Planning Regulatory Committee

Date: Friday 8 July 2011

Time: 10.00am

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich

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

Membership

Mr B Bremner Mr B Iles Mr D Callaby Mr G Plant Mr N Dixon Mr J Rogers Mr P Duigan Mr J Shrimplin Mr A Gunson Mr B Stone Mr R Hanton Ms H Thompson Mr P Hardy Mr M Wilby Mr D Harrison Mr A Wright Mr M Hemsley

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

Where the County Council have received letters of objection in respect of any application, these are summarised in the report. If you wish to read them in full, Members can do so either at the meeting itself or beforehand in the Department of Environment, Transport and Development on the 3rd Floor, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich. Planning Regulatory Committee 8 July

A g e n d a

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

2. Minutes: (Page )

To receive the Minutes of the last meeting held on 3 June 2011

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. Application referred to the Committee for Determination

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

5a. C/4/2010/4003: Norwich:Trowse Depot, Old Station Yard, Trowse (Page ) Norwich:Non-Compliance with Conditions 2 and 3 of Planning Permission C/4/2007/4003 to enable the grant of a full planning permission for the continued use of the site for storage and distribution of aggregates and manufacture of coated roadstone at Trowse Depot with no defined end date: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

5b. C/7/2010/7016: East Carelton and Ketteringham Parishes: Former (Page ) Ketteringham Quarry, Hethersett Road, East Carelton: Continued recycling of former building materials and use of concrete batching plant until 31 May 2029: Site entrance improvements including hardening of site access road: Hardening of remainder of concrete batching compound: Highway improvements: Construction of car park and footpath: Erection of estate fencing around ice house: Planning Regulatory Committee 8 July 2011

Restoration of the site in accordance with an improved restoration scheme by 31 May 2030 with public access to former quarry and adjoining land and woodland for informal recreational purposes: Mobile Concrete Supplies/Middleton Aggregates Ltd

5c. C/3/2010/3027: Wretham: Larkshall Recycling Facility, Thetford (Page ) Road, Wretham, Thetford, IP24 1QY: Retrospective application for the use of outside areas for processed materials, Viridor Waste (Thetford) Limited

6. Development by the County Council

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

6a Y/2/2011/2008: Hunstanton Infant School, James Street, Hunstanton, (Page ) Norfolk, PE36 5HE. Erection of powder coated weld mesh fencing to the existing boundary wall and extension of existing timber fencing

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

Date Agenda Published: 30 June 2011

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

Planning Regulatory Committee

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 3 June 2011

Present: Mr J Rogers - Chairman

Mr B Bremner Mr P Hardy Mr D Callaby Mr D Harrison Mr N Dixon Mr M Hemsley Mr P Duigan Mr J Rogers Mr T Garrod Mr J Shrimplin – Vice-Chairman Mr A Gunson Mr B Stone Mr R Hanton Mr M Wilby

Substitute Member Present:

Mr T Garrod

Officers in Attendance:

Ms F Croxen - Legal Services Ms N Levett - Environment, Transport and Development Mr N Johnson - Environment, Transport and Development Mr J Shaw - Environment, Transport and Development

1. Apologies and Substitution

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Iles, Mr G Plant, Mrs H Thompson and Mr A Wright

2. Chairman

2.1 Mr Rogers was elected Chairman for the ensuing year.

3. Vice-Chairman

3.1 Mr Shrimplin was elected as Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year.

4. Minutes

4.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2011 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 3 June 2011 1

5. Declarations of Interest

5.1 There were none.

6. Nominations to Serve on the Planning Regulatory Urgent Business Sub- Committee

The following Members agreed to serve on the Urgent Business Sub-Committee: Mr Gunson Mr Harrison Mr Rogers Mr Shrimplin Mr Wright

7. Urgent Business

7.1 There were no items of urgent business.

8 Applications Referred to Committee for Determination

8.1 C/5/2009/5011: Horsham and Newton St Faith: Spixworth Quarry, Grange Farm, Buxton Road: Variation of Conditions 1 and 16 of Planning Permission ref. C/5/1999/5008 to allow the extension of time until April 2015 and retrospective changes to the site layout; retrospective planning permission for erection of additional plant, buildings and machinery: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

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

8.3 The presenting officer read out the comments received by email from Hainford Parish Council on 2 June 2011 as follows:

“Although the Council has no objections to the application it did have concerns about the possibility of increased traffic through the village over the extended period. The Council would like to see the existing route for transportation of materials used with no increase in traffic volume.”

8.4 It was also agreed that the presentation given would cover both this application and the following one on the agenda as they were linked applications on the same site.

8.5 Members expressed disappointment that the first application was retrospective.

8.6 The following responses were given in answer to questions from Members of the Committee:

Planning Regulatory Committee – 3 June 2011 2

 There were now no objections to the applications.  When an extension of time is approved on an application a new legal agreement is required to be signed even if the application is identical to the previous one.  As this was a variation of condition application most of the conditions to be implemented were identical to the previous permission. A deed of variation to the existing legal agreement would also be required regarding vehicle routing.  Where the Haul Road crossed Church Lane the hedgerow was quite high but HGV visibility was very good at this point.  The site restoration plan provides for the import of inert waste only. The waste by its very nature would not leach and give rise to surface or groundwater pollution.  When the site was restored the crossing point would no longer be required so it would be restored to its former state.  The current development had minimal impact on the highway.

 There were signs on the highway either side of the cross roads to warn that

lorries were crossing the road at that point. 8.7

The recommendation was moved by Mr Shrimplin and seconded by Mr Harrison.

It was unanimously RESOLVED:

ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details within a specified date of planning permission being granted; and,

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

9. C/5/2009/5012: Horsham and Newton St Faith: Variation of condition 1 of Planning Permission C/5/1996/5007 to allow extension of time until April 2015 to recover remaining mineral reserves: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

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

9.2 The recommendation was moved by Mr Shrimplin and seconded by Mr Harrison.

It was unanimously RESOLVED:

Planning Regulatory Committee – 3 June 2011 3

i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to issue a decision notice granting planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 13 of the report and a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of vehicle routeing, the maintenance of footpaths in the vicinity, the submission of a management plan for Spixworth Park (with the objective of enhancing the character of the historic parkland), and not causing any further working on this land.

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

The meeting concluded at 10.45 am

CHAIRMAN

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

Planning Regulatory Committee – 3 June 2011 4 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 8 July 2011 Item No. 5a

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination Norwich City: C/4/2010/4003: Norwich: Trowse Depot, Old Station Yard, Trowse, Norwich NR1 2EG: Non compliance with conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission C/4/2007/4003 to enable the grant of a full planning permission for the continued use of the site for storage and distribution of aggregates and manufacture of coated roadstone at Trowse Depot with no defined end date: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The proposal is to vary conditions attached to the previous planning permission for the use of the northern yard of the Trowse Depot for aggregates storage and for the manufacture of coated roadstone, to enable a permanent planning permission for those uses. The previous planning permission was granted for a period of 3 years duration, expiring on 28 February 2011. Condition 2 imposes the time limit and condition 3 requires removal of plant and machinery from the site.

An objection has been raised on behalf of the owner of the adjacent Deal Ground and May Gurney sites, which is proposed for mainly residential development, on the grounds that permanent use of the northern part of the Lafarge site for aggregates storage and for coated roadstone manufacture would affect development values and prejudice the regeneration of this part of Norwich.

An objection has also been raised on behalf of Britvic Soft Drinks and Unilever Ltd, regarding potential impact upon food and drink manufacturing operations at Carrow Works, to the west of the application site. These are major employers within Norwich and the facilities have benefited from considerable investment. The company has concerns that any permanent planning permission would lead to intensification of operations, and as the adjacent food and drink manufacturing facility is particularly sensitive to airborne pollution, the overall profitability of this major employer would be put at risk. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be: (i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in section 12 below. (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal 1.1 Location: : The Trowse Depot is located to the north of Bracondale and east of the railway line. The site includes a northern yard which extends almost as far as the River Wensum. A railway siding enters the site and serves the southern part of the site. 1.2 Type of Development: : Storage of coarse aggregates, imported by rail, roadstone planings and crushed glass, imported by road and manufacture of coated roadstone. 1.3 Total Site Area : 2.4 ha

1.4 Annual tonnage : 250,000 tonnes (mineral) 1.5 Duration : A permanent planning permission is sought. 1.6 Buildings/Plant : Asphalt coating plant; enclosure buildings for aggregate hoppers; 2 portacabins (stacked vertically); weighbridge. 1.7 Hours of Working : 05.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays. 1.8 Estimated vehicle movements : 120 movements per day (60 in and 60 and numbers out). On exiting the site, vehicles travel north west to the junction with the A1054 and then to the primary road network. 1.9 Access : Via existing access road to Bracondale.

2. Constraints 2.1 The access to the site is within a Conservation Area. The site lies within a Groundwater Protection Zone. There are Listed Buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument on the adjacent sites. These are described in the assessment section below.

3. History 3.1 The Trowse Depot was historically used as a general goods depot for the Great Eastern Railway. In 1956 it is recorded that the site was dealing with minerals and other commodities. 3.2 Planning permission was granted in July 1966 for the construction of a tarmacadam plant (ref. 31092). 3.3 Planning permission was granted in October 1974 for overhead conveyors to facilitate storage of aggregates (ref. 4/74/0052/F). 3.4 Planning permission was granted in July 1988 for a replacement asphalt coating plant. This was time limited until 31/12/2008 (ref. 4/88/0464). 3.5 Planning permission was granted in January 1997 for enclosure buildings for aggregate hoppers. This was time limited until 31/12/2008 (ref. C/4/96/4004). 3.6 Planning permission was granted in December 2006 for 2 portacabins (stacked vertically) and a weighbridge. This was time limited until 31/12/2008 (ref. C/4/2006/4003). 3.7 Planning permission was granted in February 2008 for consolidation of the existing permissions, variation of the time limit conditions and for construction of 4 hot storage bins, a feed hopper and conveyor. This was further time limited until 28 February 2011 (ref. C/4/2007/4003). The 4 hot storage bins, feed hopper and conveyor have not been implemented. 4. Policy 4.1 East of England Plan (2008) : Policies SS1 – Achieving Sustainable Development ENV7 – Quality in the Built Environment NR1 – Norwich Key Centre for Development and Change 4.2 Adopted Norfolk Structure Plan : Policy T2 – Transport in New (1999) Saved Policies Development

4.3 Adopted Minerals Local Plan : Policies MIN 2 (Conservation Areas, (2004) Saved Policies Listed Buildings) MIN 5 (County Wildlife Sites) MIN 6 (amenity) MIN 7 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) MIN 9 (access) MIN 10 (water resources and flood prevention) MIN 19B (recycled aggregates) MIN 22 (safeguarding rail head) MIN 23 (rail transport). 4.4 Greater Norwich Development : Policy 1 (Addressing climate change and Partnership Joint Core Strategy protecting environmental assets) (2011) Policy 5 (The Economy) Policy 12 (The remainder of the Norwich Urban Area, including fringe parishes) Note: A legal challenge has been made to the Joint Core Strategy. 4.5 Norwich City Council Local Plan : Policies EP 5 (air quality) (2004) EP 22 (residential amenity) EMP 9 (employment development) 4.6 Government Planning Policy : PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG 13: Transport PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk 4.7 Government Mineral Policy : MPS1 : Planning and Minerals (2006); Statements MPS2 : Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental effects of Mineral Extraction in England and associated Annex 1(Dust) and Annex 2 (Noise) (2005); MPG2 : Applications, permissions and conditions (1998); 5. Consultations 5.1 Norwich City Council (Planning : Norwich City Council has recently and Environmental Health) received a planning application for a residential-led redevelopment of the adjoining Deal Ground site, along the depot’s eastern boundary.

The comments provided by the Council have been made with the above proposal in mind (although clearly a decision on its merits has yet to be taken), as well as the provisions of the adopted development plan, comprising specifically the East of England Plan, Joint Core Strategy and Replacement Local Plan. Emerging future policy is also outlined.

The principle of development: The Council previously requested that a temporary time limit for operations be introduced to any permission. This would have allowed time for studies into the Deal Ground, May Gurney site and adjoining sites to be completed, and possibly a new planning strategy for the area finalised. Unfortunately this did not all prove possible, although some principles were established and a much clearer idea of the Deal Ground’s potential for redevelopment has now been formed.

As such the planning policy position remains unchanged; in its broadest sense the principle of continued rail freight at the Trowse Depot is encouraged as a sustainable means of bringing aggregate and other similar products into the city.

In considering the possibility of future uses at the Deal Ground, City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan (2004) saved policy EMP9 (iv) actively encourages the expansion of rail-freight operations at this location, by allocating a part of the Deal Ground as being most suited to operations which are compatible with, and related to, rail-freight at the Trowse Depot, as proposals should “reserve and retain” an area of the site to the north along the railway sidings for uses requiring and utilising rail access. Development at the Deal Ground should not be prejudicial to future use or expansion of aggregate processing, and possible non-rail related uses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is insufficient demand for retaining a rail-related use of land. Current policy would appear to support the ongoing use of the existing site adjoining the Deal Ground.

It is also noted that current Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004) policy MIN22 seeks to safeguard sites for potential railhead aggregate depots, which includes the area identified as an extension to the current operations and identified as such under the aforementioned policy EMP9. Policy MIN23 also promotes minerals transportation by rail. Both policies are effectively carried forward by draft policy CS16 of the draft Minerals Local Development Framework Core Strategy, the broad principles of which should be encouraged.

However, whilst the Local Plan envisaged the Deal Ground being developed primarily for employment uses, policy EMP9 does anticipate some residential development on the site, of approximately 1 hectare, along the northern side of the site. This would be close to the ‘northern yard’ aggregate store part of the site considered in this application.

Further, the recently-adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (March 2011) identifies regeneration of the Deal Ground to be a priority, along the lines of “mixed-use development and enhanced green linkages from the city centre to the Broads”. This means the adopted development plan now anticipates a broader range of uses than those set out by Local Plan Policy EMP3, and may feasibly include more extensive residential development than just the 1 hectare outlined in the Local Plan.

In addition, the earliest stages of the Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document have considered the Deal Ground as a residential-led development site, which could provide in the region of 600 dwellings. The Council recognises that as the Site Allocations plan has yet to be submitted for consideration by the Planning Inspectorate then very little, if any, weight can be afforded to this emerging policy if you consider it to be a material consideration.

However, the submission of the aforementioned planning application, which does appear broadly consistent with the emerging site allocation policy, is considered by the Council to form a material consideration in the determination of this proposal.

Notwithstanding current policy or proposal, over recent years sufficient work has been undertaken in the light of the employment allocation not having been realised, to suggest that alternative redevelopment schemes could be possible at the Deal Ground which avoid compromising existing or future operations at the aggregate site (although whether or not this is possible in its currently-proposed form is yet to be assessed). It is certainly considered possible to design appropriate layouts or provide compatible uses which can take account of local or neighbouring constraints.

In summary, due to the recent work undertaken to inform potential redevelopment options of the current underused sites, and the improved understanding gained as a result, the Council does not object to the continued use of the Trowse Depot site.

However, the Council does wish to make you aware of some important considerations, including proposed conditions that should be attached to any planning permission.

The practices of the development: Environmental Health, Pollution Control The Council is satisfied that the operations by current operators Lafarge at the above site have for the most part avoided unacceptable impact to the neighbouring area (albeit with a much lower number of neighbours than might be the case in the future). As you are no doubt aware, Lafarge is regulated under Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) legislation for emissions to air. The City Council has received no complaints to date from neighbours and the site is classified as ‘low risk’ within the PPC regulation’s assessment. However the plant used at the site is aging and may soon require some capital investment; in terms of pollution risk, the older the plant is, beyond its expected life, the greater the risk of pollution it presents.

