Planning Regulatory Committee

Date: Friday 11 February 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 B Long Mr N Dixon Mr G Plant Mr Duigan Mr J Rogers - Chairman Mr A Gunson Mr J Shrimplin – Vice-Chairman 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 Lesley.rudelhoff.scott@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 11 February 2011

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

2. Minutes: (Page 1) To receive the Minutes of the last meeting held on 7 January 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. Applications referred to the Committee for Determination (Page 6 )

5a Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

North Norfolk District: C/1/2010/1005: Edgefield: Land adjacent to Edgefield Landfill Site: Erection of plant to accommodate an anaerobic digestion facility, provision of ancillary office and weighbridge, retention of existing landfill gas engines, construction of access road and provision of landscaping: Buyinfo Ltd 5b. Broadland District C/5/2010/5012: Mayton Wood Landfill Site: (Page 51 ) Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission C/5/2007/5006 to extend the operation and to restore the site by 31 December 2011: Norfolk County Council Planning Regulatory Committee 11 February 2011

6. Developments by the County Council

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

6a. Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk: Application Y/2/2010/2008 (Page 61 ) Hillcrest Primary School, Hillcrest, Downham Market, Norfolk, PE38 9ND Construction of New Pedestrian Access and Pathway from Civray Avenue to Downham Market High School

6b Development by the County Council Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (Page 70 ) Application :Y/2/2010/2021Wiggenhall St Germans Primary School, School Road, Wiggenhall St Germans, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE34 3DZ Single storey extension to existing school, comprising new hall, extended classrooms, toilets and ancillary areas and circulation, external hard play and landscape scheme and boiler room

6c Broadland District : Application Y/5/2010/5011 (Page 83 ) Heather Avenue Infant School, Heather Avenue, Hellesdon, Norwich NR6 6LT Erection of a single storey extension to the northern elevation of existing school building to form a kitchen area.

6d Broadland District: Application Y/5/2010/5017 (Page 94 ) Cantley Primary School, School Lane, Cantley, Norfolk Erection of a single storey classroom with link to existing school building to the east of the school site on the hard stand area.

6e South Norfolk District: Application Y/7/2010/7030 (Page 105 ) Diss High School, Walcot Road, Diss, Norfolk, IP22 4DH Re-cladding of former Farm start building (Use Class D1) including insertion of additional roof lights and preparation for additional doors (retrospective); erection of single storey extension and extension of roof to form covered storage and entrance areas to the northern elevation of the former Farm building; provision of new doors to the western and northern elevations of the former Farm Start building; erection of single storey flat roof canopy to the eastern elevation of the former Farm start building. Erection of a single storey mono-pitched roofed building for educational purposes (Use Class D1) to the North of the existing Farm Start building. Relocation of 3 no. mobile buildings (retrospective) and the proposed relocation of 1 no. mobile building to the North of the existing canteen building. Construction of new and relocation of existing car parking areas to provide 7 new car parking spaces including 2 car parking spaces for the disabled. Relocation of existing recycling storage area and staff cycle shed from the west of the oval turning area to the east of the existing former Farm Start building. Provision of lighting, landscaping and security fencing to the areas adjacent to the proposed new and altered existing buildings. Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH

Date Agenda Published: 2 February 2010

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 7 January 2011

Present: Mr J Rogers - Chairman

Mr B Bremner Mr D Harrison Mr D Callaby Mr M Hemsley Mr N Dixon Mr B Iles Mr P Duigan Mr B Long Mr A Gunson Ms H Thompson Mr R Hanton Mr M Wilby Mr P Hardy

Substitute Member Present:

Mr C Jordan for Mr J Shrimplin

Officers in Attendance:

Ms N Levett - Environment, Transport and Development Mr N Johnson - Environment, Transport and Development Mr M Potter - Environment, Transport and Development Mr R Webb - Environment, Transport and Development Ms F Croxen - Legal Services Mrs S Farrell - Democratic Services Mr T Shaw - Democratic Services

1. Apologies and Substitution

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Mr G Plant, Mr J Shrimplin (with Mr C Jordan attending as Substitute) and from Mr A Wright.

2. Minutes

2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2010 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3. Declaration of Interest

3.1 Mr R Hanton declared a personal interest in Item 5 as he was the local County

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 January 2011 1

Councillor for Caister-on-Sea.

4. Urgent Business

4.1 There were no items of urgent business.

5. Application C/6/2010/6005: Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission C/6/2009/6013 to Extend the Time Limit for the Use of Borrow Pit and Stockpile Field to 9 January 2012: Bloor Homes, Caister-on-Sea

5.1 The annexed report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development was received. Planning permission was sought for the variation of condition 1 of planning permission C/6/2009/6013 in order to extend the use of the Borrow Pit and Stockpile Field to 9 January 2012.

5.2 The following comments were made in response to the report:

 Caister-on-Sea Parish Council had originally objected to this application. However, the proposal had been explained in more detail to the Parish Council and they had confirmed that they would agree to a further extension of time for 12 months, but at the end of the 12 months expect that piece of land to be restored and returned to the Parish Council for the Green Park Area that was originally agreed. The Parish Council also required a written agreement to this effect from the applicant and Norfolk County Council to confirm that no further extension of time applications would be allowed.

 Members were informed that if they approved the application, the Monitoring and Control Team of Environment, Transport and Development would continue to monitor the site and if it became apparent, around late summer 2011 that the expiry date could not be met, appropriate action would be instigated. One course of action could be to invite a further application for an extension of time. However, based upon the information that had been provided to Environment, Transport and Development the proposal was expected to be completed by 9 January 2012.

 Norfolk County Council could not enter into any agreements that no further extension of time applications would be submitted or allowed. Should the Parish Council require reassurance on this point, then it would be necessary for the Parish Council to enter into an agreement with Bloor Homes and they had been advised of this.

 When the Borough Council granted planning permission for the housing estate, a legal agreement was entered into requiring the application site to be restored to recreational open space and transferred to the Borough Council on its completion and prior to the 100th free market dwelling on the housing development being occupied. Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 January 2011 2

 No other objections or concerns had been raised.

