Public Document Pack
AGENDA
NOTE: In the case of non-members, this agenda is for information only
Committee - PLANNING COMMITTEE Date & Time - MONDAY, 16TH JANUARY, 2012 AT 9.30 am Venue - ANGLIA ROOM, THE CONFERENCE SUITE, ELIZABETH HOUSE, DEREHAM
Members of the Committee requiring further information, or with specific questions, are asked to raise these with the appropriate officer at least two working days before the meeting. If the information requested is available, this will be provided, and reported to Committee.
NOTE Ward Representatives wishing to speak on a particular application are asked to inform the Usher, Mrs H. Burlingham, well in advance and arrive at the meeting by 9.30am as the items on which the public wish to speak will be taken first in order of the agenda.
IN THE EVENT OF DEFERRED ITEMS APPEARING ON THE THE ORDER OF THE MEETING PERSONS ATTENDING AGENDA, WARD WILL VARY TO ALLOW FOR THE MEETING ARE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE PUBLIC SPEAKING AND WILL NOT REQUESTED TO TURN NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY IN FOLLOW THAT OF THIS AGENDA OFF MOBILE PHONES ADVANCE.
VOTING : If the first vote is lost in considering an application, a new proposal will be requested (eg a vote for approval, if lost, does not automatically mean “refused”). On a tied vote, the Chairman has a casting vote, if he/she wishes to use it. It is necessary for summary reasons for approvals or refusals to be identified in each case.
Member Services Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham Norfolk, NR19 1EE
Date: Wednesday 4 January 2012
Please ask for Jane Osborne : Telephone (01362) 656354 e-mail: [email protected] BRECKLAND COUNCIL – PLANNING COMMITTEE
PLANNING POLICY NOTE
THE STRENGTH OF PLANNING POLICY IN DETERMINING PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Planning process is set up, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, to protect the public from the unacceptable planning activities of private individuals and development companies. Planning is primarily concerned to deal with issues of land use and the way they affect the environment.
The Council has a DUTY, through the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to prepare a Local Development Framework (LDF) to provide a statutory framework for planning decisions. The Breckland LDF consists of a suite of documents. The primary document which sets out the overarching planning strategy for the District and the local planning policies is the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document. This was adopted by Breckland Council on 17 December 2009 and is the local starting point in the determination of planning applications. Breckland Council is also preparing a Site Specific Policies and Proposals document which will allocate land for development and review settlement boundaries. Some policies and proposals in this document now carry weight following consultation in summer 2010.
Breckland’s Plan contains the Council’s planning policies, which must be consistent with Government guidance, particularly with the Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs).
The full public scrutiny of the Council’s proposals will give the Plan an exceptional weight when dealing with planning applications.
This shift towards a “Plan-led” planning system is a major feature of planning legislation. The Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the policies of the Plan, unless material considerations which are relevant to planning indicate otherwise.
PPS1 summarises the objectives of the “plan-led” system as:- • achieving greater certainty; • ensuring rational & consistent decisions; • securing public involvement in shaping local planning policies; • facilitating quicker planning decision; and • reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals. Unless there are special reasons to do otherwise, planning permissions “run with the land”, and are NOT personal licences.
The factors to be used in determining applications will relate to the effect on the “public at large” and will NOT be those that refer to private interests.
Personal circumstances of applicants “will rarely” be an influencing factor, and then, only when the planning issues are “finely balanced”.
THEREFORE we will: • acknowledge the strength of our policies, • be consistent in the application of our policy, and • if we need to adapt our policy, we should do it through the LDF process.
Decisions which are finely balanced, and which contradict policy will be recorded in detail, to explain and justify the decision, and the strength of the material planning reasons for doing so.
LOCAL COUNCILS OCCASIONALLY, THERE ARE CONFLICTS WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PARISH OR TOWN COUNCIL. WHY IS THIS?
We ask local parish and town councils to recognise that all comments received are taken into account. Where we disagree with those comments it will be because:
• Districts look to “wider” policies, and national, regional and county planning strategy. • Other consultation responses may have affected our recommendation. • There is an honest difference of opinion.
Planning Committee 16 January 2012
PART A ITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Page(s) herewith 1. MINUTES 1 - 7 To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2011.
2. APOLOGIES & SUBSTITUTES To receive apologies for absence.
3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.
4. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA To consider any requests from Ward Members, officers or applicants to defer an application included in this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public attending for such applications.
6. URGENT BUSINESS To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
7. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (STANDING ITEM) To receive an update.
8. LOCALISM ACT 2011 - PREDETERMINATION 8 Note for Members from Legal Services
9. DEFERRED APPLICATIONS 9 To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.
10. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS 10 - 43 To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :
Item Applicant Parish Page No No 1 Mr David Taylor Harling 11-16 2 Childerhouse Lodge Farms Weeting 17-30 3 Mr Adrian Stasiask Attleborough 31-33 4 L Carter & Sons Beeston 34-36
Planning Committee 16 January 2012
Page(s) herewith
5 Mr S Rogers Besthorpe 37-40 6 Mrs R Shearwood Besthorpe 41-43
11. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF 44 - 56 COMMISSIONING Report of the Director of Commissioning
Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.
12. APPEAL DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION) APP/F2605/A/11/2160769 : 1 The Retreat, Mattishall Road, East Tuddenham, Dereham, Norfolk, NR20 3LT : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the change of use of land from utilities to domestic use and erection of a garage. Reference : 3PL/2011/0621/F Decision : Appeal Allowed
APP/F2605/A/11/2157092 : 6 High Street, Watton, Thetford, IP25 6AE : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for an extension to existing letting agent premises with flat over. Reference : 3PL/2010/1257/F Decision : Appeal Dismissed
APP/F2605/A/11/2160144 : Land situated between No. 8 Crown Way and No. 1 Pound Close, Pound Close, Banham, Norfolk, NR16 2SY : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of one detached single-storey dwelling, involving use of existing vehicular access. Reference : 3PL/2011/0537/F Decision : Appeal Allowed
13. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR 57 - 59 INFORMATION)
Agenda Item 1 BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Held on Monday, 19 December 2011 at 9.30 am in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
PRESENT Councillor C Bowes Mr W. R. J. Richmond Mr T R Carter Mr M. S. Robinson Mr C. S. Clark Mr S. J. F. Rogers Councillor E. Gould (Chairman) Mr F.J. Sharpe Mr T.J. Lamb Mrs P.A. Spencer Mrs J A North Mr N.C. Wilkin (Vice-Chairman)
Also Present Mr B J English (Ward Mr R.W. Duffield (Ward Representative) Representative) Mr R. R. Richmond (Ward Representative) Mr R.P. Childerhouse (Ward Representative)
In Attendance Paul Jackson - Planning Manager Heather Burlingham - Assistant Development Control Officer (Capita Symonds for Breckland Council) John Chinnery - Solicitor & Standards Consultant Nick Moys - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)* Jane Osborne - Committee Officer Sarah Robertson - Planning Policy Officer* Jamie Smith - Environmental Planning Officer (Capita Symonds for Breckland Council) *Capita Symonds for Breckland Council
Action By 183/11 MINUTES
With regard to Minute No. 179/11 (e) it should read Executive Support Member for Asset Management and not Manager.
Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
184/11 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (STANDING ITEM)
Jamie Smith and Sarah Robertson were in attendance to provide the Members with an update. The Site Specifics Inspector’s report had been received and was available on the website. The report would go to full Council with the recommendation that the Council adopted the document. If adopted it would result in a 3.6 year land supply. The report was delayed due to the additional consultation carried out in Shipdham, and following that the Inspector went with the original decision of one single site in the middle of the village. As part of the Document, all the settlement boundaries were reviewed.
If Members had any questions outside of the meeting, they were invited to contact the Officers direct who would circulate their replies to all Committee 1 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
Members.
185/11 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS
1185 (a) Swanton Morley: Greengate: Erection of 20 residential dwellings with associated garaging, parking and access: Applicant: Hopkins & Moore Limited: Reference: 3PL/2011/0830/D
The Principal Planning Officer presented slides to refresh the Members’ memory and went through the reasons why the application was deferred on 31 October 2011 and the amendments made to the proposed drainage strategy and flood alleviation proposal for the site.
Mr Atterwill, Parish Council, believed that the subject of flooding should be satisfied before full approval was granted. It was fundamental who would own the large swale feature and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of it. He questioned why a third field access was being considered when there were two already available. The plan was out of date. Cladding had been changed and the number of rendered properties had been reduced. He did not believe that the pond had been assessed for suitability for great crested newts as advised it should be by the Tree & Countryside Officer in his comments shown in the report to the Committee on 31 October 2011.
Mrs Jameson, Objector, who resided at 40 Greengate was also present to represent the views of those who lived at 42 Greengate. She believed that the short notice given to interested parties was unacceptable. The field access was of concern. They were unable to dispute claims as they were not drainage experts.
Mr Hyde, Objector, stated that the proposed swale would not have a level base and would increase flooding to his property. Levels adjacent to the site had been ignored. 62 Greengate was 2m lower. His property would be used as a giant soak-away for the development.
Mr Eburne, for Applicant, advised that they had provided a Flood Risk Assessment. The development would not exacerbate the existing flood issues but would improve them which had been verified by the Council and its drainage advisors. The swale feature would be maintained and render materials could be withdrawn for bricks. He stated the development would be better for the locality than a field. Proper drainage would be installed. Currently there was no drainage under the road. The proposal was good and had been made better by the deferment. The field access and drainage system would be maintained by a formal management company. The farm access was a contractual arrangement and the land owner was reserving his rights.
Mr Richmond, Ward Representative, supported the Parish Council in their views that they were not pleased that there were still rendered properties proposed. There was no provision for street lighting. They were not happy with the second entrance as agricultural machines could travel through the site. The need for a newt and ecology survey seemed to have been ignored. Boundary disputes had not been clarified.
The Solicitor made reference to an eight page emailed letter received from Mr Hyde, Objector, on Sunday 18 December 2011 which raised a number of matters with regard to the proposed application. The Solicitor advised 2 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
that he had not been consulted with about his legal opinion of the site. He believed any legal challenge with regard to outline permission has passed. He had not been asked for his opinion on the field access and disagreed with some of the points Mr Hyde raised in his letter. He had not seen anything within the letter that caused him concern with regard to the legal aspect.
The Principal Planning Officer stated that Members were not being asked to grant approval for the drainage scheme. He read out an extract from the standard letter provided by Norfolk County Council to Parish Councils at the start of the detailed approval process prior to entering into a section 38 Agreement with regard to street lighting.
The gate to the farm access was felt to be set too far into the site. If Members were minded to approve the proposal, it was suggested that the gate be placed on the boundary. It was also questioned why the swale could not be made deeper to compensate for the different levels to alleviate some of the fears raised.
Concerns raised by Members were that residents did not want rendered properties, the affordable housing did not look like the rest of the housing, use of materials, uncertainty over the management and maintenance of the swale, the field access including why did the Landlord require it. Due to this, Members did not feel they had sufficient information to make a decision.
Deferred, to allow Officers to look into points raised.
186/11 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :
(a) Item 1 : Beetley : Removal of Section 106 on pp 3PL/2005/0920 to allow occupancy for under 55s : Reference : 30B/2011/0002/OB
The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer.
Mr Leigh, Parish Council, stated that the Parish Council had discussed the application at length on two occasions. When the development was consulted on in 2005, they felt that the S106 agreement was necessary to protect the development from potential residents who could disturb the tranquil neighbourhood and the Care Home. The original applicant was no longer the owner. The properties would not remain as ancillary accommodation for the Care Home. The Parish Council had discussed with the Agent lowering the age of occupants to 45, but they had received no response to that suggestion, and they continued to object to the proposal.
Mr Peecock, Agent, advised that since submitting the application, there were now six empty properties and he believed that part of the problem with regard to the marketing and saleability of those, was that they were two storeys, lacked nearby amenities and market competition. The Applicant was trying to free up the properties and make proper use of a valuable asset.
Mr Duffield, Ward Representative, questioned if the District Valuer 3 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
had checked the property values which were leasehold and not freehold.
Members agreed with the Chairman’s concerns over price and occupancy and that more options should be explored by the Applicant, one being affordable housing.
