Planning Regulatory Committee

Date: Friday, 22 May 2009

Time: 10.00am

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall,

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

Membership

Mr C Armes Mr P Hacon Mr D Baxter Mr D Harrison Dr A Boswell Mr C Joyce Mr D Callaby Mrs T Paines Mr S Dorrington Mr J Rogers Mrs J Eells Mr J Shrimplin Mrs I Floering Blackman Mr M Wright Mr A Gunson

For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Lesley Rudelhoff Scott on 01603 222963 or email lesley.rudelhoff.scott@.gov.uk

Where the County Council have received letters of objection in respect of any application, these are summarised in the report. If you wish to read them in full, Members can do so either at the meeting itself or beforehand in the Department of Planning and Transportation on the 3rd Floor, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich. Planning Regulatory Committee 22 May 2009

A g e n d a

1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending.

2. Minutes: To receive the Minutes of the last meeting held on 24 (Page 1) April 2009

3. Members to Declare any Interests

Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest, the member may speak and vote on the matter. Please note that if you are exempt from declaring a personal interest because it arises solely from your position on a body to which you were nominated by the County Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority), you need only declare your interest if and when you intend to speak on a matter.

If a prejudicial interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, in which case you may attend the meeting for that purpose. You must immediately leave the room when you have finished or the meeting decides you have finished, if earlier. These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

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

5. Minerals and Waste Applications referred to Committee for Determination Reports by The Director of Environment, Transport and Development a. C/1/2009/1001:Erection of Welfare Facilities Building and Re-use (Page 7) Shelter, Hempton Waste Recycling Centre, Hempton b. C/3/2007/3044: /: Land at Bittering (Page 15) Quarry: Continuation and extension of mineral working; continuation of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses: Tarmac Southern Limited Planning Regulatory Committee 22 May 2009

6. Developments by the County Council a. Y/7/2009/7005: Formation of Timber Framed and Canvassed Roof (Page 47) Covered Outdoor Play Area together with Double Doors from the Classbase to outside, Talconeston Primary School, Norwich Road Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Group Meetings

Conservative 9.00am Colman Room Liberal Democrats 9.00am Room 532

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

Date Agenda Published: 14 May 2009

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Lesley Rudelhoff Scott on 01603 222963 or Textphone 0844 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning Regulatory Committee

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 24 April 2009

Present:

Mr C Armes Mr D Harrison Mr D Baxter Mr C Joyce Dr A Boswell Mrs T Paines Mr D Callaby Mr J Rogers Mrs J Eells Mr J Shrimplin Mrs I Floering Blackman Mr A Wright - Substitute Mr A Gunson Mr M Wright

Also in Attendance:

Mr P Crick Planning and Transportation Mr M Dale Planning and Transportation Mr D Higgins Planning and Transportation Ms S Jenkinson Legal Services Mr N Johnson Planning and Transportation Ms N Levett Planning and Transportation

1. Apologies and Substitutions:

Apologies were received from Mr Dorrington and Mr A Wright substituted.

2. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2009 were agreed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3. Declarations of Interest

Mr Gunson declared a personal interest in Item 5a as he was the Director of Whitlingham Country Park and whilst the site of the application did not go through the Park, there was a common boundary between the site and the Park.

Mr Rogers declared a personal interest in Item 5b as he was a Member of Council.

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009

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

There were none.

5.a Minerals and Waste Applications referred to Committee for Determination

C/7/2008/7043: Kirby Bedon: Whitlingham WTC

The annexed report by The Director of Environment, Transport and Development was received.

The Chairman stated that he had received a letter of objection to the application from Able Care but no mention of this was made in the report.

The Planning Services Manager was given the letter to read and stated that the comments made in the letter related to other planning applications that had been made by Anglian Water and when these applications were brought before a future meeting of the Committee these comments would be contained within the reports. The officer re-affirmed the fact that the comments definitely did not relate to this application.

The following matters were raised:

• The map in the report did not show the nearest properties to the site. • A letter had been received by the Cabinet Member from Able Care stating that its offices were in close vicinity of the application site.

A 1:5000 scale map was tabled so the Committee could see where the nearest properties were, as it could not usefully be reproduced on A4 or in the PowerPoint presentation.

The Committee expressed their concern and disappointment that the application was a retrospective one. The Chairman stated that this situation was not what was expected from Anglia Water and he asked that they be formally informed by the Planning Department that this was not an acceptable situation.

The following comments were made in response to questions and concerns raised by the Committee:

• District Council had asked for a reduction in tonnage at the site to 60,000 tonnes from 75,000 to deal with odour issues

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009

but there was no need for this reduction to be made as the waste would be dealt with in closed containers and it was not inherently odorous. • The route to the site was a public right of way, with private access. Consultation with Anglian Water was underway to erect 20MPH signs and speed humps. • If there were any problems on the route with the existing site, they would have been brought to the attention of the County Council to be looked into. The County Council had not received any objections regarding this. • The material imported would be predominantly effluent from factory units brought into the site and separated and filtered into existing waste, this could also be leachate from landfill but would not cause odours. • There would be no synergistic effect on the waste that was already in the site by adding new waste to it. • If the process did not take place at this site then it would have to be processed somewhere in the County as it was a necessary process. Officers were not aware of any sites in the country that capable of taking such wastes.

In response to concerns the representative from Alpheus Environmental Ltd the applicant said that sewage was imported onto the site by Anglian Water not by them. Sewage would not be going into the application site.

The Chairman said to the representatives from Alpheus, who were in attendance at the meeting, that the Committee did not look favourably on retrospective applications and that they needed to look very carefully at odour issues at their site for future applications.

In response to a question as to why no punitive action was taken regarding retrospective applications, the Chairman stated that it was the law that each planning application was considered by the Committee on its merit as it was not a criminal offence to develop without planning permission. As such, no action could be taken.

In response to the concern raised by various Members of the Committee over odour it was pointed out by the Chairman that there was no odour involved in this particular application, although there were odour problems on the wider site overall.

Mr Mitchell objected to the application. He had submitted his reasons in writing to the Committee and made the following points:

• The works at the site were getting out of control but the problems could be resolved as long as proper remedial action was taken.

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009

• The odour from the site was unacceptable and amenity around the site was seriously affected. • The staff of Able Care would be adversely affected as they were within 25 metres of the site. • Anglian Water owned 60 acres of land on the site and Mr Mitchell felt that some of this land should form a buffer zone. • The waste material finished at the site in an open channel and this would add to the odours at the site. It had been indicated verbally that this site would be covered but he would like this carried out before any material was brought onto the site.

The Chairman stressed once more that this application would not emit odours but with future applications Anglian Water would have to improve on the odour situation at the site.

The recommendation was moved by Mr Armes and seconded by Mr Rogers. With 12 votes for and two abstentions it was RESOLVED:

That the Director be authorised to issue a decision notice granting planning permission subject to conditions to include:

Volume of waste treated, reversing alarms, hours of operation; together with a S106 agreement in respect of the number of tanker deliveries and vehicle routing.

5b. C/3/2008/3019: Retention of Vehicle Maintenance Building; Pips Skips, Frans Green Industrial Estate, Sandy Lane,

The annexed report by The Director of Environment, Transport and Development was received.

It was reported that the County Council could impose conditions on this application in connection with litter but it was ultimately the Environment Agency’s responsibility via the permit for the site.

In response to a question from the Chairman asking if the County Council could increase the fees for a retrospective application, it was stated that fees could not be increased.

In answer to concerns from the Committee over the appearance of the building it was noted that the parish council was concerned about poor construction, not the appearance of it. The height of the building was required to allow vehicles with mechanisms to be serviced. The site would be screened.

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009

It was confirmed that the conditions that Breckland District Council had asked to be applied, would be included in the conditions imposed by the County Council.

Mr Armes moved the recommendation which was seconded by Mr Rogers. With 11 votes for and two abstentions it was RESOLVED:

That the Director be authorised to issue a decision notice granting planning permission, subject to conditions regarding Environment Agency requirements, hours of working and use restrictions.

The Chairman asked that it be brought to the attention of Pip’s Skips that the Committee were displeased about receiving retrospective applications.

6. Developments by the County Council

Y/3/2009/3002: Fire Station Norwich Road: Erection of New Fire Tower and Confined Space Training Tunnels

The annexed report by The Director of Environment, Transport and Development was received.

The following comments were made in response to questions from the Committee:

• The proposed new tower had been re-sited in order to facilitate improved training. • As the footprint of the proposed tower was larger it would restrict access for vehicles and the functionality of the whole site if it were placed on the site of the existing one. • The existing tower would be demolished once the new one was erected. • Training for fire fighters took place once a week for three hours. • Some developments could have an impact on an individual’s Human Rights but determining this was a fine balancing act and it was deemed to be an acceptable impact on amenity. • The proposed tower would be approximately five metres shorter than the existing one and less obtrusive. It would therefore not cause a reduction in light to the neighbouring property, particularly as it was to the north-west of the property. • The National Rescue Service would be storing a vehicle at the site but no training would be undertaken there. • There was a need to invest more in retained fire fighters and as additional funding had been provided it was important to ensure they were suitably equipped by providing training facilities for them in the evenings.

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009

• Whilst there were no trees on the site an arboriculturalist report was needed as part of a National Validation process because there were trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character.