5.3 The Committee voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation and it was –

Resolved –

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

(1) The development to cease and the site to be restored by 9 January 2012. (2) Hours of operation. (3) Development to continue in full accordance with the archaeological brief. (4) Measures to control dust nuisance. (5) Noise from operations. (6) Location of stockpiles and height restriction. (7) Bunding of oil/fuel containers. (8) Siting of an impermeable base of fuel storage and refuelling facilities. (9) Surface water run-off. (10) Details of haul routes. (11) Stand-offs from Internal Drainage Board watercourses. (12) Protection of existing drainage ditches. (13) Temporary fencing. (14) Scheme of working. (15) Field pipe drainage scheme. (16) Restoration scheme. (17) Differential subsidence. (18) Subsoils ripping. (19) Topsoil spreading. (20) Removal of stones and deleterious materials in excess of 15cm. (21) Handling, movement and re-spreading of topsoil and subsoil.

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

6. Application Y/2/2010/2016 Hunstanton Fire Station, King’s Lynn Road, Hunstanton, Demolition of Existing Drill Tower and Removal of Existing Store. Erection of New 10.35 metre Drill Tower with Confined Space Training Facility, Hunstanton Fire Station, King’s Lynn Road, Hunstanton

6.1 The annexed report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 January 2011 3

was received. Full planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing 12 metre high open lattice drill tower, removal of an existing contamination store and the erection of a new enclosed 10.35 metre drill tower with confined space training facility.

6.2 The following comments were made in response to the report:

 The proposed new tower would provide the Fire Service with an essential facility to simulate a wide range of training situations and it would be suitable for rope training exercises.

 The Fire Service had confirmed that they would be willing to allow the existing right by the owner of number 3 Downs Road to enter the Fire Station site for the purpose of property and boundary maintenance to continue.

 The proposed new tower would be within 4 metres of the building of the garden at the rear of number 3 Downs Road.

 The proposed new tower would require a wider structural base than the existing tower.

6.3 The Chairman invited Ms Wadsworth from NPS Property Services Ltd to speak in the meeting as the applicant’s agent, in response to Members’ questions.

6.4 Ms Wadsworth said that in the opinion of the Fire Service the recommended location for the fire tower allowed the best possible use of the drill yard.

6.5 Ms Wadsworth said that a corner of the drill yard that a Member had suggested in the meeting could be used to house the proposed new tower was unsuitable because this part of the yard was currently used to store contaminated waste and to store a number of broken down vehicles.

6.6 Mr B Long proposed to the Committee that they vote on the recommendation and this was seconded by Mr P Duigan.

6.7 On being put to the vote, there were 13 votes in favour of the recommendation and 2 votes against and it was resolved –

(i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions providing for:

 The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval.  The development to be built in accordance with approved plans. Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 January 2011 4

 Use of the training tower and floodlights to be limited to between 6.30pm to 9.30pm on Mondays and Tuesdays.  The two floodlights to be focussed and directed to avoid the spread of any glare and illumination on to adjoining and surrounding properties.  Existing tower to be demolished within three months of the erection of new tower hereby permitted.

(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 deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

7. Training on Environmental Issues

7.1 The Committee was reminded that a training session on environmental issues was due to take place at County Hall on 18 January 2011 at 1.30pm.

The meeting concluded at 10.25am

CHAIRMAN

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

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 January 2011 5

Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 5a

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination North Norfolk District: C/1/2010/1005: Edgefield: Land adjacent to Edgefield Landfill Site: Erection of plant to accommodate an anaerobic digestion facility, provision of ancillary office and weighbridge, retention of existing landfill gas engines, construction of access road and provision of landscaping: Buyinfo Ltd

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development.

Summary In December 2010, an application was reported to this committee which sought full planning permission for the construction of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility on a site (adjacent) to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. The AD plant proposed to deal with 30,000 tonnes of mixed household, garden and kitchen waste together with other suitable waste food stuffs and surplus or spoiled agricultural vegetable products, per annum. The application was recommended for refusal on twelve grounds as detailed in the full committee report that is appended to this report (Appendix A).

The unanimous resolution of Members of this committee, as detailed in the minutes of that meeting (Appendix B), was: ‘That the decision on the application be deferred until inconsistencies within the drawings, issues with tree planting, lighting, and any other outstanding matters, were dealt with so that the planning permission could legally be enforced, but stated that there was no reason to hold a site visit as the information needed did not require a site visit’.

The issue of a site visit was discussed during the meeting, and whilst Members of the committee did not resolve to carry out a site visit at that point in time, it is felt by officers that it may be prudent to do so whilst the County Council awaits the submission of the further information detailed in the resolution.

By visiting the site, it would help ensure Members are able to make an informed decision on the scheme with a full understanding of the context of the site in a sensitive landscape setting (the Rural Conservation Area), and enable Members to understand why the application was recommended for refusal when originally reported to committee in December. Furthermore, it would allow a decision to be made without any further delay that could occur if a site visit is discussed again and/or proposed when the application itself is brought back to committee.

Recommendation That Members of the Planning Regulatory Committee undertake a site visit to ensure an informed decision can be made when the amended application is reported to a future committee meeting.

1. Background

1.1. In December 2010, an application was reported to this committee which sought full planning permission for the construction of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility on a site (adjacent) to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. The AD plant proposed to deal with 30,000 tonnes of mixed household, garden and kitchen waste together with other suitable waste food stuffs and surplus or spoiled agricultural vegetable products, per annum. The application was recommended for refusal on twelve grounds as detailed in the full committee report that is appended to this report (Appendix A). 1.2. The unanimous resolution of Members of this committee, as detailed in the minutes of that meeting (Appendix B), was: ‘that the decision on the application be deferred until inconsistencies within the drawings, issues with tree planting, lighting, and any other outstanding matters, were dealt with so that the planning permission could legally be enforced, but stated that there was no reason to hold a site visit as the information needed did not require a site visit’.