From evidence put before them, the recommendation to approve planning permission was not supported by Members, as they believed the same reasons still applied as they had at the time of the original application 3PL/2005/0920/F.
Contrary to the recommendation, the application was refused as Members were not convinced that sufficient evidence had been put forward to satisfy them that the reasons for entering into the agreement were no longer valid and for the detrimental effect on residents.
(b) Item 2 : Croxton : Demolition of two existing dwellings and existing outbuildings : Reference : 3PL/2011/1020/CA
The application was considered at the same time as the item below.
Refused, as recommended.
(c) Item 3 : Croxton : Residential development of 14 dwellings following demolition of two existing dwellings & ext outbuildings : Reference : 3PL/2011/1021/F The application was considered at the same time as the item above.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and advised that significant representations had been received as detailed in the report. Two outstanding matters of concern were ecology and archaeology. A further survey on protected species (bats) was required, but as that could only be undertaken during the period May to September it was one of the reasons for refusal. The second being further information required following advice from Norfolk Landscape Archaeology.
Mr King, Parish Council, advised that whilst they had no objection to the demolition of the two existing dwellings, they found the proposal of a residential development of 14 dwellings unacceptable due to non compliance of core strategy policies. Reasons were detailed in the report, but he referred to housing density, elevation of the site, access, drainage and that it would be detrimental to the environment.
Mr Childerhouse, Ward Representative, stated that there was considerable local concern with regard to the number of dwellings for the site along with Thetford’s growth, and that 14 dwellings represented a significant change and impact on the area and the poor design and layout would be too cramped. Croxton needed a quality development.
Refused, as recommended, along with additional reasons for refusal given as design and layout of the buildings and over development of the site. 4 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
(d) Item 4 : Gooderstone : Erection of two dwellings : Reference : 3PL/2011/1088/F
Members were handed correspondence at the meeting on the item.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the report for the erection of two dwellings. Whilst the site received outline planning consent in 2004 for three dwellings, the permission had lapsed and significant changes had occurred with the planning system since that time.
Whilst Natural England and the Applicant’s own ecologist raised no objection, Breckland Council’s Ecology Advisor had concluded differently. The Principal Planning Officer spoke about stone curlews and their nesting habitats. The application failed to comply with Core Strategy Policy CP10 as it could not be ascertained that an absence of an adverse effect upon the stone curlew special interest feature of the SPA could be established.
On 16 December 2011 a report had been received from the Inspector with regard to the Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document within which he had confirmed and endorsed the proposed changes with regard to the Settlement Boundary of Gooderstone. Mr Goldsmith, for the Applicant, was present as an independent ecologist observer which was the same role he had with regard to the proposed site. He had been involved with stone curlews since 1965 and photographs were shown to the Members to accompany his statement. Gooderstone was on the edge of the main area where stone curlews were located. He advised that the number of breeding pairs had grown by approximately 10 pairs a year, with a UK population of about 500 pairs, all of which were not as threatened as they had been in the past. He stated that rare birds and people could live together and could do so in this instance.
Mr English, Ward Representative, was in attendance to support the application. The Parish Council had voted five in favour of the application, with one being against it. There was no definitive evidence to say that stone curlews would be affected by the development.
The Solicitor and Planning Manager advised that should Members be minded to overturn the recommendation they would have to come to the decision that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA.
A Councillor stated that the stone curlews were a very important matter of national importance and it was the responsibility of the Planning Authority to be mindful of that. Another Councillor felt that the buffer zone was a flexible one.
Design concerns were raised with regard to a very large window not in keeping with a cottage style bungalow and soldier bricks as opposed to arches. Added to this, as one of the dwellings did not have a chimney it was felt a chimney should be incorporated to be able to run carbon neutral with the installation of a wood burner.
5 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
The recommendation to refuse planning permission was not supported by Members.
Contrary to the recommendation, the application be approved subject to conditions and the extra condition listed below, as taking into account the views provided, Members concluded that the application would not have an adverse affect on stone curlews in the SPA.
The extra condition was that plans be amended to incorporate a chimney on the dwelling shown to Members without one.
(e) Item 5 : Thetford : Erection of 13 dwellings (revised details to crescent block as previously permitted under 3PL/2002/1693/D
For the benefit of Members not on the Committee when the application was first considered, the Principal Planning Officer gave background details on the design and concept of the development.
Mr Smith, for the Applicant, advised that chimneys shown on some of the proposed dwellings were to provide a traditional look to the buildings. The windows were real sash ones. No formal detail had been submitted yet, but the intention was the first and second floors would be rendered. He believed the Applicant would incorporate curved arches over the top of the garages.
Whilst one Councillor was disappointed in the scheme and gave the reasons of the garages being at the front, the buildings did not conform to those on the other side of the road, and that the proposal was reminiscent of 1960s/70s buildings, other Councillors felt the design was far less cluttered, liked the simplicity of the lines, and there would be no space at the back for garages.
Given that the Applicant was striving to achieve a 21 st century mews type crescent it was suggested that the garage doors be heavily recessed with a stone arch above, a good standard of materials used with a block type panelled garage door to match the front doors.
Approved, as recommended subject to conditions, with the additional conditions that the garage doors should be recessed with stone arches incorporated above and that permitted development rights to the front of all the dwellings be removed.
Notes To Schedule
Item No. Speaker 1 Mr Leigh, Parish Council Ms Rose, Parish Council Mr Peecock, Agent Mr Duffield, Ward Representative 2 Mr King, Parish Council Mr Childerhouse, Ward Representative 3 Mr King, Parish Council Mr Childerhouse, Ward Representative 4 Mr Goldsmith, for Applicant Mr English, Ward Representative 6 Planning Committee 19 December 2011
Action By
5 Mr Smith, for Applicant
Written Representations Taken Into Account
Reference No. No. of Representations 3OB/2011/0002/OB 3PL/2011/1020/CA 2 3PL/2011/1021/F 8 3PL/2011/1088/F 3PL/2011/1095/F 3PL/2011/0830/D 3
187/11 EPR THETFORD LIAISON GROUP
Cllr Lamb advised that Thetford Town Council thought it was premature for them to take over the administration of the Group. However, the Chairman of the Planning Committee believed Thetford Town Council was better placed to enable issues to be dealt with by people local to the area. Whilst the Planning Committee had no input into the Liaison Group, they would not “close their minds” should there be a need to deal with any matters in the future.
RESOLVED to disband the Group.
188/11 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMISSIONING
Noted.
189/11 ENFORCEMENT ITEMS
Noted.
190/11 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION)
Noted.
191/11 STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Dr Geoff Brighty, Area Manager for the Environment Agency presented his report after the meeting had closed.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm
CHAIRMAN
7 Agenda Item 8
NOTE FOR MEMBERS
LOCALISM ACT 2011 – PREDETERMINATION: FOR INFORMATION
1. This note relates to situations where members have contact or information about a matter in advance of the discussion/decision in committee or council, and where their pre-meeting dealings could lead to an allegation that they are biased or come to the meeting with a “closed mind” (i.e. their minds already made up). Bias or a closed mind is a ground for challenge in the courts and often leads to a decision being quashed. It applies only to the members of the body (whether committee, sub-committee, etc.), and not to other members present who cannot vote.
2. Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 comes into force on 15 th January, 2012. It provides in essence that “a decision maker is not to be taken to have … a closed mind when making the decision just because … the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-make took or … might take in relation to that matter …”.
3. Members will recall that under previous law, members could be predisposed towards a certain decision before it is discussed and decided in a meeting, but could not be predetermined . Difficulties arose when members were involved in situations where they were called upon or able to indicate their views on a forthcoming matter, such as a planning application, before it comes up at the decision-making body.
4. The new provision, in fact, adds very little. As one commentator puts it:
“The provision is intended to send a clear message to councillors and officers that in general terms members can feel more comfortable in expressing views in relation to a matter before them provided they can continue to demonstrate they retain a genuinely open mind , and officers may feel more re- assured that their elected members may do so with less likelihood of the spectre of legal challenge raising its head.” (Trowers & Hamlins)
5. However, the key words are underlined above. A member on a decision- making committee (e.g. planning, licensing-sub, appeals) must still have an open mind when the member comes to the meeting, so that all the relevant considerations presented to the meeting can be taken into account. While members can (probably) feel less inhibition about, say, voting at a town or parish council meeting before the matter comes to the district council, the same provisos still apply under the new provisions as before: members should never do or say anything before the proper decision-making meeting takes place that shows they have already – and finally – made up their minds on the issue.
Legal Services December 2011
8 BRECKLAND COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 January 2012
SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED APPLICATIONS
REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETING DEVELOPMENT REASON FOR DEFERMENT FIRST SERVICES MANAGER’S REPORTED TO RECOMMENDATION 3PL/2008/0874/F: Thetford: Brunel Way: Construction of industrial 11/08/2008 Approval For resolution of various units outstanding matters
3PL/2010/1365/F : Swaffham : 18 Market Place 13/06/2010 Approval Further information required and to allow independent advice be sought on the viability case
3PL/2010/1366/LB : Swaffham : 18 Market Place 13/06/2010 Approval Further information required and to allow independent advice be
9 sought on the viability case
3PL/2011/0182/O : Shipdham : Land to the east of Mill Road 08/08/2011 Approval Due to the need to consult with Natural England
3PL/2011/0187/CA : Shipdham : The Old School House, Chapel 08/08/2011 Approval Due to being closely aligned to Street 3PL/2011/0182/O
3PL/2011/0189/F : Shipdham : The Old School House, Chapel 08/08/2011 Approval Due to being closely aligned to Street 3PL/2011/0182/O Agenda Item9 3PL/2011/0489/O : Attleborough : Hamilton Acorn Ltd., Halford Road 08/08/2011 Approval To obtain a report from District Valuer and to contact Anglian Water for their report on the sewerage capacity
3PL/2011/0967/F : Guist : Land at Bridge Road 03/10/2011 Refusal To allow Officers more time for further planning discussions to take place on the planning issues
Agenda Item 10 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
Item Applicant Parish Reference No. No. 1 Mr David Taylor HARLING 3PL/2011/1071/F 2 Childerhouse Lodge Farms WEETING 3PL/2011/1102/F 3 Mr Adrian Stasiak ATTLEBOROUGH 3PL/2011/1155/F 4 L Carter & Sons BEESTON 3PL/2011/1231/F 5 Mr S Rogers BESTHORPE 3PL/2011/1334/F 6 Mrs R Shearwood BESTHORPE 3PL/2011/1338/F
DC131_new
10 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 1 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1071/F CASE OFFICER: Chris Raine
Full LOCATION: HARLING APPN TYPE: Lopham Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry
ALLOCATION: No Allocation CONS AREA:N TPO: Y APPLICANT: Mr David Taylor LB GRADE: N Willow Tree Cottage Fen Lane
AGENT: Scott Brown Partnership The Old Smithy Mere Road
PROPOSAL: Erection of 8 no. houses (phase 3) including affordable housing & open space
KEY ISSUES Policy justification Planning history of the adjacent sites Impact on the character and appearance of the locality Impact on neighbour amenity Impact on highway safety
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 8 dwellings consisting of 5 detached dwellings (plots 16 - 20) which would be open market houses and 3 terraced dwellings (plots 21 - 23) which would be affordable units. The development also includes an area of public open space. The site would be accessed via an adjacent residential development which is currently under construction; the current proposal represents "phase 3" of this larger site.
SITE AND LOCATION The application site consists of a roughly rectangular shaped parcel of former agricultural land which lies on the edge of the village of East Harling. The site is located to the north of a residential development currently under construction which when completed would comprise of 43 dwellings. To the north, east and west of the application site are areas of open land.