The recommendation was moved by Mr Callaby and seconded by Mr Shrimplin. It was unanimously RESOLVED:

That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including • Three year time limit within which the development must be commenced • Development is built in accordance with approved plans. • Details of floodlighting to be agreed prior to their installation. • Appropriate conditions to assess if any ground contamination and to mitigate if any contamination is found with appropriate remediation scheme. • Constructed in accordance with recommendations of Arboriculture report.

The meeting ended at 11.10am

CHAIRMAN

If you need these minutes in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Lesley Rudelhoff Scott on 01603 222963 or textphone 0844 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning Regulator Committee – 24 April 2009 Item No 5a Planning (Regulatory) Committee 22nd May 2009

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination District C/1/2009/1001: Erection of Welfare Facilities Building and Re-use Shelter, Hempton Waste Recycling Centre, Hempton

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary This application seeks full planning permission for the upgrading of the existing household waste recycling centre at Hempton owned and operated by Norfolk County Council to include a new single storey brick built staff welfare building, which will include toilet, shower, kitchen and canteen/rest room and single storey three-sided shelter for the sale of recyclable goods.

The application seeks to ensure compliance with health and safety legislation, in addition to maximising the re-use of materials from the site.

The welfare building will be of masonry block construction finished in a weathered pearl finish on the south, west and east elevations and untreated cedar cladding on the north elevation, the roof will be natural finish zinc roof sheeting. The building will measure 10.2 metres x 3.7 metres, with a lean-to roof (eaves – 2.8 metres, ridge – 3.4 metres). The re-use shelter will be made of galvanised steel, green in colour to match the existing buildings within the site, and will measure 7.5 metres x 2.5 metres with lean-to roof (eaves – 2.5 metres, ridge – 3.0 metres).

No objections or concerns have been raised to the proposals, and subject to the imposition of conditions, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

This application has been made by the Director of Environment Transport and Development and, as a result, under the Council’s Constitution, it cannot be determined under delegated powers.

1. The Proposal

Location : Hempton Recycling Centre, Hempton

Type of : Recycling of waste (existing site) development Material : Household waste (non-recyclable), Green waste, Cardboard/paper, Cans, Foil, Textiles, Batteries, Electrical items (fridge/freezers), Metals, Timber, Rubble, Used engine oil, Cooking oil, Paint. Area : 0.25 hectares Annual tonnage : 5,000 tonnes (4,000 municipal 1,000 hazardous). out Duration : Permanent Market served : Local Plant : No changes to existing, which include low/large level compactors. Hours of working : Existing facility site hours: Monday to Saturday (inclusive) 1 March – 31 March (8am - 6pm) 1 April – 31 August (8am – 8pm) 1 September – 30 September (8am – 7pm) 1 October – end BST (8am – 6pm) End BST – 28 Feb (8am – 4 pm) Vehicle : The application seeks to ensure compliance with movements and health and safety legislation and re-use activities on numbers the site, and there will not be any increase in vehicle numbers. Access : Access to the site is gained via the existing access from the public highway. 2. History

2.1. C/94/1008 Household Waste Recycling Centre; approved on 6 October 1994 as a permanent site.

3. Consultations

North Norfolk : No objection . District Council Hempton Parish : To be reported orally. Council Environmental : To be reported orally. Health Officer Environment : No objection Agency

Norfolk Landscape To be reported orally. Archaeology Natural : No comments to make.

Local Residents : No representations received.

County Councillor : To be reported orally. Mr D R Callaby

4. Assessment

Proposal 4.1. The application seeks planning permission for a new brick built permanent welfare facilities building, and recycling building for the sale of selected waste items brought into the site, which are able to be sold on the existing household waste recycling centre at Hempton.

4.2. The site is owned and operated by Norfolk County Council.

4.3. The welfare building will be of brick construction, measuring 10.2 metres x 3.7 metres, with a lean-to roof (eaves – 2.8 metres, ridge – 3.4 metres). The re-use shelter will be made of galvanised steel measuring 7.5 metres x 2.5 metres with lean-to roof (eaves – 2.5 metres, ridge – 3.0 metres).

4.4. The brick built welfare building will be located on the eastern boundary of the site north of the site entrance with the reuse shelter located perpendicular to the welfare facility in the north east corner of the site

Site 4.5. The application relates to the existing household waste recycling centre which is located at Hempton. There is currently a green portacabin on the site which provides staff facilities. The site benefits from well developed screening and will be viewed in the context of the adjacent industrial area.

4.6. Access to the site is gained via the existing access from the public highway.

Principle of Development 4.7 Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 22 states:

"Household Waste Recycling Centre and banks will be permitted where this will help to achieve a network of sites accessible to local communities subject to the criteria and policies of this Waste Local Plan"

It is considered that this development will assist in compliance with the Council's aims outlined in the justification to this policy to encourage the efficient management of facilities' including the efficient recovery of material and the avoidance of trade waste abuse. 4.8 The proposal is considered compliant with the aims of Planning Policy

Statement 10: Planning For Sustainable Waste Management. Landscape 4.9 Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS10 states:

“Waste development in the countryside will only be permitted where there would be no unacceptable harm to the landscape and visual appearance of the countryside, either during or in terms of final landform”.

4.10 The site lies outside the main settlement boundary in the open countryside. The buildings proposed are single storey in scale.

4.11 The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objections to the application and considers the site will be well screened by the existing tree planting around the boundaries of the site.

4.12 Given the above the proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the landscape qualities of the area.

Ecology

4.13 Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 12 states:

“Waste development in or near conservation sites of regional or local importance (including county wildlife sites, woodland areas which are predominantly broadleaf and regionally important geological/geomorphological sites) will only be permitted where it can be ensured that there would not be significant damage to such areas”.

4.14 The Council’s ecologist has not responded to date and his comments will be reported verbally.

Amenity 4.16 Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS13 states: “Waste development will be permitted only where there would be: • No unacceptable harm to the amenities enjoyed by all, and • No endangerment to human health.”

4.17 The proposal relates to an existing waste recycling site located in the open countryside and involves the replacement of an existing portacabin structure and a new relatively small shelter building on a site which benefits from good screening. It is therefore considered the development will not cause any undue harm to the character or appearance of the open countryside.

Highways 4.18 Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) Policy WAS16 states:

“Waste development will only be permitted where the

access and the highway network is suitable, and is able to accommodate increased lorry movements, or where improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment.”

4.19 The development itself will not lead to any additional use of the recycling centre, as the re-use facilities are aimed at existing users, with internal traffic movements at the site being managed as part of the day-to-day operation of the site by staff.

4.20 The Highways Authority have not responded to date and their comments will be reported verbally to the planning committee

5. Resource Implications

5.1 Finance: The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

5.2 Staff: The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

5.3 Property: The development has no property implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

5.4 IT: The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

6. Other Implications

Legal Implications

6.1 Human Rights: The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. If planning permission is granted for the development, it is not considered that the rights of any person, particularly under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol, will be infringed, particularly taking into account the public benefit arising from the development.

6.2 Equality Impact Assessment: The Council's planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 6.3 Communications: There are no communications implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7. Crime and Disorder Act:

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

8. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

8.1 The existing toilet facilities on the site currently consist of a temporary portable toilet. The Health & Safety Executive require all waste sites to have permanent connected flushing toilet welfare facilities.

8.2 Failure to provide permanent welfare facilities may result in enforcement action against the waste authority, with the Health & Safety Executive having powers to stop operations at the site.

8.3 The buildings proposed are single storey in scale and will not result in any adverse impact on the landscape, amenity or highway safety.

8.4 There is no conflict with the Development Plan and national planning policies referred to above, and subject to any conditional planning permission, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development.

8.5 There are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted in this instance.

Recommendation

That the Director be authorised to issue a decision notice granting planning permission, subject to conditions giving a three year time limit within which the permission should be implemented and that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and limiting the hours of operation.

Officer Contact: Martin Dale Tel: 01603 222183 Background Document(s): Norfolk Waste Local Plan If you would like this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Martin Dale on 01603 222183 or Textphone 0844 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of 0 10 20 40 60 80 Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Meters copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 07 May 2009 07 May 2009

C/1/2009/1001 - Hempton Recycling Centre Planning & Transportation GIS Hempton Scale 1: 2000 Centred on 590485 328428

Planning (Regulatory) Committee 22 May 2009 Item No. 5b

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination Breckland District

C/3/2007/3044: Longham / Beeston with Bittering: Land at Bittering Quarry: Continuation and extension of mineral working; continuation of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses: Tarmac Southern Limited

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Planning application reference C/3/2007/3044 sought permission for (1) continuation of mineral extraction; (2) extension of mineral working; and (3) continued use of the existing plant site. The application was considered by the Planning (Regulatory) Committee on 18 April 2008 when Committee resolved that permission be issued, subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement concerning vehicle routeing and extension of an existing walk at Creaking Gate Plantation. It has since come to light that the existing footpath at Creaking Gate is subject to a restriction not to allow the extension of the footpath. The applicant has therefore proposed a variation whereby in the event that the circular walk can not be secured that the sum of £10,000 be paid to the County Council towards improvement of public rights of way in the locality. The revised offer is still viewed as a positive benefit. The S106 Agreement has now been completed and awaits signing. This application is being referred back to Committee since a period of more than six months has elapsed since this matter was first considered by Committee.