1.3. Update 1.4. Following this resolution, a letter was sent to the applicant’s agent providing full details of the additional information that is required. 1.5. The application, as referenced in the original committee report, is being determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended, because of the potential for the scheme to have significant impacts on the environment. 1.6. Therefore, this information was requested under regulation 19 of the aforementioned legislation, and in accordance with this regulation, the additional information must be publicised, and consulted on, before the application can be brought back to committee with a recommendation. At this moment in time, no additional information has been received from the applicant in response to the regulation 19 request. 1.7. Proposal 1.8. It is well highlighted in the appended committee report that officers are very concerned about the impact that the AD plant would have on the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area, and that the proposal would not provide a significant enhancement to the local landscape. Furthermore, it is considered that the development would be visually intrusive and incongruous in the landscape due to the industrial nature of the design proposed. Consequently, this means that the scheme is contrary to the development plan. This view was re-affirmed by the Senior Landscape Architect consulted on the scheme who objected to the application. 1.9. Whilst the resolution at December’s committee did not include the requirement to undertake a site visit, the possibility of a site visit was however discussed during the meeting. It is felt by officers it may be prudent to do so in the interim period before the application itself is reported to committee again (once the additional information has been received from the applicant, publicised and consulted on).

1.10. Visiting the site may provide Members with a better understanding of the context of the site and its surroundings, and enable a more informed decision to be made on the scheme. Members would gain a fuller appreciation of the sensitive nature of the landscape that resulted in it being designated a Rural Conservation Area (for its high landscape value) by North Norfolk District Council, and which was a significant factor in the application being recommended for refusal when it was initially reported to December’s committee. Furthermore, it will ensure a decision can be made without any further delay that could occur if a site visit is discussed and/or proposed when the application itself is brought back to committee. 1.11. In the context of the County Council’s Constitution, and specifically ‘Appendix 18A: Planning Procedures - Code of Best Practice’, the justification for recommending the site visit is that officers believe it would significantly assist the Committee’s understanding of the issues that need to be considered when determining the planning application. The benefit here would, in the opinion of officers, be substantial, and it would not in this instance cause delay given the outstanding information required from the applicant. The recommendation is therefore in accordance with ‘Section 13: Committee Site Visits’ of this appendix of the County Council’s Constitution. 2.0 Resource Implications

2.1 Finance: The report has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 2.2 Staff: The report has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 2.3 Property: The report has no property implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 2.4 IT: The report has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

3.0 Other Implications

3.1 Legal Implications: This issue is covered in the appended committee report.

3.2 Human Rights: This issue is covered in the appended committee report.

3.3 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. 4.0 Conclusion 4.1 In December 2010, an application was reported to this committee which sought full planning permission for the construction of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility on a site (adjacent) to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. The resolution of Members was that officers should request further information to enable a legally enforceable planning permission to be granted.

4.2 The County Council has now requested further information under regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended, in accordance with the resolution of December’s Planning Regulatory Committee. Officers are of the view that it may be prudent to undertake a site visit to help enable an informed decision to be made on the proposal (with an appreciation of the location of the site in the wider area) when it is reported back to this committee, and prevent any further delay. Recommendation (i) That Members of the Planning Regulatory Committee undertake a site visit to ensure an informed decision can be made when the amended application is reported to a future committee meeting.

Background Papers C/1/2010/1005 Committee Report: 10 December 2010 Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes: 10 December 2010 (extract) Planning Application: C/1/2010/1005

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address Ralph Cox 01603 223318 [email protected]

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

If you would like this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Ralph Cox 01603 223318 textphone 0844 8008011.

Appendix A Planning (Regulatory) Committee December 2010

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination North Norfolk District: C/1/2010/1005: Edgefield: Land adjacent to Edgefield Landfill Site: Erection of plant to accommodate an anaerobic digestion facility, provision of ancillary office and weighbridge, retention of existing landfill gas engines, construction of access road and provision of landscaping: Buyinfo Ltd

Report by the Director of Environment Transport and Development.

Summary This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility on a site (adjacent) to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. The AD plant would deal with 30,000 tonnes of mixed household, garden and kitchen waste together with other suitable waste food stuffs and surplus or spoiled agricultural vegetable products, per annum. The gas produced by the digestion process would be piped to the existing adjacent landfill gas engines (which the application seeks to retain) to generate electricity. The application also includes an ancillary office and weighbridge, construction of a new access road (around the northern boundary of the landfill site) from the B1149 (Holt Road), and the provision of landscaping.

The application has been assessed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. No objections have been received from statutory consultees to the application. An objection has been received from Norfolk Environmental Waste Services (NEWS), the commercial company that operates Edgefield landfill site.

The site is not allocated for development, and the application constitutes a departure from the County Council’s adopted Waste Local Plan as it is contrary to ‘saved’ policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection) which presumes against waste development in the open countryside. The application site is also significantly located in the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. The proposal is also contrary to a number of other policies within the development plan in terms of both the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) and the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008). It is also contrary to the East of England Plan (‘the RSS’) and a number of the Government’s planning policy statements.

The scheme would interfere with the approved restoration scheme for Edgefield landfill and the proposal could not actually be fully implemented because the area of the landfill site where the proposed access is to be located has not been restored.

Whilst the proposal would divert waste from landfill and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy, it is not felt the scheme represents an acceptable form of development. There are no other material considerations that indicate planning permission should be granted and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Recommendation That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to refuse planning permission on the grounds listed in the Recommendation at the end of this report.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location : Land adjacent to Edgefield Landfill Site, Edgefield 1.2 Type of development : Anaerobic Digestion plant together with ancillary office and weighbridge, construction of new access road, provision of landscaping, and retention of existing landfill gas engines. 1.3 Material : 30,000 tonnes per annum of organic waste consisting of: . 27,000 tonnes of municipal waste; and, . 3,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste. 1.4 Area : 4.96 hectares (including proposed access road and retained existing landfill gas engines) 1.5 Duration : Permanent 1.6 Market served : Presumed to be local although detailed information not provided. 1.7 Plant : Eleven digester vessels (each is a cast concrete tunnel), six concrete composting tunnels, steel portal framed central mixing area, waste reception area. 1.8 Hours of working : Monday – Friday 07:00 hours – 18:00 hours Saturday 07:00 hours – 13:00 hours Sunday and Bank Holidays – Closed 1.9 Vehicle movements : Delivery of waste (Large Goods Vehicles) and numbers Average of 36 daily movements of waste collection vehicles (18 in and 18 out); Removal of composted material (Large Goods Vehicles) Average of 6 daily movements; Removal of contaminants for disposal (Large Goods Vehicles) 4 weekly movements of waste collection vehicle Staff vehicle movements (private light goods vehicles) Average of 8 daily movements.

