An overhead power line crosses the site and is to be redirected as part of this proposal.

3. Planning History

3.1 Y/7/2012/7001 - Two storey extension to create advanced engineering facility including 16 incubator units; building to rear containing biomass plant; car parking; landscaping; temporary works access off Potash Lane and re-routing of power line – Members of the Planning Regulatory Committee on 25 May 2012 resolved to grant planning permission subject to a S106 to facilitate a access works required to provide a temporary vehicular access off Potash Lane.

3.2 Y/7/2011/7018 - Construction of a new two storey extension to the existing Engineering building to create an Advanced Engineering Facility. This will provide 8 Nr large 'incubator' units (each with ground floor workshop and first floor office space and access to new toilets linked to the existing main building by a single storey corridor. New single storey building containing the new biomass plant and fuel storage. New car park and new extended tenant service yard (fenced to match existing). New surface water attenuation swale and new landscaping of extended site. Temporary contractor access off Potash Lane for the construction contract period only, removed at completion. Removal of overhead power cable crossing the site - re-route underground around the new building. Site continues to be used as an engineering centre – Withdrawn 05/01/2012

3.3 Y/7/2010/7031 - Discharge of condition 5 & 6 of pp Y/7/2009/7042 – Conditions Discharged 04/01/2011

3.4 Y/7/2010/7002 - Discharge of Conditions 8. 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of PP Y/7/2009/7042 – Conditions Discharged 24/02/2010 3.5 Y/7/2009/7042 – Extensions and alterations to existing engineering centre to provide 11 additional single storey incubator units with mezzanine floors; associated outside access and service areas with new landscaping – Permitted 04/01/2010

3.6 The planning history below relates to planning applications held by South Norfolk Council.

3.7 07/2004/1800/F – Proposed single storey building to house new Centre for Engineering Excellence including associated parking, service area and landscaping – Permitted 06/10/2004.

3.8 07/1990/1971/F - Erection of workshops, offices, hard standings, recreation area sports club/swimming pool and parking and treatment plant – Permitted.

3.9 07/1987/2803/O - Outline planning permission for the erection of vehicle workshops, offices, hard standings and recreation area – Permitted.

4. Planning Policy

4.1 The National Planning : Achieving Sustainable Development Policy Framework 1. Building a strong, competitive economy (NPPF) 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

4.2 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 1: Addressing Climate Change and Broadland, Norwich and Protecting Environmental Assets South Norfolk (2011) Policy 2: Promoting Good Design Policy 3: Energy and Water Policy 5: The Economy Policy 9: Strategy for growth in the Norwich Policy Area

4.3 South Norfolk Local Plan : ENV8 Development in open countryside (March 2003) Saved EMP4 Employment development outside Policies development limits and village boundaries of identified towns EMP6 Alterations and extensions to existing business premises IMP2 Landscaping IMP8 Safe and free flow of traffic IMP9 Residential amenity IMP10 Noise

5. Consultations

5.1 South Norfolk Council : No response received at the time of writing this report. 5.2 Environmental Health : No response received at the time of writing this Officer (EHO) report. 5.3 Bracon Ash Parish : No response received at the time of writing this Council report. 5.4 Wreningham Parish : No response received at the time of writing this Council report. 5.5 Highway Authority : No objections subject to conditions regarding the delineation, levelling, surfacing and draining of the access, parking provision, servicing, unloading/loading, turning and waiting areas; a scheme detailing on-site parking provision for construction workers; a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Travel Plan be imposed on any grant of planning permission.

5.6 Environment Agency : No objections subject to a condition regarding surface water drainage and informatives regarding foul drainage and the biomass plant/fuel storage are imposed on any grant of planning permission.

5.7 Natural England : Natural England does not consider that the application poses any likely significant risk to features of the natural environment.

5.8 Trees (NCC) : No objections.

5.9 Landscape (NCC) : No objections.

5.10 Ecology (NCC) : No objections in relation to ecology.

5.11 Norfolk Historic : Have considered the application and make no Environment Service comments. (Archaeology) 5.12 Norwich International : No safeguarding objections in relation to the Airport application.

5.13 County Councillor: : No response received at the time of writing this Mr J Herbert report. 5.14 Local Residents : One letter of objection has been received. Concerns in summary are as follows: • The size, design and height of the proposed building • Disruption – increased noise and traffic The objection is addressed in more detail in the main body of the report.

6. Assessment 6.1 Proposal

6.2 Planning permission is sought for a 2-storey extension linked to the existing Hethel Engineering Centre (HEC) in order to create an Advanced Engineering Facility. The extension would provide 16 ‘grow-on’ incubator units, each with a ground floor workshop and first floor office area; new shared toilet accommodation with a linked corridor to the existing Centre; a new biomass boiler for the new workshops and existing building heating; air source heat pumps providing heating/cooling to the new offices; and 265 photovoltaic’s to the roof. 6.3 The proposed development also includes an extended service yard and additional parking; a cycle pathway within the site; landscape works around the new facility; a new surface water swale; and the diversion of the existing overhead power line around the perimeter of the site. 6.4 The proposed development will provide a total internal floorspace of approximately 4155m², with each incubator unit providing a total internal floor area of approximately 200-250m². 6.5 The key changes between this application and the one previously presented to the PRC include: • A funding requirement was introduced to achieve BREAAM Excellent – increased number of photovoltaic panels, the performance of the vehicular doors is increased, the condenser units have been relocated to the roof, the extent of louvres and the size of the plant room has increased • The biomass boiler flue has increased by 1.5m • The internal layout has been amended • The construction access has changed from Potash Lane to being via the existing HEC access • Changes to the hard and soft landscaping • The service yard has been reconfigured • Alterations to the fenestration • Alterations to the link corridor

6.6 Site

6.7 Approximately 600m south of the main Lotus complex, the application site relates to an area of land to the east of the existing HEC, and is currently arable farmland. 6.8 Potash Lane bounds the application site to the east, and arable farmland is located beyond this. The site is within a rural area however there is sporadic development such as the existing Engineering Centre, and residential development to the east (The Old Pump House) and properties at Penny’s Green to the south of the site.

6.9 Vehicular access is via Wymondham Road (B1135), to the south of application site, via Chapman Way, which in turn continues north to the Lotus motor works plant. 6.10 Principle of Development

6.11 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“ if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.12 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents, in relation to this application are, the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies and the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011). In addition, national planning policy in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) is another material consideration and also needs to be considered in determining this planning application.

6.13 The application site lies within open countryside, therefore Policy ENV8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (SNLP) (March 2003) Saved Policies applies. This policy restricts development in the open countryside unless development: i) Is a requisite for agriculture or forestry; or ii) Is justified to sustain economic and social activity in rural communities, and demands a rural location; or iii) Is for the suitable adaptation and re-use of an existing rural building

6.14 Whilst the proposed development does not fully accord with this policy, with regard to criteria ii, the proposed development would help to sustain economic activity.

6.15 Saved Policy EMP4 of SNLP permits employment development outside of the development limits and village boundaries if (amongst other criteria):- i) There are no alternative sites or premises within the identified Development Limits which are either suitable or available.

It is considered that the proposed development would accord with this policy and the application has been supported with information to suggest this, which is considered further in this report.

6.16 At a national level, the Government places great emphasis on securing economic growth. At a local level, the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) (JCS) provides a wider strategic view for growth and development for a defined area until 2026. Policy 9 of the JCS specifically identifies Hethel as a location for a technology park, with improved accessibility particularly to Wymondham, to provide around 20ha of development focussed on high-tech engineering. In September 2011, South Norfolk Council published its Site Specific Policies and Allocations Consultation - Issues and Options stage. This identifies the application site as part of a larger area identified with strong potential for development. Whilst the final and adopted Site Specific and Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) cannot be pre-empted, there is considered to be a strong possibility that the site and wider area will ultimately allocated for employment/high tech engineering uses in line with Policy 9 of the JCS.

6.17 Whilst the application site lies within open countryside, significant weight has been attached to the economic benefits that the proposed development, if approved, would bring to the County. Given the planning history of the site and the extant planning permissions, the principle of development has already been established and considered acceptable.