Since the resolution to grant permission there have been no changes to the policies in the Development Plan or any material planning considerations that would indicate otherwise. It is therefore recommended to grant planning permission subject to conditions and to a S106 Agreement concerning vehicle routeing, and creation of a circular walk at Creaking Gate, or in the event that the circular walk has not been secured within 12 months of the date of planning permission for the Developer to pay to the County Council the sum of £10,000 towards improvement of public rights of way in the locality.

1. Background

1.1. Planning application reference C/3/2007/3044 was considered by the Planning (Regulatory) Committee on 18 April 2008 (report contained in Appendix 1). 1.2 Planning permission was sought for the following three elements:

1. continuation of mineral extraction from the current active site at Longham 2. extension of mineral working onto an area of land (Spreadoak) south of the existing plant site 3. continued use of the plant site at Bittering Quarry and to implement some improvements in respect of sound proofing, hours of working and to provide for a scheme of restoration.

1.3 As reported at paragraph 4.86 of the original committee report (Appendix 1), “Wendling Parish Council have requested public access to the restored areas of the site and have requested that a donation be made available for the improvement of existing / establishment of community facilities. In response, the applicant has advised that due to the size and nature of the water bodies within the application site, public access to these areas will not be encouraged. However, Tarmac are seeking to improve the provision of public access within the locality and as part of improvements proposed at Creaking Gate Plantation (a restored former mineral working adjacent the north east corner of the Spreadoak extension), are looking to extend the existing access provisions to create a circular walk around the lake. This is not necessary to the determination of the application, however, given that the applicant has offered this it is viewed as a positive benefit and if Members consider this of importance the provision of this footpath can be included in the Section 106 Agreement”.

1.4 As reported in the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2008, Mr Alan Everard the Estates Manager for Tarmac made a statement to the Committee and answered Members’ specific questions. As regards the circular path, Mr Everard advised that “Following consultation with the community, the small walk that already exists would be extended and would include information boards and a small car park. Tarmac were happy that the provision of the circular walk be included in the S106 Agreement”.

1.5 Following consideration the Committee unanimously –

Resolved that the Director be authorised to issue a permission, subject to:

(i) A Section 106 Agreement concerning vehicle routeing, as referred to in the report, and the creation of a circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation.

(ii) Conditions to include those covering completion of working by 31 December 2017, limit of life of processing plant at Bittering Quarry to 31 December 2017, completion of restoration by 31 December 2019, working, restoration and aftercare schemes, noise limits, reversing bleepers, dust control, hours of working, limit on location and height of stockpiles at Bittering Quarry, archaeology, dewatering, surface water management, protection of water resources, and lighting.

2. Referral back to Committee

2.1 This application is being referred back to Planning (Regulatory) Committee since a period of more than six months has elapsed since this matter was first considered by Committee.

3. Reasons for Delay

Identification of Landowners

3.1 The work involved in identifying all landowners, leaseholders and mortgagee has meant that it was not possible to conclude the Section 106 Agreement and issue the decision notice within six months of the date of the committee resolution.

Public Access

3.2 Since the making of the offer to create a circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation, it has since come to light that the existing footpath at Creaking Gate is subject of a Section 52 Agreement dated 10 July 1990, pursuant to planning permission reference 3/1989/1467, and made between the County Council, Tarmac Roadstone Ltd, Tarmac Roadstone Holdings Ltd and Mr A M Howard. The Agreement provides for Tarmac and Mr Howard to lay out and maintain the footpath, lay out and maintain a car parking area for eight motor cars, and to permit the public to use the footpath and car parking area at any reasonable time, subject to Tarmac having a right of way over such areas. The works required under the agreement have been undertaken.

3.3 The applicant advises that when Tarmac purchased Creaking Gate in 1997 as part of a wider land swap with a local landowner, Creaking Gate was transferred to Tarmac with certain restrictions and reservations. The sporting rights were reserved to the previous owner and also restrictions were specifically placed on the land not to allow the extension of the footpath that had been put in, in accordance with the Section 52 Agreement which is still in place today.

3.4 If the restrictions can not be overcome this would mean that the proposed circular path could not be delivered which the applicant recognises is not in accordance with the initial claims that they had made at the time of the application. The applicant advises these claims were made in good faith but had not taken on board the restrictions that the 1997 conveyance had placed on the land.

3.5 The applicant has since met with the landowner in question to see whether the restrictions can be overcome to allow the proposed circular path to be established. Whilst the landowner has not dismissed the idea and is prepared to work with the applicant to reach a possibly mutually beneficial deal it is expected that it may take some months to resolve, if it can be resolved.

3.6 In an effort to enable the Section 106 Agreement to be signed as soon as possible the applicant has proposed the following, which is based on an approach taken recently in Bedfordshire where the ability to secure a permissive path was not clear cut:

- Tarmac would be obliged to use reasonable endeavours to secure the provision of a circular permissive path around Creaking Gate in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the County Planning Authority. Such a path will need to be permissive as it will be necessary to deny public access on certain days during the period end of September to end of February (the shooting season) and it is noted that the Section 52 Agreement only allowed access at reasonable times. If Tarmac cannot secure the provision of the circular footpath within a reasonable timescale, say 12 months, then it would be obliged to pay to the Council £10,000 which could be used for the improvement of the public rights of way network in the Parishes of Longham, Bittering and Wendling.

3.7 The sum of £10,000 was based on the envisaged maximum cost to provide the circular footpath at Creaking Gate.

3.8 The Council’s Access Development Officer has since confirmed that appropriate ways could be found of spending the money, and that this will require surveys of existing routes and local consultation to come up with a plan for improvements.

3.9 Such a proposal is a variation to the resolution that Committee made back in April 2008. However, as reported at paragraph 4.86 of the committee report given that the offer of extending the footpath was not necessary to the determination of the application and Tarmac were seeking to improve the provision of public access within the locality, therefore the revised offer to either create the circular path, if it is possible, or donating a sum of money to be used for the provision of improvements to the public rights of ways within the local parishes, is still viewed as a positive benefit.

4. Assessment

4.1. Since the resolution to grant permission there have been no changes to the policies in the Norfolk Minerals Local Plan, Norfolk Waste Local Plan or Supplementary Guidance. It is therefore considered that the proposal is still in accordance with development plan policies.

5. Resource Implications

5.1. Finance : There are no financial implications from the planning regulatory perspective 5.2. Staff : There are no staff implications from the planning regulatory perspective

5.3. Property : There are no property implications from the planning regulatory perspective 5.4. IT : There are no IT implications from the planning regulatory perspective

6. Other Implications

6.1. Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 6.2. Human Rights : The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. If planning permission is granted for the development, it is not considered that the rights of any person, particularly under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol will be infringed, particularly taking into account the public benefit arising from the development. 6.3. Equality Impact Assessment : The Council's planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 6.4. Communications : There are no communications implications from the planning regulatory perspective. 7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

7.1. The proposal is for the continuation and extension of mineral working; retention of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; and restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses. 7.2. It is not considered that the implementation of the proposals would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application.

8. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

8.1 Since the resolution to grant permission there have been no changes to the policies in the Development Plan or any other material planning considerations that would indicate otherwise. It is therefore considered that the proposal is still in accordance with development plan policies.

8.2 Such a proposal is a variation to the resolution that Committee made back in April 2008. However, as reported at paragraph 4.86 of the committee report given that the offer of extending the footpath was not necessary to the determination of the application and Tarmac were seeking to improve the provision of public access within the locality, therefore the revised offer to either create the circular path, if it is possible, or donating a sum of money to be used for the provision of improvements to the public rights of ways within the local parishes, is still viewed as a positive benefit.

8.3 It is considered that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development, subject to conditions and a legal agreement concerning traffic routeing and, if Members consider appropriate, the creation of a permissive circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation, or in the event that the circular walk has not been secured within 12 months of the date of the planning permission for the development for the Developer to pay to the County Council the sum of £10,000 Index Linked towards the improvement of public rights of way in the parishes of Longham, Bittering and Wendling.

Recommendation

That the Director be authorised to issue a permission, subject to:

(i) A Section 106 Agreement concerning vehicle routeing as referred to in the report (Appendix 1) and, if Members consider appropriate, the Developer to use reasonable endeavours to secure, implement and complete a permissive circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation, or in the event that the circular walk has not been secured within 12 months of the date of the planning permission for the development for the Developer to pay to the County Council the sum of £10,000 Index Linked towards the improvement of public rights of way in the parishes of Longham, Bittering and Wendling.

(ii) conditions to include those covering completion of working by 31 December 2017, limit of life of processing plant at Bittering Quarry to 31 December 2017, completion of restoration by 31 December 2019, working, restoration and aftercare schemes, noise limits, reversing bleepers, dust control, hours of working, limit on location and height of stockpiles at Bittering Quarry, archaeology, dewatering, surface water management, protection of water resources, and lighting.

Background Papers Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) Adopted Minerals Local Plan(2004) MPS1

Officer Contact

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

Andrew Harriss 01603 224147 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Andrew Harriss on 01603 224147 minicom 01603 223833 and we will do our best to help.

Appendix 1 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 14 March 2008 Item No.