1.10 Access : Creation of new access from B1149 Holt Road which would follow the northern boundary of the landfill site. 2. History

2.1. The bulk of the site which amounts to just under 3.9 hectares is fallow agricultural land which has been in recent cultivation. 2.2. The remainder of the application site consists of the proposed access road which is proposed to run around what will be the northern extent of the restored landfill site, and the existing landfill gas compound. 2.3. The adjacent landfill site, located on the western side of the Norwich-Holt road (B1149), has been operated for more than 30 years under a series of temporary planning permissions. The site, which is some 11.5 hectares in size, occupies a former sand and gravel quarry and is divided into 13 phases. Phases 1-9 at the south of the site have been filled with non-hazardous waste and phases 10, 11 and 12 are currently in the process of being filled (also with non-hazardous waste) and restored. 2.4. In accordance with the conditions of the most recent planning consent (reference C/1/2009/1020), granted for the landfill site in May this year, the landfill site is required to be restored by 31 December 2013. The principle of that application was to enable phases 12 and 13 of the site, the final two phases, to be filled with non-hazardous waste as opposed to inert waste which was originally permitted. That application also permitted an amended restoration scheme with a significant level of landscaping. 2.5. The application site includes the existing landfill gas engines which are to be retained for the life of this development in order to utilise the landfill gas produced. These are covered by two permissions the first of which was granted in May 1995 (reference C/1/94/1013) and was for the installation of three gas powdered engine sets. This permission expires on the 31 December 2015, or when the maximum concentration of flammable gas in the landfill gas in the waste is below 1% by volume and carbon dioxide is below 0.5% by volume over a 24 month period measured on at least four separate occasions spread over that period, whichever is sooner. 2.6. The second permission (reference C/1/2005/1005) was for the installation of gas powered generator producing electricity for the national grid. This permission expires on the 23 November 2030, or when the maximum concentration of flammable gas in the landfill gas within the waste is below 1% by volume and carbon dioxide is below 0.5% by volume over a 24 month period measured on at least four separate occasions spread over that period, whichever is sooner. 2.7. In October 2009, a proposed site at this location was included in the County Council’s Waste Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Further Issues and Options consultation as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Whilst the site included was not exactly the same in terms of its boundary or size, the submission proposed Anaerobic Digestion as a use and was lodged by the owner of the applicant company for this current application.

2.8. The site was put forward by the developer as a late submission in this process thus it was not included in the initial Issues and Options consultation document that was published in February 2008. Pertinently, within the latter 2009 consultation, the County Council identified this site as one that should not be considered further as a preferred site on the grounds of the visual impact of the development on the landscape. 2.9. In November 2009 an actual planning application (reference C/1/2009/1015) was submitted for an AD plant at this site. This was very similar to the current one that is the subject of this report, however this proposed the creation of an access road across the middle of the (already restored) landfill site. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant following concerns expressed by the Environment Agency regarding the impact on the cap of the restored landfill site, and also by County Council officers about the landscape impact of the development given its location in a rural conservation area. 3 Policy

3.1 Government Planning PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Policy Statements PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS 5: Planning For The Historic Environment PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG 13: Transport PPS 22: Renewable Energy PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk 3.2 Norfolk Structure No relevant saved policies. Plan

3.3 The Regional Spatial WM1: Waste Management Objectives Strategy: The East of WM2: Waste Management Targets England Plan (2008) ENG2: Renewable Energy Targets

3.4 Norfolk Waste Local WAS 1: Hierarchy Framework Plan (2000) Saved WAS 2: Resource Recovery Policies WAS 4: Countryside Protection WAS 9: Landscape WAS 10: Landscape WAS 11: Nature Conservation WAS 12: Nature Conservation WAS 13: Amenity WAS 15: Archaeology WAS 16: Traffic

WAS 18: Water Resources WAS 19: Water Resources WAS 33: Planning Considerations WAS 34: Planning Control WAS 35: Planning Control 3.5 North Norfolk District SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk Council Local SS 2: Development in the Countryside Development SS 4: Environment Framework: Core Strategy & SS 6: Access and Infrastructure Development Control EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of the Policies Landscape and Settlement Character EN 4: Design EN 6: Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency EN 7: Renewable Energy EN 8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment EN 9: Biodiversity and Geology EN 10: Development and Flood Risk EN 13: Pollution Prevention and Hazard Minimisation CT 5: The Transport Impact of New Development CT 6: Parking Provision 4 Consultations

4.1 North Norfolk District : No conservation or biodiversity objection subject to Council suitable conditions to safeguard the visual amenity and ecology. Although the site lies on the valley side of the Glaven river valley and is in an exposed position, the landform, existing vegetation and lack of publicly accessible sites limit the visual impact of the scheme. Reference is made to the detrimental impact on the landscape being offset by the degraded nature of the existing landscape (i.e. the landfill site) as recognized in the ES limiting the visual impact of the scheme. Also regard the ecological impact of the development as being limited. 4.2 North Norfolk District : No objection. Recommend a number of conditions Council including: Environmental Health . noise levels at measured points not exceeding the existing background level; . deliveries limited to the hours proposed; . the installation of odour controls as detailed in the ES; . the submission of a scheme of lighting before the commencement of use.