EIA REQUIRED No
DC131_new
11 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 3PL/2010/1079/F - Proposed residential development of 17no. houses including a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses - Allowed on Appeal. 3Pl/2010/0374/F - Residential development (15 units) and open space - Approved. 3PL/2009/1065/F - Residential development - 15 units (Re-submission of 3PL/2009/0589/F) - Refused. 3PL/2009/0589/F - Residential development (15 units)- Dismissed on Appeal. 3PL/2008/0579/F - Demolition of redundant industrial buildings & erection of 10 no. houses (Revised Layout)- Approved.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS03 Housing PPS07 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas SS1 Spatial Strategy CP.01 Housing DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.04 Affordable Housing Principles DC.14 Energy Efficiency DC.16 Design
CONSULTATIONS HARLING P C - Objection - When the LDF process was introduced, with Breckland Council's support we favoured the development of a site off Kenninghall Road, not least because we felt that the village could absorb the proposed 50 properties; any more would have a prejudicial impact on its infrastructure. Because of this, and again with your support, we have resisted Mr Taylors proposals for this site which, prior to this, have involved a total of 25 properties.. In spite of him subsequently gaining approval for these through the appeal process, we cannot support this latest application, our reasons remaining the inability of the infrastructure to cope, in which connection we make specific reference to the lack of schooling places at both primary and secondary level and the lack of car parking facilities within the village centre.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS No objections.
DC131_new
12 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING This application is contrary to Policy SS.1 and CP.1 of the adopted Core Strategy. Additionally the application fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 69 and 71 of PPS3 Housing. There is a planning policy objection to this development on these grounds. If you were minded to approve the application we would expect to see a condition in relation to DC14.
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection subject to conditions.
CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objection.
ENABLING OFFICER No objection.
TREE AND COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER - No Comments Received ECONOMIC AND STRATEGY OFFICER - No Comments Received
REPRESENTATIONS An objection has been received; a summary of which is as follows: The development would put services such as schools, public transport and doctors surgery under pressure; the village has already seen sufficient new housing; it will not enhance the village and it is not in keeping with the area.
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it is considered to be locally sensitive. * The application site is located outside of the defined Settlement Boundary for East Harling and, as such, the application has been submitted under the auspices of PPS3 (para's 54, 69 and 71 are particularly pertinent) which allows for positive consideration of sites which would not normally be considered suitable for development development where a Local Planning Authority does not have an up-to-date 5 year housing supply. It should be noted that in order to be positively considered, a proposal must comply with specific criteria. * Para 71 of PPS3 states that: "Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to take account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69."
*Paragraph 69 states the following: "In general, in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to:
DC131_new
13 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
- Achieving high quality housing. - Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. - The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. - Using land effectively and efficiently. - Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives eg addressing housing market renewal issues."
* Furthermore, paragraph 54 is directly relevant, stressing the requirement for a site to be "deliverable" and to be considered "deliverable" a site must comply with the following requirements:
- Be Available - the site is available now. - Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. - Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
* In this instance the Local Planning Authority does not have an up-to-date five year housing supply and as such the proposal can be looked at favourably in general terms. * The Planning Policy Officer states that on the basis of the fifth bullet point of paragraph 69, the applications need to be in accordance with the spatial vision for the area. The spatial vision for the area is set out within the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and also included within Policy CP1 Housing of that document. Harling is classified as a Local Service Centre village with a positive housing allocation for 50 dwelling. Since this document was adopted 96 dwelling currently either have planning permission or are awaiting a Section 106 to grant permission within Harling. If this proposal is also granted planning permission, this would see the over allocation of dwellings by more than 100%, in comparison to the numbers deemed acceptable through the Core Strategy. * Whilst this individual application is only for 8 additional dwellings it cumulatively compounds the conflict with the Core Strategy housing application in Policy CP1 and could set a precedent for further incremental small-scale development outside of the Settlement Boundary for Harling. * With this in mind, it is also necessary to have regard to recent planning appeals on the adjacent sites (which are under the applicant's control) and the resulting approvals which are currently under construction. These decisions concluded that the allocation of 50 dwellings for Harling as part of the Core Strategy was a "target" rather than a "ceiling" on house building. With this in mind, it is necessary to consider whether 8 further dwellings, in addition to those consented in Harling, would undermine or compromise the functioning of the village or the strategic vision for the District. There are no specific capacity or service issues apparent within the village eg inadequate sewer provision, school plans etc. which would indicate that 8 new dwelling would compromise the functioning of the village. The additional units are not considered to represent a threat to the strategic vision for the District. * Furthermore, the Policy Team state that when considering applications due to a lack of a five year land supply within the District, it is imperative to consider the delivery rates of units on site, to display how they will come forward in advance of the plan making procedure. There is concern at the speed of delivery on the consented schemes (the first of which received in 2010). To date 4 properties have been completed on site and a further 2 properties are under construction. Whilst it may be fair to suggest that delivery has not been particularly "quick", it should be acknowledged that dwellings have been completed on site and some of the highway DC131_new
14 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
infrastructure and construction work is ongoing as set out above and with this in mind it is not considered that refusal of permission on the grounds of delivery being too slow could be justified. * On balance, it is felt that the principle of further development in this part of Harling is acceptable in planning policy terms. * In visual terms it is considered that the development would represent a logical extension of the adjacent residential development and would represent the completion of the development given the existence of the established boundary to the north of the site. The relatively spacious nature of the layout of the scheme is consistent with the adjacent residential development under construction and this edge of village location. The traditional design of the units and external materials are also consistent and sympathetic to the locality. * The positioning of the public open space within the centre of the site also represents a positive visual feature within the site and would offer attractive views out to future residents. * In terms of neighbour amenity, it is evident that the proposed dwellings are all sufficiently distanced from existing dwellings and one another so as to adequately safeguard light, outlook and privacy. * The Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal subject to the use of suitably worded planning conditions. * The number of dwellings proposed, including this scheme as part of a larger residential development, necessitates the provision of affordable housing, open space provision and financial contributions towards education. These are to be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement which is currently being finalised. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide the aforementioned contributions. * Policy DC14 of the Adopted Core Strategy requires a development such as this to supply at least 10% of the energy they require through on-site and/or decentralised renewable sources. It is appropriate to secure this via a suitably worded planning condition. * The Council's Contaminated Land Officer has confirmed that on the basis of the desk study submitted they have no objection. * In conclusion, it is considered that the scheme complies with the relevant policy requirements and is, therefore, recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION Planning Permission
CONDITIONS
3920 Time limit 3046 In accordance with submitted plans 3104 External materials to be approved 3140 Prior approval of slab level 3405 Fencing/walls - details and implementation 3408 Landscaping - details and implementation 3414 Fencing protection for existing trees 3700 Details of roads, footways etc. 3702 Engineering works to specification of LPA 3704 Roads & footways to dwellings - construction 3804 Precise details of foul water disposal 3949 Contaminated Land - Site Investigation/Remediation
DC131_new
15 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
3946 Contaminated Land - Unexpected Contamination 3920 Surface water drainage 3920 Foundation detail 3998 NOTE: Reasons for Approval 4000 Variation of approved plans 3996 Note - Discharge of Conditions
DC131_new
16 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 2 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1102/F CASE OFFICER: Chris Raine
Full LOCATION: WEETING APPN TYPE: Land North of Cromwell Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry
ALLOCATION: No Allocation CONS AREA:N TPO: N APPLICANT: Childerhouse Lodge Farms LB GRADE: N c/o agent
AGENT: EJW Planning Limited Lincoln Barn Norwich Road
PROPOSAL: Development of 35 dwellings, new access, 24 allotments, community woodland, open space and assoc. landscaping
KEY ISSUES Impact upon the Breckland SPA Compliance with housing policy Impact upon the character and appearance of the locality Impact upon neighbour amenity Highway safety Archaeology
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 35 dwellings of which 14 would be affordable units. The mix of units is as follows: 3 x 5 bed dwellings, 8 x 4 bedroom dwellings (2 of which would be affordable), 16 x 3 bedroom dwellings (4 of which would be affordable), 8 x 2 bedroom dwellings (all of which are affordable and 2 of which are disability compatible).
The residential development would be accessed via the creation of a new road which would adjoin Cromwell Road to the south. The new access road would necessitate the demolition of an existing detached single storey dwelling (6 Cromwell Road). The application also includes the provision of public allotments to the northern part of the site (0.67 hectares). An area of public open/recreation space is provided between plots 27 and 28 and the adjacent woodland to the eastern perimeter of the site would also be available to the general public.
DC131_new
17 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
SITE AND LOCATION The application site consists of 3.12 hectares of agricultural land located on the north-western edge of the village of Weeting (classified as a local service centre). The site lies outside the Settlement Boundary. The site is accessed via a private drive which adjoins the B1106 to the south-west. This private drive also serves a small number of residential dwellings and agricultural buildings which lie to the west of the application site. To the south are the private gardens to residential properties on Cromwell Road and Cromwell Close. To the east is a belt of trees beyond which are the private gardens of a number of residential properties. To the north there is further agricultural land beyond a line of mature trees. The site lies within the buffer zone in respect of stone curlew and nightjar
EIA REQUIRED No
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY No relevant site history
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS03 Housing PPS25 Development and Flood Risk SS1 Spatial Strategy CP.01 Housing CP.10 Natural Environment CP.14 Sustainable Rural Communities DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.04 Affordable Housing Principles DC.11 Open Space DC.12 Trees and Landscape DC.13 Flood Risk DC.14 Energy Efficiency DC.16 Design DC.19 Parking Provision
CONSULTATIONS
DC131_new
18 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
WEETING P C - No objection
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY No objection subject to conditions.
NATURAL ENGLAND Natural England has no objection to the development provided that: a) Detailed information on habitat management (e.g. permanent fallow plots) to reduce the impact on birds nesting outside the SPA is submitted with a monitoring plan and agreed by the local authority in advance of any construction work commencing b) Permissive access from the application site to link with rights of way to the east of Weeting village to draw walkers away from the drove road which crosses Weeting Heath NNR is considered by the applicant for inclusion in the site layout design details and submitted to the local authority for approval c) Detailed information on other mitigation measures mentioned in the application, such as construction methods, lighting and traffic management, is agreed by the local authority in advance of any work commencing d) An internal inspection and/or emergence surveys for bats are carried out on 6 Cromwell Close before demolition. Habitats Regulations Assessment The application site falls within the 1500m buffer around Breckland SPA with stone-curlew. Natural England considers that the application site is not completely masked from the SPA by existing built development. In particular, the northern tip of Weeting Heath SSSI/NNR and the northern section of a unit of Breckland Farmland SSSI to the east of Weeting Heath are not screened by existing buildings. In accordance with policy CP10 of Breckland Council's Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document, an appropriate assessment of the development on the SPA is therefore required. In addition, there are known to be regular nesting attempts by stone-curlews outwith the SPA to the north of the application site which also need to be considered in the assessment since the northern section of the application site is not screened from these birds. An appropriate assessment has been submitted with the application entitled "Site specific assessment with respect to Stone Curlews" (Norfolk Wildlife Services, August 2011). However, Natural England does not support the methodology used to evaluate the impact of the development in this assessment. Natural England has considered the impact of the proposed development and concludes that, with mitigation, there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of Breckland SPA. Mitigating factors include the fact that existing housing adjacent to the application site (i.e. Angerstein Close which curves up and to the east of the development) is not screened from the SPA; the application site does not materially extend this but rather fills in a gap between existing buildings. In addition, Weeting Heath SSSI/NNR is managed specifically for stone-curlew; positive habitat management has a major influence on stone-curlew nesting. However, stone- curlew may forage in arable land designated as Breckland Farmland SSSI to the east of Weeting Heath NNR. The foraging behaviour of stone-curlew is likely to be less affected by housing than nesting behaviour. There is a drove road leading from the application site which crosses Weeting Heath NNR. There may be increased recreational disturbance to birds from walkers (and walkers with dogs) arising from the additional housing. We advise that this should be mitigated by the provision of alternative routes, such as the construction of a permissive path from the application site to join
DC131_new
19 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
existing footpaths and rights of way to the east of Weeting village to attract walkers away from Weeting Heath NNR and Breckland Farmland SSSI. There is regular but infrequent nesting by stone-curlew to the north of Weeting village outside the SPA. The "Site specific assessment with respect to Stone Curlews" report states that mitigation for non-SPA birds will need to be conditioned namely a "suitable layout that focuses recreation away from access to the north of the site and provides suitable fence and screening by tree belts on this edge and additional habitat management within the vicinity for stone-curlews to remove residual risk" (section 10.2.2). Natural England supports this mitigation but considers that more detailed information needs to be provided and made deliverable by the application. For example, permanent fallow plots in arable land for stone-curlew should be mapped and management and monitoring plans drawn up and agreed by the local authority. Bat survey The bat survey submitted with the application entitled "Site Assessment for Bats - 6 Cromwell Close, Weeting" (Norfolk Wildlife Services September 2011) reported an external examination of a building. We recommend that an internal inspection and/or emergence surveys for bats are carried out before demolition as a single external inspection is not sufficient to conclude that bats are not using the property. Landscape The application site does not fall within a nationally designated landscape. However all proposals should complement the local distinctiveness and be guided by the local authority's landscape character assessment. In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be consulted on any additional matters, as determined by Breckland Council that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. This includes alterations to the application that could affect its impact on the natural environment. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.
NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST NWT fully supports Policy CP 10 in the adopted Breckland Core Strategy. We were not involved in the development of this policy in relation to protected species and the SPA and do not routinely comment on planning applications that may impact on SPAs, preferring to leave this to Natural England and RSPB, who regularly deal with similar applications and are familiar with the research that led to the adoption of Policy CP10. However, due to the proximity of this application to Weeting Heath NWT Reserve, we thought it useful to make some comment. We expressed concern during the Site Specific Issues and Options consultation regarding impact of new housing allocations at Weeting, in line with our support for CP10. Although we understand that the current planning proposal is of a smaller scale, the Council will need to ensure that the application is in line with the Core Strategy as the application is clearly within the 1500m stone curlew buffer. As we understand it, this means that the applicant will need to show that the proposal is completely masked from the SPA and demonstrate that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. We note that there are conflicting views from the applicant and from other consultees over the applicants assessment of likely adverse impacts and the appropriateness of compensation in the context of this application. We don't wish to add to these arguments. However, we would like to make clear that there has been no discussion between NWT and the applicant over "heathland enhancements" on NWT land at Weeting Heath.
DC131_new
20 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
CRIME PREVENTION/ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON OFFICER No objection. The applicant should aim to achieve full Secured by Design (SBD) award status for this development.
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection subject to conditions.
TREE AND COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Regulation 61(1) states - "A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project which- (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site -(either alone or in combination with other plans and projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives." With respect to planning decisions, the local planning authority is deemed the 'competent authority' and the process is commonly known as a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) The precautionary principle is embedded within the Regulations through the 'Waddenzee Ruling' which requires a presumption against a development proposal unless "no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such (adverse) effects"
Based on currently available evidence and as embodied in Breckland Council Core Strategy Policy CP10, it must be assumed that all development, irrespective of intervening features and resulting in an increase in building footprint within 1500m of the elements of the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) - supporting or capable of supporting stone curlews, or within 1500m of accredited stone curlew supporting habitat outside the SPA - may have a significant effect on the stone curlew special interest feature of the SPA.
Research by Footprint Ecology revealed that stone curlew nesting density was depressed by the proximity of built environment and that the effect was observable up to a distance of 2500m and furthermore was relative to the amount of built environment. However, in the interests of proportionality, Policy CP10 was adopted citing a threshold distance of 1500m with qualifying exceptions where proposed development was screened from the SPA by existing development or where the proposal would result in a minimal increase in built footprint.
The application site is approximately 160m from land within the Breckland Special Protection Area supporting or capable of supporting stone curlews. Therefore it must initially be assumed that the proposal may have a significant adverse effect.
The proposal is partially screened to the west by existing built environment, with existing farm buildings between the proposal and some of the SPA. Towards the north west the proposed development would be unscreened
The proposal would result in a considerable increase in the built footprint: the plans indicate an increase in built footprint in excess of 3000sqm.
The proposal involves a change of use from arable farmland land and a significant intensification
DC131_new
21 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
of human activity.
The Report from Norfolk Wildlife Services inconsistently conflates the regulations relative to European Protected Species and European Protected Sites despite quoting the European Commission in section 3.4 ".the expression 'integrity of the site' shows that the focus is here on the specific site. Thus it is not allowed to destroy a site or part of it on the basis that the conservation status of the habitat type and species it hosts will anyway remain favourable within the European territory of the Member State."
In the light of specialist research undertaken for the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy, which demonstrates an association of buildings and a significantly reduced nesting density by stone curlews up to distances of at least 1500m, it cannot be ascertained that an absence of adverse effect upon on the stone curlew special interest feature of the SPA can be established and there must therefore be a presumption against consent.
The Report from Norfolk Wildlife Services inconsistently conflates the regulations relative to European Protected Species and European Protected Sites despite quoting the European Commission in section 3.4 ".the expression 'integrity of the site' shows that the focus is here on the specific site. Thus it is not allowed to destroy a site or part of it on the basis that the conservation status of the habitat type and species it hosts will anyway remain favourable within the European territory of the Member State."
The Habitats Directive allows authorities to derogate from the strict provisions of the directive for "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" providing there is no satisfactory alternative and sufficient mitigation can be made so that the favourable population/conservation status of the site/species can be maintained.
The first and second tests are addressed fully in the consultation from the Planning Policy section. The third test is a sequential test following the first two - if these cannot be satisfied then the third does not apply.
No Arboricultural Impact Assessment is offered and while the on-site walnut is mentioned in the Ecological Assessment, no consideration of the off-site trees is made in respect, for instance, of shading or actual or perceived threats. At the very least, standard tree protection fencing should be conditioned to any consent.
Opportunities for building in biodiversity opportunities into the fabric of the houses should be exploited in all major new developments. Given the essentially rural location of the site, such measures would best be targeted at bats and swifts and details should be conditioned to any consent.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING The proposal is for the development of 35 residential units (14 affordable) plus associated open space on land north of Cromwell Close, Weeting. The site lies outside the settlement boundary as defined on the adopted Proposals Map and within 1,500m of Breckland SPA accommodating the stone curlew interest feature. As such, the site is effectively 'screened in' to the need for an Appropriate Assessment to be made under the Habitats Regulations.
DC131_new
22 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
The application is being made under the auspices of PPS3 to address land supply considerations. Weeting is identified in the Council's Core Strategy as a Local Service Centre village but with no positive allocation for housing growth (Policy SS1). This is confirmed by the absence of a housing figure for the village in Policy CP1 of the same document.
In considering applications made under PPS3, the provisions of Paragraphs 69 and 71 are of key relevance. In particular, I would draw the Case Officers attention to the final bullet of paragraph 69 which seeks such proposals to be in line with planning for housing objectives but also the Spatial Vision for the area. As indicated above, the absence of any positive housing allocation for Weeting means that such proposals are clearly contrary to the adopted Spatial Vision for the area as set out in the Council's adopted Core Strategy. Furthermore, due to the location of the site within 1,500m from SPA with stone curlew, it is also questioned whether the proposal can satisfy the third bullet of para 69 regarding its environmental sustainability particularly in light of the issues raised with the supporting environmental information below. I would also advise that as the Thetford Area Action Plan is due to be submitted in the next few weeks, weight can then be given to the document which will identify land for 5,000 new dwellings in the Town. This document, when adopted will close the current temporary shortfall in housing land supply.
Turning to matters of deliverability as para 54 of PPS3 sets out, it is noted that there appears to be no developer on board in bringing forward the scheme, nor is there evidence of a Registered Housing Provider who might take on the proposed affordable housing units. This underlines the speculative nature of the proposal and raises questions as to the deliverability of the scheme. There is also no indication as to a build schedule or evidence of the expected number of dwellings likely to come forward in the next 5 years which does not strongly indicate achievability. The following paragraphs also cast doubt on the wider suitability of the site for housing.
It is also notable that Childerhouse Lodge Farms put this land forward for consideration in the recent Site Specific Policies DPD Examination in Public and were represented at the hearing sessions in July this year. The Inspectors Report was received in December 2011 and has concluded that the approach to the Weeting in the Site Specific Policies and Proposals document is consistent with the European Habitats Directive, national planning policy and the Spatial Strategy contained in the adopted Breckland Core Strategy document. The Inspector therefore concluded that the settlement boundary should not be amended at the location which is the subject of this application. On this basis it is anticipated that the Council will adopt the Site Specific Policies and Proposals document (including updated Proposals Maps) at its meeting on 19th January 2012 and accordingly this document should be given considerable weight in the determination of this application. The location and scale of the site outside of the adopted settlement boundary is contrary to policies SS1, CP1, CP14 and DC2 of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy document.
As indicated above, the scheme is within 1,500m of Breckland SPA accommodating the stone curlew interest feature. Policy CP10 is relevant and as the proposal is not screened on all sides by existing development, the scheme is screened in to the need for a project level HRA. In response to this issue, the applicant has submitted a stone curlew report to accompany the application. Of note, within the document there is a key misunderstanding about the effects of development 'in combination' with other plans and programmes which actually includes both planning applications and other development Plan Documents on the SPA. The submitted document avoids attempting new primary research and instead examines a 1,500m radius from the site to the SPA. The document also fails to provide any evidence to indicate what the causal mechanisms are for avoidance of housing by stone curlew. Therefore, there is no evidence to
DC131_new
23 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
demonstrate how the project would successfully satisfy a project level HRA as no new empirical evidence has been provided beyond the accepted current scientific evidence. Furthermore, under the section entitled 'enhancements', a range of measures are proposed (such as regulating crop types on Mr Childerhouse's land) which would not appear to be legally enforceable if the intention was to offer this as some form of planning/ environmental 'gain'.
It is also noted that in terms of open space provision, although allotments form part of the scheme, there is no evidence of the necessary on-site children's play space as expected by Policy DC11. What appears to be provided is more incidental landscaping than a dedicated LAP. It is assumed that financial contributions to the off-site provision of outdoor sport will be sought in order to meet this requirement although it is not currently evident in the submitted material. Therefore, the proposal does not appear to comply with this policy.
The location and scale of the site outside of the adopted settlement boundary is contrary to policies SS1, CP1, CP14 and DC2 of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy document. The proposal also fails to fulfil the provisions of PPS3 when considering sites to be released under the auspices of para 71. There is a policy objection on the above basis.
ENABLING OFFICER The application indicates that the development would provide 14no units as affordable housing and would therefore meet the policy as set out in policy DC4. Weeting has an identified need for affordable housing. Although there is a lack of 1-bed properties in the proposed scheme, the mix of units is deemed acceptable as it is providing a varied mix of dwelling sizes needed in the local area. The provision of 2no. wheelchair adapted bungalows will assist greatly in providing a form of affordable accommodation that is in short supply across the district. I will also expect that the wheelchair bungalows are built to Lifetime Homes standards. The affordable dwellings should be built to at least the minimum HCA standards and should be provided free from public subsidy.
CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objection subject to conditions and an informative.
NORFOLK LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY The desk based assessment submitted with planning application states that the proposed development site is located within an area with potential to contain heritage assets with archaeological interest dating to the prehistoric to Roman periods. It is possible that the absence of archaeological remains recorded within the proposed development site itself reflects a lack of previous fieldwork rather than a genuine absence of heritage assets. Consequently there is potential that heritage assets with archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains) will be present at the site and that the significance of these may be adversely affected by the proposed development. Although a heritage statement (archaeological desk based assessment) has been submitted with the application to address the impact of the proposed development on the historic environment
DC131_new
24 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
further information is required to clarify the presence, form and significance of any heritage assets at the proposed development site. We therefore ask that the applicant withdraw the application and resubmit with the results of an archaeological evaluation in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Policy HE6.1. Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service will provide a brief for the archaeological work on request.