It is considered that the stringent application and monitoring of planning conditions (alongside the statutory requirements of PPC regulation) should make it possible for the depot to operate adjacent to the Deal Ground, irrespective of any potential residential development at the neighbouring site. However, please note that the Deal Ground is downwind of the prevailing wind direction and would become susceptible to any pollution incidents occurring at the depot.

Given the possible future residential- redevelopment of the Deal Ground site (as proposed in current policy, the current application, and as emerging within site allocation policy), it is considered necessary to impose control over activities at the aggregate site as may affect the Deal Ground and in particular the northern part of that site. In suggesting the following conditions to be included as part of any planning permission, the Council is mindful of the need to allow the applicant a reasonable period of investigation and consideration prior to some of the measures needing to be imposed.

Conclusion Whilst both the City Council’s planning service and Environmental Health service are satisfied that the site can by-and- large be operated on a permanent basis, and hence raise no objection to the principle of removing Condition 2, the conditions recommended below should be applied to any subsequent permission to ensure the site operates in a manner compatible with possible adjacent residential uses.

Please note that even if the suggested restrictions are complied with in full, the activities allowed at the aggregate site would nevertheless still result in a less- than-satisfactory arrangement for a site of this nature operating alongside future residential neighbours. However, these measures are expected to be complemented by a range of proposals that will need to be designed into any residential development of the Deal Ground site, so as to ensure the impacts can be further reduced to a more acceptable level. The City Council will seek to ensure these are included within any scheme permitted for residential-led redevelopment of the Deal Ground.

General, site-wide conditions:

 A condition requiring removal of plant, machinery and materials on cessation of operations for any 6 month period. This would replace the previous condition which required removal of plant, machinery and materials at expiry of the temporary permission.

 Condition 5 (external lighting) from the previous permission should be carried over into any new permission and continued in its entirety.

 A condition requiring submission of a scheme of dust suppression within 12 months of the date of the planning permission, and implementation within 12 months of approval of the scheme.

 Condition 9 (plant and machinery silencing) from the previous permission should be carried over and continued in its entirety.

 A new condition should be applied to ensure that no new plant or machinery is installed without prior approval of the proposed silencing methods.

 A condition requiring submission of a scheme of odour control to be submitted within 12 months of the date of the permission and implemented within 12 months of the date of approval of the scheme.

Location-specific conditions:

In making these suggestions - to ensure operations are compatible with future residential neighbours - the Council is mindful of the site’s current operations, and specifically the need to fire-up the burner/kiln from 0500 hours, to allow loading from 0600 hours.

It is recommended that a plan be attached to any permission to define the extent of the various parts of the site as referred to in the conditions below, for the avoidance of doubt.

 A condition requiring submission of details of a boundary fence of at least 2.5m, or the height of the existing boundary treatment, whichever is the higher, within 6 months of the date of the planning permission and implementation of the approved scheme within 6 months of the date of approval of the scheme.

 The permitted hours of operation (Condition 8 from the previous permission) to be retained as 05.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Fridays, with the following additional restrictions:

- There shall be no bitumen deliveries / collections made between 17:00 and 07:00 hours Monday to Saturday and none at all on Sundays/bank holidays. - From 3 years from the date of this planning permission (or such other time to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) operations on the northern yard shall cease between the hours of 05:00 and 07:00, and shall thereafter only take place between 07:00 and 17:00 Monday to Saturday (not including public/bank holidays).

 Condition 10 (noise level limits) should be revised to relate to ALL site boundaries, applying the following limits:  Southern boundary – 50 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 55 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 07.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 50 dB (LAeq 1 hour) at any other time;  Eastern boundary of the southern yard – 67 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 73 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 07.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 63 dB (LAeq 1 hour) at any other time (measured 1 metre inside the boundary);  Eastern boundary of the northern yard – 75 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 78 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 05.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays (measured 1 metre inside the boundary) and, as from 3 years from the date of this permission, 07.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays.

5.2 Trowse Parish Council : Recommend approval. Lafarge should have responsibility for cleaning Trowse railway bridge and it should be a target to optimise use of the railway for import and export of materials. 5.3 Broads Authority : Does not wish to make any comment.

5.4 Environment Agency : The development is covered by Flood Risk Standing Advice. 5.5 Highway Authority : The improvement works to the access have been carried out, and the previous highway objection is withdrawn. 5.6 Network Rail : No observations.

5.7 Norwich International Airport : No safeguarding objection.

5.8 Third party representations : An objection has been raised on behalf of the owner of the Deal Ground and May Gurney sites, which is proposed for mainly residential development, on the grounds that permanent use of the northern part of the Lafarge site for aggregates storage and permanent use for coated roadstone manufacture would affect development values and prejudice the regeneration of this part of Norwich. The adjacent Utilities Ground to the north of the Deal Ground is land locked and dependant upon development of the Deal ground to achieve access. Funding has been secured by Norwich City Council for a cycle route, and the achievement of this would be prejudiced if development does not go ahead. The scheme viability would also affect the number of affordable housing units that could be provided if the scheme were to go ahead. The application site is small and the siding lengths are short, affecting Lafarge’s ability to contain their operations within their site boundary. There are noise and odour impacts and the dust suppression measures involve over-spraying water onto the Deal Ground site.

An objection has been raised on behalf of Britvic Soft Drinks and Unilever Ltd, regarding potential impact upon food and drink manufacturing operations at Carrow Works, to the west of the application site. These are major employers within Norwich and the facilities have benefited from considerable investment in recent years. Any intensification of operations at Lafarge which would be enabled by a permanent planning permission, would lead to an increased risk of contamination by airborne pollution. Legislation in the food and drinks industry is becoming more stringent and any significant costs incurred in this respect would put the companies at a commercial disadvantage. A permanent consent would be incompatible with an expanding and successful food and drink manufacturing use close by and would be incompatible with the wider regeneration of the area, including development of the Deal Ground.

5.9 County Councillor : No objection (Philip Hardy)

6. Assessment Proposal 6.1 The site has a long established use as an aggregates depot served by a rail head, which is used for importation of aggegates which are then distributed by road. This use is a permanent use having become established over a long period of time and has been subject to permanent planning permissions granted in the 1960s and 70s. However, the asphalt plant, associated enclosed hoppers, 2 portacabins, weighbridge and use of the northern area of the site for aggregates storage have been subject to temporary planning permissions, which expired in 2008 and were subsequently renewed, to expire in February of this year. 6.2 The application seeks a permanent planning permission for the above elements. Site 6.3 Trowse Depot is some 2.4 hectares in area and is directly adjacent, and to the east of the Norwich to Ipswich railway line. Vehicular access is from Bracondale, the junction being directly adjacent to the railway bridge. A row of terraced houses is located south east of the access and south of the main body of the site. The Deal Ground is to the east of the site, and the Britvic/Unilever food and drinks factory is located to the immediate west of the railway line. The River Wensum flows to the north of the site and the River Yare is to the east of the Deal Ground. 6.4 Within the site, the southern part is used for storage of aggregates within bays. The railhead and associated conveyors are also within this part, as is the asphalt plant, associated enclosed hoppers, tanks, storage units, office and laboratory buildings. The weighbridge and control cabins are located to the north of the asphalt plant. The northern part of the site is used for open storage of aggregates and road planings. Principle of Development 6.5 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

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

6.6 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the saved policies in the adopted Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (2004), the Development Control policies contained within the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy, the Norwich City Local Plan, and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The East of England Plan (2008). 6.7 The principle of the use as an aggregates depot is established, and the value of the railhead in providing a sustainable means of transport of construction materials is recognised in the Norfolk Minerals Local Plan and the Norwich City Local Plan. The use as an aggregates depot (including the northern yard area) is safeguarded in the Minerals Local Plan. The Norwich City Local Plan encourages rail-based industrial uses. 6.8 The asphalt plant is associated with the aggregates storage facility and the principle of the use is in accordance with development plan policies. Ecology/Nature Conservation 6.9 The eastern boundary of the site is located between 70m and 90m away from a County Wildlife Site, which covers part of the Deal Ground adjacent to the River Yare. 6.10 The County Ecologist has no objection to the continued use of the site, but highlights the potential value of the site in linking with adjacent sites in providing for wildlife corridors, should the site be restored in the longer term. 6.11 It is considered that the continued use of the site for aggregates storage and manufacture of coated roadstone would not adversely affect ecological interest in the area, given the nature of the use and the distance away from the County Wildlife Site. Furthermore, it is considered that, whereas the longer term restoration of the site to provide for enhanced biodiversity habitat may be desirable, the imposition of a further temporary permission on this basis is not justified given that the use has operated without causing detriment for a number of years. It is considered that the requirements of Minerals Local Plan policy MIN 5 in terms of prevention of damage to nature conservation interest, are met. Landscape 6.12 The asphalt plant is of varying heights, with the highest part being up to 16.5m and with a chimney 22m in height. The adjacent built up areas of Norwich to the west and north are largely industrial and railway land, and the plant is considered to be visually acceptable in this context. There are existing mature trees which screen the plant from view in the open landscape areas to the east, including Whitlingham Lane and Whitlingham Country Park. 6.13 The asphalt plant and aggregate storage uses are considered to be visually acceptable within the landscape, as the plant would be well screened and not visible from local viewpoints. Amenity (odour, noise, dust, lighting, visual intrusion) 6.14 The nearest residential properties are a row of terraced houses to the south of the site, and east of the access. Conditions were imposed on the 2008 permission to control external lighting, air quality mitigation measures, hours of working and noise levels. The latter imposed an upper limit of 48 dB(A) measured at the southern boundary of the site between 06.00 hours and 16.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 40 dB(A) at any other time. 6.15 The adjacent Deal Ground site is proposed to be allocated for mixed use development, including a substantial amount of housing (600 dwellings) in Norwich City Council’s draft Site Allocations document, and an outline planning application is currently with the City Council that proposes 682 dwellings and commercial development. The Joint Core Strategy identifies Eastern Norwich, between the city centre and the Deal Ground as a priority area for regeneration through mixed use development. The Deal Ground is allocated in the Norwich City Local Plan for employment development, however this allocation has not been taken up and the viability of employment development on the site has been questioned. Development of the Deal Ground would enable access to be provided across the River Wensum to the Utilities site, which is currently land- locked. This would therefore enable a wider regeneration of the south eastern part of Norwich. The policy emphasis has changed through the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy whereby the principle of mixed use development on the Deal Ground would be accepted. 6.16 The principle of development of the Deal Ground for residential development is established in the Local Plan, which identifies 1 hectare at the northern end of the Deal Ground for residential development. The Joint Core Strategy indicates that the overall mix of development could be less employment – orientated. The fact that it is proposed for residential development in the draft Site Allocations document, and the submission of a planning application to Norwich City Council for residential development are material considerations (although the current Deal Ground application is a departure from the plan). Whereas the noise levels at the southern boundary of the application site are acceptable in relation to the adjacent houses, noise levels along the eastern boundary of the site are higher, resulting from use of a loading shovel in the northern aggregates storage yard, and from lorries manoeuvring within the site. The higher noise levels along the eastern boundary would place a constraint on residential development on the Deal Ground. 6.17 Whilst it is recognised that residential development on the Deal Ground is likely, it is also the case that Lafarge have operated satisfactorily and within the terms of the existing applicable planning conditions, without detriment to the amenities of the adjacent occupiers to the south, although clearly there have not been any immediate neighbours along the eastern boundary. Government advice is that a temporary planning permission should be considered as a ‘trial run’ and that if a use has operated satisfactorily during the temporary period, then a permanent permission should be granted. 6.18 It is therefore appropriate to impose mitigating conditions to limit and remove unnecessary noise, dust and odour in recognition of the potential residential development on the adjacent site. These conditions must meet the relevant tests set out in circular 11/95 including the need to be reasonable. Therefore, any condition which unreasonably constrains the operations of the applicant may be viewed as not meeting the relevant tests. Conditions have been discussed with the Environmental Health Officer and with the applicant, and are listed in the recommendation. Highways/Traffic 6.19 At the time the previous application was considered, the access to the depot was considered to be deficient, in that turning movements would have prejudiced the adjacent bridge structure. Works have now been undertaken by the applicant to improve the geometry of the junction and to safeguard the bridge structure. 6.20 The Highway Authority’s objection has now been removed.

Need for the Facility 6.21 The principle of rail transport of aggregates is supported in national and local planning policy, and the value of the rail head facility to the sustainable transport of aggregates is recognised in the Minerals Local Plan and the Norwich City Local Plan. In principle, therefore, there is a strong policy presumption in favour of retention of the aggregates storage use in association with the rail head. The northern yard is identified in the Minerals Local Plan as an extension to the existing yard, and as such is safeguarded. 6.22 There are also benefits in co-locating the asphalt plant with the aggregates storage use in terms of minimising transport requirements. In addition to the plant subject to this application, there are three other asphalt plants in the County, which are, or were previously associated with mineral workings. The manufacture of coated roadstone in this location has benefits for construction projects in Norwich. Sites of Historical Significance and their Settings 6.23 There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Building within the Britvic/Unilever site, which are the remains of a former Priory. There is a Listed bottle kiln within the Deal Ground site. It is considered that the continued operation of the aggregates storage and roadstone manufacturing uses would not be prejudicial to those heritage assets. 6.24 The access to the site is within a Conservation Area. The proposals do not affect this designation. Water Resources/Flood Risk 6.25 The site is within a groundwater source protection zone. The Environment Agency provides advice regarding prevention of contamination of groundwater. The use for minerals processing is classified as a ‘less vulnerable’ use in Annex D to PPS 25, and such uses are considered acceptable in principle within Flood Zone 2. 6.26 The site is within Flood Zone 2. A brief Flood Risk Assessment has been provided as part of the application. The use for minerals processing is classified as a ‘less vulnerable’ use in Annex D to PPS 25, and such uses are considered acceptable in principle within Flood Zone 2. Norwich City Local Plan (2004) 6.27 Policy EMP9 allocates the Deal Ground and the northern yard within Lafarge’s site for employment development, together with a small amount of housing development on the north side of the site, in the region of 1 hectare. The latter refers to land abutting the south bank of the River Wensum, principally within the Deal Ground. The policy requires a comprehensive development scheme, including a new access from the south, via a new bridge across the River Yare, pedestrian and cycle routes through the site and provision for a future bridge connection across the River Wensum. It is a requirement that the scheme retains an area of land adjacent to the railway for uses requiring and utilising rail access. This is the northern yard area of the Lafarge site. The policy requires that any employment development on the northern yard area demonstrates an essential requirement for rail access, is not prejudicial to existing and proposed aggregates processing activities on the site and are not prejudicial to activities at the adjoining food processing factory. 6.28 The proposal is in accordance with policy EMP9.

Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy 6.29 Policy 12 identifies the eastern part of Norwich, between the city centre and the Deal Ground, for mixed use development in order to regenerate the area. It is necessary to impose limiting conditions in order to help safeguard the levels of amenity on the Deal Ground site, recognising also that any development of the Deal Ground would also be subject to conditions to ensure acceptable levels of amenity. National Planning Guidance 6.30 Minerals Policy Statement 1 – Planning and Minerals emphasises the importance of providing for the sustainable transport of minerals by rail and the importance of safeguarding railheads and associated storage facilities for minerals. The prudent, efficient and sustainable use of minerals, including recycling is an objective of the Policy Statement. The manufacture of coated materials is identified as a use associated with minerals which should be safeguarded. 6.31 Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS 2) – Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England includes detailed advice regarding control of dust and noise. With respect to dust, concerns are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources, generally within 100 metres depending on site characteristics and in the absence of appropriate mitigation. In most circumstances, dust concerns can be addressed through appropriate design and layout, management, use of appropriate equipment and adoption of control and mitigation measures. 6.32 The nearest residential properties are within 100 metres of the depot, however these are more than 100 metres from the temporary part of the operations that are subject to this permission. Dust has been controlled previously through a planning condition and through a Permit obtained from Norwich City Council. The Deal Ground is directly adjacent to the northern yard area subject to this application, and dust is potentially an issue to any development there. It has been noted that dust is blown onto the adjacent site and that aggregate materials spill through the existing palisade fencing. A condition is recommended which requires provision of a solid boundary fence, which would help to contain aggregates and dust and prevent spillage onto the adjacent site. A 2.5 metre fence is recommended subject to an extended time period for its installation, which is considered reasonable in respect of this proposal. 6.33 MPS 2 – Annex 2, Noise provides advice on acceptable noise levels and mitigation to minimise the effects of noise. As a general rule, the outdoor sound level for steady continuous noise should not exceed 55 dB LA eq on balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas. In establishing noise levels, unreasonable burdens should not be imposed on the Mineral Operator. The southern boundary of the depot has previously been subject to a maximum noise level of 48 dB(A) during specified daytime hours. An existing building within the site, and the existing layout has ensured that this limit is complied with. However, the noise levels on the eastern boundary, particularly adjacent to the northern yard area are much higher and are likely to impact upon any future development close to that boundary. This issue is described above, however, in summary, a noise limit condition can be used, associated with defined hours to help to limit noise levels at the boundary. 6.34 Whilst appropriate mitigation measures are recommended to minimise impacts in terms of noise and dust, it will be for Norwich City Council to consider the detailed aspects of any proposed development at the Deal Ground in terms of potential impact. Sustainability 6.35 The transport of aggregates by rail is a sustainable means of transport of a material important to the local construction industry. The depot handles recycled aggregates, which is a sustainable use of material. 6.36 The asphalt plant is co-located with aggregates storage, which avoids unnecessary transport. 7. Resource Implications

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

Legal Implications

8.1 Appropriate Assessment: 8.2 The application site is approximately 5.8 km west of the Surlingham Broad SPA/SAC/RAMSAR/SSSI. Further SSSIs are located 2 km south of the site and 5 km east of the site.

8.3 The County Council considers in accordance with Article 61 of the Habitat Regulations that the development will not have a significant impact on these habitats and accordingly no Appropriate Assessment of the development is required.

8.4 Human Rights : 8.5 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant. 8.6 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed. 8.7 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. 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. 8.8 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : 8.9 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 8.10 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.11 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.12 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 9.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application. 10. Risk Implications/Assessment 10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective. 11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission 11.1 The use is in accordance with development plan policy and there is a policy presumption that the rail-based aggregates facility is retained. The use has operated acceptably over the period of the previous permission, and the presumption on this basis is that a permanent planning permission should be granted. 11.2 In assessing the application, it is acknowledged that there is an intention to develop the adjacent Deal Ground for mixed use, residential-led development and it is also acknowledged that the food and drinks factory to the west is particularly sensitive to air-borne emissions. 11.3 With these factors in mind, conditions are recommended which are more stringent than those previously included. Noise limits along the eastern boundary are recommended to be subject to an upper limit, and the provision of a solid boundary fence is recommended to be required, in order to limit noise and dust and to contain material within the site. The conditions have been discussed with the applicant and I am satisfied that these conditions would not unreasonably constrain the applicant’s business operations. 11.4 It is therefore recommended that a permanent planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions stated below. 12. Conditions 12.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to conditions including:  Proposal to be in accordance with the approved plans and documentation;

 Plant, machinery and materials to be removed from the site in the event of cessation of activities for 6 months.  A solid boundary treatment of 2.5m in height, or as high as the existing boundary treatment, whichever is the higher, to be provided in accordance with details to be submitted for approval. The details to be submitted for approval within 6 months of the grant of planning permission, and the approved details to be completed within 6 months of the date of approval;  A scheme of improved dust suppression measures to be submitted for written approval within 12 months of the date of the planning permission, and the approved scheme to be implemented within 12 months of its approval;  Plant and machinery to be effectively silenced;

 A scheme of odour control to be submitted for approval within 12 months of the date of the planning permission, and the approved scheme to be implemented within 12 months of its approval;  Hours of operation 05.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays, with no operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays. No bitumen deliveries or collections to be made between 17.00 hours and 07.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays. From 3 years from the date of this planning permission, no operations shall take place on the northern yard between 05.00 hours and 07.00 hours and shall thereafter only take place between 07.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays with no operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays.  Noise levels to not exceed the following:  Southern boundary – 50 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 55 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 07.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 50 dB (LAeq 1 hour) at any other time;  Eastern boundary of the southern yard – 67 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 73 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 07.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 63 dB (LAeq 1 hour) at any other time (measured 1 metre inside the boundary);  Eastern boundary of the northern yard – 75 dB (LAeq 12 hours) and 78 dB (LAeq 1 hour) between 05.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays (measured 1 metre inside the boundary) and, as from 3 years from the date of this permission, 07.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays.  Installation of any new or replacement plant or machinery to be provided with noise and vibration insulation in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved;  Details of any further external lighting to be submitted for written approval;

 All foul sewage shall be discharged to the public sewage system;

 With the exception of sand and fine aggregates, all aggregates for use at the site shall be imported by rail;  Materials to be stored at the site to be limited to aggregates, sand, crushed glass and asphalt planings. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be:

(i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 12. (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers Application file reference: C/4/2010/4003 East of England Plan Norfolk Structure Plan Norwich City Local Plan Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy Norfolk Minerals Local Plan PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG 13: Transport PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address Nick Palmer 01603 223995 [email protected]

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

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

The Application Site

09 May 2011

C/4/2010/4003 Metres 0 170 340 680 1,020 1,360 Planning & Transportation GIS Norwich Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 624466 307310 ± Land within the Applicant's Ownership

The Application Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

09 May 2011

C/4/2010/4003 Metres 0 20 40 80 120 160 Planning & Transportation GIS Norwich Scale 1: 3000 Centred on 350000 198831 Planning (Regulatory) Committee

Item No. 5b

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District: C/7/2010/7016: East Carleton and Ketteringham Parishes: Former Ketteringham Quarry, Hethersett Road, East Carleton: Continued recycling of former building materials and use of concrete batching plant until 31 May 2029: Site entrance improvements including hardening of site access road: Hardening of remainder of concrete batching compound: Highway improvements: Construction of car park and footpath: Erection of estate fencing around ice house: Restoration of the site in accordance with an improved restoration scheme by 31 May 2030 with public access to former quarry and adjoining land and woodland for informal recreational purposes: Mobile Concrete Supplies / Middleton Aggregates Limited

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The application seeks full planning permission for the following elements: 1. Continued recycling of former building materials and use of concrete batching plant at the current active site; 2. Highway improvements to Hethersett Road, improvements to the site entrance, and provision of car park and footpath; 3. Improved restoration and management of former quarry with incorporation of adjoining woodland into an alternative restoration scheme, with provision for public access to former quarry, adjoining land and woodland. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees. However, objections and concerns are raised by 38 residents on a number of grounds including lack of sustainability of the site, traffic volumes, ineffective consultation process and departure from the development plan.

The site is located within 5km of a European Protected Habitat, namely the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The application has been assessed in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations and it is considered that the development will not have a significant impact on the integrity of the SAC.

The site is located outside any defined settlement limit and is therefore located in the open countryside. The site is not allocated for development, and the application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan in force in the area. However, it is considered that there are other material planning considerations that justify approving this application.

Whilst the application is a departure from the County Council’s Adopted Waste Local Plan and South Norfolk Local Plan there is no requirement to refer the application to the Secretary of State as the proposal does not meet the relevant criteria

Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be: (i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of vehicle routeing, public access and management of the site, and conditions outlined in Section 12 below: (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location: : Former Ketteringham Quarry, Hethersett Road, East Carleton 1.2 Type of Development: :  Recycling of former building materials;  Concrete batching;  Site entrance improvements;  Hardening of remainder of concrete batching compound;  Highway improvements, taking the form of four passing places;  Construction of car park and footpath;  Erection of estate fencing around ice house;  Restoration of site in accordance with improved restoration scheme with public access to former quarry, adjoining land and woodland 1.3 Mineral/Waste type : Recycling: Construction, demolition and excavation waste Concrete batching: Aggregate and cement

1.4 Total Site Area : 2.9 hectares

1.5 Annual tonnage : maximum 30,000 tonnes of construction, (waste) demolition and excavation waste 1.6 Annual production tonnage Average 36,000 tonnes (concrete) 1.7 Duration : Recycling and concrete batching for additional 17 years (until 31 May 2029), with final restoration for an additional one year (until 31 May 2030) 1.8 Market Served : Recycling and Concrete Batching: Within South Norfolk, south from Norwich, including Wymondham, Attleborough, Long Stratton, and rural hinterland 1.9 Buildings/Plant : Recycling: Weighbridge, (measuring 8m x 2.2m); weighbridge office, (measuring 2.8m x 2.7m x 3m high); wc building, (measuring 1.6m x 0.9m); mobile concrete crusher; mobile screen; mobile grader; loading shovel; excavator Concrete batching: Batching plant and ancillary infrastructure; office building, (measuring 9.8m x 3.1m x 3m high); laboratory building, (measuring 6.8m x 2.8m x 3m high); control unit building 1.10 Hours of Working : Recycling: 07:00 – 17:00 Monday – Friday No operations on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays (as currently permitted) Concrete batching: 07:00 – 17:00 Monday – Friday 07:00 – 13:00 Saturdays No operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays (as currently permitted) 1.11 Estimated vehicle movements : Recycling: and numbers Average 6 X 20 tonne loads in per day Concrete batching: 4 X 40 tonne loads (import of aggregate) in per day 1 x 20 tonne load (import of cement) in per day 10 X 24 tonne loads (despatch of concrete) out per day 1.12 Access : Existing site access to Hethersett Road

1.13 Landscaping : Existing screen bunding, existing woodland belts and proposed planting 1.14 Restoration/After-use : Existing landfill site – restoration to original ground level: amenity use Proposed recycling and concrete batching area – restoration to low level: amenity use 2. Constraints

2.1 The site is not designated in the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003).

2.2 The 19th century Icehouse which is included in the application area is a Grade II Listed Building.

2.3 Fourteen listed buildings including Ketteringham Hall, a Grade II Listed Building, are located to the west of the site.

2.4 Two Scheduled Ancient Monuments are situated 800 metres north of the site at the junction of Hethersett Road, High Street, Station Lane and Cantley Lane.

2.5 The A11 Trunk road is located approximately 1.4 km north of the site.

2.6 A number of County Wildlife Sites occur in close proximity to the west and north/north east of the site.

2.7 The site is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport.

2.8 The site is situated within the Norwich Fringe Project Area.

2.9 The site is in close proximity to land within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

2.10 The site is located within 5km of Flordon Common, being part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

3. Planning History

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

3.2 D/7/1970/0594: Gravel extraction: Permitted on 7 April 1970. Permission was not exercised and lapsed in 1975. 3.3 D/7/1981/0608: Extraction of sand and gravel (from northern part of the site; with low level restoration): Permitted on 30 July 1981: expired in 1995. 3.4 D/7/1985/0892: Extraction of Minerals (from extension to the south): Permitted on 19 August 1985: expired in 1995. 3.5 D/7/1987/0444: Mobile concrete batching plant and silo: Permitted 6 May 1987

3.6 C/7/1989/1681: Erection of static concrete batching plant: Permitted 7 November 1989 3.7 Three no. Breach of Condition Notices were served in November 1996 concerning non-compliance with restoration conditions on two minerals permissions and the concrete batching plant consent. Unauthorised import of demolition waste noted in June 1997 and operator required to cease imports. 3.8 C/7/1997/7005: Sand & gravel extraction and infill with inert waste inc. crushing of concrete and continued use of concrete batching plant, Refused on 17 December 1997 on grounds of detriment to amenity and lack of need for either the mineral or the landfill capacity. 3.9 C/7/1998/7002: Restoration of existing quarry using inert waste. Mineral extraction, Waste re-cycling & concrete batching, Permitted on 27 August 1998. This amended application proposed a reduced input and duration of infilling to facilitate only a low level restoration to arable, rather than to parkland at original levels; permission expired in May 2000, with restoration to be completed by May 2001. 3.10 C/7/2000/7011: Variation of Conditions on PP 7/1998/7002 to allow continued Recycling of Former Building Materials and Landfilling of Former Quarry with Inert Waste. Restoration to Parkland with Amenity Afteruse; Permitted on 21 December 2000. Recycling for 12 years (until 2012), with import of soils for final restoration for 13 years (until 2013) The proposed infilling would restore ground levels to close to original. The permission is subject to a legal agreement covering the routeing of vehicles northwards via Hethersett Road to the junction with the A11, and the phased handover of the restored land to the Parish Council for community use. 3.11 C/7/2000/7023: Variation of Condition 1 on PP C/7/98/7002 to continue mineral extraction until 21 October 2000; Permitted on 2 November 2000. 3.12 C/7/2002/7004: Relocation of a modified concrete batching plant; Permitted on 13 May 2002. This application provided for relocation of a concrete batching plant from the north east corner of Ketteringham Quarry into part of the area permitted for recycling (C/7/2000/7011) and to allow the plant to be operated until 2012. The permission is subject to a legal agreement covering the routeing of vehicles northwards via Hethersett Road to the junction with the A11, and the phased handover of the restored land to the Parish Council for community use. 4. Policy

4.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : WM1: Waste Management Objectives The East of England Plan WM2: Waste Management Targets (2008) 4.2 Adopted Norfolk Structure Plan : No relevant saved planning policies (1999) Saved Policies

4.3 Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) : WAS 1: Hierarchy Framework Saved Policies WAS 2: Resource Recovery WAS 3: Industrial Land and Brownfield Sites WAS 4: Countryside Protection WAS 7: Safeguarding Sites WAS 9: Landscape WAS 10: Landscape WAS 11: Nature Conservation WAS 12: Nature Conservation WAS 13: Amenity WAS 14: Archaeology WAS 16: Traffic WAS 17: Airport Safeguarding WAS 18: Water Resources WAS 19: Water Resources 4.4 Joint Core Strategy for Policy 1: Addressing Climate change and Broadland, Norwich and South protecting environmental assets Norfolk (Adopted March 2011) Policy 2: Promoting good design 4.5 South Norfolk Local Plan (March : ENV 8 Development in the open 2003) Saved Policies countryside ENV 13 Sites of regional and local nature conservation interest ENV 14 Habitat protection ENV 15 Species protection ENV 17 Public access to sites of nature conservation value IMP 2 Landscaping IMP 6 Visual impact of parked cars IMP 8 Safe and free flow of traffic IMP 9 Residential amenity IMP 10 Noise IMP 15 Setting of listed buildings IMP 25 Outdoor lighting EMP 2 Distribution, nature and scale of employment development on unidentified sites EMP 4 Employment development outside development limits and village boundaries of identified towns and villages LEI 10 Public access through countryside projects TRA 1 Provision of pedestrian links TRA 19 Parking standards 4.6 Government Planning Policy :  Planning Policy Statement 1: Statements Delivering Sustainable Development  Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth  Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment  Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas  Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation  Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management  Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport  Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control  Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise  Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk 5. Consultations