4.3 Edgefield Parish : No objection although the Parish Council would wish Council to request the improvement of the Rookery Road junction be a condition of any approval. 4.4 Stody Parish Council : No objection. 4.5 Go-East : No comments received. 4.6 Natural England : No objection. 4.7 Environment Agency : No objection subject to appropriate conditions. Comment that the development would require an Environmental Permit covering a range of issues including management, operations, and emissions and monitoring. Is satisfied that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on or off site and that the surface water scheme is suitable for the scale and nature of the development. The approval would therefore need to be subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment submitted and supplementary information supplied. The consent would also need to be subject to a condition concerning the submission and implementation of a working practices procedure in order to prevent pollution of the water environment. 4.8 Southern Norfolk : No response received. Primary Care Trust 4.9 Anglian Water : No response received. 4.10 EDF Energy : No response received. 4.11 Highways : No objection subject to conditions concerning: . the width of the first 15 metres of the access road being a minimum of 6 metres; . submission of details of wheel cleaning facilities; and, . provision of the approved wheel cleaning facilities. 4.12 Waste Disposal : Has no objection with regards to the proximity of the Authority (NCC) site to the landfill site and supports the application. 4.13 English Heritage : No objection, advise that the Local Authority Archaeologist is contacted by the developer to determine a suitable archaeological mitigation strategy given that the area has high archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential (environmental remnants from the past). 4.14 Norfolk Landscape : No response received to date (has been chased for Archaeology comments in light of English Heritage’s consultation response). 4.15 Local Residents and : An objection has been received from Norfolk other third parties Environmental Waste Services (NEWS) the commercial company that operates the adjacent landfill site and is part of the County Council owned

Norse Group. Their objection is on the grounds that: . the applicant does not have any commercial agreement or other rights to cross their land (i.e. the access road proposed); . the application appears to contain conflicting information about the route of the proposed access site: NEWS does not have planning permission for either road layout; and, . the proposed route and turning circle conflicts with NEWS’ current planning permission and environmental permit which include final settlement contours which requires the removal of the current turning circle. Two representations were received from local residents. Whilst not objecting, the following issues were raised: . concern about the access road into the development (i.e. over the landfill site and around its northern perimeter) and that vehicles using the route would be continually visible and audible to properties; . residents have already experienced a considerable amount of problems with regards to visual and noise disturbance from the existing landfill site; . whether bales which are to be sold or distributed for agricultural uses (presumably as a result of this development) would be required to exit the field on vehicles (proposed to be used for the AD plant) from the existing entry to the landfill site as opposed to the existing exit that is used currently by farm vehicles. One letter of support has been received from the District Council Member for Edgefield. The local Member supports scheme because it would: . reduce material going to landfill; . produce composted material for use in the production of domestic and agricultural humus; and, . save on mileage of collecting vehicles from domestic premises to the point of process. 4.16 County Councillor : No objection; is fully in support of the application. Mr R Wright (Melton Constable)

5. Assessment

Proposal 5.1 The planning application lodged by Buyinfo Limited is for the development of an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility on a site adjacent to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. It is proposed that the AD plant would deal with 30,000 tonnes of mixed household, garden and kitchen waste, together with other suitable waste food stuffs and surplus or spoiled agricultural vegetable products, per annum. The plant would be based on a dry fermentation process which allows recovery of energy contained in bio-waste. The gas produced by the digestion process facility would be piped to the existing adjacent landfill gas engines (which this application seeks to retain) to generate electricity. The development would therefore produce a form of renewable energy. The composted digestate from the end process can be used as a fertiliser in the agricultural and horticultural industries and it is envisaged that, in addition to the 5200 MWh of electricity that would be produced, some 15,000 tonnes of soil improver could be produced each year. 5.2 In addition to the plant itself, the application also requires new ancillary infrastructure in the form of an office, and also a weighbridge to ensure all waste arriving at the site can be weighed and booked in. At this point waste transfer notes would be inspected to ensure the waste is suitable to be used in the AD plant. 5.3 The new office building is required for the purpose of housing the technical equipment needed to control the operation of the plant itself. This would be accommodated within an extension to the existing building (the ‘Generation Hall’) that houses the generators that convert landfill gas into electricity. This would extend the length of the existing building by 4.5 metres and at 7.5 metres in width and would be slightly narrower than the existing building. It would actually provide two small office rooms and a WC. The walls would be finished in smooth render painted in neutral stone and the roof would be green mineral felt. The Generation Hall itself is located to the east of where the AD plant would be and to the west of the current landfill site. 5.4 As part of the scheme, the site of the AD plant would be remoulded to allow the plant to be set into the ground and screened by the new landform in attempt to reduce the visual impact of it. The application also proposes some 2.5 hectares of indigenous woodland planting to the south, west and north of the plant. In this resubmitted application, the applicant also made reference to a further 0.33 hectares of planting to the west of the landfill site, i.e. in an attempt to screen the new access. However the applicant’s refusal to include this in the red line application boundary means it is not part of the planning application and no weight can be afforded to it given the uncertainty of actually securing it. 5.5 The AD plant itself would be accommodated within a structure which would occupy a footprint of 69 metres in width by 62 metres in length. It would be 8 metres in height to the ridge line. This structure would consist of 11 digester vessels; each is a cast concrete tunnel approximately 6 metres wide, 27.5 metres and length and 5 metres high. In addition there are 5 or 6 composting tunnels (this number differs between the application documentation submitted) that are similar cast concrete tunnels. These vessels are linked by an enclosed central mixing area which would be accommodated in a steel portal framed structure clad with dark green plastic coated profiled sheeting. 5.6 Process