6.18 Design

6.19 Section 7 of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect to sustainable development and places great emphasis on the importance to the design of the built environment. Para 61, acknowledges that visual appearance of a development is important and that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and integrate new development into the natural and built environment.

6.20 Policy 2 of the JCS reiterates the need for development to be designed to the highest possible standards, encouraging the use of sustainable materials.

6.21 Policy EMP6 of the SNLP requires alterations and extensions to existing premises to be in keeping with the host building and its surrounding in terms of size and design, landscaping should be incorporated into the site and all necessary parking, servicing, access and circulation can be accommodated on site.

6.22 The existing Engineering Centre is an L shaped building externally finished in Silver coloured clad panels, glass and natural cedar louvres. The main entrance wing is approached over a curved steel walkway.

6.23 The scale of the proposed extension in terms of height would be higher than the existing building, approximately 2m higher to the front elevation. The existing building is approximately 7m in height to the roof and the proposed extension would be approximately 9m in height. The submitted supporting statement confirms that this height is necessary for operational purposes as the workshops require 5m clear internal head height. A ‘brise soleil’ sun canopy structure would run the full length of the front (south elevation) of the extension, supported on a colonnade of angled columns. This would reinforce the impression of a strong lowered eaves line matching the roof height and line of the original block.

6.24 Each incubator includes a ground floor workshop area with access to the service yard and first floor office accommodation. The proposed single storey flat roof extension incorporating the biomass plant measures approximately 4m x 10m x 4m(h). The building is to be clad in metal panels to match the main building and will have a 550mm diameter flue (12m high), projecting approximately 2m above the height of the building.

6.25 The materials proposed for the front elevation carefully follow that of the existing building and the incorporation of natural timber would significantly soften the potential starkness of an all metal façade cladding.

6.26 The nature of the use of the proposed development and the operational requirement of HEC will result in a large extension of greater scale than the existing main building. However, the design feature together with the landscaping will go some way in reducing the overall impact of the proposed development. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and would not conflict with the national and local design policies mentioned above.

6.27 Amenity

6.28 Saved Policies IMP9 and IMP10 of the SNLP seek to protect amenity. Saved Policy IMP9 seeks to ensure that new development does not have a significantly adverse impact on nearby residents.

6.29 Saved Policy IMP10 does not permit development if, because of the noise it would create, the occupants of noise sensitive uses would be exposed to a significant noise disturbance.

6.30 The nearest residential properties (The Old Pump House) are located approximately 150m east of the application site and the properties at Penny Green approximately 150m to the south.

6.31 The application is submitted with an Acoustic Assessment which recommends that acoustically absorbent material is installed to control reverberant noise levels and provide a more comfortable working environment.

6.32 The proposed external lighting scheme includes lighting on 4m high columns to the car/cycle parking area, which will be controlled by a solar dial time clock – lighting will be on from dusk to mid evening. The service yard illumination will be by wall mounted lights on the rear of the proposed extension to match those on the existing building. Soffit mounted flood lights are to be installed within the overhanging roof soffit of the proposed extension; wall mounted lights are proposed to the elevations. Overall, the style and level of lighting proposed will follow that of the existing lighting provided to the existing building, car park and service areas.

6.33 The design of the proposed lighting scheme is to balance the amount of lighting required and to enhance security/crime prevention and ensure the safe passage for users, with consideration for neighboring properties and limiting unnecessary light pollution.

6.34 The EHO considers that the proposed development is acceptable. It is recommended that conditions restricting noise levels and hours of operation be imposed should planning permission be granted.

6.35 It is considered that given the nature of the proposed development (high tech engineering) and the separation distances to residential proprieties, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with the aforementioned policies.

6.36 Sustainability

6.37 The NPPF supports the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Para 95 of section 10 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should: • plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions; • Actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings; and • When setting any local requirements for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon building policy and adopt nationally described standards”.

The intention of the policy is for all development to achieve the overarching objective of zero carbon developments.

Energy efficient measures are incorporated into the proposal, as a contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

6.38 Policy 1 of the JCS states that: “To address climate change and promote sustainability, all development will be located and designed to use resources efficiently, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and be adapted to a changing climate and more extreme weather.”

6.39 Policy 3 of the JCS seeks to minimise reliance on non-renewable high-carbon energy sources and maximise the use of decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources and sustainable construction technologies.

6.40 A sustainable approach runs through the design of the proposed development. The aim is to achieve BREAAM ‘Excellent’ the standard for best practice in sustainable building design.

6.41 Natural daylight and ventilation and extraction techniques would be used as well as high insulating materials. Air source heat pumps with condenser plant on the proposed roof will provide heating in the office accommodation. A single storey extension proposed within the extended service yard to the rear of the proposed extension is to house a biomass boiler that will burn stored wood pellets. This will replace the existing oil fired boiler plant. Roof mounted photovoltaic panels (totalling 265 panels) would be installed to generate on site electricity. Low energy lighting would be used to reduce energy consumption. A Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is proposed on site through the inclusion of an attenuation swale incorporated within the landscaping scheme. 6.42 In accordance with national and local planning policy it is a requirement of this scheme to limit its impact on the environment. The installation of the renewable/energy efficiency measures stated are considered acceptable, in accordance with Section 10 of the NPPF and Policies 1 and 3 of the JCS.

6.44 Flood Risk

6.44 Section 10 of the NPPF encourages new development to seek opportunities to reduce the causes and impact of flooding.

6.45 According to the Environment Agency’s (EA) flood zone maps, the application site lies within Flood Zone 1, a low probability flood zone. The application site is in excess of 1ha therefore a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) accompanies the application.

6.46 The FRA concludes that the proposed development includes drainage and surface water disposal from the site using a SUDS approach including the use of a swale at the front of the site. The car parking area will be constructed using a permeable surface to allow for limited infiltration. Foul drainage is to be connected to the existing underground treatment plant.

6.47 The EA have not raised any objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition regarding surface water drainage and informatives regarding foul drainage and the biomass plant/fuel storage on any grant of planning permission.

6.48 It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on flood risk and complies satisfactorily with the guidance contained in Section 11 of the NPPF, the technical guidance to the NPPF and Policy 1 of the JCS which aims to ensure flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas of flood risk and to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

6.49 Economic Impact

6.50 The NPPF places great emphasis in favour of sustainable economic development. Section 1 states: “The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future… The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth”.

6.51 Policy 5 of the JCS states the local economy will be developed in a sustainable way to support jobs and economic growth both in urban and rural locations. This will: • provide for a rising population and develop its role as an engine of the wider economy • facilitate its job growth potential with a target at least 27,000 additional jobs in the period 2008-2026 • increase the proportion of higher value, knowledge economy jobs while ensuring that opportunities are available for the development of all types and levels of jobs in all sectors of the economy and for all the workforce

The policy goes on to state that opportunities for innovation, skills an staining will be expanded through: • facilitating the expansion of, and access to, vocational, further and higher education provision • encouraging links between training/education provision and relevant business concentrations including co-location where appropriate • support for enterprise hubs at Norwich Research Park, the University of East Anglia, EPIC (East of England Production Innovation Centre), and Hethel, and at easily accessible locations in the area

6.52 Policy 9 of the JCS focuses on major growth and development for the Norwich Policy Area (NPA).

6.53 HEC opened in 2006 and was a £5 million partnership project between the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), Norfolk County Council, South Norfolk Council and Lotus. As an Enterprise Hub, HEC was created to address the lack of tailored premises for high-tech start-ups in the region in which small companies and commercial research outfits could locate and grow, therefore dedicating itself to the support of advanced manufacturing businesses in the East of England and calming the concern that talent and businesses would leave the region or fail to commercialise and generate economic benefits for the local economy. In 2008 HEC reached capacity. New businesses were being turned away so the Centre was extended in 2009/10 to meet increasing demand.