R S P B The RSPB objects to this application on the grounds of likely adverse impacts on the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA). Our key concerns are given below, and are supported with further detail in an annex to this letter. Contrary to the Local Development Framework (LDF) The proposal is not supported by local planning policy. A proposed housing allocation to the north of Weeting was dropped from an earlier version of the Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document (DPD), in part because of the likely adverse effect on the Breckland SPA that the addition of housing would create as identified in Policy CP10 of the adopted Core Strategy. Whilst the DPD has not yet been adopted by the Council, the addition of a housing allocation at Weeting would be a departure from the plan that was examined. It is our understanding from the evidence presented by Breckland Council at the Examination in Public into this DPD that there is sufficient allocation of new housing in the district without needing to consent any additional land within the stone-curlew buffer. The Forest Heath District Council Core Strategy also allows for a significant number of new houses at Brandon, which lies close to Weeting and may provide an alternative solution to any local housing need. Consequently, the houses in this scheme are not necessary to the Council's housing targets. Predation Impacts Any new housing is likely to result in higher levels of predators in the surrounding environment, particularly cats. There is no effective means of controlling this at the decision making stage or mitigating for their effects post-development. Increased numbers of predators so close to the Breckland SPA would result in an adverse effect on stone curlews through a risk of direct mortality and displacement of nesting and would set an undesirable precedent for housing in other locations close to sensitive and legally protected wildlife. We are also disappointed to note that the application fails to recognise predation as a significant impact. Screening from existing built development Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy states that "permission may be granted for the re-use of existing buildings and for development which will be completely masked from the SPA by existing development; alternatively permission may be granted for development provided it is demonstrated by an appropriate assessment the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA". The proposal is not completely masked from the SPA by existing development (see Figure 2 attached) and the specialist stone-curlew report supplied by the applicant is fundamentally flawed and does not demonstrate no adverse effect on the integrity of the Breckland SPA. From the maps supplied with the application, there are elements of the Breckland SPA supporting stone-curlew which are not screened by the existing built environment. Therefore, it would be wrong to conclude that the proposed development is completely masked from the SPA by existing development. Adverse effect on the Breckland SPA As the proposal is not completely masked by existing buildings, permission can only be granted if it can be shown by an appropriate assessment that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the Breckland SPA. Under the Habitats Regulations and as supported by planning policy, the application should provide sufficient information to allow the competent authority,
DC131_new
25 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
Breckland Council, to carry out an appropriate assessment. The applicant relies on the stone-curlew report by Norfolk Wildlife Services to support their conclusion that there would not be an adverse effect on the Breckland SPA. It is our opinion that the stone curlew report is fundamentally flawed in both its method and conclusions, and therefore should not be relied upon by the Council in its decision making, including any HRA that the council may wish to carry out as per policy CP10 of the Breckland Core Strategy. We have presented similar comments on the approach taken in this report to the consultants on two previous occasions and are disappointed that no attempt appears to have been made to address our concerns. Please see the annex to this letter for our detailed comments on the stone-curlew report. Weeting Heath Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve (NNR) Those elements of the Breckland SPA within 1500m of the proposal include the Weeting Heath SSSI and National Nature Reserve. We are particularly concerned at the potential impacts on this site as it is the key location in the Brecks for the public to visit and appreciate stone-curlews. Should this development go ahead, then not only could it reduce the number of stone-curlews nesting there, but would also undermine the valuable work carried out by the owners and managers, Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT). In addition, we are concerned to read in the stone-curlew report that NWT land is proposed for additional heathland enhancements. This appears to be part of an argument presented in the report that biodiversity offsets could be used to compensate for the residual impacts on the SPA that it has identified. It is not clear what NWT land is meant, but we anticipate that they mean the nearby Weeting Heath SSSI/NNR. Compensatory measures under the Habitats Regulations can only become relevant where an adverse effect on site integrity cannot be ruled out and the competent authority is satisfied that there are no alternative solutions and that imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) justify damage to the SPA. It is the RSPB's view that, in this context, there are less damaging alternative solutions to meet the housing requirements in both the Breckland and adjacent Forest Heath districts' LDFs and that the proposal would fail the alternative solutions test: the IROPI and compensatory measures would be irrelevant. We have seen no evidence from the applicant to demonstrate the proposal's ability to pass the tests set out in Regulation 62. We strongly recommend that the NWT as landowner is consulted on this matter. We recommend clarification is sought from the applicant on what land they are referring to and if this proposal is actually supported by NWT. Conclusion: The RSPB objects to this proposal and recommends that it is refused planning permission, due to the unavoidable impacts on the nearby Breckland SPA and it is contrary to the LDF. Local planning policy has rightly attempted to steer housing development away from this location and affirms the legal need for an appropriate assessment for this proposal, but the applicant has not provided sufficient or adequate information for the competent authority to undertake such an assessment.
RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION: NORFOLK AREA - No Comments Received ECONOMIC AND STRATEGY OFFICER - No Comments Received STREETSCENE - No Comments Received ANGLIAN WATER SERVICE - No Comments Received
DC131_new
26 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
REPRESENTATIONS Representations have been received, a summary of these objections are as follows: Concerns regarding congestion from the new access road; extra volume of traffic would be dangerous; insufficient parking to allotments; the site is outside of the Settlement Boundary; encroaches into the buffer zone; contrary to LDF policy for Weeting; increased noise from new access road and overlooking.
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it is a major application. * The application site is located outside of the defined Settlement Boundary for Weeting and, as such. the application has been submitted under the auspices of PPS3 (para's 54, 69 and 71 are particularly pertinent) which allows for positive consideration of sites which would not normally be considered suitable for residential development where a Local Planning Authority does not have an up-to-date 5 year housing supply. It should be noted that in order to be positively considered, a proposal must comply with specific criteria. * Para 71 of PPS3 states that: "Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to take account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69."
* Paragraph 69 states the following: "In general, in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to: - Achieving high quality housing. - Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. - The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. - Using land effectively and efficiently. - Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives eg addressing housing market renewal issues."
* Furthermore, paragraph 54 is directly relevant, stressing the requirement for a site to be "deliverable" and to be considered "deliverable" a site must comply with the following requirements: - Be Available - the site is available now. - Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. - Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
* In this instance the Local Planning Authority does not have an up-to-date five year housing supply and, as such, the proposal can be looked at favourably in general terms. * Notwithstanding the lack of an up-to-date five year housing supply, it is considered that the site cannot be deemed to be "suitable" for housing as required by PPS3 as it directly conflicts with Policy CP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy and the Habitat Regulations with regard to the development having an adverse effect upon the Breckland SPA.
DC131_new
27 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
* In particular, the site lies within 1500m of the Breckland SPA accommodating the stone curlew special interest feature and, as such, the Habitat Regulations and Policy CP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy are directly relevant. Based on currently available evidence and as embodied in Breckland Council Core Strategy Policy CP10 it must be assumed that all development, irrespective of intervening features and resulting in an increase in building footprint within 1500m of the elements of the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) - supporting or capable of supporting stone curlews, or within 1500m of accredited stone curlew supporting habitat outside the SPA - may have a significant effect on the stone curlew special interest feature of the SPA. * The application site is approximately 160m from land within the Breckland Special Protection Area supporting or capable of supporting stone curlews. Therefore, it must initially be assumed that the proposal may have a significant adverse effect. * The proposal is partially screened to the west by existing built environment, with existing farm buildings between the proposal and some of the SPA. Towards the north west the proposed development would be unscreened. * The proposal would result in a considerable increase in the built footprint (the plans indicate an increase in built footprint in excess of 3000 sq.m.) and the proposal involves a change of use from arable farmland land and a significant intensification of human activity. * In the light of specialist research undertaken for the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy, which demonstrates an association of buildings and a significantly reduced nesting density by stone curlews up to distances of at least 1500m, it cannot be ascertained that an absence of adverse effect upon on the stone curlew special interest feature of the SPA can be established and there must therefore be a presumption against consent. * The aforementioned concern also means that the proposal can be considered to be contrary the spatial strategy for the District as set out in Policy SS1 which seeks to protect areas of special biodiversity, geological and landscape interest, such as this site. * In response to the concerns raised by the Council's Officers the agent has made reference to Natural England's response which states that:-
"the site appears to be screened from the SPA by existing built development, however, given the proximity of the site to the BLUE ZONE and the lack of screening to the north a detailed impact assessment of the stone curlew must be made using up-to-date information with appropriate mitigation provided as required."
* With this in mind the agent suggests that the effects upon the stone curlew should be looked at in the context of the wider countryside and not the SPA. The Site Specific Ecological Assessment and Stone Curlew Report prepared by Norfolk Wildlife Services and submitted as part of the application concludes that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the SPA and that suitable land can be made available to more than compensate for any perceived "insignificant" effect. * Notwithstanding this response, the Council's Officers respectfully consider that Natural England's response is flawed. * It should be noted that the RSPB have objected to the proposal for the same reasons as put forward by the Tree and Countryside Officer and Planning Policy Team with regard to the stone curlew. * Norfolk Wildlife Trust has confirmed its full support for Policy CP10 and wishes to confirm that there has been no discussion between NWT and the applicant regarding "heathland enhancements" on NWT land at Weeting Heath. * The Council are now in receipt of the Planning Inspector's Report in relation to the Site Specific Policies DPD and it has been confirmed that this site has not been successful through the DC131_new
28 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
Development Plan process. This further highlights the unsuitability of the site for residential development, given that no positive housing allocation is scheduled for Weeting. * Notwithstanding the aforementioned strategic policy objection, it is considered appropriate to assess the proposal against other relevant policy considerations. * In visual terms it is considered that the relatively spacious layout of the scheme is appropriate to this edge of village location and the design and range of the housing units and the traditional pallet of external materials proposed is sympathetic to this rural location. Furthermore, the inclusion of public allotments to the edge of the development also offers a sympathetic transition into the countryside beyond. * Notwithstanding these factors, the scheme necessitates the removal of the existing dwelling known as 6 Cromwell Road which significantly weakens the Cromwell Road streetscene and the resulting punctuation in that streetscene would be filled with a single carriageway which fails to make any compensatory contribution for the loss of the existing dwelling. * In terms of neighbour amenity, it is evident that the proposed dwellings are all sufficiently distanced from existing dwellings so as to adequately safeguard light, outlook and privacy. Furthermore, the relationships between the proposed 35 dwellings would also ensure that future occupiers would benefit from acceptable levels of residential amenity. * The proposed access road and accompanying footpaths would run adjacent to the entire length of the side boundaries of 5 and 7 Cromwell Road. It is considered that the likely volume of traffic and pedestrians associated with 35 dwellings and the public allotments would result in an increase in noise and disturbance to the occupants of these two properties and therefore would necessitate the erection of appropriate acoustic fencing. * The Highway Authority has been consulted and it has been confirmed that they have no objection subject to conditions. * Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has assessed the submitted archaeological desk based assessment entitled "Heritage Statement" and concluded that further evaluation is required. With this in mind it has been suggested that this should be done through a revised application. It is considered that it would be appropriate to deal with this issue via a suitably worded planning condition. * The site is within flood zone 1 (using Environment Agency records) and is at very low risk from fluvial flooding (less than 1 in 1000 years) and, as such, there is no objection on flood risk grounds. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions. * The Council's Housing Enabling Officer is satisfied with the number and mix of units proposed as "affordable" units and these would be secured through a legal agreement. * The Council's Tree and Countryside Officer has suggested that tree protection and biodiversity enhancements should be secured through suitably worded conditions. * Policy DC14 of the Adopted Core Strategy requires a development such as this to supply at least 10% of the energy they require through on-site and/or decentralised renewable sources. It is appropriate to secure this via a suitably worded planning condition. The Council's Contaminated Land Officer has confirmed that on the basis of the desk study submitted they have no objection subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions. * As 35 dwellings are proposed, Policy DC11 requires the provision of a local area for play (LAP). It is considered that the area provided on site (between plots 27 and 28) is acceptable in terms of size and shape. * The application proposes community allotments and associated wooded area which would undoubtedly be of benefit to the local community and is supported by Weeting Parish Council. * In conclusion, notwithstanding the community benefits proposed in the form of the community allotments and wooded area, it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of planning policy and, in particular, with regard to the failure to comply with housing policy (PPS3, DC131_new
29 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
DC2, SS1, CP1, CP14), policy linked to the Breckland SPA (CP10 and the Habitat Regulations) and policies linked to the protection of the character and appearance of the area (DC1 and DC16). For these reasons the proposal is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION Refusal of Planning Permission
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL
9900 Significant adverse impact on SPA (stone curlew) 9900 Contrary to PPS3 and SS1 unsuitable site 9900 Detrimental to the streetscene 9900 Outside of defined Settlement Boundary
DC131_new
30 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 3 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1155/F CASE OFFICER: Chris Raine
Full LOCATION: ATTLEBOROUGH APPN TYPE: Beverley House POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Exchange Street ALLOCATION: Primary Shopping Are CONS AREA:Y TPO: N APPLICANT: Mr Adrian Stasiak Rear of Beverley House Exchange Street LB GRADE: Within Curtilage G2
AGENT: PD Architectural Services 2 Exchange Street Attleborough
PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwelling
KEY ISSUES Principle of residential development Impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area Impact on adjacent Listed Building Impact upon neighbour amenity Highway safety
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling on a parking area in Attleborough town centre. The dwelling consists of a single storey structure with rooms in the roof which provides lounge, kitchen, bathroom and 2 bedrooms with integral garage arrangement. The dwelling has an accompanying private amenity space and is accessed via the existing access onto Connaught Road.