5.1 South Norfolk Council : Strongly supports the application

5.2 South Norfolk Council : Have no adverse comments to make. Environmental Protection Note that there is no record of any complaints being made to the Environmental Protection Team concerning the existing operations at this site. In addition, note that the existing concrete batching plant operates under the benefit of a Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control permit which includes conditions aimed at minimising the emissions to air from the plant. 5.3 East Carleton & Ketteringham : Strongly supports the application. Parish Council The Parish Council has worked with the applicants to finalise these plans that it believes will secure the future restoration of this site to a level that supports nature and conservation and to a degree that would be unaffordable otherwise. It would also secure sufficient funding to maintain the site to 2038 with no expense to our residents. The level of funding under the existing planning permission and the basic restoration level required in it would make the acquisition of this site by the Parish Council potentially unaffordable. The continued operation of the concrete batching plant and the waste recycling would bring an enhanced amenity, additional land in the form of the Lady Belt woodland, rental income to the Parish to create an increased management fund and provide a level of security on site. It is recognised that there would continue to be heavy traffic accessing the site via Hethersett Road although the proposed improvements to the highway and the improvement to the access road together with the provision of a car park at the entrance to the site would mitigate this. The Parish Council has worked hard over the past 6 years to keep residents informed about the quarry site. A number of events have been held to gather people’s thoughts and ideas for the site… A quarry steering group was formed in 2006 and met approximately every 6 weeks and these meetings were also open to the public… All consultation to date will be ratified and further consultation exercises will be undertaken to ensure full community engagement continues. The Parish Council is aware of the concerns of some residents over continuing traffic, but believe that with the mitigation measure included in the plan these are significantly outweighed by the benefits. Whilst the Parish Council realises that the continued use of this site is contra to policy, it believes that the benefits to the residents of the two parishes far outweighs the inconvenience of the continuation of the concrete batching plant and the waste recycling. Funding has been secured to restore the historic icehouse from the South Norfolk Building Preservation Trust and South Norfolk Council subject to the Parish Council taking ownership of this land. The restoration is further constrained by timing due to the presence of bats and it was hoped that this could take place during the summer of 2011. If the planning application is not successful it is likely that the icehouse, which is on the buildings at risk register will not be restored… The Parish Council very much hopes that this planning application can be granted to enable the site to be restored to a quiet, nature friendly, conservation centric haven and to enable an affordable community space for residents to enjoy both in the short and longer term. 5.4 English Heritage : Recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice. 5.5 Environment Agency : Raise advisory comments in relation to flood risk and foul water drainage. 5.6 Highways Agency : No objection. The application will not adversely affect the A11 trunk road at this location. 5.7 Highway Authority : No highway objection, subject to the S106 being completed before any permission is granted and subject to conditions in relation to widening of the existing site access, gradient of access, access gates, visibility splays, parking and servicing areas, wheel cleaning facilities, and offsite highway improvements. 5.8 Norfolk Wildlife Trust : To be reported orally

5.9 Norwich International Airport : From a safeguarding viewpoint this development will not provide a significant collision risk to aircraft operating in the vicinity of Norwich International Airport. 5.10 UK Power Networks : No objections, although provide informative for the applicant that: - during construction phase minimum clearances will need to be maintained with all UK Power Networks apparatus - An on-site risk assessment is required before works commence - Cable records should be obtained 5.11 Norwich Fringe Project : To be reported orally

5.12 Third party representations : 60 letters of representation have been received; 43 letters of objection have been received from 38 residents (five residents have written twice) and 16 letters of support have been received from 14 residents and one local school (one resident has written twice). In addition, whilst not objecting, one resident has raised concerns about the afteruse. Objections and comments are made on the following grounds (which are summarised). Contrary to policy  Proposal is contrary to Policy WAS 4 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan  applicants last investigated alternative sites in 2002 – it is time for them to do so again Lack of sustainabilty  proposals are unsustainable with all materials having to be transported to site  Gap in the A11 at the Station Lane junction recently closed up. All outgoing vehicles now have to turn south to Wymondham junction, then return northwards where the bulk of the demand lies, leading to increase in carbon emissions. Traffic  lack of information of traffic volumes  surrounding roads are unsuitable for increased volumes of traffic  the 7.5 tonne weight limit through East Carleton is unenforceable - I recently followed a concrete mixing lorry exit the quarry, travel along Hethersett Road then along Wymondham Road passing through the village  concern that both visibility splays will provide insufficient sight line for the mixed traffic types which would use the site  increase in the speed of traffic along Hethersett Road if passing places are built  significant dip in Hethersett Road, into which traffic approaching the site from the northward direction, disappears from sight, while potentially travelling at 60mph  passing place nearest site entrance is practically invisible to traffic leaving site  continued traffic will compound poor state of repair of Hethersett Road, increasing risk for other road users and pedestrians  Mix of cars, cyclists, pedestrians and HGVs using Hethersett Road and same access/exit will increase accident risk  potential for accidents associated with pedestrians crossing the access road to gain access to the parkland / carpark Loss of trees  loss of two mature oak trees if the vision splays are formed  loss of trees if public parking area is provided Amenity  light pollution from security illumination  noise from lorry reversing alarms  burning of materials / plastic early in the morning  drifting of dust (cement?) over Lady Belt Wood onto neighbouring field and towards neighbouring properties  wind may transport dust into the restored area used by the public. Potential for fine particulate matter to be inhaled by the public  concrete and recycling equipment are unsightly and tall and can be seen and heard from across Ketteringham Park area.  development would disrupt both amenity value and conservation potential of the parkland and blight the two villages for another 18 years  Location of passing places will have noise impact on residential property on Hethersett Road Ineffective consultation  lack of consultation by the applicant and Parish Council with parishioners before the Parish Council decided to support this application Afteruse  Some of aspirational activities would conflict with and undermine existing and future enhancement of nature conservation interest of site.  Wildlife preservation must not be allowed to take place to exclusion of people Restoration  No timescale given for restoration  Without remedial work to improve drainage on phase 1 highly likely that tree and shrub planting and grassland restoration will be unsuccessful  Large lumps of concrete, brick and flints exposed on phase 2 area and present a hazard Other  There is a SSSI bordering the site  incorrect for applicants to assume parishioners happy for activities to continue. The parishes have accepted the operations, in return for the planning obligations in the knowledge the operations would end in 2013  no guarantee that the consent will not be extended beyond 2030 Support is made on the following grounds (which are summarised)  Opportunity for local community to acquire use of piece of land which can help satisfy the needs of a wide range of the local community  Excellent combination of public access and environmental habitat creation  Added security and financial input will help develop the site for the community 5.13 County Councillor : To be reported orally. (Mr Herbert)

6. Assessment Proposal

6.1 Planning permission is sought for each of the three main elements:- 1. Extension of time for recycling operations and concrete batching; 2. Highway improvements to Hethersett Road, improvements to site entrance, and provision of car park and footpath; 3. Improved restoration and management of former quarry with incorporation of adjoining woodland into alternative restoration scheme 1. Recycling operations and concrete batching The proposal is for continued recycling of former building materials and continued concrete batching on the current active site for a further 12 years, and then an additional 12 months to complete restoration of the recycling and batching area to low level. The uses would continue to be undertaken in an existing bunded area measuring 180m x 160m on the eastern part of the former mineral working, immediately south of and accessed by the private road into the site. The recyclable material would be screened and crushed as necessary, then stockpiled pending removal off-site

2. Highway improvements to Hethersett Road, improvements to site entrance, and provision of car park and footpath; This element of the proposal consists of:

Improvements to the local highway network, by provision of four passing places on Hethersett Road (C182);

Site entrance improvements by widening the site access road between the entrance from Hethersett Road and the entrance to the proposed car park and relocation of entrance gate to just west of car park entrance;

Formation and maintenance of visibility splays at site entrance, by removal of brambles and branches of trees and shrubs;

Harden entire length of site access road; currently only the bellmouth onto Hethersett Road is hard surfaced;

Concrete surface remainder of concrete batching compound: currently only that part of the compound occupied by the plant itself and site offices is concreted;

Construction of 12-space car park for members of the public in area of largely coniferous woodland south of access road and close to the site entrance. There will be some loss of trees to create the car park, which will be surfaced using recycled asphalt planings laid over a free-draining hardcore base.

Un-surfaced informal footpath through woodland area, linking Hethersett Road and the car park with woodland walks or grassland areas. Both the car park and footpath would be provided ready for use within 12 months following discharge of any conditions relating to the application.

Provision of two speed humps on access road to ensure safety of pedestrians using footpath where it crosses the road;

Vehicle routeing agreement, covering the routeing of vehicles northwards via Hethersett Road (C182) to the junction with the A11, with exception of deliveries to East Carleton village

3. Improved restoration and management of former quarry with incorporation of adjoining woodland into alternative restoration scheme Proposed Restoration The application proposes enhancements to the current restoration scheme for the former quarry involving reinstating parkland trees and copses, creation of new woodland belt and introduction of appropriate meadow mixtures. The applicant also offers to under-plant in areas of woodland where the structure is currently poor and erect estate fencing around the ice house. The application proposes to gift the freehold of the site and adjoining woodland, known as Lady Belt, an area extending to some 22ha to the Parish Council for public access. The application envisages this will be secured by S106 Agreement.

In the event that planning permission is forthcoming, transfer of the freehold of restored phase 1 of the former quarry (being the northern part) to the Parish Council would take place immediately upon granting of consent. Phase 2 (the southern part) would be transferred following completion of restoration in 2013, retaining the operational area for recycling and concrete batching. It is intended that landfilling of the remainder of the former quarry (phase 2) will continue to take place under the existing planning permission (C/7/2000/7011). It is anticipated that landfilling will be completed before the current approved end date of 31 May 2013. Existing Restoration The existing approved restoration scheme for the former quarry landholding of some 20 ha provides for open parkland with four new wooded blocks and hedgerow along southern boundary. The restoration scheme has been undertaken in two phasest. Restoration to parkland is complete in Phase 1 and nearing completion in phase 2, with all but the area of land used for recycling and batching, and one residual area (the western part) left unrestored. The restored land was to be gifted to and managed by the Parish Council. The planning permission is subject to a legal agreement requiring phases 1 and 2 to be open for public access with effect from 2005 and 2013 respectively. 6.2 The application represents the continuation of recycling and concrete batching, which, in principle would offer benefits in terms of the movement of waste management up the waste hierarchy. The proposal is located within open countryside and close to County Wildlife Sites, and therefore landscape impact and ecological impact must be considered, in terms of the operational proposals and the restoration scheme. Impacts upon amenities of nearby occupiers and users of the restored land must also be considered. The suitability of the highway network is also a matter raised by local residents. Site

6.3 The application site measures 2.9 ha and is located approximately 400m north west of the village of East Carleton, and approximately 350m south west of the village of Ketteringham. 6.4 The site, known as Ketteringham quarry, comprises a worked out quarry which, with exception of the existing recycling and batching area, has been largely restored through infilling with imported soils to close to original ground levels. 6.5 The application site itself is well screened and is not visible from within the wider landscape. It is accessed from the east off the C182 (Hethersett Road) via a haul road running through a deep belt of conifers. Land to the north slopes down into a shallow valley, containing a County Wildlife Site, woodland and agricultural land, as is land to the south. To the west, the site is bounded by a lane giving access to Ketteringham Hall, however, views into the site are screened by bunding and a tall conifer hedge on the eastern side of the lane. 6.6 The closest residential properties are a property on Hethersett Road, some 280m north east of the recycling/batching area, and a property on Ketteringham Park some 490m north west of the recycling/batching area. Principle of Development

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

6.8 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the saved policies in the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000), the Development Control policies contained within the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003), the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The East of England Plan (2008). 6.9 With regard to the Norfolk Waste Local Plan, as is also outlined below, while the development is considered compliant with the majority of the saved policies, it is not compliant with saved policy WAS 4 which restricts waste development of this type in the open countryside unless they are sited on an operating minerals extraction or landfill site. 6.10 However, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Section 38 (6) in that, as will be demonstrated there are other material planning considerations which justify recommending approval for this development. Departure

6.11 As advised it is considered that the development is a departure from the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan due to its non-compliance with Saved Policy WAS 4 of this plan which states: - “Waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and storage of waste, will not be permitted in the open countryside. However, permission will be granted for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and storage of waste at minerals extraction and waste disposal sites, provided that conditions are imposed which limit the life of the waste management facility to an absolute number of years or to the period during which the minerals or landfill operations continue, whichever is the shorter. A condition will also be imposed requiring all buildings to be removed when minerals or waste activities on the site cease”. 6.12 The supporting text for saved policy WAS 4 states that “…, it would make sense for such activities to take place on existing landfill and minerals sites subject to the proviso that the use does not last longer than the main use…” 6.13 The site lies outside any settlement boundary within the open countryside. Whilst the application site currently forms part of an active landfill site, it is intended that landfilling will be completed before 2013 as permitted by the current permission (C/7/2000/7011). The proposal is for, inter alia, a recycling facility not sited on an active minerals extraction or waste disposal site, therefore the development constitutes a departure to this policy and plan, being waste development in the open countryside. 6.14 However, it is considered that there are other material planning considerations, which on balance justify a recommendation of approval for this development; these are outlined in the following paragraphs. 6.15 National planning policy forms a material planning consideration. The most relevant guidance in this case is Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS 10). This contains the principle of “driving waste management up the waste hierarchy” (paragraph 3) which means that waste planning authorities should always try to ensure that waste is managed by the best possible environmental means, represented by the highest levels of the hierarchy i.e. prevention, re-use and recycling. 6.16 PPS 10 makes it clear that subject to a proposed waste development moving waste up the hierarchy, as in this case, that there is no requirement to assess the need for the development. The principal consideration should relate to the location and the impact of the development. 6.17 In terms of potential location PPS 10 makes it clear that sites in the open countryside can be acceptable and promotes for example the allocation of sites on previously-developed land and the reuse of agricultural buildings and their curtilages. 6.18 This guidance clearly demonstrates how saved policy WAS 4 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan and its blanket restriction on development in the open countryside, is not compliant with the aims of PPS 10. Strict adherence to this outdated policy would impact on the Council’s ability to move waste management up the waste hierarchy, for example, the requirement to utilise previously developed land, which can be land in the open countryside 6.19 Accordingly, it is considered that the guidance in PPS 10 should take precedence in relation to waste development in the open countryside, which, as in this case, moves waste management up the waste hierarchy, over saved policy WAS 4 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan. 6.20 As is detailed in paragraphs 6.23 to 6.92 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the other relevant saved policies of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan, it is considered that the proposed development is fully compliant with these requirements. 6.21 Notwithstanding the above, one of the central tenets of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) is to encourage recycling in order to move waste up the waste hierarchy and reduce reliance on landfill, in accordance with national and European policy. There is a need nationally and locally to reduce the amount of waste that is disposed of directly to landfill. 6.22 Overall, the proposal would make a contribution to meeting Norfolk’s need for more sustainable methods of dealing with waste and would result in 30,000 tonnes of construction, demolition and excavation waste per annum being recycled. Hierarchy Framework