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination Breckland District

C/3/2007/3044: Longham / Beeston with Bittering: Land at Bittering Quarry: Continuation and extension of mineral working; continuation of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses: Tarmac Southern Ltd

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Planning permission is sought for the following three elements:

1. continuation of mineral extraction from the current active site at Longham; 2. extension of mineral working onto an area of land (Spreadoak) south of the existing plant site; 3. continued use of the plant site at Bittering Quarry and to implement some improvements in respect of sound proofing, hours of working and to provide for a scheme of restoration.

The application has generated objections from Beeston with Bittering Parish Council as well as residents of Longham. Their concerns relate primarily to the impacts of working on local amenity and loss of agricultural land. Wendling Parish Council has strong concerns primarily regarding the impacts of traffic on local amenity.

The environmental impacts of the proposal have been carefully considered. There are no objections from the Environmental Health Officer, GO-East, Environment Agency, Natural England, Norfolk Landscape Archaeology, Highways and Norfolk Wildlife Trust subject to conditions, although concerns have been raised by English Heritage on visual impact grounds.

Taking into account the Development Plan policies and all other material considerations, it is considered that the application is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no issues of sufficient weight to justify a refusal. It is therefore recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and to a S106 Agreement

File name: t:\democratic services\committee team\administration lg\committee papers for internet\planreg220509\appendix 1.doc Date created: 01/05/2009 09:46:00 Page 1 of 23 Date and time last amended: 13/05/2009 14:59:00

concerning vehicle routeing.

1. The Proposal

Location : Land at Bittering Quarry, Longham / Beeston with Bittering. Type of development : Sand and gravel extraction (and some inert waste import for restoration); retention of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons. Area : 110 hectares.

Area proposed for : Approximately 47 hectares (new), and extraction approximately 44 hectares (existing permission)

Depth of working : Maximum of 13m and average 4m

Total tonnage : 1.5 million tonnes within the proposed extension (mineral):

Annual tonnage : Annual tonnage: Estimated average 200,000 (mineral) tonnes

Mineral/waste type: : Sand and gravel; Category 1 inert waste

Market served : 32 – 40km radius. (mineral and waste) Duration : Longham: extraction for 2 years (until 2009), with final restoration for an additional 2 years (until 2011); Spreadoak extension: extraction for 8 years (until 2017), with final restoration for an additional 2 years (until 2019); Processing Plant Site: continued operation, with final restoration for an additional 2 years to be implemented following the cessation of extraction operations in Spreadoak (until 2019).

Hours of working : Extraction: 07.00 - 18.00 Monday – Friday; 07.00 – 13.00 Saturdays No operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays (as currently permitted) Mineral Processing Plant: 08.00 - 18.00 Monday – Friday 08.00 – 13.00 Saturdays No operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Vehicle movements : Mineral: and numbers Average 28 x 23 tonne dump trucks out per day from Longham to Bittering Quarry = 56 movements (crossing of highway) Average 26 x 25 tonne loads out per day = 52 movements (onto highway network) Waste: 10 x 25 tonne loads in per day = 20 movements (via highway network) Access : Existing hardened site access to Reed Lane

Landscaping : Existing and additional screen bunding and existing planting belts Restoration and after- : Existing Plant Site – restoration to nature use conservation Existing extraction area (Longham) – progressive phased restoration to agriculture, as currently permitted Proposed Spreadoak extension – progressive phased restoration to agriculture and nature conservation including species rich grassland 2. History

Longham Quarry (‘A’)

2.1. Permission for sand and gravel extraction and processing, and a concrete batching plant, at Longham Quarry (marked ‘A’ on the plan contained in Appendix A) was first granted in 1984, to Ennemix Ltd (3/83/1391). A westwards extension, fronting Salters Lane, was permitted in 1990 (3/89/1075).

2.2. Permission (C/95/3013) for consolidation, renewal and extension of Longham Quarry was granted to Ennemix in 1998. The permission was subject to a legal agreement concerning vehicle routeing. The quarry was owned for a short period by Lafarge Redland; Tarmac Limited acquired the quarry in October 2000. The obligations of the agreement then fell to Tarmac as Ennemix's successors in title.

2.3. In November 2007 permission C/3/2002/3003 was granted for variation of conditions on planning permission C/3/95/3013, to revise working and restoration schemes, and a legal agreement attached to that planning permission. Since grant of planning permission C/3/95/3013 in 1998, Tarmac had taken over the site and wished to process the permitted reserve of mineral at their own site at Bittering Quarry, off the east side of Reed Lane, (marked ‘B’ on the attached plan) rather than on the former Ennemix site as originally permitted. 2.4. The permission is subject to a legal agreement requiring vehicles to run south via the C229 to Wendling, or eastwards towards , or westwards towards . There is also provision in the agreement for six vehicles per day to travel northwards towards Stanfield.

The plant site (Bittering Quarry) (‘B’)

2.3. In 2002 permission was granted for retention and continued use of a concrete batching plant at the neighbouring Bittering Quarry (Tarmac’s processing site) until 31 December 2010 (C/3/2002/3010) (marked ‘B’ on the plan contained in Appendix A).

2.4. In 2003 permission was granted to retain the asphalt plant at Bittering Quarry, until 31 December 2010, or when the sand and gravel reserve at Longham Quarry is exhausted, if that occurs earlier (C/3/2000/3032). The permission is subject to a legal agreement concerning the routeing of all but eight HGVs per day southwards via the C229 to Wendling.

3. Consultations

3.1. Breckland District : No objection, however the Council would wish to Council see speed restrictions imposed reducing traffic speeds to 40mph on the southern route from the site to the old A47 via Wendling and subject to conditions covering the following: • the mineral extraction to which this permission relates shall cease and all mineral processing and ancillary plant including concrete batching and aggregate bagging plant shall be removed on or before 31 December 2019 with the approved restoration programme being complete before 30 June 2020. • control over lighting • removal of permitted development rights.

3.2. Environmental : No objection, subject to the following Health Officer conditions: • All activities proposed or existing should be able to comply with the noise levels set out in Planning Ref. No. C/3/2002/3003 including when the processing plant and extraction from the existing site at Longham are in operation. • All reversing bleepers fitted to vehicles, under the control of the applicant, should be of the directional sound or broad band type. • Hours of operation (as proposed) • Measures shall be taken to minimise dust nuisance and sand blow caused by the operations, including spraying of road surfaces, plant area and stockpiles as necessary • Scheme of dust control 3.3. Longham Parish : No comments received. Council 3.4. Parish : No comments received. Council 3.5. Beeston with : No objection to the extension of time, but consider Bittering Parish that the extension of the area is unwarranted on Council good agricultural land. Consider that the Spreadoak extension would be inconsistent with the Norfolk County Council Issues and Options Strategy May 2007 where Issue 1 and Option 1a suggest that the distribution of centres for minerals development would be better related to areas of likely economic activity near Norwich, , King’s Lynn and Yarmouth. Comment that grades 2 and 3a agricultural land ought to be conserved to maintain long term resources needed to provide land for food and bio- fuel production. Suggest that if the County Council decides to approve the application it would be appropriate to negotiate with the developer and landowner to overcome the effect of existing vehicle parking arising from the existing operations and vehicle dismantling on the surrounding rural area especially the area near to Longham churchyard.

3.6. Wendling Parish : The main route for the associated HGVs onto the Council A47 is through Wendling and has been endured by the village for many years; to be subjected to this traffic for a further ten years is a matter of great concern. Concerned that the size, weight and number of lorries has increased. Concerned that the designated HGV route, whilst having had some improvements, is no longer of such a standard as to be safe and adequate for current HGV traffic, ie two sharp bends at the Old Rectory, Longham and Honeypot Wood – narrow roads with neither footpath nor kerbs or restricted by overhanging trees: frequent accidents have occurred at a number of these locations, particularly during the winter. Request that the speed limit on the HGV route be reduced to 40mph. Parts of the route are either unrestricted or limited to 50mph – yet and Little , villages either side of Wendling, have a 40mph limit. We have repeatedly requested that the route be formally restricted to 40mph and not to rely entirely on the legal limits on HGVs. Empty HGVs en route to the quarry rattle through Wendling (at speed) at any time from 05.30 hrs (particularly in the summer), presumably to be first in the queue when the plant starts up at 06.00 or 07.00. Ask that alternative routes direct onto the A47, avoiding the centre of Wendling village are investigated. The Route Hierarchy Review Litcham Cell ref MK/KHB070 dated 1994 did identify alternatives. If the minerals from Bittering are such a valuable resource then some of the profit/benefit should be invested in improving the infrastructure if this is to be allowed for the next ten years. This point is particularly important if quarry workings were to be extended yet again to the area further south of this application, where there are further mineral reserves. The residents of Wendling, Beeston and Longham have long endured the inconvenience of this industry and it is not unreasonable that some compensation/benefit is repaid to these communities. Request that the restored land be made available and opened to the general public by way of fishing/boating/nature reserves. Also request that all the companies profiting from the exploitation of the natural resources make a

significant donation to the communal facilities of these parishes secured with a S106 agreement if appropriate. 3.7. Go-East : No objections.

3.8. Environment : No objection subject to conditions requiring a Agency surface water management scheme, full design details of the wetland, scheme for pollution control to the water environment and scheme for dust, soil and silt minimisation. Furthermore they raised advisory comments in relation to pollution prevention, oil storage, the dewatering licence and land drainage.