6.54 An Economic Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The reports sets out the history of HEC and summarises the achievements of the Centre and those expected to arise should planning permission be granted for the extension. This development will build on the achievements of HEC Phases 1 and 2 which to date have achieved: • Incubated 55 hi tech startups • Created over 190 high skilled jobs • Supported over 5700 businesses delivering over £3.5M in added value • Engaged over 11,000 students • Delivered over 9000 training man days • Facilitated the further strengthening of the supply chain of engineering and manufacturing businesses • Grown the advanced engineering and manufacturing cluster in Norfolk and the East of England

6.55 HEC Phase 3 development, the subject of this planning application will deliver: • A Low Carbon Advanced Manufacturing Facility, adding much needed grow on space and building another key component of the Lotus Technology Park • Creating 18 hi tech start ups and 220 high skilled jobs • Growing the clean tech clusters in Norfolk, building on the established advanced engineering and manufacturing sectors and supply chains.

6.56 The Economic Assessment indicates that Norfolk‘s economy does not perform as well as the UK as a whole, or the East of England region. This is due in part to the skill levels of the Norfolk workforce, but at least as much to the economic structure of the County. Norfolk has too few, high value added businesses and more reliant on lower value added activity such as processing, retail, service industry. Whilst these are important, the lower proportion of higher value added activity has a knock on effect across the whole economy, with diminished demands for high skills and lower pay.

6.57 Successive economic development strategies have sought to address this, and the HEC was a key response to that. However, for the real effects and benefits to be felt, it needs to move into the final stage of the plan – to develop ‘move on’ accommodation as businesses in the existing smaller incubator units expand, and a location that can attract other high tech businesses seeking an iconic location with a real rationale. Such locations are rare, and do not exist anywhere else in Norfolk, where the focus is engineering and technology.

6.58 The existing HEC was initially chosen for its close proximity to the Lotus complex and benefits in linkage effects that this could bring. The further extension of the centre is logical given the long term vision as identified in the JCS for a wider technology park within Hethel. The agent for the application has stated that there are no other available sites within the County on existing light industrial estates which would be suited to the provision of such a hi-tech facility. Immediate links with the knowledge and business base at Lotus is also advantageous, as is the longer term strategy for wider development to spur economic growth.

6.59 It is recognised that the proposed development will provide ‘grow-on’ facilities (which will then free up space for start-up tenancies), generate jobs and provide investment to the County in accordance with Section 1 of the NPPF and Policies 5 and 9 of the JCS.

6.60 Highway/Traffic

6.61 Section 4 of the NPPF advocates sustainable travel. It promotes safe and convenience access for all modes; accessibility to jobs, facilities and services; encourages minimising the need for the use of the private car and maximising the use of alternative transport modes. 6.62 Saved Policy IMP8 of the SNLP does not permit development that would endanger the safety of highway users.

6.63 Policy 6 of the JCS states that the Transport Strategy will promote sustainable economic development.

6.64 Vehicular and pedestrian access is via Wymondham Road (B1135), to the south of application site, via Chapman way, which in turn continues north to the Lotus motor works plant. It is proposed to extend the service yard to the rear of the proposed extension; the servicing, delivery and emergency arrangements are to remain as existing. 95 parking spaces (including 6 disabled parking spaces) are proposed within the site together with a covered cycle shelter for 12 cycles and the provision of motor cycle parking in the form of 5 fixed hoops.

6.65 The Transport Statement submitted with the application provides an assessment of the highway impacts of the proposed development. The report concludes that whilst there will be an increase in traffic the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the local highway network. 6.66 The submitted Travel Plan demonstrates efforts to be made to reduce the reliance on private car use by encouraging alternative modes of travel. This includes the covered cycle stands and a car sharing scheme. 6.67 The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding the delineation, levelling, surfacing and draining of the access, parking provision, servicing, unloading/loading, turning and waiting areas; a scheme detailing on-site parking provision for construction workers; a Construction Traffic Management Plan and the Travel Plan been imposed on any grant of planning permission. 6.68 It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway/pedestrian safety or the wider highway network, in accordance with Section 4 of the NPPF, Saved Policy IMP8 of the SNLP and Policy 6 of the JCS. 6.69 Trees/Landscape

6.70 Section 11 of the NPPF encourages the protection and/or enhancement of landscapes. 6.71 Saved Policy IMP2 of the SNLP seeks high quality landscaping to new developments to achieve integration into the surroundings, and reflecting the character of the area. 6.72 The application site is a piece of arable land which lies within an area of open countryside. The area has no special protection designation nor are there any specific landscape features of distinctive quality. In the wider landscape context views are limited as a result of the Lotus complex located to the north of the application site, where high bunds screen the existing test track.

6.73 A mix of soft and hard landscaping is proposed. A landscaped swale is proposed to the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Wymondham Road. This will be an attenuation and infiltration system to deal with surface water run off. The surface to the access and pedestrian routes is macadam and a permeable surface is proposed to the parking bays which includes reinforced gravel areas. Areas of planting are proposed to the parking areas, hedging to the site frontage (southern boundary) and the eastern boundary of the site (adjacent Potash Lane); with a mix of large/small specimen trees proposed to the front (south) of the site and to the east. The boundary 2.4m high fencing to the rear of the site along the boundary of the existing service yard is to be extended along the rear of the proposed extension linking to the proposed hedging at the north-eastern part of the site boundary.

6.74 The proposed landscaping scheme incorporates measures for protection and enhancement of existing landscape features and new planting which will assist in softening the visual appearance of the proposed extension within the wider landscape.

6.75 The Council’s Landscape Officer and Arboricultural Officer do not raise an objection to the proposed development.

6.76 It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect upon the trees/landscaping and soften the impact of the proposed development, in accordance with section 11 of the NPPF and Saved Policy IMP2 of the SNLP.

6.77 Archaeology

6.78 Para 2, section 12 of the NPPF requires developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation where a development site includes or has the potential for archaeological interest.

6.79 An Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation Report is submitted as part of the application. The report concludes that the site produced archaeological evidence for five linear features and one small pit.

6.80 The Councils Historic Environment Service have reviewed the findings of the trail trenching set out in the report and do not raise an objection to the proposed development.

6.81 It is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the archaeological of the site, in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.

6.82 Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.83 Many individual wildlife species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions.

6.84 Section 11, para 118 of the NPPF sets out principles a Local Planning Authority should apply which should aim to conserve and/or enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications.

6.85 Policy 1 of the JCS, states that in areas not protected through international or national designations, development will:

• minimise fragmentation of habitats and seek to conserve and enhance existing environmental assets of acknowledged regional or local importance .

6.86 The application comprises of an area of arable land, planted hedgerow, boundary ditches and a tree. The site is not within any special international, national or local ecological designation. However, the site is located approximately 3.46km to Norfolk Valley Fens Special Conservation Area (SAC) and approximately 2.15km and 3.46km to Lower Wood, Ashwellthorpe and Flordon Common respectively, which are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

6.87 The application is accompanied by an Ecology Survey, which concludes that no protected species are considered likely to be impacted on by the proposed development. No formal mitigation is proposed, although it is proposed to remove a section of the hedgerow along the western boundary (adjacent the existing building) to facilitate the proposed development. The site is to be enhanced through proposed hard/soft landscaping, habitat creation and appropriate planting.

6.88 Natural England has reviewed the application and does not consider that the proposed development will pose any likely or significant risk to the natural environment. Also, the Council’s Ecologist does not raise an objection to the proposed development which is of low to negligible value to wildlife.

6.89 It is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on any designated site or protected species, in accordance with Section 11 of the NPPF and Policy 1 of the JCS.

6.90 Appropriate Assessment

6.91 The application site is within 5km of Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is a European protected habitat. The application has been assessed in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and based on the information submitted to the County Planning Authority (CPA) it is considered that the development does not have a significant impact on the integrity of any protected habitat. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the CPA to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development.

6.92 Diversion of overhead power line

6.93 An electricity power line currently crosses the site south-west to north-east. It is proposed to re-route the power line underground around the perimeter of the site. The agent has confirmed that discussions have been entered into with National Grid and other relevant parties regarding this.