SITE AND LOCATION The site consists of part of a parking area which serves Beverley House and is accessed via Connaught Road to the south. To the west is a public house, to the north are commercial properties on Exchange Street and to the east and south are residential properties. Lamp Cottage and The Homestead to the South are Grade 2 Listed. The site lies within the Conservation Area.
DC131_new
31 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
EIA REQUIRED No
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY No relevant site history
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS03 Housing PPS05 Planning for the Historic Environment DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.11 Open Space DC.16 Design DC.17 Historic Environment
CONSULTATIONS ATTLEBOROUGH TC - No objection
HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER No objection CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objection subject to conditions.
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Recommends refusal on grounds of intensification of use of existing access and inadequate visibility splays
NORFOLK LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY In light of potential presence of heritage assets, recommends condition in respect of archaeological work
DC131_new
32 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
REPRESENTATIONS The following representations have been received: Objections on the grounds of overdevelopment; devaluation of property; highway safety concerns and too close to neighbours. Letters of support and no objection have been received.
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant is a Ward Member. * The application site is within the Settlement Boundary for Attleborough and, as such, the general principle of new residential development is acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Policy DC2 of the Adopted Core Strategy. * In visual terms, the modest height, scale and mass of the building is consistent with the adjacent buildings including the single storey building to the west. Furthermore, the traditional and simple appearance of the building which would be built from traditional materials is sufficiently consistent and sympathetic to the locality which is designated as part of the Conservation Area. The dwelling will not impact on the adjacent Grade 2 Listed Buildings. The Historic Buildings Officer has raised no objection. * In terms of neighbour amenity, the dwelling is sufficiently distanced from existing neighbouring dwellings given its single storey composition so as to avoid any significant loss of light or outlook. The separation distances between the proposal and neighbouring properties coupled with the position of the openings within the proposal means that no significant overlooking would occur. It is considered that the vehicle movements associated with the proposal would not cause significant noise and disturbance to the neighbouring properties. The introduction of a residential use at the site is considered to be viable in this location given the adjacent uses. * In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority has confirmed that it is concerned at the restricted visibility available from the site access onto Connaught Road and the intensification of the use of the existing access onto that road which they consider to be a busy and important stretch of a strategic carriageway. * Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has confirmed that it has no objection subject to a condition relating to archaeology being attached to any subsequent planning permission. * The Contaminated Land Officer has confirmed that a planning condition in relation to land contamination would be required. * The applicant has completed the requisite unilateral undertaking to secure the necessary financial contribution towards recreation in the locality as required by Policy DC11 of the Adopted Core Strategy. * In conclusion, the proposal would be detrimental to local highway safety and is, therefore, recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION Refusal of Planning Permission
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL
9900 Intensification of use of access 9900 Inadequate visibility
DC131_new
33 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 4 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1231/F CASE OFFICER: Jayne Owen
Full LOCATION: BEESTON APPN TYPE: Church Farm Chalet POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry
ALLOCATION: No Allocation CONS AREA:N TPO: N APPLICANT: L Carter & Sons LB GRADE: Adjacent Grade 2 Church Farm Beeston
AGENT: Cruso Wilkin Waterloo Street Kings Lynn
PROPOSAL: Removal of condition 2 on pp ML3530 - agricultural occupancy condition
KEY ISSUES Principle of development Need for agricultural dwelling in the area
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission to remove condition 2 attached to planning permission ML3530. Planning permission ML3530 granted planning permission for the erection of a chalet bungalow at Church Farm. Condition 2 states that: The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons employed, or last employed, locally in agriculture, as defined in Section 221 (i) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 or in Forestry and the dependants of such persons
SITE AND LOCATION The application site comprises an existing chalet bungalow located to the south-west of Church Farm which is a Grade II Listed farmhouse.
EIA REQUIRED No
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY ML3530 - Erection of a chalet bungalow at Church Farm - Approved 8th September 1967
DC131_new
34 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS07 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
CONSULTATIONS BEESTON P C - At the recent Parish Council meeting the members raised NO OBJECTION to the removal of the condition. However the Parish Council would like Breckland Council to consider a widening of the Agricultural Occupancy condition. At present this is very restricted and could be widened to include all who work in the agricultural field not just those at the individual farm or their descendants. This could include drivers of agricultural vehicles or engineers. This would then bring into the housing stock properties at an affordable rent/price so that there is adequate property for this vital sector.
REPRESENTATIONS None
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Member Policy * Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 provides guidance in relation to agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings. Paragraph 16 states that where the need to provide accommodation to enable farm, forestry or other workers to live at or near their place of work has been accepted as providing the special justification required for new, isolated residential development in the countryside, it will be necessary to ensure that the dwellings are kept available for meeting this need for as long as it exists. * Paragraph 17 states that changes in the scale and character of farming and forestry may affect the longer term requirement for dwellings for which permission has been granted subject to an agricultural or forestry occupancy condition. Such dwellings, and others in the countryside with an occupancy condition attached, should not be kept vacant, nor should their present occupants be unnecessarily obliged to remain in occupation simply by virtue of planning conditions restricting occupancy which have outlived their usefulness * Therefore, the main issue in determining this application is whether the submitted application satisfactorily demonstrates that there is no longer a demand for a farm dwelling in the area bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture or forestry in an area as a whole, and not just on the particular holding, that is relevant in the case of farm or forestry workers dwellings. Need * The background to this application is that the bungalow was granted planning permission in 1969. The applicants' parents moved into the property in 1973 when they purchased the farm, the family have been farming at Church Farm, Beeston since then. In January 2010 Mrs Carter
DC131_new
35 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
senior passed away leaving the bungalow unoccupied with an agricultural restriction on it. Background * The family of L Carter and Sons are two brothers and their wives who continue to run farming enterprises and reside in Church Farm and Woodgate House and therefore do not require any further properties for employees due to the size of the farm. They are able to carry out the work themselves. They would like to let out the property either on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy or via holiday lets as a form of diversification to supplement their farming income, which is not large on this small acreage. As the property has been empty since January 2010 the applicants state that they have received letters from the Council regarding its unoccupied position and whilst no one is living there the applicants are concerned that it will fall into disrepair. Marketing * In October 2010 the applicants requested a valuation to be carried out by the District Valuers office. A copy of the sales particulars have been provided and the applicants have confirmed that the property has been marketed at the agreed value between November 2010 and November 2011. A For Sale sign has been erected at the site and the particulars have been advertised on Rightmove and Cruso and Wilkins website during this period. Advertisements have also appeared in the Farmers Guardian and the Dereham Times throughout the marketing period. * In addition, a needs survey has also been sent out to the surrounding farms to ascertain whether there is a need in the locality; an example of the survey form has also been submitted. 45 farms meeting the locality criteria were sent the survey, 27 responses were received. The questions asked were:- A Do you have a current need for agricultural housing and B Are you likely to have a need in the future? And if so, would this property meet your requirements? Of the 27 responses which were received 26 said that they had no need now or in the future and 2 stated that they would have a need in the future but that the property would not meet their requirements, this was because they needed someone on site. The applicants also state that there have been very few sales enquiries and that during the course of marketing there were just two viewings and neither party was interested in pursuing the matter further. They were aware of the agricultural occupancy condition, however the applicants are unable to confirm whether they satisfied the requirements of the restriction. Conclusion * It is considered that the submitted application satisfactorily demonstrates that there is no longer a demand for a farm dwelling in the area and it is therefore considered that the agricultural restriction attached to planning permission ML3530 may be removed.
RECOMMENDATION Planning Permission
CONDITIONS
DC131_new
36 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 5 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1334/F CASE OFFICER: Viv Bebbington
Full LOCATION: BESTHORPE APPN TYPE: Land adjacent to Daisy Bank POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Norwich Road ALLOCATION: No Allocation CONS AREA:N TPO: N APPLICANT: Mr S Rogers LB GRADE: N c/o agent
AGENT: EJW Planning Limited Lincoln Barn Norwich Road
PROPOSAL: Proposed two new dwellings with associated garaging and means of access
KEY ISSUES Outside Settlement Boundary Impact on form and character of the area Design Impact on neighbouring properties Highway issues
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application is the re-submission of an application which was refused in October 2011 under reference 3PL/2011/0882/F. The proposal remains unchanged.
The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 2 detached dwellings with attached garages. The dwellings are 1 ½ storey with an attached single storey utility room and garage. They would be constructed using brick, timber shingles and horizontal cladding with a recycled slate roofing system. The applicant has included the provision of a 2m wide footpath along the frontage of the site
SITE AND LOCATION The site is outside the Settlement Boundary of Besthorpe to the south of Norwich Road. The site abuts the Settlement Boundary to the east. The site is an area of open grass surrounded by housing to the north and east and farmland to the south. Immediately to the west is an area of grassland which forms the subject of a further application for residential development, (Ref 3PL/2011/1338) which is included on this agenda.
DC131_new
37 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
Beyond this site to the west are two pairs of semi detached cottages with a farmhouse and agricultural buildings to the south.
EIA REQUIRED No
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY A similar application was submitted under ref 3PL/2010/1290/O and was subsequently withdrawn. The same proposal was submitted under reference 3PL/2011/0882/F and was refused in October 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS03 Housing PPS07 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas CP.14 Sustainable Rural Communities DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.04 Affordable Housing Principles DC.11 Open Space DC.15 Renewable Energy DC.16 Design
CONSULTATIONS BESTHORPE P C - No Comments Received
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection subject to conditions
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Further comments and conditions following amended plan
NATIONAL GRID - No Comments Received EDF ENERGY (NETWORKS) LTD - No Comments Received DC131_new
38 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
REPRESENTATIONS Letters of objection have been received raising concerns in respect of the proposal being outside the Settlement Boundary, impact on the character of the area and loss of open area.
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to Planning Committee as the applicant is a Ward Member. * The proposal is a resubmission of an application which was recently refused by Committee. The proposal has not been amended; however, an additional planning statement has been submitted which seeks to address the policy issues. * The site is located outside the Settlement Boundary for Besthorpe and, as such, is in an area where planning permission would not normally be granted unless there is special justification for new dwellings ie they are connected with agriculture. * The site currently forms part of a larger open area of grassland which has a frontage of approximately 85m and separates the defined Settlement Boundary from a group of 4 dwellings with a farm house and associated farm buildings to the west of the site. The open area positively contributes to the street scene and the rural setting of the village. It is considered that the development of the site would not enhance the form and character of the area and would extend the built up frontage into the countryside. * In terms of design and appearance the dwellings are L shaped 1 ½ storey buildings of contemporary design with an attached single storey utility and garage. The simple design and use of materials reflects a barn style. The dwellings have been orientated to reduce the impact along Norwich Road and incorporate energy savings measures such as PV panels. * The site is of sufficient size to accommodate the dwellings in terms of amenity area and parking. The proposal retains the road frontage hedge and provides for further tree and hedge planting. * The application provides for a unilateral agreement to secure a financial contribution towards recreational facilities. * The site is over 0.17ha. in area and, as such, an affordable housing contribution is required. The applicant has made no provision for affordable housing, however it is understood that he is willing to do so should the scheme be approved. * In terms of amenity and impact on neighbouring properties, the scheme has been designed to minimise overlooking or overshadowing due to the siting of the dwellings, positioning of fenestration and orientation within the site. * The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of design and neighbouring amenity, however it is outside the settlement boundary and it is considered the development of the site would not enhance the form and character of the area and would result in the loss of rural character. * The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies CP 14 and DC2 and is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION Refusal of Planning Permission
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL
DC131_new
39 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
9900 Outside Settlement Boundary 9900 Unwarranted intrusion
DC131_new
40 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
ITEM 6 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL
REF NO: 3PL/2011/1338/F CASE OFFICER: Viv Bebbington
Full LOCATION: BESTHORPE APPN TYPE: Norwich Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry
ALLOCATION: No Allocation CONS AREA:N TPO: N APPLICANT: Mrs R Shearwood LB GRADE: N c/o agent
AGENT: EJW Planning Limited Lincoln Barn Norwich Road
PROPOSAL: Proposed new dwelling and annex with associated cart lodge style garage and means of access
KEY ISSUES Outside Settlement Boundary Impact on form and character of the area Design Impact on neighbouring properties Highway issues
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The proposal is a re-submission of an application which was refused under reference 3PL/2011/1083/F in October 2011. The proposal remains unchanged.