6.23 Saved policy WAS 1 (Hierarchy Framework) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) states: “In deciding applications for waste development, the Council will be guided by the principles of the waste hierarchy. An assessment will be made as to whether the proposal represents BPEO [Best Practical Environmental Option]. This assessment will include consideration of the location and nature of the development in relation to the proximity principle and regional self sufficiency.” 6.24 There is no longer a national policy requirement for the application of “BPEO” as required under policy WAS 1. There is, however, a policy expectation for consistency with national policy (i.e. PPS 10) and a BPEO exercise (or something akin to one) can help provide the information to determine whether or not a proposal is consistent with national policy. 6.25 PPS 10 is the most direct relevant guidance in this case. This document underlines that the planning system is pivotal to the timely and adequate provision of new waste facilities and it sets out the Government’s strategy for sustainable waste management. The scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner i.e. through moving waste management up the waste hierarchy. The application is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS 10. 6.26 Policy WAS 1 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan refers to three key principles that are identified as priorities in national policy; the waste hierarchy, the proximity principle and regional self sufficiency. 6.27 Waste hierarchy. This is a theoretical hierarchy of techniques/approaches to waste management first set out in the EC Waste Framework Directive. Waste disposal, in the form of landfill, is at the bottom of the hierarchy, waste prevention at the top with recycling in the middle. The proposed recycling of former building materials would contribute to driving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. 6.28 Self sufficiency and the proximity principle. The proximity principle requires waste to be disposed of as close to the place of production as possible. This avoids passing the environmental costs of waste management to communities, which are not responsible for its generation, and reduces the environmental costs of transporting waste. The applicant states that the operations cover a local area within South Norfolk stretching south from Norwich, which accords with the proximity principle. 6.29 The County Planning Authority supports the principle of recycling in accordance with national policy and Regional Guidance and encourages the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy and the reduction and volume of waste material going to landfill. 6.30 The proposal would result in the recycling of 30,000 tonnes per annum of local waste, which would reduce the total amount going to landfill and is therefore consistent with Saved Policy WAS 1 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan. Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework

6.31 Norfolk County Council is currently in the process of producing a Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The site has not been put forward for consideration and has not therefore been identified as appropriate or inappropriate for development. Resource Recovery

6.32 Saved policy WAS 2 (Resource Recovery) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan states: - “Proposals for waste development will need to demonstrate that, wherever practicable, they contain integrated proposals for the recovery and utilisation of resources and/or energy”. 6.33 Proposals to reclaim and recover resources from waste are encouraged and are consistent with the waste hierarchy. The proposed recycling of former building materials is considered compliant with this policy. Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.34 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 11 states:

“Waste development which will have significant effects on internationally designated (special areas of conservation and special protection areas) sites (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects) and which would affect the integrity of the site, will not be permitted unless: There is no alternative solution; and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest for the development; Where such development does proceed then compensatory measures will be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natural 2000 network is protected. Waste development in or near nationally designated sites (sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves), will not be permitted where it would adversely affect these sites”. 6.35 The nearest internationally protected site is Flordon Common, being part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation which is located approximately 5 km from the site. An Appropriate Assessment has been prepared and submitted with this application. The Assessment considers that there is no potential for the proposed development to impact upon Flordon Common SAC, either directly or indirectly. The County Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that the development will not have any adverse impact on this site. The County Planning Authority considers therefore that the development is in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010 and this development is compliant with Saved Policy WAS 11. 6.36 Adopted Norfolk 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”. 6.37 An ecological assessment has been undertaken and submitted with this application. The survey showed the site is predominantly under a species poor grassland cover, with woodland, including some species rich woodland, scrub and tall herb. The woodland margins are known to support reptiles, and bats will roost in, and forage in and beside the woodland belts. The woodland in the northeast of the site supports a small heronry. The survey results consider the site overall to be of lower ecological value at the County scale. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal does however include proposed enhancements to the current restoration scheme in the form of woodland underplanting, reinstatement of parkland trees and copses, creation of new woodland belt and introduction of appropriate meadow mixtures, which will add to the overall bio diversity of the area, and provision of a number of bat and bird boxes, and hedgehog houses. 6.38 A number of County Wildlife Sites occur in close proximity to the site including St Thomas’ Belt and Ketteringham Lake/Osier Carr, which abut the site to the west and north/north east respectively, and Bean and Outer Park Woods, which comprise part of the woodland surrounding Ketteringham Hall further to the west. Concern has been expressed that there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) bordering the site; it is believed that this refers to Ketteringham Lake/Osier Carr CWS. The Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. 6.39 Concern has been expressed by a local resident that, without remedial work to improve drainage on phase 1 of the restored quarry it is highly likely that tree and shrub planting and grassland restoration will be unsuccessful. The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer has been consulted on the application and considers that there should be thorough decompaction of the soils within the landscaping areas already planted and within the proposed areas for planting. Substantial replacement planting, mulching and soil amelioration is also required. 6.40 Concern has also been expressed that some of the aspirational activities would conflict with and undermine existing and future enhancement of the nature conservation interest of the site. The Council’s Ecologist has concerns that balancing access and nature conservation at the site will be hard and that to be of value to ground nesting birds, signs will be required around the Phase 2 area / wildflower meadow (between March and August) to prevent dogs and people disturbing the ground nesting birds. The submitted ecological assessment recommends that to ensure the long term success of the site for wildlife and conservation value, a Management Plan is drawn up and adopted which will detail both short term and longer term management. 6.41 There is no objection to the proposed activities on ecological grounds and the Council’s Ecologist welcomes the alternative restoration scheme which will lead to a much greater wildlife value of the site. 6.42 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development will not have an adverse impact upon conservation sites of regional or local importance and the proposal is considered acceptable under Saved policy WAS 12, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the management of the site, and conditions. Landscape

6.43 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 4 states:

- “Waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and storage of waste, will not be permitted in the open countryside. However, permission will be granted for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and storage of waste at minerals extractions and waste disposal sites, provided that conditions are imposed which limit the life of the waste management facility to an absolute number of years or to the period during which the minerals or landfill operations continue, whichever is the shorter. A condition will also be imposed requiring all buildings to be removed when minerals or waste activities on the site cease”. 6.44 As indicated, the development is considered acceptable as a departure to this policy. 6.45 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 10 seeks to ensure that where waste development is permitted in the countryside, either on sites allowable by policy WAS 4 or as a departure, it is acceptable in visual terms. It 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 operations or in terms of the final landform”. 6.46 A landscape assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and submitted with this application. The proposal is partly within ‘Yare Tributary Farmland with Parkland Character’ and partly within ‘Wymondham Settled Plateau Farmland Character’ as defined in the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. The strategy for the tributary farmland area is to conserve the peaceful rural character of the landscape and to maintain the clarity and distinction with the urban edge of Norwich. The strategy for the plateau farmland area is to maintain its open agricultural landscape character, with its distinct pattern of concentrated settlement on the plateau edge with more dispersed nucleated villages and isolated farm buildings across the plateau top. At the same time there is an opportunity to enhance landscape character through conservation and restoration of features. 6.47 Concern has been expressed that the concrete batching and recycling equipment are unsightly and tall, and can be seen and heard from across Ketteringham Park area. Whilst the proposed area for recycling and concrete batching abuts the former quarry being progressively restored to parkland the plant is largely screened by bunding. The proposed screen planting would mature and mitigate the views over time. Given the circumstances under which parishioners would be using the restored land, the long-term amenity benefit would appear to outweigh the temporary visual intrusion experienced. 6.48 Whilst the proposal would represent a delay in the completion of the restoration of the recycling / batching area it is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the countryside. Whilst the application site is set within open countryside it is not within an area of landscape designation, and the site is well screened from Hethersett Road to the east, from Ketteringham Hall to the west, and from residential properties to the north and south by existing bunding and planting. 6.49 The application proposes a revised restoration scheme for the former quarry with planting of copses and scattered parkland trees, native scrub planting, removal or screening of non-native species, together with a new woodland belt, seeding of restored phase 2 grassland with wild flower mix, and grassland and woodland diversification through appropriate management. The revised restoration scheme is considered satisfactory. 6.50 The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer has been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds, subject to conditions. 6.51 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development will not have an adverse impact upon the landscape character of the area and will not conflict with saved policy WAS 10 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan. Amenity (odour, noise, lighting, visual intrusion)

6.52 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS 13 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”. 6.53 The potential impacts on amenity of nearby occupiers and users of the restored former quarry derive from the continuation of recycling and concrete batching for a further 12 years. The impacts of recycling relate particularly to the crushing operation. The impacts of concrete batching relate particularly to noise and dust. Both uses would be located within a bunded area, so, whilst such operations can be both noisy and dusty, the positioning of the site remote from property and the screening afforded to Hethersett Road by the trees all provide a satisfactory degree of amelioration. The bunding, additionally would provide acoustic screening. The nearest noise sensitive property is 280 metres away from the site. 6.54 Objections have been received from local residents on a number of amenity grounds including light pollution, burning of materials, noise from lorry reversing alarms and dust. 6.55 With regards to light pollution, a lighting assessment has been submitted with this application. The assessment states floodlights are pointed downwards and any glare does not spill beyond the site boundaries. 6.56 With regards to burning of materials, this activity is not permitted. The applicants have no knowledge of such an event. 6.57 With regards to noise from lorry reversing alarms, the applicant states that all vehicles operating on this site are fitted with broadband–type reversing alarms systems which are designed to avoid noise emanating beyond the confines of the site. Occasionally vehicles outside the control of the applicant and fitted with old-style reversing alarms arrive at the site. 6.58 With regards to dust, the Environmental Health Officer advises that the existing concrete batching plant operates under the benefit of a Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control permit which includes conditions aimed at minimising the emissions to air from the plant. The EHO advises the concrete crusher also operates under a similar licence which also covers emissions to air. 6.59 As regards the concerns raised, the Environmental Health Officer advises that there is no record of any complaints being made to the Environmental Protection Team concerning the existing operations at this site. 6.60 Planning Policy Statement 23 clarifies that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced, and should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it. 6.61 Therefore the County Planning Authority needs to be satisfied planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, and that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. 6.62 The EHO, as the relevant pollution control authority in respect of the crushing and batching plant, has raised no objection to this proposal subject to conditions. Accordingly, the development is considered compliant with saved policy WAS 13.

Archaeology

6.63 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) saved policy WAS 14 states: - “Waste development will be permitted only where it would not adversely affect scheduled ancient monuments and other sites of international and national archaeological and historical significance and their settings”. 6.64 A cultural heritage statement has been prepared and submitted with this application. One statutorily designated feature of cultural interest, the Grade II listed Ketteringham Park Ice House lies within the application area. The application includes provision of traditional style parkland estate fencing to secure the ice house perimeter. 6.65 The Historic Environment Service has raised no objection to this proposal. Accordingly, the development is considered compliant with saved policy WAS 14. Design

6.66 PPS1 sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development, including design of individual buildings. There are strong commitments within PPS1 for protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. The design of the batching plant is typical for operations of this nature. The design of the proposed buildings is single storey, flat roof which is considered acceptable in the locality. Highways/Traffic

6.67 Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policy WAS 16 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.” 6.68 The application proposes to continue to use the existing route to the site, from the A11 along the C182 (Hethersett Road). The application is accompanied by a draft S106 legal agreement to ensure that all HGV traffic accesses and egresses the site via the A11 and Hethersett Road only, with exception of deliveries or collections in East Carleton or other locations within two kilometres of the site entrance, (similar to the existing routeing agreement). Additionally, off-site highway improvements are proposed in the form of passing bays on Hethersett Road, which will be secured by condition. 6.69 Many of the concerns raised by local residents relate to the traffic impact which would result from any new permission. Whilst 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. The Highway Authority considers that the local road network is suitable for the HGV and car traffic. 6.70 Concern has been raised that the proposed visibility splays will provide insufficient sight line for the mixed traffic types which would use the site. The improved visibility splays are considered adequate for the proposed development. The access point does not have an accident history. 6.71 Concern has been raised regarding the position of the proposed passing places and that their provision will increase traffic speed along Hethersett Road. The passing places are considered to be appropriate for the location and use proposed. It is further considered that the passing bays will not lead to a significant increase in traffic speed. 6.72 Concern has been raised that the mix of cars, cyclists, pedestrians and HGVs using Hethersett Road and the same access/exit will increase the accident risk. The accident history of Hethersett Road does not suggest that this road has safety issues. 6.73 Concern has been raised that continued traffic will compound the poor state of repair of Hethersett Road. This is an issue for the Highway Authority to address and not a reason to refuse planning permission for the development. 6.74 Concern has been raised regarding the potential for accidents associated with pedestrians crossing the access road to gain access to the parkland / car park. The crossing point is considered acceptable if used properly. 6.75 With regard to the weight limit through East Carleton village, any non- compliance with this restriction would be a matter for the Police to enforce. 6.76 There is no highways objection to the proposal, subject to conditions and the S106 agreement being completed before any permission is granted. It is therefore considered subject to the above that the development is compliant with Saved Policy WAS 16. Sites of Historical Significance and their Settings

6.77 Saved Policy WAS 9 (Landscape) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan states: - “Waste development in river valleys, the Brecks, areas of landscape protection, conservation areas, historic parkland, areas of importance to the setting of listed buildings and woodland areas will only be permitted where it can be shown to provide a significant enhancement to the local landscape”. 6.78 A cultural heritage statement has been prepared and submitted with this application. The site is set within part of the former parkland of Ketteringham Hall. Ketteringham Park is not a registered park or garden. 6.79 One statutorily designated feature of cultural interest, the Grade II listed Ketteringham Park Ice House lies within the application area. The ice house is in need of restoration work and has been placed on the Buildings at Risk Register to help secure funding. The application includes provision of traditional style parkland estate fencing to secure the ice house perimeter. 6.80 Fourteen listed buildings, including Ketteringham Hall, lie some distance to the west. Ketteringham Hall itself is screened by bunding and a tall conifer hedge on the eastern side of the lane giving access to Ketteringham Hall. 6.81 The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has raised no objection, therefore the development is considered compliant with Saved Policy WAS 9. Sustainability

6.82 PPS1 sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development. Concern has been expressed that the proposals are unsustainable with all materials having to be transported to the site and the recent closure of the gap in the A11 at the Station Lane junction will lead to an increase in carbon emissions. 6.83 As regards all materials having to be imported to the site, this would be the case for an inert waste recycling facility regardless of its location, and would also be the case for a concrete batching facility sited on an industrial estate. 6.84 Due to the recent closure of the A11 / Station Lane junction, all outgoing vehicles leaving the site and heading towards Norwich will need to travel south along the A11 to the Wymondham junction and then return northwards towards Norwich. This will add some 9 kilometres onto such a journey. The decision to close the junction was not a decision over which the applicants have any control. Whilst therefore the length of some outward journeys has been increased, this has to be balanced against improvements in highway safety. 6.85 The market served by the facility extends south from Norwich to include Wymondham, Attleborough and Long Stratton, and the rural hinterland. It is considered that the site is still well located in relation to the market served. 6.86 The application states it is anticipated that landfilling of the former quarry will be completed before the current approved end date of 31 May 2013. This will reduce the average number of loaded vehicles carrying inert waste arriving at the site daily from nine to six.

Water Resources

6.87 Saved policy WAS 18 (Water Resources) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan states: - “Waste development will only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk of contamination to surface or groundwater resources or drainage”. 6.88 The protection of surface and groundwater resources is paramount in the consideration of any waste development. The recycling operations consist of inert wastes being screened and crushed. Foul sewage from the recycling operations and batching operations is piped into separate septic tanks. 6.89 It is therefore unlikely that there would be a risk of contamination to surface or groundwater resources or drainage. The Environment Agency has no objections to the application, therefore the scheme is considered compliant with saved policy WAS 18. 6.90 Adopted Waste Local Plan Saved Policy WAS 19 states: - “Waste development will only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk of impediment to the free flow of surface or groundwater resulting in flooding either within the vicinity of the site or elsewhere”. 6.91 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is an area at low risk of flooding. However, due to the area of the application site exceeding 1 hectare a Flood Risk Assessment was carried out in accordance with the requirements of PPS 25, to establish that the additional surface water run-off generated by the proposal would not lead to any adverse flooding. 6.92 Based on the information provided the Environment Agency has raised no objection, therefore the development is considered compliant with Saved Policy WAS 19.