6.94 Response to the representation received

6.95 The application was advertised by means of neighbour notification letters, site notices and an advertisement in the local newspaper.

6.96 One letter of objection has been received, the writer has raised concerns in relation to the size, design and height of the building and the disruption caused from increased noise and traffic.

6.97 In response to the objection received, it is to be noted that this application is a similar application to that previously presented to Members of the PRC. The design, size and height of the proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the main building and not too dissimilar to the proposal presented to Members. In relation to noise, the EHO has not raised any objections subject to conditions restricting noise levels and the hours of operation been imposed on any grant of planning permission. Whilst there may be disruption caused during the construction phase, this will be for a limited period only. It is noted that there will be an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development; the Highway Authority does not raise an objection subject to the imposition of conditions (outlined earlier in the report) on any grant of planning permission. The access and parking arrangements are acceptable and it is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the highway network or the safe and free flow of traffic.

7. Resource Implications 7.1. Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective

7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8. Other Implications 8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

8.2 Appropriate Assessment

8.3 In accordance with Article 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, an Appropriate Assessment is not considered necessary because the proposal is considered very unlikely to have a significant effect on a European designated site or species.

8.4 Human Rights

8.5 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant. 8.6 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed.

8.7 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents.

8.8 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

8.9 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case.

8.10 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective.

8.11 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective.

8.12 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

9. Risk Implications/Assessment

9.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

10. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission 10.1 The proposal the subject of this application would provide 16 ‘grow-on’ incubator units within a 2-storey linked extension to HEC. Whilst the application site lies within open countryside, as previously mentioned in the report, the principle of development has already been established. The operational requirements of the proposed development will result in a significant extension of greater scale in terms of height than the existing building; however the proposed landscape scheme will seek to soften the visual impact.

10.2 The NPPF promotes sustainable development and aims to actively promote economic development in a time of a difficult national economic climate. There is also a long term intension to develop the wider area for economic development purposes as indicated through the JCS. The most significant material consideration with regard to the proposal is the economic benefits which it could bring to the local economy during construction and once operational, which significant weight has been afforded to in favour of the proposal. 10.3 The proposed development is considered acceptable and in accordance with national and local planning policy therefore conditional full permission is recommended.

11. Conditions

11.1 It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall commence within three years of the date of this permission

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, plans and documents as submitted.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 All materials used in construction of the building hereby approved shall be constructed entirely of the materials as specified in the application form and in accordance with all plans hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011).

4 The landscaping scheme hereby approved shall be implemented within the first planting season (October to March), following the completion of the development. All planting shall be retained for a period of five years after initial planting has been completed and any trees and shrubs which are substantially damaged, seriously diseased or die shall be replaced within twelve months of removal or death with plants of a similar species and size.

Reason: In the interest of the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Section 11 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

5 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed access, on-site car and cycle parking, servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting areas shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for these specific uses.

Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking / manoeuvring area, in the interests of highway safety.

6 Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing provision for on site parking for construction workers for the duration of the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented throughout the construction period.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking during construction in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy IMP8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

7 Prior to the commencement of any works a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route which shall incorporate adequate provision for addressing any abnormal wear and tear to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the County Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk County Council Highway Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are used by construction traffic.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

8 For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the development will comply with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and use only the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads unless approved in writing with the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

9 No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway.

10 For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the development permitted will use the approved wheel cleaning facilities provided referred to in Condition 9.

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an Interim Travel Plan based on the approved Travel Plan entitled “Hethel Engineering Centre Workplace Travel Plan” draft October 2011 has been submitted, approved and signed off by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, such a Travel Plan shall accord with Norfolk County Council document `Guidance Notes for the Submission of Travel Plans` or be produced using the Workplace Travel Plan Generator Tool, www.worktravelplan.net.

Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). 12 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied prior to implementation of the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition 11. During the first year of occupation an approved Full Travel Plan based on the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition 11 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The approved Full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied subject to approved modifications agreed by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of the annual review.

Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

13 The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level determined to be 38 dB (day time) and 29 dB (night time) by more than 5 dB. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:1997 or as subsequently amended. Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy IMP10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

14 No generator, compressor, chilling unit or cooling fan shall be installed on the site before precise details of the name and specification of such equipment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Any such development shall only be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy IMP10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

15 No use of the site shall take place outside the hours of: a) 06:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Monday to Friday b) 06:00 hours to 18:00 hours on Saturday c) 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Sundays and public holidays

Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy IMP10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

16 Prior to commencement of development, a ground investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken to identify any potential contamination within the site. Where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme shall be provided to, and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall then be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details prior to the commencement of the development.

Reason: To identify possible adverse ground conditions and in the interests of public health.

17 External lighting installed on site shall be in accordance with drawing reference CD10588 E-G530-P-00-609 Electrical Services - External Lighting Levels and Luminaire Details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy IMP9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies.

18 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by URS Scott Wilson, reference 47060264, dated October 2011) and the following measures implemented as detailed within the FRA:

1. The Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be designed and constructed to effectively manage rainfall generated by the development in a range of return period rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year rainfall event (incorporating an allowance of 30% for the potential impacts of climate change), as detailed in the calculations in Appendix E of the FRA. 2. Run-off from the development site shall be no greater than the equivalent existing greenfield run-off rates for a range of events, as detailed in the calculations in Appendix E of the FRA. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, details of how the surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion should be confirmed in writing to the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure the future maintenance of the surface water management system in accordance with Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011).

19 The development hereby approved shall be constructed to a BREAAM standard of ‘Excellent’. A formal post construction assessment by a licensed BREAAM assessor and a copy of the certificate shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the building. Should the development fail to achieve the ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating a report shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval demonstrating what remedial measures shall be undertaken to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating. The remedial measures shall be undertaken within a timescale to be agreed with the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to ensure that the development complies with the principles of sustainable development, in accordance with Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policies 1 and 3 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011).

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 11.

(ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted.

(iii) Delegate powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Name Telephone Number Email address

Angelina Lambert 01603 223806 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Angelina Lambert or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

Pond

El Sub Sta

Ponds

Hethel Engineering Centre

E

N

The Application Site A

L

H

S

A

T

O

P

Pond Def

Post WYMO Drain NDHAM ROAD

47.2m Guide Post Box

d Un

14 1.2 2m RH

0 1

© Crown copyright and database rights Penny's Green 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 28 December 2012

28 December 2012

Y/7/2012/7012 - Advanced Manufacturing Centre Metres Bracon Ash 0 25 50 100 Scale 1: 2000 Centred on 615623 299963 ±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 28 December 2012

28 December 2012

Y/7/2012/7012 - Advanced Manufacturing Centre Metres Bracon Ash 0 250 500 1,000 Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 615799 300055 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 25th May 2012 Item No. 7A

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District: Y/7/2012/7001: Bracon Ash/Wreningham: Two storey extension to create advanced engineering facility including 16 incubator units; building to rear containing biomass plant; car parking; landscaping; temporary works access off Potash Lane and re-routing of power line at Chapman Way, Hethel, Norwich: Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The proposal seeks planning permission for a two storey extension to the existing Engineering Centre to create an Advanced Engineering facility. The development would provide 16 new business incubator units, containing both workshop and office accommodation, linked to the existing main building. Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council and two individual objectors have stated that they are concerned with the proposed temporary access as proposed off Potash Lane. The individual objectors are concerned also with regard to the scale of the development proposed, impact upon the local highway network and general disruption. No objections have been received from other consultees. Whilst the site is upon arable land, there are wide reaching economic benefits to be accrued for the County which carry significant material weight in favour of the proposal. Should members be minded to grant approval of the planning application, then a Section 106 Legal Agreement would be required to be entered into between the Council and relevant landowners in order to permit a temporary vehicular access during the construction period of Potash Lane.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 11 below; and the entering into a section 106 legal agreement between the applicant and relevant landowner in order to facilitate access for works required to provide temporary vehicular access during the construction period off Potash lane. (ii) discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Proposal : The proposal consists of a two storey extension to create an advanced engineering facility including 16 incubator units; building to rear containing biomass plant; 95 car parking spaces(including 6 disabled bays); Solar/PV cells to roof(55 cells) landscaping temporary works access off Potash Lane and re-routing of power line at Hethel Engineering Centre 2. Constraints

2.1 The site is within a rural location where new development is normally strictly controlled under policy ENV8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan(2003). An overhead power line crosses the site and will be redirected underground as a result of the proposal.