3.9. Natural England : No objections, although make advisory comments in relation to agriculture and biodiversity.

3.10. English Heritage : English Heritage are chiefly concerned with the visual impact on the setting of Longham parish church (a Grade II* listed building). Consider that moving the quarry edge further away from the road and allowing a more substantial depth of soft landscaping would be better for the character of the area than an earthwork. Consider that the height of the (temporary) bund and the proposed planting will mitigate against the visual impact to some degree.

Would not wish to oppose the whole scheme on the basis of this aspect alone, but do maintain reservations about the landscaping. Comment that if the bund is intended to reduce noise then this might be a legitimate reason for using one opposite Longham Hall. The noise reduction issue is a very important one and it may well be that the bund would have advantages in simply screening sight of the pit for residents, if not in blending with the landscape.

As regards the restoration scheme any soil bunds should be removed from the setting of the Hall. 3.11. Norfolk Landscape : No objection, subject to an archaeological Archaeology condition to secure a programme of archaeological work.

3.12. Highways : No highway objection to the extension of time for extraction from Longham Quarry, and no highway objection to the extraction of minerals from Spreadoak subject to a similar S106 Routeing Agreement as previous permissions. 3.13. RSPB : No comments received.

3.14. Norfolk Wildlife : No objection; support the recommendation to Trust restore parts of the site to a conservation after use. 3.15. County Councillor : To be reported orally. (Mr C B A Lloyd Owen) 3.16. Local residents : Four letters of representation have been received.

Strong objections have been received from the occupiers of Ostrich House, at the junction of Litcham Road and Ostrich Lane, approximately 15 metres from the south east corner of the proposed Spreadoak extension. Objections are raised on the following grounds: • pollution, dust and noise will have a serious health effect effect upon occupants; • Devaluation of property; • Potential for subsidence. Concern has been expressed by the occupiers of Manor Cottages, off the east side of Reed Lane, approximately 250 metres from the north eastern corner of Longham Quarry and 150 metres north of the access to Bittering Quarry, that further gravel working in the area could affect their private borehole water supply and possible contamination could result from the inert waste used in the restoration of the site. Other concerns raised by local residents specifically included the following: • The proposed extension will encroach much too close to Longham village, seriously damaging the village environment with increased noise, dirt, disruption and traffic. • The resultant ponds will present a hazard to local children • The proposed landscaping screen will remove open views from the village across the fields • Birds, including Lapwings that have started to breed again on these fields, and animals that regularly use these fields will be lost

4. Assessment

Proposal 4.1. Planning permission is sought for: 1. the continuation of mineral extraction from the current active site at Longham Quarry (marked ‘A’ on the attached plan) and restoration to agriculture (as currently permitted); 2. the continued use of the plant site at Bittering Quarry (marked ‘B’ on the attached plan) and to implement some improvements in respect of sound proofing and hours of working, development of new silt lagoons, and to provide for a scheme of restoration to a mix of nature conservation uses including areas of woodland, and wet woodland and reed bed; 3. the extension of mineral working onto an area of land (Spreadoak) south of the existing plant site (marked ‘C’ on the attached plan) and restoration to agriculture and nature conservation uses including species rich grassland and woodland. Site 4.2. The application site comprises of three main areas as indicated on the Plan contained in Appendix A: Longham Quarry (‘A’)

4.3. The site, known as Longham Quarry, (which forms the current extraction area) is on an elevated area of agricultural land, west of Reed Lane. This area has the benefit of planning permission C/3/2002/3003 for mineral working and disposal of inert wastes. The site is being progressively worked for sand and gravel with operations advancing in a westerly direction. The mineral is transferred across Reed Lane to the plant site for processing. The site is undergoing progressive restoration to agriculture, with on site restoration materials being supplemented through importation of inert waste. As at June 2007 it was estimated that there was in the order of 2.5 years reserves remaining within Longham Quarry. The plant site (Bittering Quarry) (‘B’)

4.4. Mineral extracted from Longham is processed within the existing plant site, known as Bittering Quarry, which incorporates the following operations: • Stockpiling • Sand and gravel processing, including washing and grading • Silt treatment • Concrete batching plant • Coating plant (asphalt plant) 4.5. Both the concrete batching plant and the coating plant have the benefit of standalone planning permissions, both of which expire in December 2010. Whilst they occupy land which forms part of the application area; their operations do not form part of this application.

The land at Spreadoak (the extension) (‘C’) 4.6. The site, known as Spreadoak, comprises the proposed extension to the current operations at Longham. The area, which is currently a field in arable cultivation totalling some 47ha, lies east of Reed Lane, north of the Litcham to Gressenhall Road, and west of the U35089, in the parish of Longham. The land at Spreadoak is separated from the existing processing plant site by the Spreadoak Plantation on its northern boundary. The village of Longham lies approximately 0.5 kilometre to the south-east, and Beeston is about 2.5 kilometres to the south-west. Bittering lies approximately 0.5 kilometre to the north. The nearest residential properties are a property at the junction of Ostrich Lane and Litcham Road (located some 15m from the south east corner of the extension site) and a property at the entrance of Longham Hall (some 40m from the south west corner of the proposed extension). Landscape 4.7. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 3 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated development will be allowed except where the harm to the visual appearance of the countryside, either during operations or in terms of the final landform, would be unacceptable.”

4.8. A landscape assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken. The landscape context of the site is defined by the Countryside Agency as being the ‘Mid Norfolk Character Area’ which is a large-scale, relatively flat landscape predominantly defined by extensive geometric fields under arable crop production. 4.9. The proposal is within ‘Beeston Plateau’ as defined in the Breckland Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (May 2007). The Assessment states that the landscape in the Beeston Plateau is relatively weak in ecological terms and the strategy for the area needs to be one of new native tree planting and woodland creation, combined with new hedgerows and field margins.

4.10. The application site is currently made up of an existing permitted sand and gravel working (marked ‘A’ on the attached plan), associated plant/processing site (marked ‘B’ on the attached plan), and arable farmland (marked ‘C’ on the attached plan). There are significant areas of tree cover in and around the site and these play an important visual screening role for the existing development.

4.11. To achieve the planned final contours over the Spreadoak site (marked ‘C’ on the attached plan), the worked phases would be progressively restored through the use of site won material and importation of inert materials (subject to securing an exemption from waste management licensing / PPC permitting). A restoration scheme has been submitted for the Spreadoak site which illustrates the contours that can be achieved without the need to import inert material for restoration purposes, and as such represents the “fall back” position.

4.12. The existing plant site, with associated lagoons, (marked ‘B’ on the attached plan) would be restored to nature conservation uses including areas of woodland and wet woodland. This would be implemented following the cessation of extraction operations in Spreadoak.

4.13. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed landscaping scheme omits creation of field margins, sufficient additional tree planting and the reinstatement of the hedgerow across the Spreadoak site, negotiations have taken place throughout the process and improvements made. On balance it is considered it provides for sufficient new landscape features to be acceptable in terms of Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 3. Amenity 4.14. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) policy MIN 6 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated developments will only be permitted where there would be no unacceptable harm to the amenities enjoyed by nearby residents and other land users.” 4.15. Concern has been expressed by local residents to the encroachment of the extension to within a few metres of the edge of Longham village, and the perceived impacts on amenity arising from noise and dust. Longham (‘A’) 4.16. In isolation, the continued extraction of sand and gravel at Longham Quarry would have little impact on local amenity, subject to control of dust and noise, and to maintenance of screening from existing planting, and from bunding, to minimise impacts on users of roads around the site. The nearest dwellings, at 250 metres north east and 300 metres south and west are sufficiently distant for there to be no direct impact from extraction and restoration operations. Plant Site (‘B’) 4.17. Assuming extraction at the Spreadoak site, the processing plant would remain until 2017. In amenity terms the main impact would be noise coming from the plant upon existing dwellings closest to the plant site and the continued use would also have a visual impact on properties along Bittering Lane, which also forms part of the Nar Valley Way (as discussed at paragraph 4.20). Spreadoak (‘C’) 4.18. The mineral working would have an adverse visual impact on three properties on the south side of Litcham Road, two of which have views from upstairs windows. The applicant has built into the proposals a number of elements to reduce the visual impact of the extension, these include: • Advanced hedgerow planting has been undertaken along the southern and western boundaries of the site • A 3m high screening bund along the southern boundary of the site. • Offsetting the extraction area from the nearest residential properties; the working face of the mineral working would be at its nearest, 135 metres from Ostrich House and 130 metres from Longham Hall Lodge. 4.19. The existing planting, proposed screening and bunding would afford some protection to the closest properties. Noise 4.20. A noise assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken by the applicant and has been submitted as part of the application.