The Regional Spatial Strategy: The East England Plan (2008)

6.93 Further to a recent successful legal challenge which rendered the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies unlawful, the East of England Plan is now again considered part of the development plan, and is therefore material to the assessment of this planning application. 6.94 East of England Plan (2008) Policies WM1 and WM2 reinforce the objectives in PPS 10 which promote the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy, and to recover maximum value from waste produced. The RSS seeks to ensure the timely and adequate provision of waste facilities required for recovery and disposal of the region’s waste. The scheme provides an opportunity for construction, demolition and excavation waste to be recycled. The proposal would therefore be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2, in that it will assist the County Council in reaching the required waste recovery targets. South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) policies relevant to proposal

6.95 Whilst the continued operation of the concrete batching plant and provision of car park and footpath form part of the application, given that the batching plant is capable of being operated independently of the recycling operation and the footpath and car park are to facilitate the after-use of the site these elements of the proposal must be assessed against relevant saved policies of the South Norfolk Local Plan. 6.96 South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV 8 states that - “Permission for development in the open countryside, outside the development limits and village boundaries of existing settlements and areas identified for development in the plan, will only be granted if it: - Is requisite for agriculture or forestry; or - Is justified to sustain economic and social activity in rural communities, and demands a rural location; or - Is for the suitable adaptation and re-use of an existing rural building. - All such development must - Respect the intrinsic beauty, the diversity of landscape, the wealth of natural resources, and the ecological, agricultural and recreational value of the countryside; and - Be sensitively integrated into its rural surroundings in terms of siting, scale and design, while avoiding creating ribbon development or an unduly fragmented pattern of development. 6.97 The site lies in the open countryside, outside any development limit and settlement boundary. Whilst the proposal would sustain economic activity, concrete batching does not demand a rural location. With regards to the principle of the use on the site, although contrary to policy ENV 8, the fact that a batching plant has been operating on this site for a number of years with no demonstrable impact to date is a material consideration which justifies recommending approval for this development. 6.98 South Norfolk Local Plan saved Policy ENV 13 seeks to protect sites of regional and local nature conservation interest and geological / geomorphological value. A number of County Wildlife Sites occur in close proximity to the site. The Council’s Ecologist and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.99 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policies ENV 14 and 15 seek to protect habitats and species, respectively. The Council’s Ecologist and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. As such it is considered the development is compliant with these saved policies. 6.100 South Norfolk Local Plan saved Policy ENV 17 seeks to ensure through the control of development and its own actions that public access to sites of nature conservation value occurs except where such access would be detrimental to conservation interests. The development includes provision of public access to the restored parkland and adjoining woodland. The Council’s Ecologist and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.101 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 2 requires new development to incorporate a high standard of landscaping to ensure that the development will be integrated into its surroundings. Whilst the application site is set within open countryside the site is well screened within the landscape and would not be visually detrimental. The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds, subject to conditions. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.102 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 6 seeks to minimise the visual impact of parked cars. The proposed public car park is to be formed within a small area of mainly coniferous woodland. The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds, subject to conditions. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.103 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 8 states that - “planning permission will not be granted for development that would endanger highway safety or prejudice the free flow of traffic on the highway network”. 6.104 As regards traffic generated by the batching facility, the application is accompanied by a draft S106 legal agreement to ensure that all HGV traffic accesses and egresses the site via the A11 and Hethersett Road only. There is no highways objection to the proposal subject to the S106 being completed before any permission is granted and subject to conditions. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.105 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 9 states that permission for new development will only be granted where the Council is satisfied that the development does not have a significantly adverse impact on residential amenity. The site is well screened by bunding and planting and is not visible from within the wider landscape. The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the scheme. As such it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.106 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 10 states that development will not be permitted if, because of the noise it would create, the occupants of housing or other noise sensitive uses would be exposed to a significant noise disturbance. As the Environmental Health Officer has raised no issues with regard to noise it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.107 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 15 states that when considering proposals for development within the setting of Listed Buildings special attention will be given to the design, scale and impact of the proposals. A Grade II listed ice house lies on the western area of the application site, beyond which are a number of listed buildings, including Ketteringham Hall. As the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has raised no issues with regard to impact arising from the proposal it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.108 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy IMP 25 states that proposals for development involving out door lighting schemes will be expected to include details of such schemes as part of the application. A lighting assessment has been submitted with this application. The assessment states floodlights are pointed downwards and any glare does not spill beyond the site boundaries. As the Environmental Health Officer has raised no issues with regard to lighting it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.109 South Norfolk Local Plan saved Policy EMP 2 states that - “development for employment purposes on sites not identified under policy EMP 1 of the plan will only be permitted if: - The site is within the Development limits or village boundaries of a policy ENV 7 settlement identified on the Proposals Map; and - The development is for small businesses, modern growth industries, or would specifically address local unemployment problems; and - The nature and scale of the proposed development would be in keeping with the character, scale and function of the settlement concerned. In residential areas, proposals will be limited to those falling within Class B1 of Class B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)”. 6.110 The site lies outside any development limit or village boundary. With regards to the principle of the use on the site, it is acknowledged that although contrary to policy EMP 2, the fact that a batching plant has been operating on this site for a number of years with no demonstrable impact to date is a material consideration which justifies recommending approval for this development. 6.111 South Norfolk Local Plan saved Policy EMP 4 states that - “Employment development outside the development limits and village boundaries defined on the proposals map under policy ENV 7 will only be permitted if: - There are no alternative sites or premises within the identified Development limits or village boundaries which are either suitable or available; and - The proposed site is on land adjacent to a town, village or other area of development with a defined Development Limit or Village Boundary; and - Road access is of a sufficient standard to serve the scale and nature of development proposed without causing demonstrable harm to the safe and free flow of traffic; - And the proposal is: - For small businesses, modern growth industries, or would specifically address local unemployment problems; and - Small in scale and designed to blend with the setting of the settlement concerned; - Or exceptionally if the proposal is: - For agriculturally related industry, which must be located close to the farms to which it relates; or - “Unneighbourly”, and therefore unsuitable for locations within an existing built-up area; or - Reliant on large areas of open storage, and would therefore represent an inefficient use of serviced employment land. - Subject to the foregoing requirements being first satisfied, the re-use of existing or previously developed land will be preferred to the use of green field sites. 6.112 The application states that advice was sought from South Norfolk Council regarding alternative sites but no suitable sites came forward. With regards to the principle of the use on the site, It is acknowledged that although contrary to policy EMP 4, the fact that a batching plant has been operating on this site for a number of years with no demonstrable impact to date is a material consideration which justifies recommending approval for this development. 6.113 South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy LEI 10 states that the District Council supports the aims of the Upper Waveney Valley countryside management project, the Wensum Valley project, and the Norwich Fringe project to increase/improve opportunities for public access/recreation in the Plan Area. One of the main aims of these projects is to improve public access to the countryside for active and passive recreational pursuits (including walking and cycling), yet at the same time safeguarding areas of nature conservation value. As the proposal provides for informal recreation and the Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.114 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy TRA 1 states that the siting, layout and design of development will be required to make provision for safe and convenient pedestrian access and circulation, and to maximise practicable opportunities for users of the development to walk to and from town and village centres, public transport, and other community facilities. Whilst it is anticipated that the public would mostly travel to this site by car, the development includes a footpath from Hethersett Road and the proposed car park to the parkland / woodland. As the Highway Authority and South Norfolk Council have raised no objection it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. 6.115 South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy TRA 19 requires provision to be made for parking, loading and turning areas. As the Highway Authority has raised no objection, subject to conditions, it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. The Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) 6.116 The Joint Core Strategy was officially adopted by each of the constituent Councils: Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council on 24 March 2011. A period to allow for legal challenge followed the decision to adopt, as part of the process, and ended on 5 May 2011; a legal challenge was received during this period. Although the Joint Core Strategy is currently subject to a legal challenge the policies contained within the document are considered to be a material considerations in the determination of the planning application. 6.117 Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy relates to promoting the general principles of sustainability. The Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer has been consulted on the application and considers that the proposed provision of public access contributes to the Green Infrastructure aspirations set out within the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Study 2007, and incorporated into the Joint Core Strategy. Given that the application would result in the continuation of waste up the waste hierarchy, would expand and link open space and areas of biodiversity importance to create green networks, and would increase public access to the countryside, the proposal is considered to comply with the policy objectives. 6.118 Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy relates to promoting good design. It is considered that this development will not have an adverse impact upon the landscape character and historic environment, and it is considered to be compliant with the Policy objectives. National Planning Policy

6.119 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 1 sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development. There are strong commitments within PPS 1 for protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. Paragraph 19 makes a commitment that planning decisions should be based on recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage. The proposal is considered to be compliant with the general aims and objectives of this policy. 6.120 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth The development is considered compliant with the government objectives to provide for economic growth and economic development in rural areas whilst at the same time protecting the countryside for its own intrinsic character. 6.121 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPS 5 sets out the overarching policies on the conservation of the historic environment. As the Council’s Historic Environment Service and Historic Buildings Officer have raised no issues with regard to the development it is considered by the County Planning Authority that the development accords with the requirements of this statement. 6.122 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Whilst the site lies in the open countryside, it is considered that the development due to its scale and location will not have an adverse impact on the countryside and will result in appropriate rural diversification supporting the rural economy and is compatible with the guidance and goals of this statement. 6.123 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 9 recognises the weight of protection afforded to international, national and local conservation sites and individual species and the importance of restoring the diversity of wildlife and habitat. The County Planning Authority consider that the proposed development will not result in any adverse impact on the biodiversity of the site, and the proposed improved restoration scheme will result in a positive impact on biodiversity. As such the development is compliant with the aims of this statement. 6.124 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management As indicated, the development is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS 10. 6.125 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport The proposed development will not increase the number of HGV movements currently generated by the site, is served by roads of appropriate standards and will not have a detrimental impact on the existing highway network. Accordingly, the development is considered compliant with the principal aims of this guidance subject to the Section 106 Agreement covering vehicle routeing being completed before any permission is granted and subject to conditions. 6.126 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control As the EHO has raised no issues with regard to the development it is considered that the development accords with the requirements of this guidance. 6.127 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise As the EHO has raised no issues with regard to the development it is considered by the County Planning Authority that the development accords with the requirements of this guidance and will not, subject to appropriate conditions, result in any adverse noise to the surrounding area or loss of amenity. 6.128 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is an area at low risk of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment was carried out in accordance with the requirements of PPS 25, to establish that the additional surface water run-off generated by the proposal would not lead to any adverse flooding. 6.129 Gifting of freehold The applicant proposes to gift the freehold of the site and adjoining woodland, known as Lady Belt, to the Parish Council for public access. The application envisages this will be secured by S106 Agreement. This public access over the site is a material consideration, in that it relates to the after use / use of the land, and is to be welcomed. Government guidance on ‘planning obligations’ in Circular 05/05 is clear and states a planning obligation must be relevant to planning, necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects. Although the public access is a material consideration, the actual gifting of the land is not directly related to the development, nor does the proposal make it necessary and it is therefore contrary to the guidance in the Circular. 6.130 Ineffective consultation Concern has been expressed about a lack of consultation by the applicant and Parish Council with parishioners before the Parish Council decided to support this application. The application states there has been considerable pre- application discussion between the applicants and the Parish Council. In its response to the application, the Parish Council has stated that the applicant has worked with the Parish Council to formulate the proposal and the Parish Council has worked hard to keep residents informed about the quarry site. 6.131 Loss of trees Concern has been expressed that the proposal will result in loss of two mature oak trees if the vision splays are formed and loss of trees if the public parking area is provided. 6.132 An Arboricultural Implications Assessment of the proposed development was undertaken and submitted with this application. The assessment considered the impact on trees of works associated with construction of the car park and formation of visibility splays at the site entrance. 6.133 The assessment recommends that ivy and deadwood are removed from three no. oaks close to the proposed visibility splays; it is not proposed to remove any trees from within or adjacent the visibility splays. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on the application and raises no objection to the proposal on arboricultural grounds 6.134 There will be some loss of trees to create the car parking area, however, the trees affected are mostly conifers, and are of low ecological value. There is no objection to the proposed activities on ecological or arboricultural grounds. 6.135 There will be some loss of trees to create the car parking area, however the trees affected are mostly conifers, and are of low ecological value. There is no objection to the proposed activities on ecological or arboricultural grounds. 6.136 Extension of time Concern has been expressed that there is no guarantee that the consent will not be extended beyond 2030. Continuation of operations on this land beyond 2030 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. 7. Resource Implications

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

Legal Implications

8.1 Appropriate Assessment:

8.2 The nearest internationally protected site is Flordon Common, being part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation which is located approximately 5 km from the site. An Appropriate Assessment has been prepared and submitted with this application. The Assessment considers that there is no potential for the proposed development to impact upon Flordon Common SAC, either directly or indirectly. The County Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that the development will not have any adverse impact on this site. The County Planning Authority considers therefore that the development is in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010.

8.3 Human Rights :

8.4 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to be apply on behalf of the applicant. 8.5 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed. 8.6 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents. 8.7 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) :

8.8 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 8.9 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.10 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.11 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