Once weighed, waste would be deposited into a reception hall via a chute, and following inspection, would be screened and then shredded into 40mm maximum

dimension and added to a stockpile. 5.7 Each of the eleven digester units would be loaded (and unloaded) on a six week cycle. When unloaded, 50% of the material would be blended with fresh material from the reception hall stockpile and the other 50% transferred to the composting stage. These operations would occur twice a week in an enclosed and ventilated space at the front of the digester units; the transfer of material within the building would be undertaken with a wheeled loading shovel. 5.8 On completion of a six week period, post digestion material would then be transferred through a roller shutter arrangement to a concrete box tunnel unit for composting. Heating elements would be provided in the floor and the walls of this unit, and air would be forced through the material to stimulate aerobic digestion of the remaining organic carbon in the feedstock. During this process the temperature of the material would be raised beyond 60 degrees Celsius for a period of 48 hours. Following a one week period in this vessel, the material would then be transferred to a secondary identical tunnel where this heating process would be repeated. 5.9 Having passed through the two stage composting process, the digestate would be transferred to an outdoor storage and maturation area and stored in windrows. This would enable any composting taking place within the material to be completed before the material is taken off site by tractor and trailer for use as an agricultural soil improver. 5.10 All waste held within the building, reception and mixing halls would be held at negative pressure with the exhaust air from the air handling unit directed to a biofilter. Located to the north west of the main structure, this biofilter would be a tank filled with woodchip impregnated with enzymes which degrade the organic chemicals that cause the odour to occur. 5.11 The biogas created within the plant would be transported via an over ground pipeline to the existing landfill gas engines to generate electricity. There is an existing cable that links this into the local network. Waste heat created would be used to manage the temperature within the respective stages of the process to ensure optimum temperatures are achieved and effective pathogen kill occurs during the composting process. 5.12 As referred to above, the biogas captured would be directed to the existing landfill gas engines that are already in situ to the north east of where the AD plant would be erected. This application seeks permission to retain this infrastructure for the life of this development (i.e. in perpetuity) to utilise both the landfill gas already emanating from the landfill site and the biogas produced which would make use of the existing spare capacity available. The landfill gas engines are currently covered by two temporary planning permissions the details of which are provided in section 2 of this report. 5.13 The process detailed above would obviously take place 24 hours a day however the operations such as waste deliveries and transfer of waste would only take place when the plant would be staffed between 07.00 hours and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays. 5.14 Environmental Impact Assessment

Because of the nature of the proposal, the County Council provided a Screening Opinion for this development in April 2008 to the effect that an application would need to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). It was considered by officers that the proposal has the potential to have significant impacts on the environment, not only because of the sensitive nature of the landscape that the

application site is located within, but also by virtue of other factors such as the impact that could occur with regards to ecology, flooding, water resources, pollution and nuisances, and highways. Accordingly, the application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as amended. The ES submitted assessed the impacts of the development on ecology, landscape, hydrology and hydrogeology, archaeology, odour, traffic and noise. Site 5.15 The application site comprises sloping arable farmland on the side of the Glaven Valley. It is situated approximately one kilometre north west of Edgefield village and some two kilometres to the south of the town of Holt. It is bounded by farmland to the south west and north and by Edgefield Landfill site to the east albeit part of the application site; the access road, does cross the landfill site around its northern perimeter. 5.16 The site totals 4.96 hectares of which 3.9 hectares is the agricultural land where the AD plant would be erected and the remainder being the proposed access road located on the north of the existing landfill site, and the existing landfill gas compound that the application seeks to retain. This compound includes the existing electricity generators and associated plant and buildings. 5.17 A small group of residential dwellings lie to the north west of the site with the closest of these being ‘The Bungalow’ some 140 metres away. Significantly, the site lies within the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area which was designated by the district council in 1980 because of its high landscape value. 5.18 The landfill site remains operational with tipping operations taking place in the northern extent of landfill in the final two phases. The current extant planning permission for the landfill requires the site to be restored by December 2013. Significantly, it is around the northern perimeter of this landfill where the access road is proposed to be constructed. 5.19 The application site includes the existing landfill gas engines which would be retained for the life of the proposed AD plant, i.e. in perpetuity. These are located between (to the east of) where the AD plant would be situated and (to the west of) the existing landfill site.

Principle of Development

5.20 The application is for the development of a new AD plant on land adjacent to Edgefield Landfill site with associated infrastructure. Given the need to reduce the reliance on landfill, and promote the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy, there is a need for this type of development in the county. 5.21 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”.

5.22 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 North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework (LDF), and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The East of England Plan (2008). 5.23 Significantly, when the application was received it was deemed by officers to be a departure from the development plan and was accordingly advertised to this effect. Departure

5.24 Saved policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan 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”. 5.25 As already established in this report, the application site is located in open countryside within the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area as confirmed on the North Norfolk District Council LDF Proposals Map. 5.26 As this saved policy indicates, there is a clear presumption against waste development in the open countryside. The bulk of the application site lies on arable farmland and whilst the proposed access road lies on ‘a waste disposal site’, as referenced in the policy, this aspect of the development would actually compromise the restoration of the landfill site and result in development that prolong activities at this site which would again undermine this policy. 5.27 The application is therefore clearly a departure from this plan in respect of this policy, however in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it is important to determine whether there are any other policies in the development plan or other national guidance that would override this departure and justify approval of the scheme. 5.28 Hierarchy Framework Saved policy WAS1 (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.” 5.29 There is no longer a national policy requirement for the application of “BPEO” as required under WAS1. The AD plant proposes to deal with some 30,000 tonnes

of organic waste which would largely consist of municipally collected garden and kitchen waste. By recovering energy from this waste stream in the form of biogas, which can then be used to generate electricity, it would be moving waste up the Waste Hierarchy in terms of the energy recovery taking place and because of the waste diverted from landfill. 5.30 The concept of the Waste Hierarchy is to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and generate the minimum amount of waste. Disposal therefore falls at the bottom of the hierarchy and waste prevention sits at the top of it. With regards to this planning application, the proposal would enable energy to be recovered from the waste stream in the form of biogas that would be used to generate electricity. This sits directly above disposal and is therefore preferable. The plant would also produce a soil improver from the final compost process which could be used on farm land. Composting sits above energy recovery, thus both of these aspects of this development are preferable to disposing of the waste (to landfill). 5.31 With regards to the proximity principle, information on this is limited in the application and insufficient information has therefore been provided in terms of the source of the waste stream to determine whether the application is fully in accordance with the policy. 5.32 Resource Recovery 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”. 5.33 Proposals to recover energy from waste are encouraged and are consistent with the waste hierarchy. The development includes the retention of the existing landfill gas engines that would convert the biogas produced by the AD plant into electricity. 5.34 Landscape Saved policy WAS 9 (Landscape) states 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”. Policy WAS 10 (Landscape) 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”. 5.35 In addition to policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection) that seeks to safeguard the open countryside from waste development, there are also policies within the plan aimed at protecting the environment, and in this instance the landscape, from inappropriate development that would detrimentally impact on attractive areas of countryside. 5.36 As already stated, the application site is located in the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area, designated because of its high landscape value. Saved