The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a large detached dwelling with integrated annex to the rear and a detached double garage to the front of the dwelling. The dwelling provides 4 bedrooms and the annex a further 1 bedroom with separate kitchen, lounge, study and bathroom. The dwelling would be constructed using brick, timber shingles and horizontal cladding with recycles slate roofing system. The garage is in the form of an open cart shed with all sides open. The applicant has included the provision of a 2m wide footpath across the front of the site.
SITE AND LOCATION The site is outside the Settlement Boundary of Besthorpe to the south of Norwich Road. The site abuts the Settlement Boundary to the east. The site is an area of open grass surrounded by housing to the north and east and farmland to
DC131_new
41 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
the south. Immediately to the west is an area of grassland which forms the subject of a further application for residential development (Ref 3PL/2011/1334) which is included on this agenda. Beyond this site to the west are two pairs of semi detached cottages with a farmhouse and agricultural and commercial buildings to the south.
EIA REQUIRED No
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY A similar application was submitted under reference 3PL/2010/1289/F. The same proposal was refused under reference 3PL/2011/0883/F in October 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following National Planning Guidance and the Breckland Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application: PPS01 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS03 Housing PPS07 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas CP.14 Sustainable Rural Communities DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.11 Open Space DC.15 Renewable Energy DC.16 Design
CONSULTATIONS BESTHORPE P C - No Comments Received
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection subject to conditions
CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objections
DC131_new
42 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 16-01-2012
REPRESENTATIONS None
ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is referred to Planning Committee as it is closely related to an application on the adjoining site (3PL/2011/1334/F) which is included on this agenda. * The proposal is a re-submission of an application which was recently refused by Committee. The proposal has not been amended; however, an additional planning statement has been submitted which seeks to address the policy issues. * The site is located outside the Settlement Boundary for Besthorpe and, as such, is in an area where planning permission would not normally be granted unless there is special justification for the dwelling ie it is connected with agriculture. * The site currently forms part of a larger open area of grassland which has a frontage of approximately 85m and separates the defined Settlement Boundary from a group of 4 dwellings with a farm house and associated farm buildings to the west of the site. The open area positively contributes to the street scene and the rural setting of the village. It is considered that the development of the site would not enhance the form and character of the area and would extend the built up frontage into the countryside resulting in an unwarranted intrusion into this rural landscape. * In terms of design and appearance the proposal is an L shaped 1 ½ storey dwelling of contemporary design with a series of extensions to the rear which step down to a single storey element. The simple design and use of materials reflects a barn style. The dwelling has been orientated to reduce the impact along Norwich Road. The annex is integrated into the dwelling. * The site is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling of this size and scale in terms of amenity area and parking. The proposal retains the road frontage hedge and provides for further tree and hedge planting. * The application provides for a unilateral agreement to secure a financial contribution towards recreational facilities. * In terms of amenity and impact on neighbouring properties, the scheme has been designed to minimise overlooking or overshadowing due to its siting and orientation within the site. * The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of design and neighbouring amenity, however it is outside the Settlement Boundary and it is considered the development of the site would not enhance the form and character of the area and would result in the loss of an open area which contributes to the rural character. * The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies CP 14 and DC2 and is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION Refusal of Planning Permission
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL
9035 Outside Settlement Boundary 9035 Unwarranted intrusion
DC131_new
43 Agenda Item 11 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
DOC - COMPLETE
3DC/2011/0187/DOC Lord Charles Cathcart NORTH ELMHAM Discharge of conditions 3, 4, Land North of & 5 on pp 3PL/2011/0711/F Silverstone Farm
3DC/2011/0188/DOC Mr & Mrs Baldwin SAHAM TONEY Discharge of conditions 3, 5 & Cherry Tree Cottage 6 on pp 3PL/2011/0468/F Coburg Lane
3DC/2011/0193/DOC Mr M Gore DEREHAM Discharge of condition 6 on pp 20 Westfield Road 3PL/2011/0357/F
3DC/2011/0195/DOC Mr Mark Titley CARBROOKE Discharge of conditions Neighbourhood Centre 3, 13 and 14 of pp Blenheim Grange (Former 3PL/2009/0990/D RAF Watton) DOC-Discharge FULL
3DC/2011/0169/DOC Lidl THETFORD Discharge of conditions 3, 5, London Road 6, 12, 13, 14 & 17 of pp 3PL/2010/1249/F
3DC/2011/0202/DOC Co-Dunkall Ltd GRISTON Discharge of condition 3 on pp Plot 2 (Adjacent to Church 3PL/2010/0194/F Cottage) Church Road Permission
3PL/2011/0547/F Hastoe Housing Association ATTLEBOROUGH Enclose existing porch to 2 Memorial Cottages create bathroom, change living Station Road room window to door, solar panels, air source heat pump
DC135
44 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/0636/F Mr Glen Hammond DEREHAM Demolition of existing Amberley bungalow and erection of Littlefields a pair of semi-detached 2 bedroom bungalows
3PL/2011/0963/F The National Trust OXBOROUGH Single-storey Bird Hide Oxburgh Hall (My Lady's Wood)
3PL/2011/0991/F Abel Homes Ltd SHIPDHAM Minor material amendment to Land off Church Close pp 3PL/2007/1234/F
3PL/2011/1023/F Mrs Karen Syer ASHILL Rear and side extension The Lodge Care Home (bedrooms) with associated Watton Road ancillary accommodation and external works
3PL/2011/0990/O Mr & Mrs S Reynolds BANHAM Erection of dwelling & Land to rear of The Willows garage Kenninghall Road
3PL/2011/0984/F Mr James Keith HOE Installation of pv panels onto Hoe Hall roof of outbuilding
3PL/2011/1024/F The Old Cinema House ATTLEBOROUGH Change of use to Indian The Old Cinema House restaurant, alterations & new Exchange Street extraction system
3PL/2011/1036/F Mrs Melanie Stewart SWAFFHAM Proposed rear extension, 49 Watton Road new dormer & rooflights, new porch and demolish garage (Re-submission)
DC135
45 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1107/F Mr & Mrs P Chamberlain TITTLESHALL Single storey extension to 22 High Street front and rear (Amended scheme)
3PL/2011/1099/F Mr & Mrs Penfold CASTON Change of use of ancillary The Old Rectory rooms to guest accom. & erection of glazed roof to cover swimming pool & terrace
3PL/2011/1094/F Mr Andrew Bull SWAFFHAM Replace existing toilet/shower Breckland Meadows Touring block with new modular Park toilet/shower block Lynn Road
3PL/2011/1093/F Mr R Ewin GREAT ELLINGHAM Erection of a single 11kW Gaia Lindisfarne wind turbine on an 18m mast Hingham Road
3PL/2011/1091/F Mr Tom Barker WEETING Vary condition 2 (revised Victor Charles Close layout/design & drive) and removal of condition 10 (plot 4 only) of pp 3PL/2007/1854/F
3PL/2011/1090/F Kingsley Health Care GRISTON Re-construct wall - dwarf Thorp House Nursing Home brick wall with feather edge Church Road boarding (existing wall dismantled as dangerous)
3PL/2011/1084/F Mr Rob Rafferty WRETHAM Erection of a 50kW solar array Bridge Farm on existing poultry farm roof Illington Road
3PL/2011/1083/F Mr & Mrs Southgate ATTLEBOROUGH Erection of one dwelling and Robelle garage following demolition Foundry Corner of existing dwelling
DC135
46 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1077/F Mrs D Tunmore NEW BUCKENHAM Replace roof tiles, demolish Green Point garage, conservatory & Castle Hill Road outhouse at rear, erection of extensions & detached garage
3PL/2011/1141/F Mr & Mrs Darby HOCKHAM Convert outbuilding to annex The Old Vicarage incl. one room single storey Vicarage Road extension to east (Revision to 3PL/2001/0670/F)
3PL/2011/1140/F Mr J & Mrs J Eason SAHAM TONEY Erection of detached two bay Meadow Dyke garage/workshop with lean-to Cley Lane log store
3PL/2011/1136/F Norfolk Farm Produce Ltd BEESTON Installation of three small Herne Farm scale wind generator (14.97m Herne Lane to hub, 5.5m diameter blades)
3PL/2011/1135/F Mr J & Mrs L Webb ATTLEBOROUGH Proposed rear first floor 12 Knevet Close extension over existing single storey extension
3PL/2011/1134/F Mr M Bone QUIDENHAM Extend garage, remove flat Kenwood House roof and replace with pitched Station Road roof
3PL/2011/1131/F Mr T Valentine ROCKLANDS Variation of condition 2 to pp Holly Barn 3PL/2011/0411/F- 2 additional Fen Street roof lights, extension to side of barn & detached garage/outb
3PL/2011/1128/F Mr & Mrs Webster TITTLESHALL Replace swim pool perimeter Woodford Lodge fence (north & south) with new wall including insertion of 16 photovoltaic panels set within
DC135
47 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1127/F Mr V Somers WATTON Erection of bungalow 63 Jubilee Road
3PL/2011/1125/F Mr Paul Gilchrist BESTHORPE Erection of a pair of semi- Norwich Road detached dwellings and associated garages
3PL/2011/1191/A Hughes Retail Ltd DEREHAM Erect 2 illuminated fascia 6 Nelson Place signs (retrospective)
3PL/2011/1190/F Mr J Sadler THETFORD Single storey extension at 17 Birch Covert rear of existing dwelling
3PL/2011/1186/F Mr R Sturrock NORTH LOPHAM Replacement garage Octavia House 28A The Street
3PL/2011/1185/F Mrs S Garner DEREHAM Mobile catering unit on car Homebase (East Dereham) park & use of LPG Gas & Petrol Yaxham Road Generator (Retrospective)
3PL/2011/1182/F Dr Jo Connolly THOMPSON Single storey rear ext (link Magnolia Cottage outbldg to cott) repair/ Pockthorpe Lane upgrade dormers, solar panels, 3 rooflights & roof structure
3PL/2011/1179/F Mr & Mrs R Gorum THOMPSON Rear single storey Dersingham House extension Marlpit Lane
DC135
48 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1178/F Brightwell Developments SWAFFHAM Minor material amendment to 15 The Pightle pp 2010/1105, amend conditions 3, 9, 10, 11 & 13 & remove condition 8
3PL/2011/1176/F Mr M Joyce BESTHORPE Proposed sub-division of The Haven plot for 1 no. new Norwich Road dwelling
3PL/2011/1172/F Mr & Mrs Andrew Davey GARBOLDISHAM Erect conservatory addition to Steeple Cottage holiday letting unit Water Lane
3PL/2011/1119/LB Mr & Mrs Ranald McGregor-SmSTOW BEDON/BRECKLES Conversion of a redundant Stow Bedon Hall single storey brick stable Lower Stow Bedon building to provide 2No. one bedroom holiday lets
3PL/2011/1101/LB Mr & Mrs G Penfold CASTON Change of use of ancillary The Old Rectory rooms to guest accommodation erection of glazed roof to cover swimming pool & terrace
3PL/2011/1098/CU Mr James Lambert DEREHAM Change of use to A1 shop 93 Norwich Road toolhire and sales