4.21. Noise mitigation measures have been proposed in order to reduce plant site noise levels at existing dwellings closest to the plant site and proposed extraction areas. Mitigation measures include reduced hours of operation of the processing plant; noise mitigation measures for the asphalt coating plant (including installation of a silencer to the exhaust stack); noise mitigation measures for the processing plant items (including reduction in height of the screening decks) and, noise mitigation measures for the proposed extension area, including screening bunds and offsetting the extraction area from nearest residential properties. 4.22. Prior to issue on 29 November 2007 of planning permission reference C/3/2002/3003 for variation of conditions on planning permission C/3/95/3013, to revise working and restoration schemes for Longham Quarry, planning permissions for Longham Quarry and the Bittering plant site had not been subject to a noise condition. Committee resolved to approve application reference C/3/2002/3003 on 28 June 2002 subject to a Section 106 routeing agreement. The decision notice could not be issued until the legal agreement had been engrossed. 4.23. In 2004, before the decision notice had been issued, the County Planning Authority began to receive complaints about noise from the plant site, from a resident of Bittering and following negotiations a noise limit condition was agreed in March 2007 and formed one of the conditions for permission reference C/3/2002/3003. The noise condition became effective from 29 February 2008. 4.24. The delay in issuing the planning permission resulted in the complainant referring this matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. In July 2007 the Local Government Ombudsman proposed that Norfolk County Council make a compensation payment to the complainant for uncertainty and time and trouble in pursuing a noise complaint relating to the Bittering plant site and for loss of amenity. The Council has accepted the findings of the Ombudsman and compensation has been paid. 4.25. The noise limits pursuant to permission reference C/3/2002/3003 became effective as at 29 February this year. The noise condition states: Within three months of the date of this permission noise caused by all operations at Longham Quarry and at the Bittering Quarry processing site shall be attenuated and in any event shall not exceed: Monday – Friday 06.00 – 08.00 hours 42dB LAeq (1 hour) free field Monday to Friday 08.00 – 18.00 hours 45 dB LAeq (1 hour) free field Saturday 06.00 - 8.00 42 dB LAeq (1 hour) free field Saturday 08.00 – 13.00 45 dB LAeq (1 hour) free field At the locations shown on Plan A as attached to this notice (as indicated on the plan contained in Appendix B). 4.26. The County Planning Authority received a complaint concerning noise arising from the Bittering Quarry plant site on 28 February 2008. The matter has been investigated but, to date, it has not been substantiated that the permitted noise levels are being exceeded. No further noise complaints have been received.

4.27. Based on the information provided with the application there is no objection subject to reimposition of the same noise condition. Dust

4.28. A dust assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and submitted as part of the application. Monitoring of dust and weather indicated that low levels of directional dust were generally observed and that dusting was generally consistent with wind direction. 4.29. Concern has been expressed by the occupier of Ostrich House, Ostrich Lane, Longham regarding the possibility that dust arising from the proposal will have a serious health effect upon members of the household who suffer from respiratory problems.

4.30. The EHO has advised that most quarrying activities will give rise to dust. Much of this dust will be relatively coarse and, although perhaps a nuisance, is not thought likely to be harmful to health. However, very fine particles with a diameter of less than 10 micrometres (PM10) are thought to be harmful to health because they can be deposited in the lung. Quarrying is known to give rise to PM10 but the concentrations will vary according to local conditions and proximity to the source. 4.31. Based on the information provided with the current application the EHO has raised no objection in principle subject to conditions regarding dust control.

4.32. To conclude on the amenity issues, mineral extraction and associated development is likely to give rise to local impacts. However, subject to compliance with conditions concerning noise and dust a case for refusal on grounds of conflict with Mineral Local Plan policy MIN 6 would be difficult to substantiate. Nature Conservation / Ecology

4.33. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 5 states: “Proposals for mineral extraction and associated development in other areas of nature conservation interest will be permitted only where it can be ensured there would not be significant damage to such areas, including county wildlife sites, local nature reserves, sites supporting protected species, woodland areas which are predominantly broadleaf and regionally important geological / geomorphological sites (RIGS).” 4.34. An ecological assessment has been undertaken and submitted with this application. The survey showed that a limited range of common breeding bird species will breed on the Spreadoak site, along the drain and in the scrub and young trees; although no protected bird species were found on site all nesting birds are protected by law. The assessment states that a number of common mammal species probably occur but that no specially-protected species of flora or fauna are likely to be present within the site. Bats could possibly roost in mature trees on the northern boundary and a number of bat roosting boxes are proposed.

4.35. The proposed restoration scheme would contribute to the wet woodland, lowland meadows, pastures and reedbed components of the Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan and to the wet woodland and reedbeds components of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). Furthermore it would make a contribution to improving habitat for the following UK BAP Priority Species: pipistrelle bat, reed bunting and spotted flycatcher. Natural England is satisfied with the mitigation plans as described in the ecological assessment. The County Planning Authority is satisfied with the restoration design and the creation of BAP habitats is considered a positive benefit. 4.36. Concern has been expressed that birds, including Lapwings have started to breed again on Spreadoak in recent years. Whilst Lapwings may be using the site to breed, the site conditions (including the current agricultural management practices) are such that it is not considered to be prime habitat for successful Lapwing breeding. There will only be a temporary loss of nesting habitat (during the active life of the quarry) and the restored habitat will offer a better nesting habitat (4.3ha grassland) as well as 23.3ha back to arable land. There will also be habitats created during the scheme for other bird species including sand martins. 4.37. As a result, there is no objection to the proposed works on ecological grounds subject to conditions. Cultural Heritage

4.38. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) policy MIN 7 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated development will be permitted only where they would not adversely affect scheduled ancient monuments and other sites of national archaeological and historical significance and their settings.” 4.39. The surroundings and setting of protected areas and structures also require protection to prevent devaluation of their character. 4.40. A cultural heritage assessment of the proposed extension has been submitted with the application. There are no statutorily designated features of cultural heritage interest within the application area but one Scheduled Monument (Little Bittering Deserted Medieval Village) and three listed buildings (St. Peter’s Church, Little Bittering, Manor House, Bittering, and Sts. Andrew and Peter’s Church, Longham) lie within 750m. 4.41. English Heritage is concerned with the visual impact of the proposed screen bund along the southern boundary of the Spreadoak extension upon the setting of Longham Hall and the adjacent listed parish church. The bund, which will be limited in height to a maximum of 3 metres, would be formed prior to commencement of mineral extraction in Spreadoak and would finally be removed upon completion of restoration. The bund is required for noise attenuation purposes and to protect the amenity of local residents. 4.42. English Heritage acknowledge that the noise reduction issue is a very important one and that the bund would have advantages in simply screening sight of the pit for residents, if not in blending with the landscape. 4.43. The combination of soil screening bunds and well-managed hedgerows can provide an extremely effective method of visual screening. The soil bund provides a complete visual screen, while the adjacent hedgerow helps to break

up and reduce the visual impact of the bund itself. It is also proposed to reinforce the existing hedgerow along the southern boundary including the planting of a number of hedgerow trees to further soften and screen the bund from Longham Hall and Church.

4.44. Whilst maintaining reservations about this element of the scheme, English Heritage accept that the height of the bund and the proposed planting will mitigate against this visual impact to some degree, moreover, it is a temporary feature. 4.45. To conclude on the cultural heritage issue, the proposed screen bund does have some local impacts. However, the bund is required for noise attenuation measures and to protect the amenity of local residents and is not a permanent feature. A case for refusal on grounds of conflict with Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 7 would be hard to substantiate.

Archaeology

4.46. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) policy MIN 8 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated developments will only be permitted where they would not affect sites of archaeological interest unless satisfactory arrangements have been made for the prior excavation and the subsequent publication of the results.” 4.47. There is no objection to the scheme on archaeological grounds subject to a condition being included to require a programme of archaeological work. Highways

4.48. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 12 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated development will only be permitted in an area of existing activity where this would not create unacceptable cumulative harm to highway safety, visual appearance or the amenities of the nearby occupiers.” 4.49. Many of the concerns raised by Wendling Parish Council relate to the traffic impact which would result from any new permission. Whilst the road is physically capable of carrying the traffic it is clear that there is a perceived high level of danger and impact on amenity. The proposal would not result in an increase in HGV traffic on the local highway network and there is no objection on highway grounds. 4.50. The proposed development comprises the existing Longham quarry together with the proposed Spreadoak extension area. It is proposed that operations will commence in Spreadoak following the cessation of extraction in Longham. As the Spreadoak site will not be operational at the same time, there would not be an increase in HGV traffic on the local highway network and no impact in terms of cumulative harm. It is not considered therefore that Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 12 which seeks to avoid the cumulative harm which would arise by several mineral operations in one area is applicable in this case. 4.51. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) policy MIN 9 states:

“Applications for mineral extraction and associated developments will only be permitted where the access and the highway network is suitable, and is able to

accomodate increased lorry movements, or where improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment.”

4.52. It is proposed that the development at Spreadoak would follow on from operations in Longham. It is not proposed to alter the rate of extraction from the quarry or the throughput of the processing plant. As a result it is not proposed to alter the amount of mineral being exported from the site, therefore there would be no change to the current levels of HGV movements to and from the site. Likewise there would be no change to the routes that the HGVs follow. The current permission for Longham Quarry is subject to a legal agreement requiring vehicles to run south via the C229 to Wendling, or eastwards towards Gressenhall, or westwards towards Litcham. There is also provision in the agreement for six vehicles per day to travel northwards towards Stanfield. 4.53. As with the restoration of Longham, it is proposed (subject to securing the appropriate exemptions from waste management licencing / permitting) to import small quantities of inert waste into the proposed Spreadoak extension area to assist in restoration. It is proposed that the level of importation would be similar to that at Longham, and as a result there would be no change to the current levels of HGV movement to and from the site associated with this operation.