policy WAS 9, which is therefore clearly relevant, states that waste development will only be permitted where it can be shown to ‘provide a significant enhancement to the local landscape’. 5.37 Furthermore, Policy WAS 10 (Landscape) seeks to only permit development where there would not be unacceptable harm on the landscape or visual appearance of the countryside. 5.38 The application site lies adjacent to three landscape character areas: small valleys, wooded parkland and tributary parkland, and their key characteristics are described within the ES. The ES also recognizes that the proposed site would be in an elevated position on the western side of the river valley and consequently development within the site would be visible from a wide zone. 5.39 The Landscape and Character Assessment and Visual Impact Assessment included within the ES concludes that although there would be a detrimental impact on the landscape; this is offset by the degraded nature of the existing landscape (against the backdrop of the landfill site), and as such effects on landscape character would be significantly less than they would in an area where the landscape character was in tact. Notably, this is also a point that North Norfolk District Council referred to in its consultation response and gave weight to when not raising an objection to the scheme. However, both the applicant, in the ES, and North Norfolk District Council, in their consultation response, have failed to appreciate that whilst the landfill site undoubtedly currently degrades the landscape, the landfilling operations are only temporary use of the land which are required in order to restore what is a former mineral working. Obviously the initial justification for the landfill at this site was because it was here that the mineral occurred. However, landfilling of the mineral working was approved in order to restore the land to ensure activities would not have a permanent detrimental impact on the landscape. 5.40 The most recent application for the landfill site that was approved in May 2010, under reference C/1/2009/1020, was to vary the type of waste deposited in the northern area of the site to allow non-hazardous waste to be deposited. Because of the nature of the application, the restoration scheme was required to be revised with regards to both the contours of the land itself, and the planting required, to enable the site to be restored to a mixture of woodland and grassland. The revised restoration scheme will therefore ensure the land is not left ‘degraded’ and furthermore will provide a positive enhancement to the overall landscape with both contours and planting approved that will assimilate well with the wider landscape. As such, the County Council does not attach any weight to this argument detailed in the ES regarding the degraded landscape. 5.41 The application proposes some 2.5 hectares of tree planting which would result in a significant amount of indigenous woodland planting, which when mature, could form a positive landscape feature. The site of the proposed digestion plant would also be remoulded to allow the development to be set into the ground and screened by the new landform. In addition to this, the application also proposes some additional tree planting that would be located to the north east of the AD plant, and to the west of the landfill site and would amount to an additional 0.33 hectares. Notably, this was added to the application when it was lodged for the second time with the amended access route which would take vehicles around the north of the landfill instead of across the middle of it (as proposed in the original application referred to in section 2 of this report).

5.42 The application refers to this additional strip of tree planting as ‘planning gain’ because it falls outside the red line boundary because the applicant was not prepared to amend the original red line site boundary drawing (used with the first application) to incorporate this planting. The application puts forward the argument that tree planting does not require planning permission and because it is proposed on land in the ownership of the owner of the applicant company it need not be included within the application site boundary. However, within the application documentation, the applicant did not indicate that they control the said land where the landscaping would be planted (as is required on the Location Plan) and furthermore, no formal undertaking has been submitted by the applicant that they would plant this landscaping in the event that planning permission is granted. 5.43 Because the land is outside the red line application boundary, it would not be appropriate to use a condition to secure the planting of trees here, therefore in this instance it would be appropriate for the applicant to offer it through a Unilateral Undertaking or a draft Section 106 Legal Agreement which would be entered into with the Council. The applicant has not offered either of these thus in considering this application officers can attach no weight to this additional tree planting given the uncertainty of securing it. 5.44 In conclusion, the development would be a large industrial type structure within the countryside which would be served by vehicles travelling across the landfill site. The applicant has proposed a significant amount of woodland planting, which when mature (after 20 to 25 years) could form a valuable landscape feature. However, in the short to medium term the new structure would be clearly visible form the permissive footpaths to the south and west and would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural character of the Conservation Area. 5.45 Given the above, it is considered that the application is in conflict with both policies WAS 9 (Countryside Protection) because the scheme would not provide a significant enhancement to the landscape, and WAS 10 (Landscape) because of the unacceptable harm it would have on the landscape. 5.46 Nature Conservation Saved policy WAS 11 (Nature Conservation) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) 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 measure 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’s national nature reserves), will not be permitted where it would adversely affect these sites”. 5.47 While the proposed development would be approximately 1 kilometre of Holt Lowes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI), following consultation with Natural England and the County Council’s Ecologist, no issues have been raised that would indicate that this development would affect the integrity of this site. This view is consistent with the conclusion within the ES which concluded that there would not be a significant impact on designated sites in the area (including this one). 5.48 Furthermore, in accordance with an assessment under Article 61 of The Conservation and Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, because it is considered that the scheme is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the ecology of the designated area, an Appropriate Assessment is not required. 5.49 Saved policy WAS 12 (Nature Conservation) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) 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”. 5.50 In addition to the aforementioned internationally and nationally designated site, the wider surroundings of the site also include Edgefield Woods which is some 600 metres to the north. Neither the ES submitted nor the consultations carried out have given any indication that the scheme would result in significant damage to the area. 5.51 Accordingly the scheme is considered to be in accordance with both policies WAS 11 (Nature Conservation) and WAS 12 (Nature Conservation) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000). 5.52 Amenity Saved policy WAS13 (Amenity) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) 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”.