2.2 There are no other constraints relating to the site.

3. Planning History

3.1 The Planning history of the site, is detailed below:

3.2 07/1987/2803/O- Outline planning permission granted by South Norfolk District Council for the Erection of vehicle workshops, offices, hard standings and recreation area. Lotus were the applicant. 3.3 07/1990/1971/F- Full planning permission granted by South Norfolk District Council for the erection of workshops, offices, hard standings, recreation area sports club/swimming pool and parking and treatment plant. The applicant for this application was again Lotus. 3.4 07/2004/1800/F- Planning permission granted by South Norfolk District Council for new single storey building to house new Centre for Engineering Excellence including associated parking, service area and landscaping. The applicants for this application were NCC, SNDC, EEDA and Business Link. 3.5 07/2009/1530/F- Planning permission granted by Norfolk County Council for extensions and alterations of the Engineering Excellence Centre to provide 11 additional incubator units with mezzanine floors and new conference room facilities with remodelled cafeteria areas (associated outside access and service areas with new landscaping). The applicant was the Director of Environment Transport and Development, NCC. 4. Policy

4.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : Policy E4: Clusters The East of England Plan Policy ENG1: Resource efficiency in new (adopted 2008) development and existing communities 4.2 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 1- Addressing climate change and Broadland, Norwich and South protecting environmental assets Norfolk(adopted 2011) Policy 2- Promoting Good Design Policy 5-The Economy Policy 9- Strategy for growth in the Norwich Policy Area 4.3 South Norfolk Local Plan : ENV8- Development in open countryside (adopted 2003) EMP4-Employment development outside development limits and village boundaries of identified towns EMP6- Alterations and extensions to existing business premises IMP 2- Landscaping IMP8- Safe and free flow of traffic IMP9-Residential Amenity IMP 10-Noise

4.4 The National Planning Policy : 1. Building a strong, competitive Framework (NPPF) economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural Economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 5. Consultations

5.1 Landscape (NCC) : No objections-

Whilst the site is located in the countryside, it is noted from the application submission that the local landscape context has been significantly changed as a result of the existing engineering centre buildings development and the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of the long distance views towards the Lotus complex. The current application is to extend this development in providing another adjacent building in a similar architectural style. Significant areas of mitigation planting is proposed within the application landscaping scheme.

In landscaping terms it is imperative that the landscaping scheme ensures that the proposed building successfully integrates into the surrounding landscape setting and relates as part of a high quality scheme design to the design context of the existing Excellence Centre building.

Given the constraints of this particular site; the fact that there is existing development adjacent to the proposed extension and the nature of the proposed mitigation of the development through the proposed landscaping scheme, the development is considered acceptable in landscape and visual impact terms. The context of the existing building adjacent to the site and the close proximity of the Lotus facility have been considered in the landscape appraisal submitted with this application.

The mitigation proposals are considered to be satisfactory given the existing building forms and the type and scale of the proposed development and the planting provides a degree of landscape enhancement related to providing boundary and roadside hedges and provides significant areas of on site planting. It should be noted that the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment makes reference to the policy objective to integrate proposals for hedge and appropriate tree planting as part of the landscaping proposal related to new development for this landscape type.

The mitigation proposals would lead to a conservation and enhancement of the key characteristics of the surrounding landscape setting, given the type, form and scale of development being proposed and given the nature of the existing cumulative impacts on the surrounding countryside setting related to the existing adjacent building and the nearby Lotus plant.

5.2 Arboricultural Officer NCC No objections subject to development being carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural report as submitted. 5.3 Ecology (NCC) : No objections- agrees with submitted ecology report.

5.4 Highways (NCC) : No objections, subject to conditions:

Given that this is a relatively inaccessible location for non-car modes it is important that strong efforts are made to encourage access by these modes and a robust Travel Plan has been submitted. Adequate car and cycle parking provision is made that complies with the Parking Standards. Also the proposed servicing arrangements are satisfactory.

The Highway Authority recommends no objections subject to the following conditions:-

SHC 24-Provision of parking and servicing areas –when shown on plan

Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the interests of highway safety.

SH29A and SHC 29B - Construction Traffic Management and Routing

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety.

SHC 30A and SHC 30B- Wheel cleaning facilities, temporary for construction vehicles

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited in the highway.

SH 43A and SHC 43B-Travel Plan

Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment.

5.5 South Norfolk District : No objection : Council(Planning) The Council does not wish to raise any objections to the proposal, which is considered to be in general accordance with both JCS and Local Plan policy. Issues of light pollution and traffic impact have previously been raised by Wreningham Parish Council, and we therefore respectfully ask that these concerns again be carefully considered. 5.6 South Norfolk District Council : No objection. Suggested conditions: Environmental Health - Noise- Limit noise level to be emitted - No generators/air handling plant without consent - Hours of use - Reporting of unexpected contamination - Foul drainage - External lighting 5.7 Wreningham Parish Council : No comments received

5.8 Bracon Ash & Hethel Parish : Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council Council have confirmed that they have always been in support of the Hethel Engineering Centre but have some concerns about the proposal as follows: - Temporary access via Potash Lane should not be allowed because there would be a lack of a 60mph unrestricted visibility splay in both directions - 6/8 wheeler trucks turning into and out of the temporary access would cause chaos and disruption and would be an accident risk - The access should be via the engineering centre entrance and around the rear of the building to minimise disruption - Lacking a highways plan to show cumulative effect of traffic and effect on country roads needs to be assessed - Site is on the perimeter of the old US air base and a phase 1 contamination type survey is considered inadequate. - Site is of historical importance and care needs to be taken in its development. 5.9 Environment Agency : No objections, subject to the following condition: 1. The Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be designed and constructed to effectively manage rainfall generated by the development in a range of return period rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year rainfall event (incorporating allowance of 30% for the potential impacts of climate change), as detailed in calculations in Appendix E of the FRA 2. Run off from the development site shall be no greater than the equivalent existing Greenfield run-off rates for a range of events, as detailed in the calculations in Appendix E of the FRA. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, details of how the surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion should be confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and ensure the future maintenance of the surface water management system. 5.10 Natural England : Standing advice- raised no cause for objection. 5.11 Norwich International Airport : No objection.

5.12 Neighbours and other Third : Two letters of objection have been party representations received, one from a neighbouring resident and the other from a neighbouring resident and local business owner. Concerns in summary are: - Excessive size of extension and concern about the elevation of the building and proximity to the Old Pump House, Wymondham Road. - Likely increase in traffic on Wymondham Road. - Disruption and noise from construction works(particularly upon Potash Lane). - The excessive size of the structure will spoil rural views and impact on outlook from the Old Pump House - Extension not in keeping with existing structure. - Could lead to considerable industrialisation of the South Norfolk area. - Temporary access of Potash Lane should not be allowed as there would be a lack of a 60mph unrestricted visibility splay in both directions. - The visibility splay ownership is not entirely in HEC ownership so would need to be secured by a section 106 agreement which should be secured prior to planning permission being granted. - The temporary access should be via the existing Chapman Way entrance and around the rear of the building. - Site is on perimeter of old US airfield- a phase 1 ground condition survey is considered inadequate. - The policy of HEC to have education activities for schools and local companies has been abandoned. 6. Assessment Proposal

6.1 This application seeks planning permission for a two storey extension to the existing Hethel Engineering Centre in order to create an Advanced Engineering Facility. The development would provide a total internal floor area of approximately 3750m². 6.2 The new Advanced Manufacturing wing would provide:

Building: a) Sixteen new grow-on incubator units, each with an internal area of c200m² b) Each unit would have a ground floor workshop of c100m c) New shared toilet accommodation and a link corridor to the existing Centre d) A new bio-mass boiler for the new workshops and existing building heating e) Air source heat pumps providing heating/cooling too the new offices f) Solar PV panels to roof(55cells)

Outdoor: a) Extended service yard and additional parking b) Landscape works around the new facility and a new surface water swale c) Diversion of the existing overhead power-line around the site perimeter d) Temporary construction access off Potash Lane e) Cycle pathway within site Site

6.3 The site is located approximately 600 metres south of the main Lotus complex and falls mainly within the parish of Bracon Ash although a small portion of the site to the south lies within the parish of Wreningham. The exiting Engineering Centre is an ‘L’ shaped building finished in silver clad and cedar panels with car parking and landscaping to the frontage(south) and service area to the rear(north). 6.4 The B1135 Wymondham Road runs directly to the south of the site, and the Engineering Centre is accessed off this road via Chapman Way, which in turn continues north into the Lotus motor works plant. The extension upon completion would also be accessed via this route. 6.5 The application site is positioned directly to the east of the existing engineering facility, and is currently arable farmland. Potash Lane bounds the application site to the east, and arable farmland is located beyond this. The site is within the rural area however there is sporadic development such as the existing Engineering Centre, and residential development to the east (The Old Pump House is one of the closest of several residential properties to the east and is approximately 150 metres from the site) and properties at Penny’s Green (also approximately 150 metres away but to the south of the site). Principle of Development

6.6 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.7 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the saved Development Control policies contained within the South Norfolk District Local Plan (2003), the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk(2011) and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The East of England Plan (2008). 6.8 In addition to the development plan, the proposal must be assessed against the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF). 6.9 At local level the proposal does not fully accord with the criteria of policy ENV 8 Development in the open countryside of the South Norfolk District Plan. The site is considered to be within the open countryside, and as such has been advertised as a departure from the plan. Policy ENV 8 states that planning permission will only be granted for development if it:-

i) Is a requisite for agriculture or forestry; or ii) Is justified to sustain economic and social activity in rural communities, and demands a rural location; or iii) Is for the suitable adaptation and re-use of an existing rural building 6.10 The proposal does not comply with criteria i) and iii) above. With regard to the criteria ii) the proposal would help to sustain economic activity within a rural community, however it is not considered that the proposal would specifically demand a rural location. 6.11 It is considered however that the proposal would accord with policy EMP4 of the Local Plan, which permits employment development outside of the Development Limits and Village Boundaries if (amongst other criteria):- i) There are no alternative sites or premises within the identified Development Limits which are either suitable or available. The application has been supported with information to suggest that this is the case and this is considered further on in this report. 6.12 It should be noted however that the policies contained within the South Norfolk Plan have been in place for a considerable period of time, since 2003. Whilst site specific policies and allocations for the Local Development Framework are currently being considered by South Norfolk District Council and have not yet been adopted, the wider strategic polices of the LDF have been adopted through the Joint Core Strategy(JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk(2011). This is therefore the most up to date part if the ‘development plan’ to consider with regard to the proposal. 6.13 The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides a wider strategic view for growth and development for the defined area until 2026. Policy 9 of the JCS specifically identifies Hethel as a location for a technology park, with improved accessibility particularly to Wymondham, to provide around 20ha of development focussed on high-tech engineering. In September 2011, South Norfolk DC published its Site Specific Policies and Allocations Consultation- Issues and Options stage. This identifies the site as part of a larger area identified with strong potential for development. Whilst the final and adopted Site Specific and Allocations DPD cannot be pre-empted, there is considered to be a strong possibility that the site and wider area will ultimately allocated for employment/high tech engineering uses in line with policy 9 of the Joint Core Strategy. 6.14 At regional level the proposal is considered to be in broad accordance with Policy E4: Clusters of the East of England Plan. The policy states that:-

Local Development Documents should support the sustainable and dynamic growth of inter-regional and intra-regional sectors and business clusters including…..  The motor sports cluster with a focal point at Hethel in Norfolk linking to Cranfield; 6.15 It is considered that the proposal is in keeping with the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which promotes sustainable development and aims to actively promote economic development in times of difficult national economic conditions. Perhaps the most significant material consideration with regard to the proposal is the economic benefits which it could bring to the local economy (which are considered in detail further on in this report). The proposal would reflect the intention of the following paragraphs of chapter 1 of the NPPF, Building a Strong, Competitive Economy: “18. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future

19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” 6.16 Despite the fact that the proposal is in countryside and does not therefore strictly comply with saved Local Plan Policy ENV8, the proposal is in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy, Regional Spatial Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. It should be noted that the District Council in their comment consider the proposal to be in general accordance with not only the JCS but also Local Plan policy. 6.17 Wider material considerations also significantly weigh in favour of the development including the economic benefits to be accrued. The fact that both District and County Council have approved previous applications relating to the existing centre and the District Council have approved two applications (detailed in paragraph 3.3 of this report) historically on the application site also lend some weight in favour of the principal of the development. On balance therefore the principal of the development as proposed in this location is considered to be acceptable. Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.18 The site is not within any special international, national or local ecological designation. A full ecological survey as submitted with the application concluded that there would be a negligible likelihood of any protected species being affected as a result of the development. 6.19 Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets, states that in areas not protected through international or national designations, development will: • minimise fragmentation of habitats and seek to conserve and enhance existing environmental assets of acknowledged regional or local importance. 6.20 Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) Conserving and enhancing the natural environment requires in paragraph109 that the planning system, amongst other criteria, should contribute to, and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;  preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; 6.21 Natural England’s standing advice has been that the proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts upon soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. The County Ecologist agrees with the findings of the Ecological Survey as submitted that the development is unlikely to have any significant impact upon local ecological assets. 6.22 Whilst Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council and one objector have raised concern that the site is on the periphery of a former airfield and may contain contaminants, the land is not previously developed and the Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officer of South Norfolk District Council have raised no objections to the application. The proposal is therefore considered to be in general accordance with Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets and Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) Conserving and enhancing the natural environment with respect to ecological issues. Appropriate Assessment

6.23 Flordon Common SAC (Special Area of Conservation) is located 2.25 miles to the south east of the site. The site itself has no particular ecological importance and lies some considerable distance away from the designated SAC at Flordon Common. Natural England has been consulted on the application and has raised no objections. It is therefore considered that that the development will not have any adverse effects on the nearby designation at Flordon Common and that a full Appropriate Assessment will not be required for this application. The County Planning Authority considers therefore that the development is in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010. Landscape

6.24 Policy IMP 2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires that all development will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping to ensure that the development will be integrated into its surroundings. 6.25 Whilst the site is located in the countryside, it is located in an area with no special visual protection designation. It has no significant landscape features of distinctive quality being cultivated agricultural land. It is considered that the extension would marry effectively with the existing building without significant harm resulting upon the wider landscape. To the north, the existing Lotus complex includes a test track with high bunds which effectively would limit views from the north.