4.54. Whilst Breckland District Council raise no objection, subject to conditions, they would wish to see speed restrictions imposed reducing traffic speeds to 40mph on the southern route from the site to the old A47 via Wendling. Wendling Parish Council has also requested that the County Council review reducing the speed limit from 50 mph to 40 mph. In response to the request from the Parish Council the County Council has recently considered the speed limit on the old A47 through Wendling. An item was included within last year’s Traffic Management Programme to investigate the possibility of changing the existing speed limit in Wendling from 50 to 40 mph. It was considered that the section of road under discussion did not meet the criteria for the introduction of a 40 mph speed limit. Due to the recorded accident history, the limited frontage development and recorded speeds it was felt that compliance to a reduced speed limit would be low and therefore the change in speed limit would have little impact on vehicular speeds. The investigation did however demonstrate that the existing 50 mph speed limit was working well with a good level of compliance and was therefore the most appropriate limit. 4.55. Whilst it was decided that there was no justification for a change of speed limit it was felt that a series of small lining and signing improvements, (including incorporation of 50 mph signs in the village name signs to reinforce the message about the speed limit), would be appropriate and these are programmed for the forthcoming months, but are not a requirement of this application.

4.56. Wendling Parish Council and local residents raised concern about the safety and adequacy of the HGV route. The Highway Authority has advised that the HGV access route is considered adequate for the current level of traffic generated by the Bittering Quarry.

4.57. Wendling Parish Council raised concern that during the time that the Bittering / Longham quarry has been operating the size, weight and number of lorries has increased. The Highway Authority acknowledge that lorry sizes, weights and

numbers have grown over the years, but comment that the C229, Honeypot Lane has been much improved over the years and therefore there is no highway objection. 4.58. Wendling Parish Council also express concern that empty HGVs en route to the quarry are heard travelling through Wendling at any time from 05.30 hrs. It is possible that these vehicles are travelling to the coating plant at Bittering Quarry, which is permitted to commence operation at 6am. This facility operates under a separate permission (which expires 31 December 2010) not subject of this current application. Whilst operations at the coating plant site are not permitted before 6am, the movement of HGVs to the site before this time is not subject to planning control. 4.59. Wendling Parish Council has requested that alternative routes to the A47 to avoid Wendling village be investigated particularly if mineral working is proposed further south of this application. The Highway Authority has advised that it is highly unlikely that the Highways Agency would give permission for any new access points onto the A47 to serve the Quarry particularly as the existing access route is considered adequate in highway terms to serve the Quarry. 4.60. Wendling Parish Council also state that land immediately south of the Spreadoak extension / east of Longham Hall has been included as a proposed area of search in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework (Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Issues and Options Report) (February 2008). Mineral extraction from this land would require a separate planning permission and were an application to be submitted it would be considered in the context of the relevant development plan policies. 4.61. To conclude, there are no highway objections subject to a S106 Routeing Agreement similar to that already in place for the current operations. Vehicle parking

4.62. Beeston with Bittering Parish Council comment that if permission is granted it would be appropriate for the Council to negotiate with the developer and landowner to overcome the effect of existing vehicle parking arising from the existing operations. The County Council is not aware of any issues regarding parking of vehicles associated with the existing operations. The quarry manager advises that on occasion vehicles delivering crushed granite etc to the coating plant at Bittering Quarry park up overnight on the access road to the plant site outside the site entrance gates, but do not enter the site. Furthermore, employees engaged in operations at Longham Quarry park their cars alongside the haul route from Longham Quarry to the plant site, but not on the public highway.

Water Resources

4.63. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 10 states:

“Applications for mineral extraction and associated developments will only be permitted where there would not be unacceptable harm to the water resources, flood prevention or drainage.” 4.64. Extraction and associated operations such as bunding may affect the capacity of flood plains and thereby exacerbate flooding. De-watering, to facilitate dry excavations and provide washing water for processing plant, may also have

adverse impacts on the movement, availability or quality of groundwater resources. Discharge of waste water, particularly if it contains silt and other particulate and polluting material, into rivers and estuaries may cause serious harm to the water environment.

4.65. Dewatering is likely to be required within phases 1, 2 and 6 of the proposed extension area during the wettest periods in order to access the deepest sections of sand and gravel. There are a number of licensed and private water supplies within a 4km radius of the site. With the exception of the applicant’s borehole, the closest borehole to the extension area is that at Longham Hall, 200m to the southwest of the site. There are no protected sites within a radius of 1km of the extension area.

4.66. Based on the information provided the Environment Agency has raised no objection in principle, subject to conditions being included requiring a surface water management scheme, full design details of the wetland, scheme for pollution control to the water environment and scheme for dust, soil and silt minimisation. 4.67. Concern has been expressed by the occupier of Ostrich House, 15m from the south east corner of Spreadoak, that the proposed silt lagoons will lower the water table and draw moisture from the foundations of his property and could result in possible subsidence and considerable damage to the foundations. The silt lagoons are to be lined, so will not draw water from elsewhere. The Environment Agency has advised that dewatering of the Spreadoak mineral working will lower the water table, but as the nearest part of the working to Ostrich House to be dewatered, (phase 6) is more than 100 metres away, no appreciable drawdown of the water table is expected at the property. The prevailing direction of groundwater flow is such that the workings are not expected to affect Ostrich House during or after completion. 4.68. Concern has been expressed by the occupier of Manor Cottages, Bittering regarding the potential impact of the development on their private borehole water supply including the impact on groundwater levels and groundwater quality. The occupier asks that the applicant undertake periodic quality testing of their water supply with the results being reported back to the EHO. This is a private matter and not an issue for this application. 4.69. With respect to groundwater levels, the Environment Agency has advised that the Manor Cottages borehole is estimated to be around 500m from the closest point of the proposed mineral working. Based on the information provided they consider it unlikely that the water level in the borehole will be significantly impacted. 4.70. With reference to contamination coming from inert fill, as is currently the case at Longham Quarry it is proposed that Spreadoak will be restored through the use of site won material and imported inert waste (both sites are owned by the same landowner). The Environment Agency advise that the landowner of Longham Quarry holds a Waste Management Exemption Licence under which clean material in the form of soil, bricks and rubble is being deposited as infill. The Agency comment that the landowner is known to be selective in the use of inert material and unless there is evidence to the contrary the risk is considered to be minimal.

4.71. With regard to the need to include a condition within the planning permission to secure water quality monitoring, Circular 11/95 – The use of conditions in planning permissions and Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control require that planning conditions do not seek to duplicate the effect of other controls granted under separate legislation. The importation of waste materials would be controlled under waste regulation legislation administered by the Environment Agency. 4.72. Given the Environment Agency’s response it would not be appropriate to impose a planning condition to secure water quality monitoring. As a result, subject to conditions the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the water resources. Soils and Agricultural Land Classification

4.73. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 11 states: “Applications for mineral extraction and associated developments will only be permitted where there would be no permanent loss of grades 1, 2 and 3a land in the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food [now Natural England] classification, and where restoration proposals for such land would enable it to be reclaimed to a standard similar to its pre-worked agricultural land quality.” 4.74. The County Council aims to protect, in the context of sustainable development, the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) from permanent loss in line with Government guidance as set out in PPS7. 4.75. A soil resources assessment of the proposed extension area has been undertaken by the applicant. The proposed extraction area covers 26.14 hectares and comprises approximately 16 hectares of Grade 2 and 10 hectares of grade 3b agricultural land. It is proposed to restore the extraction area to approximately 19 hectares of agricultural land, 2.8 hectares of open water and 4.34 hectares of conservation habitat. The available soil resources will be used to restore all the agricultural profile to potential grade 2 land and the conservation profile will be restored to grade 3b quality. 4.76. Beeston with Bittering PC express concern that Grades 2 and 3a agricultural land ought to be conserved to maintain long term agricultural resources. 4.77. Natural England does not raise objection to the proposal, subject to conditions regarding site drainage and soil handling. 4.78. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with the aims of Norfolk Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 11. Need 4.79. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 14 states: “The County Council will maintain a landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel separate from that for carstone, both of which will be in accordance with minerals planning guidance note 6 [now replaced by Annex 1 to MPS1].”

4.80. Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) Policy MIN 15 states: “Proposals for extraction of sand and gravel and carstone on new sites will not

normally be permitted when the landbank exceeds the seven year level.” 4.81. The County landbank is a strategic reserve level for the whole of the industry and is not a policy for maintaining a seven year supply for any one site or any single operator. Taken together, policies MIN 14 and MIN 15 have the effect of requiring the maintenance of a landbank of around seven years but not substantially more. 4.82. As at 29 February 2008 the landbank for sand and gravel stood at 5.20 years and therefore considerably below the target of seven years supply. The estimated reserve in the extension site of 1.5 million tonnes amounts to about six months supply in the County. The proposal does not therefore conflict with the aims of Norfolk Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 14. 4.83. The underlying aim of policy MIN 15 being to prevent an over provision of new sites which would discourage recycling and the development of alternative sources of supply, the proposal does not conflict with the aim of this policy.