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

10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

11.1 The main issue relates to the fact that as the development lies in the open countryside, it does not accord with adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) saved policy WAS 4, and adopted South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) saved policies ENV 8, EMP 2 and EMP 4. The application therefore has to be viewed as a departure. 11.2 However, it is considered, as outlined in this report, that there are other material planning considerations that justify a recommendation of approval for this development, namely, that the proposal will be moving waste management up the waste hierarchy in compliance with the requirement of PPS 10, and that the recycling and concrete batching facility has already been operating on this site for a number of years with no demonstrable impact to date. In addition PPS10 does not have a blanket restriction on siting waste development in the countryside. The proposed development would also accord with the requirements of policies WM1 and WM2 of the East of England Plan and policies 1 and 2 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. Furthermore, the development is considered compliant with the other relevant saved polices of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan namely policies WAS 1, WAS 2, WAS 9, WAS 10, WAS 11, WAS 12, WAS 13, WAS 14, WAS 16, WAS 18 and WAS 19 and with the other relevant saved policies of the South Norfolk Local Plan namely policies ENV 13, ENV 14, ENV 15, ENV 17, IMP 2, IMP 6, IMP 8, IMP 9, IMP 10, IMP 15, IMP 25, LEI 10, TRA 1 and TRA 19 for the following reasons. With regard to the relevant East of England Policies, the scheme provides an opportunity for construction, demolition and excavation waste to be recycled. The proposal would therefore be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2, in that it will assist the County Council in reaching the required waste recovery targets. With regard to the relevant policies of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, given that the application would result in the continuation of waste up the waste hierarchy, would expand and link open space and areas of biodiversity importance to create green networks, and would increase public access to the countryside, the proposal is considered to comply with the objectives of policy 1. It is considered that this development will not have an adverse impact upon the landscape character and historic environment. It is therefore considered to be compliant with the objectives of Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy. The proposal would result in the recycling of local waste, providing a valuable alternative to landfill of waste. The facility will move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy as encouraged by national waste policies and is consistent with policy WAS 1 of the Waste Local Plan. The proposals to reclaim and recover resources from waste are encouraged and are consistent with the waste hierarchy. The proposed recycling is considered compliant with the goals of saved Policy WAS 2 of the Waste Local Plan. The Grade II listed Ketteringham Park Ice House lies within the application area and fourteen listed buildings, including Ketteringham Hall, lie some distance to the west. The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has raised no objection, therefore the development is considered compliant with Saved Policy WAS 9 of the Waste Local Plan and saved policy IMP 15 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Whilst the proposal would represent a delay in the completion of the restoration of the recycling and batching area it is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the countryside. Whilst the application site is set within open countryside the site is well screened within the landscape and would not be visually detrimental. It is therefore considered that this development will not conflict with saved Policy WAS 10 of the Waste Local Plan and saved policies IMP2 and IMP 6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. On the issue of nature conservation, it is considered that the development would not have any significant impact on any European protected site. Accordingly, the development is considered to be in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010 and this development is compliant with saved Policy WAS 11 of the Waste Local Plan. With regards to impact upon conservation sites of regional or local importance there is no objection to the proposal on ecological grounds and the Council’s Ecologist welcomes the alternative restoration scheme which will lead to a much greater wildlife value of the site. It is therefore considered that this development does not conflict with saved Policy WAS 12 of the Waste Local Plan and saved policy ENV 13 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. With regard to impact on amenity, the Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency have no objection. Accordingly, it is considered that the development will not have an adverse impact on amenity and is therefore in conformity with Saved Policy WAS 13 of the Waste Local Plan and saved policies IMP 10 and IMP 25 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. With regard to any potential traffic impact, the site is accessed by suitable roads and the development will not result in an increase in HGV traffic movements. Subject to the S106 in relation to vehicle routeing and subject to conditions, the development is considered to be in conformity with the requirements of Saved Policy WAS 16 of the Waste Local Plan and saved policy IMP 8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. With regard to water resources, the recycling operations consist of inert wastes being screened and crushed. Foul sewage from the recycling operations and batching operations is piped into separate septic tanks. It is therefore unlikely that there would be a risk of contamination to surface or groundwater resources or drainage. The Environment Agency has no objections to the application, and the scheme is consistent with saved policy WAS 18 of the Waste Local Plan. In relation to any flooding, the Environment Agency has raised no objection. Accordingly, the development is considered to be in conformity with Saved Policy WAS 19 of the Waste Local Plan. It is considered that the proposal offers a sustainable approach to waste management, which will move waste management up the hierarchy in accordance with national guidance and waste local plan policies. The site is well screened by bunding and planting and is not visible from within the wider landscape. The County Council’s Principal Landscape and Trees Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the scheme. As such it is considered the development is compliant with saved policy IMP 9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. South Norfolk Local Plan saved policies ENV 14 and 15 seek to protect habitats and species, respectively. The Council’s Ecologist and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. As such it is considered the development is compliant with these saved policies. The development includes provision of public access to the restored parkland and adjoining woodland. The Council’s Ecologist and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. As such it is considered the development is compliant with saved policy ENV 17 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. As the proposal provides for informal recreation and the Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection it is considered the development is compliant with saved policy LEI 10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Whilst it is anticipated that the public would mostly travel to this site by car, the development includes a footpath from Hethersett Road and the proposed car park to the parkland / woodland. As the Highway Authority and South Norfolk Council have raised no objection it is considered the development is compliant with saved policy TRA 1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. South Norfolk Local Plan saved policy TRA 19 requires provision to be made for parking, loading and turning areas. As the Highway Authority has raised no objection, subject to conditions, it is considered the development is compliant with this saved policy. On balance, and taking into account the conformity of the proposal when assessed against all the other relevant saved policies of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan and South Norfolk Local Plan, the relevant policies of the East of England Plan, the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, and National Guidance, it is considered that the proposal, albeit a departure from the Norfolk Waste Local Plan does not prejudice the overall aims of this plan to move waste management up the hierarchy, and albeit a departure from the South Norfolk Local Plan would not cause significant prejudice to the implementation of the plan’s policies and proposals, and that permission should be granted conditional approval.

12. Conditions 12.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to conditions including: a) Commencement of development

b) Expiry date

c) Proposal to be in accordance with the approved plans and documentation d) Existing access – widened or improved e) Access Gradients f) Access Gates - Configuration g) Provision of Visibility Splays h) Provision of Parking and Servicing Areas i) Wheel Cleaning Facilities j) Highway Improvements Offsite k) Waste type l) landscaping

m) Bund maintenance

n) Hours of working

o) Limitation of Noise levels

p) Dust nuisance and sand blow prevention

q) Stockpile heights

r) Drums and small containers in bunded areas

s) Restoration

t) Measures to assist drainage Recommendation

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

(i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of vehicle routeing, public access and management of the site, and conditions outlined in Section 12 above.

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

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

Background Papers Application file reference: C/7/2010/7016 Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) ‘Saved’ Polices South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) ‘saved’ Policies Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan (2008)  Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development  Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth  Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment  Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas  Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation  Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management  Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport  Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control  Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise  Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

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]

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

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

The Application Site

650 325 0 650 Metres

15 June 2011

C/7/2010/7016: Continued recycling & use of concrete batching plant Site entrance improvements; Construction of car park and footpath; Planning & Transportation GIS Res toration of site in accordance with improved restoration scheme Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 617140 302492 ±

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

The Application Land within the Site Applicant's Ownership

130 65 0 130 Metres

15 June 2011

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination Breckland District: C/3/2010/3027: Wretham: Larkshall Recycling Facility, Thetford Road, Wretham, Thetford, IP24 1QY: Retrospective application for the use of outside areas for processed materials: Viridor Waste (Thetford) Limited

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The application site relates to Larkshall Recycling Facility, where retrospective planning permission is sought for the use of outside areas for processed materials. Situated to the south-eastern corner of the site, the external storage areas comprise storage bays in which concrete/brick rubble, soil and timber is stored.

The application site lies partly within areas designated as Special Protection Area (SPA) Buffer (Stone Curlew) and Nesting Site Buffer (Stone Curlew). However, it is not felt that the proposal is likely to significantly effect the natural environment including designated sites, protected species and habitats.

One letter of representation has been received from Wretham Parish Council. The objections to the proposal relates to fears of the site expanding and the unauthorised works.

The representation received cannot be addressed and, in accordance with the County Council’s constitution, the application is referred to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for determination. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be: (i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below:  Compliance with approved plans and documents  Restricting the types of materials to be stored outside  Height restriction of the storage area  Submission of details relating to existing ground levels (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted. 1. The Proposal

1.1 Location: : The application site relates to Larkshall Recycling Facility. 1.2 Type of Development: : Retrospective permission for the use of outside areas for processed materials. 1.3 Waste type : Concrete/brick rubble, soil and timber

1.4 Total Site Area : The overall area of the site is 2.4ha, with the site area for this application amounting to 0.29ha. 1.5 Total tonnage : Concrete/brick rubble: 60 – 70 per annum (waste) Soil: 60 – 70 per annum Timber: 300m³ per annum 1.6 Duration : Permanent

1.7 Access : Access it to be taken from the existing access off Thetford Road A1075. 2. Constraints

2.1 The application site lies partly within areas designated as SPA Buffer (Stone Curlew) and Nesting Site Buffer (Stone Curlew) in the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009.

3. Planning History

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

3.2 C/3/2010/3020: Discharge of Condition 12 on: C/3/2007/3009, yet to be determined. 3.3 C/3/2007/3048: Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission C/3/2007/3009 to allow the reception, sorting and transfer of "household, commercial and industrial waste", Permitted on 18/01/2008. 3.4 C/3/2007/3009: Demolition of existing structure and provision of covered waste handling area, Permitted on 18/07/2007.

3.5 C/3/2004/3014: Waste Management Facility, Permitted on 25/01/2006

4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 10: Planning and Sustainable Waste Management PPS 13: Transport PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise 4.2 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : ENV3 Biodiversity and Earth Heritage The East of England Plan WM1 Waste Management Objectives (2008)

4.3 Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) WAS11 Nature conservation Saved Policies WAS 13 Amenity WAS 16 Traffic WAS 18 Water Resources WAS 33 Planning Considerations WAS 37 Site Monitoring and Enforcement 4.4 Breckland Council Core : CP 8 Natural Resources Strategy and Development CP 9 Pollution and Waste Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, CP 10 Natural Environment Adopted December 2009 DC 1 Protection of Amenity DC 12 Trees and Landscape 5. Consultations

5.1 Breckland Council : No objection subject to a condition on any grant of permission restricting the height of stored materials to 2.5metres. 5.2 Breckland Council No objection to the proposal. Environmental Health Officer 5.3 Wretham Parish Council : “…The Council objects in the strongest possible terms to this application. The original planning permission granted to Pearsons to operate this plant was given in the face of strong objections from the Council and parishioners. Much of this opposition was based on fears that the plant would continue to grow larger (by area) and seek to expand its area of opposition. In response to these fears and objections, the applicant frequently stated that it had no intention or desire to go beyond what was stated in the original application. Norfolk County Council and the Environment Agency jointly assured Council and parishioners that they would carry out frequent, unannounced and stringent inspections, and ensure that no breaches took place. What followed was a succession of further applications, and breaches of permission of which this is merely the most recent. We have for some time been receiving complaints about noise from the plant from parishioners. It now seems likely that this was (partly at least) the result of Pearsons carrying out operations outside their buildings in breach of the planning permission. Viridor would surely have been aware of this breach when they negotiated to buy the business. Instead of immediately rectifying the situation, they have taken a year to put in a retrospective application, relying heavily on the case that they’ve been getting away with it for two years, so why shouldn’t they continue? This has not been a minor breach of planning consent. We are talking about deliberate and blatant ignoring of the negotiated and agreed conditions, firstly by Pearsons, and continued by Viridor. I am told that NCC Monitoring and Compliance Team have been “working with the site owners over a period of time regarding regularising the use of areas for storage,” and that this application is the result. It seems that NCC not only fails to object to such driving of a coach through the conditions they themselves negotiated, but are prepared to led them the horses! My council asks NCC to refuse this application, and to move immediately towards enforcement action. Viridor, it is reported, paid Pearsons a great deal for this business. They can surely afford to run it within the constraints they believed applied when they did so”. 5.4 Defence Estates : No safeguarding objections to the proposal. 5.5 Environment Agency : No objection to the proposal providing the applicant complies with the Environmental Permit for the site. 5.6 Highway Authority : No objection.

5.7 Natural England : No comment to make in relation to the application. 5.8 Norfolk Wildlife Trust : To be reported orally.

5.9 RSPB : To be reported orally.

5.10 Third party representations : No representation has been received

5.11 County Councillor : To be reported orally. Ian Monson

6. Assessment 6.1 The planning application seeks retrospective permission for the use of outside areas for processed materials. 6.2 Condition 9 on the permission for the Material Recycling Facility C/3/2004/3014 restricts the use of external storage areas other than for clean recyclable waste. Hence the submission of this application. 6.3 The provision of the external storage area was previously stored internally. Situated to the south-eastern corner of the site, the external storage areas comprise storage bays in which concrete and brick rubble is delivered to the bays via a conveyor belt, soil via a dumper/digger with the majority of the timber taken by hand. 6.4 The concrete and brick rubble will be crushed and used for hardcore, soil will be bagged and sold and the timber will be shredded and sold for the manufacture of chip board. 6.5 The agent on behalf of the applicant has confirmed that the height of the bays will be a maximum height of 2.5metres. 6.6 Site

6.7 The application site relates to Larkshall Recycling Facility which is an established recycling facility. The site consists of a feeding mill; associated brick built and clad constructed buildings and weighbridge. 6.8 Vehicular and pedestrian access is via the existing access off Thetford Road A1075, with parking and turning provision within the site. 6.9 Steel fencing and trees delineate the site perimeter. The site is surrounded by a social club and playing fields to the south-west, residential properties to the north-western area, two of which are within the applicant’s ownership and groups of trees to the northern boundary. 6.10 Principle of Development 6.11 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states: “if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. 6.12 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the saved policies in the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000), the Development Control policies contained within the Breckland Council Local Development Framework (LDF), and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The East of England Plan (2008). 6.13 Policy WM1 ofThe East of England Plan (2008) sets out the spatial objectives for Waste Management, which includes minimising the impact of new development at the same time as seeking a balance with the wider economical and environmental benefits. 6.14 Policy WAS 37 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies states:

“The County Council will monitor waste developments and secure compliance with planning conditions and legal agreements, if necessary by legal action; this will include action in respect of unauthorised operations”. 6.15 In this case, this proposal is an ancillary element within the site of an existing Recycling Facility, therefore the principle of development has been established. Whilst the principle of development is considered acceptable, the County Council’s Monitoring and Compliance Team take a proactive approach to the monitoring of the sites in accordance with Policy WAS 37 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies. 6.16 Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.17 There is a comprehensive system of legislation at international and national level, which aims to protect biodiversity, at the landscape, habitat and species level. Comprehensive guidance and policy pertaining to biodiversity exists in PPS9. This PPS sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. Many individual wildlife species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions. 6.18 Policy ENV3 of The East of England Plan (2008) generally seeks to ensure that internationally and nationally designated sites are given a level of protection and that development does not have adverse effects on the integrity of the sites for nature conservation. 6.19 Policy WAS 11 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies states: “Waste development which will have significant effects on internationally designated (special areas of conservation and special protection areas) sites either individually or in combination with other plans or projects and which would affect the integrity of the site will not be permitted unless: There is no alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development Where such development does proceed then compensatory measures will be taken to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 200 network is protected Waste development in or near nationally designated sites (sites of special scientific interest national nature reserves), will not be permitted where it would adversely affect these sites”. 6.20 Policy CP10 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009 seeks to protect designated sites and protected species and where there maybe a detrimental impact mitigation measures should be utilitised where appropriate. 6.21 The application site lies partly within areas designated as Special Protection Area (SPA) Buffer (Stone Curlew) and Nesting Site Buffer (Stone Curlew). SPAs are protected sites under the European Directive (ED), for the conservation of wild birds. The Council’s Ecologist, given the nature of the application within an existing waste site, has no objections. In addition, Natural England has no comments to make in relation to the application. 6.22 It is not felt that the proposal is likely to significantly effect the natural environment including designated sites, protected species and habitats. It is therefore felt that the proposal satisfactorily complies with guidance contained in PPS9, Policy ENV3 of The East of England Plan (2008), Policy WAS 11 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies and Policy CP10 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009. 6.23 Landscape

6.24 Policy DC 12 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009, seeks to preserve the District’s trees, hedgrows and other natural features and secure appropriate landscaping to mitigate against any impact. 6.25 This proposal does not involve the removal of any of the trees or boundary treatments within the site nor does it include any further landscaping works than those previously agreed on the original planning application for the Recycling Facility. 6.26 The Council’s Landscape and Trees Officer has not raised any objections to the proposal, therefore it is considered that the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the landscaping of the site, satisfactorily complying with Policy DC 12 the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009.

6.27 Amenity

6.28 In relation to amenity, guidance contained in PPS23 applies, which aims to ensure the sustainable and beneficial use of land and that the adverse effects of potentially polluting activities are minimised and contained within acceptable limits. Guidance contained in PPG24 guides Local Authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse affects of noise and outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications.

6.29 Policy WAS 13 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies states that: “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”.

6.30 Policy WAS 33 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies states that: “The County Council will consider the following factors where necessary and appropriate in considering waste planning applications:

1. Impacts on: A) The amenity of users and occupiers of land in the area, particularly residents, and visitors, due to visual intrusion, noise, dust, vibration, fumes, smell, air pollution and other forms of disturbance and nuisance, including those caused by lorry movements;

B) The landscape and visual character of an area particularly in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, rural conservation areas, the Brecks, river valleys and landscape areas designated in local plans;

C) Woodland, hedges and other topographical features;

D) Areas of nature conservation, geological and scientific interest, particularly the Broads, national nature reserves, local nature reserves, ramsar sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, special protection areas, special areas of conservation, county wildlife sites and regionally important geological/geomorphological sites;

E) Sites of archaeological, architectural and historical interest and or importance and their setting;

F) The quality and quantity of agricultural land and the structure and viability of farming; G) The highway network and its capacity, and highway safety;

H) Public rights of way and other sites of public access. Waste development should include proposals to create new rights of way where appropriate and the safeguarding of existing public rights of way by incorporating measures to segregate the development by diversion, stopping up or extinguishment, prior to any development commencing;

I) Water quality, water resources, flood prevention, and land drainage;

J) Areas of recreation and touristic value.