6.26 The principal public medium and long range sweeping views of the site are east and west from the main B1135 highway, Wymondham Road. A landscaped swale is proposed to accommodate surface water and areas of planting to break up the proposed parking area. Larger specimen trees are proposed to the front (south) of the site adjacent to Wymondham Road and to the east adjacent to Postash Lane. These will assist in softening the appearance of visual impact of the extension within the wider landscape. 6.27 The Landscape section (NCC) have no objections to the scheme as proposed. Given the constraints of this particular site; the fact that there is existing development adjacent to the proposed extension and the nature of the proposed mitigation of the development through the proposed landscaping scheme, the development is considered acceptable in landscape and visual impact terms and in general accordance therefore with policy IMP 2 of The South Norfolk Local Plan. Design

6.28 Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework Requiring good design states that:

“56. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. 57. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” 6.29 Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk promotes high standards of design in a similar fashion to the NPPF. 6.30 Policy EMP 6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires the following:

“Alteration and extensions to existing premises will be permitted provided that:

i) The size and design of the proposals would be in keeping with the existing building and its surroundings. ii) The existing landscaping of the site would not be seriously compromised and that full and effective landscaping for the proposed alteration or extension would be incorporated. iii) All necessary parking, servicing, access and circulation can be accommodated on site for both the existing and proposed extension.” 6.31 The scale of the extension in terms of height would be greater than the existing building. The extension would be approximately 2 metres higher to the front elevation than the existing main building. The existing building is approximately 7 metres in height to the roof and the proposed extension would be approximately 9 metres in height. This is put forward in the application as being necessary for operational purposes as the workshops require 5 metre clear internal height and in addition office space is provided above. 6.32 Several design features have been incorporated however in an attempt to mitigate against the over dominance of the extension in terms of scale and massing. A ‘brise soleil’ sun canopy structure would run the full length of the front(south elevation) of the extension, supported on a colonnade of angled columns. This would reinforce the impression of a strong lowered eaves line- matching the roof height and line of the original block. 6.33 Secondly, the materials proposed for the front elevation carefully follow that of the existing building and the incorporation of natural timber would significantly soften the potential strarkness of an all metal façade cladding. 6.34 The operational requirements of the centre will result in a significant extension of greater scale in terms of height than the existing building, however the mitigation in design features outlined above will go some considerable way in reducing the overall impact of the development, as would landscaping of the site. It is therefore considered on balance that the proposal is of an acceptable design and would not be in conflict with planning policies as outlined above. Sustainability

6.35 One of the main ideals running throughout the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework is that of achieving sustainable development. This is also seen in the East of England Plan and in local planning policy. 6.36 The Regional Spatial Strategy promotes sustainable development by requesting that all new development plan documents should contain policies which require 10% of on site energy to be provided from renewable or low carbon source technologies. The proposal aims to meet this target. 6.37 Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy states that: “To address climate change and promote sustainability, all development will be located and designed to use resources efficiently, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and be adapted to a changing climate and more extreme weather.” 6.38 A sustainable ‘green’ approach runs through the design of the proposed extension. Natural daylight and ventilation and extraction techniques would be used as well as high insulating materials. A new bio-mass boiler is proposed and would heat both the existing building and proposed extension. The boiler would burn wood pellets and would replace the existing oil fired boiler plant. 6.39 Roof mounted photovoltaic panels would be installed to generate on site electricity (totalling 55 panels) and harvesting of rainwater for reuse is proposed in the new extension. 6.40 A SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) is proposed on site through the inclusion of an attenuation swale incorporated within the landscaping scheme. 6.41 It is considered that the development as proposed would be very efficient therefore and reflect the ethos of sustainable development as promoted through the NPPF and regional and local planning policy. Amenity

6.42 Policies IMP 9 and IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan seek to protect amenity of neighbours. Policy IMP 9 specifically seeks to protect residential amenity through for example maintaining privacy and restricting levels of overlooking. Policy IMP 10 prohibits development which would lead to excessive noise impact upon other noise sensitive uses. 6.43 The site is within the rural area however there is sporadic development nearby including residential development to the east (The Old Pump House is one of the closest of several residential properties to the east and is approximately 150 metres from the site) and properties at Penny’s Green (also approximately 150 metres away but to the south of the site). 6.44 The nature of the activity on the site (light and high-tech engineering) and the mitigating distance to nearest dwellings, has previously ensured that that there has not been noise complaint or impact upon residential amenity. It is considered that the extension would similarly be unlikely to significantly impact upon the amenities of neighbours. Whilst there may be noise produced from construction which has been expressed as a concern of one objector, this would be limited to normal working hours and for a short period only. 6.45 The Environment Agency have made no objections to the application with regard to amenity issues such as noise. The Environmental Health Officer of South Norfolk District Council similarly has no objection however has recommended conditions relating to restricting noise levels to no more than 5db above existing background levels and restriction to hours of use of the extension. 6.46 It is therefore considered that subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with policies IMP 9 and IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Highways/Traffic

6.47 Policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan states that : “Planning permission will not be granted for development that would endanger highway safety or prejudice the free flow of traffic on the highway network” 6.48 A Transport Statement was submitted with the application and has been considered by the Highways Authority NCC. The report concluded that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the local highway network. Whilst the proposal would increase volumes of traffic accessing the site, the existing main access has good visibility. 6.49 Whilst increased traffic pressure on Wymondham Road has been cited in two objections from individuals, the Highways Authority are in agreement with the findings of the Transport Statement that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the free flow of traffic on the B1135 Wymondham Road. The Highways Authority are also satisfied that the proposed level of parking is adequate (95 car parking spaces including 6 disabled bays); and as such have not objected to the proposal subject to conditions. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 6.50 A temporary construction access is also proposed to the east of the site off Potash Lane. This is required in order that disturbance to the existing users of Hethel Engineering Centre, and vehicle movements in and out of the rear service yard are not disturbed. Whilst Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council and the two individual objectors have raised concerns about the use of a temporary construction access off Potash Lane, the Highways Authority are in agreement to this as part of the proposal and have made no objection. 6.51 The temporary access as proposed would however cover land understood to be in the ownership of Lotus. The applicant (the applicant being The Director of Environment Transport and Development) has agreed therefore to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the relevant landowner (being Lotus) in order to undertake works and use of the temporary access. The Section 106 would also state that the applicant would be responsible for the restoration of the temporary access back to its previous use and condition within a specified time period. 6.52 A travel plan was also submitted with the application to demonstrate efforts to be made to reduce the reliance on private car use by encouraging alternative forms of travel when accessing the site. The proposal includes for example 2 new covered cycle stands for 12 cycles, and the Travel Plan includes a car sharing scheme. 6.53 The Highways Authority are in agreement with the provisional Travel plan and as such the proposal is considered to be in general accordance with the Chapter 7 of the NPPF Promoting Sustainable Transport. Diversion of overhead power line

6.54 An electricity power line currently crosses the site south west to north east. The agent for the applicant has confirmed that they have entered into progressed discussions with the National Grid and other parties with respect to diversion of the line which has been agreed in principle. 6.55 The line would be re-routed underground around the perimeter of the site, and would be undertaken at the developers expense in agreement with the National Grid and any other necessary party. In isolation this process does not require planning permission, and whilst the National Grid have been consulted they have not made comment upon the planning application. Archaeology

6.56 A full Archaeological survey including results of trial trenching has been submitted with regard to the application. No significant archaeological material was recorded and as such the Historic Environment Service (NCC) has raised no objection to the proposal. Economic Impact

6.57 As indicated in earlier sections of this report, the NPPF and Regional Spatial Strategy clearly weigh in favour of economic development, provided that this can be delivered in a sustainable fashion. 6.58 Hethel Engineering Centre(HEC) opened its doors in 2006 and was a £5 million partnership project between EEDA, Norfolk County Council, South Norfolk Council and Lotus. As an Enterprise Hub, HEC was created to address the lack of tailored premises for high-tech start-ups in the region in which small companies and commercial research outfits could locate and grow, therefore dedicating itself to the support of advanced manufacturing businesses in the East of England and calming the concern that talent and businesses would leave the region or fail to commercialise and generate economic benefits for the local economy. 6.59 A comprehensive Economic Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application. The report summarizes some of the achievements of the existing facility and those expected to arise should planning permission be granted for the extension as follows:

This development will build on the achievements of Hethel Engineering Centre Phases 1 and 2 which to date have achieved:  Incubated 55 hi tech startups  Created over 190 high skilled jobs  Supported over 5700 businesses delivering over £3.5M in added value  Engaged over 11,000 students  Delivered over 9000 training man days  Facilitated the further strengthening of the supply chain of engineering and manufacturing businesses  Grown the advanced engineering and manufacturing cluster in Norfolk and the East of England