3PL/2011/1227/F Mr Teresa Andrews ELSING New enclosure for biomass Mill Farm Bungalow boiler and storage Mill Street
3PL/2011/1225/F Mr A Floyd DEREHAM Erection of UPVC conservatory Granston House to rear Dumpling Green
DC135
49 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1224/F S.S. Eglington & Son Ltd CRANWORTH General purpose agricultural North Hill building Letton
3PL/2011/1223/A Greene King Company THETFORD Rebranding of The Chase Pub & The Chase Pub & Grill Grill - 12 various signs Newtown (totem, fascia signs, welcome, entrance & amenity boards etc)
3PL/2011/1221/F Mr & Mrs D Matthew BRADENHAM Demolition of single storey 12 Church Street flat roof extension, construct single storey extension & rebuild front porch
3PL/2011/1217/F Ms J Lock FRANSHAM Install 42 PV panels on south Greenbanks Hotel facing roof of swimming pool Main Road building
3NM/2011/0090/NMA Mr R Cole MATTISHALL Amend to 3PL/2006/0999/F 5A Mill Street (addition of more solar panels additional window at 1st floor north elevation) retrospective
3NM/2011/0089/NMA Mr & Mrs G Booker SWANTON MORLEY Amendment to 3PL/2011/0474/F Medena House in respect of change external Worthing Road material of porch to render
3NM/2011/0087/NMA Mr V Gedge GARVESTONE Amendment to 3PL/2011/0309 - Oak Rise revision to garden room, and The Lings colour of joinery from light oak to cream/white
3NM/2011/0086/NMA Mr E Byford CROXTON Amendment to pp 3PL/2011/022 Copper Beech Cottage - front entrance detailing The Street above door from glazed to brickwork
DC135
50 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3NM/2011/0085/NMA Mr E Colville LEXHAM Amendment to 3PL/2009/1138/F West Lexham Manor & 3PL/2009/1139/LB - increase in area of PV panels to roof area on building 7
3TL/2011/0040/TL Mr N J Eagle SCARNING Extension of time limit on Brookside Farm pp 3PL/2008/1179 - Chapel Lane conversion of farm buildings to dwelling
3PL/2011/1228/LB Mr M Hayman THOMPSON Install 16 suntech 250w solar Silverdell PV panels on roof of Crows Lane outbuilding
3PL/2011/1214/LB Quebec Hall Ltd DEREHAM Replacement of 6 no. Quebec Hall decayed defective windows Quebec Road
3PL/2011/1203/LB Mr R Walton OLD BUCKENHAM Proposed detached garage & Barkers Cottage store Ragmere Road
3NM/2011/0092/NMA Mr N C Mcleod LONGHAM Amendment to pp Proposed Managers House 3PL/2004/0030/F in respect of Hall Farm natural slates to be used instead of clay pantiles
3NM/2011/0091/NMA Mr Mark Tarsey FRANSHAM Non material amendment to pp Lane Farm 3PL/2007/2062/F - change wood Main Road cladding from Shiplap to Featheredge Boarding
3PL/2011/1184/LB Dr Jo Connolly THOMPSON Single storey rear ext (link Magnolia Cottage outbldg to cott) repair/ Pockthorpe Lane upgrade dormers, solar panels, 3 rooflights & roof structure
DC135
51 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1169/LB Mr & Mrs Ranald McGregor-SmSTOW BEDON/BRECKLES Remove 3 first floor windows Stow Bedon Hall to South & 2 to East Elevation Lower Stow Bedon & replace with purpose made sliding sash windows
3PL/2011/1163/CU Trek Highway Services Ltd DEREHAM Change of use of part of yard Steel House for storage & selling asphalt 4A Hall Lane planings for use as a recycled granular sub-base/component
3PL/2011/1160/LB Mrs Jacqui Seal WATTON To fit a stair lift to allow Wayland Hall access to the public to attend Middle Street Council Meetings
3PL/2011/1154/LB Ms Tessa Greaves THETFORD Replacement of front & rear 46 Castle Street doors and replacement of 4 No rear windows
3PL/2011/1149/CU Colchester Print Group Ltd ATTLEBOROUGH Change of use from B1 to B2 Marrison Electrical Limited New Road
3PL/2011/1143/LB Mr & Mrs Edward & Merelina BRADENHAM Amendment to PP Huntingfield Farm 3PL/2011/0666/LB - exclusion Mill Street of porch & further internal reconfiguration
3PL/2011/1129/LB Mr & Mrs Webster TITTLESHALL Wall to replace existing Woodford Lodge timber panel fence to north & south perimeter of swimming pool
3PL/2011/1211/F Mrs Lyn Toms THETFORD Timber Shed 40 Earls Street
DC135
52 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1206/F Suffolk Life ATTLEBOROUGH Single storey extension to Martin Christopher Opticians shop and refurbishment of Church Street laboratory and store
3PL/2011/1205/D Mrs R Anderson SWAFFHAM Erection of detached dwelling 8 Hickling Close and creation of vehicular access to parking spaces
3PL/2011/1201/F Mr R Walton OLD BUCKENHAM Proposed detached garage & Barkers Cottage store Ragmere Road
3PL/2011/1196/F Mr F Olasehinde BLO' NORTON To erect a 4KW solar PV Just Another House system in meadow Redgrave Road
3PL/2011/1195/F Mr T Sturman ATTLEBOROUGH Erection of conservatory 18 Barley Way
3PL/2011/1194/F Anglian Water Services SWANTON MORLEY Construction of a glass Swanton Morley Borehole 2 reinforced plastic borehole (North) kiosk, telemetry aerial with Hoe Road North post and rail fence & access
3PL/2011/1193/F Anglian Water Services HOE Construction of a glass Swanton Morley Borehole 1 reinforced plastic borehole (South) kiosk, telemetry aerial with Hoe Road (South) fence & improve access
3PL/2011/1171/F Greene King THETFORD Erection of children's play The Chase equipment & proposed single Newtown storey side extension
DC135
53 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1165/F Mr H Woodyatt WATTON Erection of 2 storey dwelling 10 Griston Road & new vehicular access
3PL/2011/1164/F Mr S Bain HARLING Proposed remodelling, Oak Cottage extension to rear, first floor Garboldisham Road extension over existing garage & erect new double garage
3PL/2011/1152/F Tates Limited CARBROOKE New shop front incorporating 4 Vulcan Place ATM & new entrance doors
3PL/2011/1151/F Mr R Herridge BRISLEY Demolish single storey outshot The Cottage & erection of two storey Harpers Green extension
3PL/2011/1150/F Mr S Dorrington WATTON Retention of six mobile homes Dorrington House (Watton) to accommodate staff working 73 Norwich Road at Dorrington House
3PL/2011/1147/F Mr & Mrs Lake YAXHAM Demolish part of single storey East Thorn extension & erect two storey Norwich Road rear & single storey side extensions
3PL/2011/1146/F Mr A Demetriades & Mrs J Em GREAT DUNHAM Installation of two small Echo Farm scale wind generators with 18m Palgrave Road lattice masts
3PL/2011/1124/F Tesco Stores Ltd THETFORD To create external door to the 9 Norwich Road current ATM and remove the internal access door
DC135
54 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Permission
3PL/2011/1123/F Mr J E Peachment ROCKLANDS Demolish bungalow & erect new Spring Meadow bungalow & garage, C/U Bell Road agricultural land to garden (retrospective)
3PL/2011/1120/F Mr & Mrs Ranald McGregor-SmSTOW BEDON/BRECKLES Conversion of redundant Stow Bedon Hall agricultural building to Lower Stow Bedon residential accommodation
3PL/2011/1118/F Mr & Mrs Ranald McGregor-SmSTOW BEDON/BRECKLES Conversion of a redundant Stow Bedon Hall single storey brick stable Lower Stow Bedon building to provide 2 No. one bedroom holiday lets
3PL/2011/1117/F Tina Anderson BEESTON Infilling of sides of existing Meadow Farm storage building The Street
3PL/2011/1116/F Mr R Bayes ATTLEBOROUGH Proposed two storey rear 136 Besthorpe Road extension & internal alterations
3PL/2011/1115/F Mr & Mrs Jones CARBROOKE First floor side extension Linden House 5 Mill Lane
3PL/2011/1112/F Robert Ian Old WATTON Proposed front & rear 29 Merton Road extensions, new roof with attic rooms and double garage
3PL/2011/1025/A The Old Cinema House ATTLEBOROUGH Non-illuminated Fascia and The Old Cinema House Projecting/hanging sign Exchange Street
Refusal
DC135
55 Date of List - 03 JAN 2012 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.
Refusal
3PL/2011/0895/F Mr J Eglen DEREHAM Provision of static caravan, Penhill erection of double garage, Etling Green sheds and decking area (retrospective)
3PL/2011/1046/F Mr C Jenkins HARLING Erection of 1.6m closeboard 50 White Hart Street fence to perimeter of property including gates (Retrospective)
3PL/2011/1132/F Mr S Tribe SHIPDHAM Two new single storey Glebe House dwellings with attached High Street garages
3PL/2011/1148/F Mr M Hinds ASHILL Demolish existing dwelling & Low Common Farm erect replacement dwelling Low Common
3PL/2011/1161/F Mr Ian Thompson NECTON Change of use of land to car Town Farm sales, erection of Chantry Lane workshop/garage & portacabin as office
3PL/2011/1212/F Mr Paul Davis BAWDESWELL 2 No. Low Cost Starter Homes Land West of Heath Cottage (Resubmission) Dereham Road
Temporary Permission
3PL/2011/1133/F Miss D A Wright WATTON Use of container as snack bar The T Bar (Retrospective) 1 Norwich Road Industrial Estate
3PL/2011/1215/F Mrs Jean Letts DEREHAM Continued siting of static 67 Boyd Avenue home in rear garden
DC135
56 PLANNING COMMITTEE 16 TH JANUARY 2012. MATTERS FOR INFORMATION
APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
Reference No. Applicants Name Location Proposal Decision 3CM/2010/0019/F Barker Bros Beetley Quarry, Variation of condition on Approval Aggregates Beetley/Hoe permission C/3/2007/3012, appeal reference APP/X2600/A/08/2064262 to enable the continued stockpiling and sale of sand and gravel and for the restoration of the process site
57 until 31 December 2011 3CM/2011/0035/F AMEC Earth & Larkshall Mill, Viridor MRF, Extension of the current site by Approval Environmental (UK) Thetford Road, East 9m along the eastern Ltd Wretham boundary with installation of nine flood lights. Erection of 3m high fencing to the northern and eastern boundary, installation of a storage tank, pumphouse, associated hardstanding and storage structures Agenda Item13 (retrospective) and a jetty to the existing lagoon. 3CM/2010/0040/F Tarmac Limited - Bittering Quarry, Reed Variation of condition 1 on Approval Brendan Kelly Lane, Bittering planning permission (Temporary C/3/2000/2032 ) (3CM/2000/0026/F) to permit the operation of the ashphalt plant to operate for the duration of mineral extraction. 3CM/2011/0021/F Mr Colin D'Oyley Shropham Quarry, Variation of condition 1 of pp Approval Swangay Road, Rocklands C/3/2006/3005 (Temporary (3CM/2006/0007/F) to ) continue storage and recycling, including crushing and screening of inert wastes until 31 December 2018. 3CM/2011/0020/F Mr Colin D'Oyley Shropham Quarry, Variation of condition 1 of Approval Swangay Road, Rocklands planning permission (Temporary C/3/2006/3007 ) (3CM/20020041) to allow retention of workshop and store until 31 December 2018. 3CM/2011/0036/F Director of 15-17 Telford Way, Thetford Creation of a new recycling Approval
58 Environment, centre for the disposal, Transport & recycling and re-sale of Development: household waste, and small Norfolk County scale sale of bagged compost. Council Re-use of existing building as site office (to be fitted with photovoltaic cells), siting of steel type cabin to be used as kiosk and information point, use of various receptacles for the storage of waste, and installation of associated surface and foul water drainage system. 3CM/2011/0023/F Mr Colin D'Oyley Shropham Quarry, Variations of conditions 1 and Approval Swangey Road, 2 of planning permission (Temporary Rocklands/Attleborough C/3/2006/3012 ) (3CM/2006/0023/F) to allow the continued use of the site until 31 December 2018 and minor amendments to restoration scheme. 3CM/2011/0022/F Mr Colin D'Oyley Shropham Quarry, Variation of condition 1 of Approval Swangey Road, Rocklands planning permission (Temporary C/3/2006/3006 ) (3CM/2006/0023/F) retain weighbridge, weighbridge office, cabin store and tool store until 31 December 2018. 3CM/2011/0027/F Director of Children's St Peter & St Paul CE VC 2 classbase extension to Approval 59 Services Primary School, Church existing school, ramped Street, Carbrooke access and erection of fencing (modified proposal)