Public Safety

4.84. Concern has been expressed by a local resident regarding the perceived hazard that the resultant waterfilled areas on the Spreadoak extension will present to local children. 4.85. The applicant has confirmed that all water bodies within the site will be fenced and public trespass into these areas both during the working life of the site and post restoration will be discouraged. To date, Tarmac are not aware of any issues arising from children playing in waterbodies associated with their quarrying operations in the locality, including at Creaking Gate which has been in existence for a number of years. Tarmac stress that they take the matter of public safety very seriously and have at other locations where there has been a problem instigated measures, such as visiting local schools, to educate children on the dangers of the quarry environment. Public Access

4.86. Wendling Parish Council have requested public access to the restored areas of the site and have requested that a donation be made available for the improvement of existing / establishment of community facilities. In response, the applicant has advised that due to the size and nature of the water bodies within the application site, public access to these areas will not be encouraged. However, Tarmac are seeking to improve the provision of public access within the locality and as part of improvements proposed at Creaking Gate Plantation (a restored former mineral working adjacent the north east corner of the Spreadoak extension), are looking to extend the existing access provisions to create a circular walk around the lake. This is not necessary to the determination of the application, however, given that the applicant has offered this it is viewed as a positive benefit and if Members consider this of importance the provision of this footpath can be included in the Section 106 Agreement. 4.87. Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations and Minerals Planning Guidance 7: The Reclamation of Mineral Workings, give advice on use of obligations in connection with mineral development. Planning obligations which are sought should, inter alia, be necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the proposed development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale

and kind to the proposed development. Given the circumstances of the development it would not be appropriate for the County Planning Authority to seek donations for community facilities.

Property values 4.88. Concern has been expressed by a local resident that the proposed workings will have an adverse effect on the value of their house. In planning terms the basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, (as devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration), but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. Vehicle dismantling 4.89. Beeston with Bittering Parish Council is also concerned with vehicle dismantling on the surrounding rural area especially with regards to the area near to Longham churchyard. Vehicle dismantling on sites less than one hectare in area is a District matter and this matter has been referred to the District Council for investigation.

5. Resource Implications

5.1 Finance : There are no financial implications from the planning regulatory perspective. 5.2 Staff : There are no staff implications from the planning regulatory perspective.

5.3 Property : There are no property implications from the planning regulatory perspective. 5.4 IT : There are no IT implications from the planning regulatory perspective.

6. Crime and Disorder Act

6.1 No issues have been raised which indicate that the proposal itself would generate issues of crime and disorder.

7. Human Rights Act 1988

7.1 The requirements of the Human Rights Act must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant. Should permission be granted, Human Rights may apply on behalf of local residents on the basis of the requirement for respect for private and family life and home under Article 8. It is considered that the granting of permission would be in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and conditions could be imposed which would control and minimise amenity impacts so that any burden arising for residents would not be disproportionate. On this basis there would be no violation of the rights protected by Article 8. Similarly, it is considered that there would be no violation of the rights protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol, which is protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

7.2 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. A refusal

of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents.

7.3 Equal Opportunities : There are no equal opportunities implications from the planning regulatory perspective. 7.4 Communications : There are no communications implications from the planning regulatory perspective. 8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

8.1 The proposal is for the continuation and extension of mineral working; retention of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; and restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses. 8.2 No issues have been raised which indicate that the proposal itself would generate issues of crime and disorder. 9. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

9.1 Whilst there is a need in terms of Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 14 to permit new sites to maintain a County landbank of at least seven years, this need has to be balanced against all the relevant Development Plan policies and is not in itself a reason for permitting development, i.e. in a situation where there are other policy objections. However, the fact that the landbank is below seven years would not be sufficient to justify granting planning permission. 9.2 Policy MIN 3 (landscape) is applicable; the envisaged enhancement of the local landscape character must clearly outweigh the impacts of the scheme. It is felt that the combination of the applicant’s proposals to mitigate the worst impacts of the plant site whilst in operation, the enhanced proposals for restoration of the site and subject to a condition regarding a limit on location and height of stockpiles at the plant site is sufficient to overcome any conflict with this policy. 9.3 Subject to conditions the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant should be sufficient to reduce the nuisance from noise, dust and visual intrusion such that there is no conflict with policy MIN 6 (Amenity). 9.4 Policy MIN 7 is applicable, but given the temporary nature of the bund and the proposed additional planting it is considered that there are insufficient grounds for refusal in the context of Norfolk Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 7. 9.5 The application has generated strong concern from Wendling Parish Council relating primarily to the impacts of traffic routeing through Wendling. Given that the proposal would not result in an increase in HGV traffic on the local highway network the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the aims of Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 9. 9.6 The local objections set out in this report are strongly held, however, given the above it is considered that on balance conditional planning permission should be granted for the proposed development, subject to a legal agreement concerning traffic routeing and, if Members consider appropriate, the creation of a circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation.

Recommendation

That the Director be authorised to issue a permission, subject to:

(i) A Section 106 Agreement concerning vehicle routeing as referred to in the report, and if Members consider appropriate, the creation of a circular walk at Creaking Gate Plantation

(ii) conditions to include those covering completion of working by 31 December 2017, limit of life of processing plant at Bittering Quarry to 31 December 2017, completion of restoration by 31 December 2019, working, restoration and aftercare schemes, noise limits, reversing bleepers, dust control, hours of working, limit on location and height of stockpiles at Bittering Quarry, archaeology, dewatering, surface water management, protection of water resources, and lighting.

Background Papers Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) Adopted Minerals Local Plan (2004) MPS 1

Officer Contact

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

Andrew Harriss 01603 224147 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Andrew Harriss on 01603 224147, Textphone 0844 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning (Regulatory) Committee 22nd May 2009 Item No. 6a

Development By The County Council Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District Y/7/2009/7005: Formation of Timber Framed And Canvassed Roof Covered Outdoor Play Area Together With Double Doors From The Classbase To Outside Talconeston Primary School, Norwich Road

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary

Full planning application for the construction of two new timber framed canvassed roof canopies to provide shelter to the outside area which is currently used for outdoor teaching purposes and as an outdoor play area together with the installation of double doors to provide improved access.

The canopies will be open structures consisting of four timber poles supporting the pitched canvassed roofs. The structures will be 5m x 5m x 3m high and 5m x 3m x 3m high respectively.

The site lies within a Conservation Area.

No objections have been received from statutory consultees although one objection has been received from the occupier of 110 Norwich Road which cannot be resolved. Accordingly under the Council's constitution the application is referred to the Planning Regulatory Committee for determination.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

1. Background

1.1 The school currently use the existing outside area for outdoor teaching purposes as a play area. The installation of the canopies will not alter the use of the area as the school advise it will still be used for these purposes. The canopies will provide shelter for these activities and the installation of the double doors will provide improved access into this area. 1.2 Planning History: No relevant history.

2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : Erection of two timber frame canvassed roof canopies and installation of double doors. The canopies will each consist of four timber poles supporting the canopies which will be off white in colour. The doors will be of timber construction painted light blue. 3. Policy

3.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment 3.2 South Norfolk Local Plan : Saved Policy IMP 18: Development in Conservation Areas. Saved Policy IMP 1 General Design 4. Consultations 4.1 South Norfolk Distinct Council No objection subject to arboriculture assessment 4.2 Landscape The development will be located under the canopy of the lime tree and in close proximity to it. However, it is considered after site investigation that the development will not adversely impact on the adjacent tree. Accordingly no objections are raised subject to appropriate conditions to protect the tree during the construction of the development. 4.3 Talconeston Parish Council “Most members offered no view, one member welcomed the proposal”. 4.4 Local Resident One objection has been received to the application on the grounds that the materials and choice of design are out of keeping and will be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and any approval could generate an unacceptable precedent for such development 4.5 County Councillor Mr B Spratt To be reported orally

5. Assessment

5.1 The school lies within the settlement area of Talconeston and is located within the Talconeston Conservation Area. 5.2 The site forms a hard standing play area on the southern boundary of the school directly adjacent to the existing school building. There is a large mature lime tree adjacent to the proposed canopies within the school site. The canopy of this tree would extend over the proposed buildings. 5.3 The southern boundary is marked by a 2m high close boarded timber fence with the back garden of the adjacent residential properties abutting this fencing. Design

5.4 The design of the buildings will be open structures with canvassed canopy roofs. 5.5 While this will not reflect the appearance of the existing building it is considered that the design will not harm the character or the appearance of the building or the Conservation Area. In addition any impact on the setting of the Conservation Area is minimised by its position to the side of the building which means it will not be readily prominent in the conservation area.

6. Resource Implications

6.1 Finance : There are no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 6.2 Staff: There are no staff implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 6.3 Property : There are no property implications from the Planning Regulatory Perspective. 6.4 IT: There are no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

7. Other Implications

7.1 Legal Implications :

7.2 Human Rights: The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right to enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights, but they are qualified rights. That is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the Human rights of other individuals. In making that balance, it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents can be adequately safeguarded by conditions. However, in this case it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents will be infringed because their rights are not significantly affected.

7.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA): The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility – no issues have been identified in this case. 8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act: There are no crime and disorder implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

9 Communications: There are no communication implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 10. Conclusion and reasons for grant of planning permission

10.1 It is considered that due to the design, height, size and location of the proposal there would not be any adverse impact on the general amenity or character and appearance of the area or adverse impact on the Conservation Area. Recommendation

(I) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including

• Three year time limit within which the development must be commenced

• Development is built in accordance with approved plans

• Constructed in accordance with recommendations of the submitted Arboriculture report.

Background Papers Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and The Historic Environment

Officer Contact

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

Martin Dale 01603 222183 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Martin Dale on 01603 222183 or textphone 0844 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

±

Land within the Applicant's Control

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery 0 10 20 40 60 80 Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Meters copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 07 May 2009 07 May 2009

Y/7/09/7005 Planning & Transportation GIS Tacolneston Scale 1: 1500 Centred on 614339 295089