2. The feasibility of restoration.

3. The appropriateness and benefit of the after-use”.

6.31 Policy CP9 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009, generally seeks to minimise unavoidable polluting effects. Policy DC1 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009, which amongst other criteria, states that regard must be given to odour, noise, vibration or other forms of disturbance and forms of pollution when considering the impact of the development in terms of amenities of the amenities of the area and residential amenity.

6.32 The nearest residential properties are situated to the north western area of the site in excess of 200m from the application site, two of which are under the ownership of the applicant. Given the distance to sensitive receptors Breckland Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has not raised any objections to the proposal. Overall, the level of expected operational noise as a result of this proposal is minimal compared to the existing noise levels of the overall site.

6.33 Larkshall Recycling Facility is an established recycling site and in terms of visual amenity, due to the fencing and trees running along the boundary of the site, the storage areas are screened and therefore negligible from outside of the site. In addition, the application has confirmed that the height of the storage bays will not exceed 2.5metres. Given the existing boundary treatments and separation distances to the adjacent properties it is felt that the proposeal will not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity.

6.34 In terms of dust and pest control, the EHO has considered that the potential impact negligible and is satisfied that the conditions on the original permission for the Recycling Facility and through the Environmental Permit can adequately address any potential issues.

6.35 The application site lies within the East Wretham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The EHO has not raised any objections. The AQMA is in the process of being revoked as Breckland Council has had no more than the permitted number of exceedences for the past three years.

6.36 It is therefore felt that the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the adjacent properties and satisfactorily complies with guidance in contained in PPS23, PPG24, Policies WAS 13 and 33 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies and Policies CP9 and DC1 of the of the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009.

6.37 Highways/Traffic

6.38 Guidance contained in PPG13 seeks to promote a safe and accessible transport system and encourages sustainable mode of transport. Policy WAS 16 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies also applies. This states: "waste development will only be permitted where the access and highway network serving the site is suitable, and is able to accommodate increased traffic or where the traffic or highway improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment”. 6.39 In this case, vehicular and pedestrian access is via the existing access off Thetford Road A1075. As this planning application is for storage and does not seek to increase the amount of waste accepted on the site, this will not increase vehicle movements to the site. 6.40 The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal and it is felt that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the highway safety in accordance with guidance contained in PPG13 and Policy WAS 16 of the Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies. 6.41 Response in relation to the representation received

6.42 The planning application was advertised by means of site notices, neighbour notifications letter and an advertisement in the local newspaper. 6.43 Wretham Parish Council object to the proposal, the objections raised mainly relate to fears of the site expanding, and the unauthorised works. 6.44 The County Planning Authority cannot control the number of planning applications an applicant submits, or at what point the applicant sells their property; the Planning Authority has to make a decision upon the application as submitted. 6.45 The main use of the site as a Material Recycling Facility is of a type of development that is subject to an Environmental Permit, through the Environmental Permitting Regulations which regulates issues at the site relating to pollution control. The Environment Agency has powers to enforce should this not be complied with. 6.46 Concerns have been expressed that operations at the site have commenced without the benefit of planning permission. The carrying out of development without planning permission is not an offence as such and within this context the County Planning Authority must consider the expediency of taking action against a particular breach of planning control having regard to the provisions of the development plan and all other material planning considerations. The power is therefore discretionary and where there is a possibility that unauthorised development could be made acceptable, for example, through the imposition of conditions to remedy any detrimental affects this should be taken into account as part of the planning consideration.

6.47 In this case, it is to be noted that both the County Council’s Monitoring and Compliance Team and the Environment Agency is proactive in terms of monitoring Minerals and Waste sites and have regularly monitored this particular site. It was as a result of the monitoring process that the external storage area was recognised. Hence the submission of this planning application which seeks to regularise the planning position.

7. Resource Implications

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

8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.2 Appropriate Assessment:

The site is located within 5km of Breckland SPA and SAC. The application has been assessed in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations and based on the information submitted to the County Planning Authority (CPA) it is considered that the development as proposed will not have a significant impact on the integrity of any protected habitat. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the CPA to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development. 8.3 Human Rights :

The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to be apply on behalf of the applicant. The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed. The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents. 8.4 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. None have been identified in this case. 8.5 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.6 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.7 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

11.1 In conclusion, the proposal for the use of external areas for the storage of processed materials is within an existing Recycling Facility in association with the predominate use of the site. Having regard to mitigation measures and the views of Breckland Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency that have their own regulatory responsibilities in respect of statutory nuisance and Environmental Permitting Regime, it is considered sufficient environmental controls are put in place. 11.2 It is therefore felt that that the proposal is acceptable and will not cause demonstrable harm to ecology/nature conservation, landscape, amenity and highway safety and satisfactorily complies with the relevant national, regional and local planning policies mentioned in this report.

12. Recommendation 12.1 It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be: (i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below:  Compliance with approved plans and documents  Restricting the types of materials to be stored outside  Height restriction of the storage area  Submission of details relating to existing ground levels (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 10: Planning and Sustainable Waste Management PPS 13: Transport PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise The East of England Plan (2008) Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Saved Policies Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, Development Plan Document 2001-2026, Adopted December 2009

Officer Contact

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

Angelina Lambert 01603 224136 angelina.lambert@[email protected]

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

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

The Application Site

15 June 2011

C/3/2010/3027 - Larkshall Recycling Facility 810 405 0 810 1,620 2,430 3,240 Planning & Transportation GIS Metres Wretham Scale 1: 50000 Centred on 591980 289136 ±

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

Land within the Applicant's Ownership The Application Site

15 June 2011

C/3/2010/3027 - Larkshall Recycling Facility 30 15 0 30 60 90 120 Planning & Transportation GIS Metres Wretham Scale 1: 2000 Centred on 591980 289136 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 8 July 2011 Item No. 6a

Development by the County Council Borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Application Y/2/2011/2008 Hunstanton Infant School, James Street, Hunstanton, Norfolk, PE36 5HE Erection of powder coated weld mesh fencing to the existing boundary wall and extension of existing timber fencing

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Planning permission is sought for the erection of powder coated weld mesh fencing to the existing boundary wall and an extension of existing timber fencing.

The application site lies within the Hunstanton Conservation Area. It is also within an area defined as settled/built up areas – Built Environment Type C in the Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (saved policies).

One letter of representation has been received from local residents of James Street, who question the reason for the proposed fencing; full details are outlined in Sections 6 and 7 of this report.

The representation received cannot be addressed and in accordance with the County Council’s constitution, the application is referred to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for determination.

Recommendation That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. Background

1.1 The application site relates to Hunstanton Infant School, a single storey school building of carstone and brick construction with a pitched slate roof. Features include cast iron rain water goods, white timber windows and blue timber doors. 1.2 There is an external store area which was constructed at the same time as the original school building. The site also contains a pitched roof kitchen/dining block which was added circa 1900. 1.3 Whilst the school building is not listed, it is classed as an “Important Unlisted Building” in the Hunstanton Conservation Area Character Statement. 1.4 Pedestrian access is via Valentine Road, with vehicular access via double gates off James Road. 1.5 The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, south and west; offices and a surgery to the eastern boundary. A group of trees are situated to the south-eastern corner of the school site. 2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : The proposal consists of:  The installation of a black weld mesh fence with a ‘wave style’ top above the existing boundary wall running long James Street and Valentine Road; and  The extension of the existing close boarded timber fencing along the Southern boundary of the site adjacent to no 9 Valentine Road. The overall height of the fencing adjacent to James Street and Valentine Road will be approximately 2metres to the highest point. The proposed fencing adjacent to no.9 Valentine Road will be approximately 1.8metres high. 3. Constraints

3.1 The application site is located within the Hunstanton Conservation Area and within an area defined as settled/built up areas – Built Environment Type C in the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies).

4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 4.2 East of England Plan (May : ENV6 The Historic Environment 2008) ENV7: Quality of the Built Environment 4.3 Borough Council of King’s Lynn : 4/14 Development adjoining Conservation & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 Areas (‘Saved’ Policies) 4/21 Settled or Built Up Areas - Built Environment Type C 5. Planning History 5.1 There is no relevant planning history for this site.

6. Consultations 6.2 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk No objections. Borough Council 6.3 Hunstanton Town Council To be reported orally.

6.4 Highway Authority No wish to restrict the grant of planning permission. 6.5 Public Representations One letter of representation has been received from local residents. The main issues are as follows:  The proposal will alter the view for residents living opposite the site  What is the reason behind the proposal  In what way is the safety of both pupils and parents imperilled now  How would the safety of pupils and parents be improved by the fencing  Is it necessary to erect expensive fencing at a time when people are being asked to economise  Why is the fence to be painted black 6.6 County Councillor: To be reported orally. Mr S Bett 7. Assessment 7.1 The main issues to be considered are: The impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; The impact on visual amenity; The impact on residential amenity; The impact on the trees within the site; The impact on highway safety; and The response in relation to the representation received 7.2 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

7.3 The application site lies within the Hunstanton Conservation Area. Under the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Area) Act 1990, there is a duty to preserve of enhance the character and appearance of a Conservation Area. 7.4 Guidance contained in PPS5 seeks to conserve the historic environment and heritage assets and recognises that the character/setting of Conservation Areas should be protected. Policy ENV6 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) and Policy 4/14 of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies) generally seek to enhance and where possible preserve the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. 7.5 The Hunstanton Conservation Area was designated in December 1984 and its boundaries extended in December 2009. Whilst the school building is not Listed, it is classed as an “Important Unlisted Building”, which is of significant architectural and historic merit which contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 7.6 The Hunstanton Conservation Character statement describes the typical late C19th school as the most important building on the west side of Valentine Road, with the original stone walling and the use of carstone giving the school building a more local, vernacular appearance. 7.7 Low carstone walling running along the perimeter of the school is a common feature to the vicinity along with other boundary treatments such as low red brick walling, wooden fencing, railings and open boundaries. 7.8 The proposal in terms of design, materials and colour will be inkeeping with part of the fencing that runs along the perimeter of the school site and the existing fencing that has been erected within the vicinity; thereby retaining and reinforcing the design nature of boundary treatments and complementing the school site as a whole and the street scene. 7.9 It is felt that the proposal preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in which it lies, and satisfactorily complies with guidance contained in PPS5, Policy ENV6 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) and Policy 4/14 of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies). 7.10 Visual amenity 7.11 PPS1 states that design should take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard of design. Policy 4/21 of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies) also applies. In respect of Built Environment Type C, this relates to the older usually pre-1914 development forms and the need to ensure that any new development is well designed, has regard for and is in harmony with, the building characteristics of the locality and does not damage the appearance of its built surroundings. 7.12 In this case, the proposed fencing along James Street and Valentine Road is to be constructed of weld mesh with a black powder coated finish. The fencing proposed along the southern boundary of the site is close boarded stained timber. The proposed design, materials of construction and finishes is standard for this kind of development and inkeeping with the host school building and street scene. 7.13 It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity and satisfactorily complies with guidance contained in PPS1, Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) and Policy 4/21 of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies). 7.14 Residential amenity

7.15 The application site is predominately surrounded by residential dwellings. Given the nature of the proposal and the separation distances achieved to the boundaries of adjacent property, it is felt that the proposed fencing will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent residential properties. 7.16 Trees

7.17 There are a group of trees situated within the south-eastern corner of the school site. The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement undertaken by Ravencroft Arboricultural Services. 7.18 It is not proposed to fell any of the trees within the site nor will it effect the existing landscaping, the only change being the proposed fencing. In order to protect the existing trees, the Method Statement sets out how the trees will be protected whilst implementing the proposal. 7.19 Both the Council’s Landscape and Arboricultural Officers have no objections to the proposal and it is felt that the proposed fencing can be erected without having a detrimental impact on the trees within the site. 7.20 Highway safety

7.21 Pedestrian access is off Valentine Road leading to the main school building. Vehicular access to the site is via double gates off James Street with parking and turning provision within the site. 7.22 Given the nature of the application, the proposal does not seek to alter the existing accesses or increase the staff/pupils numbers; therefore the proposal will not impact on the existing parking provision within the school grounds. 7.23 The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal as it is felt that the proposed fencing will not impact on the adjacent highway nor impede visibility. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms and will not have a detrimental impact on highway/pedestrian safety or the wider highway network in accordance with guidance contained in PPG13 which promotes a safe and accessible transport system, reducing the need to travel by the private car. 7.24 Response in relation to the representation received

7.25 The application was advertised by means of site notices, neighbour notifications letters and an advertisement in the local newspaper, for which one letter of representation has been received from residents of James Street. 7.26 In response to the letter of representation received the following comments are made in the order as in section 6 of this report. 7.27 The proposal will alter the view for residents living opposite the site – The proposed fencing along the boundary of James Street is to be constructed of weld mesh. Given this type of fencing, a view through the fencing is still maintained, giving the residents opposite a pleasant outlook. However, loss of view is not a material planning consideration. 7.28 What is the reason behind the proposal - The proposed fencing is required in order to meet Ofsted requirements, as the current perimeter wall is not of a sufficient height under the Ofsted requirements to ensure safety of the pupils. The agent acting on behalf of the applicant has confirmed that the requirement is a height in excess of 1.5metres. 7.29 In what way is the safety of both pupils and parents imperilled now – Whilst the safety of the pupils and parents is not imperilled, the proposal does seek to enhance the existing safety and security measures already in place. 7.30 How would the safety of pupils and parents be improved by the fencing – As aforementioned, the proposed fencing will improve existing safety and security measures. By virtue of the height of the proposed fencing, it would prevent a passer by leaning over the boundary fencing and grabbing a child. 7.31 Is it necessary to erect expensive fencing at a time when people are being asked to economise – Such financial aspects of this proposal are not a material planning consideration and cannot be considered when determining this planning application. 7.32 Why is the fence to be painted black – The proposed fencing along James Street and Valentine Road is to be finished in black to ensure that it will be unobtrusive and minimise the impact on the host building and surrounding area. The proposed fencing adjacent to no 9 Valentine Road, is to be stained to match the existing section of fencing. 8. Resource Implications 8.1 Finance : There are no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.2 Staff : There are no staff implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.3 Property : There are no property implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.4 IT : There are no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

9. Other Implications 9.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 9.2 Human Rights : The human rights of 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. In this case it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents will be infringed because their rights are not significantly affected. 9.3 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. 9.4 Communications : There are no communication implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 9.5 Health and Safety Implications : There are no Health and Safety implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 9.6 Any other implications : Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 10. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 10.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate issues of crime and disorder and there have been no such matters raised during consideration of the application. The erection of the proposed fencing could deter issues of crime thus protecting the children. 11. Risk Implications/Assessment 11.1 There are no risk implications from a planning perspective.

12. Conclusion and reasons for Grant of Planning Permission 12.1 In conclusion, the proposal will provide the school with improved site safety and security for the school and its users. In addition, it is also required to meet Ofsted requirements. 12.2 The proposal accords with relevant national, regional and local planning policies mentioned in the main body of this report and it is felt that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in which it lies, visual amenity, residential amenity, trees within the site or highway safety. 13. Recommendation 13.1 That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents (ii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted. (iii) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment East of England Plan (May 2008) Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies)

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address Angelina Lambert 01603 224136 [email protected]

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

The Application Site

15 June 2011

Y/2/2011/2008 - Hunstanton Infants School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Hunstanton 0 145 290 580 870 1,160 Scale 1: 20000 Centred on 567551 340922 ±

The Application Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

15 June 2011

Y/2/2011/2008 - Hunstanton Infants School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Hunstanton 0 3.5 7 14 21 28 Scale 1: 500 Centred on 567551 340922