The Economic Statement as submitted states that the proposal, HEC Phase 3, development will deliver:  A Low Carbon Advanced Manufacturing Facility, adding much needed grow on space and building another key component of the Lotus Technology Park  Creating 18 hi tech start ups and 220 high skilled jobs  Growing the clean tech clusters in Norfolk, building on the established advanced engineering and manufacturing sectors and supply chains 6.60 The Economic Statement as submitted indicates that Norfolk‘s economy does not perform as well as the UK as a whole, or the East of England region. This is due in part to the skill levels of the Norfolk workforce, but at least as much to the economic structure of the county. Norfolk has too few, high value added businesses and we are more reliant on lower value added activity such as processing, retail, service industry. Whilst these are important, the lower proportion of higher value added activity has a knock on effect across the whole economy, with diminished demands for high skills and lower pay. 6.61 Successive economic development strategies have sought to address this, and the Hethel Engineering Centre was a key response to that. It is clearly contributing. However, for the real effects and benefits to be felt, it needs to move into the final stage of the plan – to develop ‘move on’ accommodation as businesses in the existing smaller incubator units expand, and a location that can attract other high tech businesses seeking an iconic location with a real rationale. Such locations are rare, and do not exist anywhere else in Norfolk, where the focus is engineering and technology. 6.62 The existing centre is full and has two tenants occupying several units between them that must commit to expansion plans soon. They are very keen to stay in the immediate vicinity but practicalities will dictate they move away if the larger units as proposed are not built shortly. The Economic Statement suggests that in all likelihood they will move to the Midlands or the South East. Their relocation will free up space for more start-up tenancies that are waiting in the wings. In addition, there are at least 2 other enquiries from potential investors that would significantly enhance the Centre‘s reputation (and cashflow) if they could be provided with the necessary certainty over timescales for development and expansion as proposed. 6.63 The existing Hethel facility was initially chosen for its immediate vicinity to the Lotus complex and benefits in linkage effects that this could bring. The further extension of the centre is logical given the long term vision as identified in the Joint Core Strategy for a wider technology park within Hethel. The agent for the application has stated that there are no other available sites within the County on existing light industrial estates which would be suited to the provision of such a hi-tech facility, which also requires visually pleasing aesthetic surroundings. Immediate links with the knowledge and business base at Lotus is also advantageous, as is the longer term strategy for wider development to spur economic growth. 6.64 The proposal would therefore reflect the intention of chapter 1 of the NPPF, Building a Strong, Competitive Economy, Policy E4: Clusters of the East of England Plan., (as outlined earlier in this report). 7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8. Other Implications

8.1 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.2 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 9. Risk Implications/Assessment

9.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

10. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

10.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for a two storey extension to the existing Engineering Centre to create an Advanced Engineering facility. The development would provide 16 new business incubator units, containing both workshop and office accommodation, linked to the existing main building. 10.2 Whilst the site is green land within the countryside, this should be considered in the context that the proposal is for an extension of an existing facility and is positioned in close proximity to the existing Lotus facility. There is also a longer term intension to develop the wider area for economic development purposes as indicated through the Joint Core Strategy and East of England Plan. Planning permission has also previously been granted to Lotus for an alternative development on the site. The wider material consideration of economic benefits to be accrued also significantly weigh in favour of the application. On balance therefore the principle of the development as proposed in this location is considered to be acceptable. 10.3 The site is not within any special international, national or local ecological designation. A full ecological survey as submitted with the application concluded that there would be a negligible likelihood of any protected species being affected as a result of the development. 10.4 Whilst the site is located in the countryside, it is within in an area with no special visual protection designation. It has no significant landscape features of distinctive quality being cultivated agricultural land. 10.5 The operational requirements of the centre will result in a significant extension of greater scale in terms of height than the existing building, however the mitigation in design features outlined within this report will go so considerable way in reducing the overall impact of the development, as would landscaping of the site. It is therefore considered on balance that the proposal is of an acceptable design and would not be in conflict with planning policy. 10.6 It is considered that the development as proposed would be very efficient therefore and reflect the ethos of sustainable development as promoted through the NPPF and regional and local planning policy. 10.7 The proposals are in general accordance with planning policy as outlined within this report and as such it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

11. Conditions 11.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall commence within three years of the date of this permission - Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2) The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, plans and documents as submitted. - Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3) All materials used in construction of the building hereby approved shall be constructed entirely of the materials as specified in the application form and in accordance with all plans hereby approved. - Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with policies EMP 6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan, Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy and chapter 7 of the NPPF. 4) The landscaping scheme hereby approved shall be implemented within the first planting season (October to March), following the completion of the development. All planting shall be retained for a period of five years after initial planting has been completed and any trees and shrubs which are substantially damaged, seriously diseased or die shall be replaced within twelve months of removal or death with plants of a similar species and size. - Reason: In the interest of the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with policy IMP 2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 5) The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement, undertaken by Treecare Consultants Ltd. dated 4/10/2011, and received on 31/01/12. - Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees on the site and in the interest of the amenity of the area, in accordance with policy IMP 2 of the South Norfolk District Plan. 6) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed access/on-site car and cycle parking/servicing/loading, unloading/turning/waiting areas shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No. CD10588/0014 Rev P1) and retained thereafter available for that specific use. - Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 7) Prior to the commencement of any works a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk County Council Highway Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are used by construction traffic. - Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety. 8) No works shall commence on site until the details of Wheel Cleaning facilities for construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. - Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance with policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 9) For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the development permitted will use the Wheel Cleaning facilities as agreed under condition 8 of this approval. - Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance with policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 10) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an Interim Travel Plan based on the approved Travel Plan titled 'Hethel Engineering Centre Workplace Travel Plan draft October 2011 has been submitted, approved and signed off by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, such a Travel Plan shall accord with the Norfolk County Council document 'Guidance notes for the submission of Travel Plans' or be produced using the Workplace Travel Plan Generator Tool,www.worktravelplan.net - Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment. 11) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied prior to implementation of the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition 10 of this approval. During the first year of occupation an Approved Full Travel Plan based on the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition 10 of this approval, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Approved Full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied subject to approved modifications agreed by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of the annual review. - Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment. 12) The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level determined to be 38 dB (day time) and 29 dB (night time) by more than 5 dB. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:1997 or as subsequently amended. - Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 13) No generator, compressor, chilling unit or cooling fan shall be installed on the site before precise details of the name and specification of such equipment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Any such development shall only be carried out in accordance with those approved details. - Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 14) No use of the site shall take place outside the hours of: a) 06:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Monday to Friday b) 06:00 hours to 18:00 hours on Saturday c) 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Sundays and public holidays - Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 15) Prior to commencement of development, a ground investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken to identify any potential contamination within the site. Where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme shall be provided to, and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall then be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details prior to the commencement of the development. - Reason: To identify possible adverse ground conditions and in the interests of public health. 16) External lighting installed on site shall be in accordance with details provided in the report- 'NPS South East Ltd, October 2011, Electrical Services. External Lighting Levels'. - Reason: Reason: In the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with IMP 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 17) No means of disposal of foul sewage from the site shall be used other than as set out in the submitted application. - Reason: In order to protect the water resource environment. 18) The Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be designed and constructed to effectively manage rainfall generated by the development in a range of return period rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year rainfall event (incorporating an allowance of 30% for the potential impacts of climate change), as detailed in the calculations in Appendix E of the FRA. - Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure the future maintenance of the surface water management system. 19) Run-off from the development site shall be no greater than the equivalent existing green field run-off rates for a range of events, as detailed in the calculations in Appendix E of the FRA submitted with the application dated October 2011. - Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure the future maintenance of the surface water management system. 20) Prior to the commencement of development, details of how the surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion, shall be confirmed in writing to the County Planning Authority. - Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure the future maintenance of the surface water management system. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to : (i) grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 11 above; and the entering into a section 106 legal agreement between the applicant and relevant landowner in order to facilitate access for works required to provide temporary vehicular access during the construction period off Potash lane. (ii) discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Click here to view appendix i Click here to view appendix ii

Background Papers

 Application file references: 07/1987/2803/O, 07/1990/1971/F, 07/2004/1800/F, 07/2009/1530/F  Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk(adopted 2011)  South Norfolk Local Plan (adopted 2003)  Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan  National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address

Shaun Wells 01603 224136 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Shaun Wells or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.