5.53 Waste developments of this nature have the potential to give rise to a number of impacts on amenity including visual intrusion, noise, dust, fumes, odour, pests and litter. The ES submitted with the application included both noise and odour assessments. 5.54 Odour With regards to odour, because of the nature of both the waste stream proposed to be treated, i.e. organic waste, and the process proposed to treat the waste, there is a potential for this development to create a significant level of odour. The ES has identified a number of different sources of odour and assessed the severity of the risk and method of control. In order to operate effectively, the plant relies on providing a controlled environment with the effective containment of gases. All waste held within the building, the reception, and mixing halls would be held at negative pressure in order to contain odours. Exhaust air from the air handling unit would pass through a biofilter which is a standard means of treating the emissions from this nature of waste treatment facility. Gases created form the digestion process would be collected and utilized in the landfill gas engines that

are already in place. 5.55 The conclusion of this assessment draws comparisons with the odour produced by the existing landfill site and states that the plant would have significantly less impact when compared to the landfill operation. In accordance with the current extant permission, the landfill site is required to be restored by December 2013 and consequently that source of odour will no longer exist. In the event that planning permission is granted, the site would be regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) through an Environmental Permit, and given that no objection has been received from either the EA or EHO (subject to a condition requiring the installation and maintenance of the odour control detailed in the ES), it is considered that there is not likely to be an impact on amenity with regards to odour. 5.56 Noise As with the odour assessment, the noise study has been carried out against the backdrop of the existing landfilling operations that are required to cease by December 2013. Having modelled predicted noise levels against the surveyed existing noise levels the ES concludes that the plant is not likely to cause any loss of amenity to residents or lead to complaint. 5.57 Subject to any grant of permission being conditioned to the effect that the noise level at the measured points does not exceed the existing background level, as detailed in the noise survey in the ES, the EHO is satisfied with the development with regards to noise. Furthermore, the Environment Agency, which would monitor noise as an aspect of its Environmental Permit, has similarly not raised an objection to the scheme. 5.58 Lighting The application details for lighting are limited to a statement that floodlighting would be required for the waste reception area during the hours when mobile plant and lorries are being operated on site. No further details have been submitted with regards to the exact type of lighting that would be used, the appearance of the lighting and any associated apparatus, and the impact it would have on the environment and amenity. By the very nature of floodlighting it obviously has the potential to have a significant impact, and given the location of the site in the countryside and within a Rural Conservation Area, this information is required before it can be deemed that what is proposed is acceptable. 5.59 Visual Intrusion As already stated, the site lies in a sensitive landscape and the ES submitted describes a zone of visual impact and views of the development from a number of viewpoints. A number of residential properties lie to the north west of the site and in close proximity of the proposed development. The application fails, however, to examine the impact of the development on the outlook of these properties and whether it would represent a visual intrusion to residents. Whilst a significant amount of landscaping is proposed between the development site and the nearby properties, this will take a substantial amount of time to provide effective mitigation. Therefore, on the basis of the current information provided, it is not considered that this issue has been explored in sufficient depth to make a judgment of the impacts of the scheme on residential amenity.

5.60 Because of the nature of the area, i.e. a river valley that benefits from its status as a Rural Conservation Area, the surrounding landscape is also visited for recreational enjoyment. In the short to medium term before the proposed landscaping comes to fruition, the plant would be clearly visible from the permissive footpaths to the south and west and would therefore adversely affect the enjoyment of the area in this respect. 5.61 In conclusion, the lack of information supplied in respect of lighting and the visual impact of the development on residential properties, coupled with the detrimental impact that the scheme would have on the recreational enjoyment of the area, means that it is considered that the proposal would undermine policy WAS 13 (Amenity) and result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities enjoyed by all. 5.62 Archaeology Saved policy WAS 15 (Archaeology) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) states: Waste development adversely affecting sites of archaeological interest, other than those covered by Policy WAS 14, will be permitted only where arrangements are made for the prior evaluation, recording or excavation and subsequent publication of results. 5.63 Whilst English Heritage has confirmed that the site would not affect any Scheduled Ancient Monuments, it has however advised that the area has a high archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential. Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has been consulted for further information on this site however at the time of writing this report no response has been received. In light of this, it cannot at this moment in time be determined whether the application is in accordance with this policy.

5.64 Highways

Saved policy WAS 16 (Traffic) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) 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”. 5.65 Access to the application site would be achieved via an existing access that the existing landfill site utilizes off the B1149, just west of the junction with Rookery Lane (U14273). This existing access onto the landfill site consists of a 7.5 metre wide concrete road from a bellmouth arrangement onto the B1149 to the landfill weighbridge. On site of the existing landfill weighbridge and offices, a new turning area would be created. Vehicles would then double back in the direction of the B1149 and turn left onto a new concrete road that would be engineered. 5.66 The route of this new road would follow the north eastern boundary of the landfill site outside of the engineered cells and would go around the northern most point of the landfill before turning south and following the outside edge of the landfill to reach the exiting gas compound. The road would be constructed using 175mm thick reinforced concrete and would be 4 metres wide. A number of passing places would increase the width to 7 metres in places.

5.67 The application states that the average daily movements are anticipated to be 42 large goods vehicles and 8 private light goods vehicles. These are detailed in section 1 of this report.

5.68 The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the scheme subject to conditions concerning the widening of the vehicular access road for its first 15 metres and the provision of wheel cleaning facilities following the approval of details. 5.69 Whilst there is not an objection to the scheme from a safety perspective, there is a fundamental issue that relates to the ability of the developer to actually construct the access road were permission to be granted. Because the landfill is still operational, and does not need to be restored until December 2013, a permission could not actually be fully implemented until after this date based on the plans and drawings submitted. No construction of the plant would be able to take place because vehicles associated with the development and building of the plant would also be required to use this route (given that no other access is identified in the documentation submitted). In order to be confident that the access could be constructed, amended plans and details would need to be submitted showing the access road and detailing how it would be built based on the land as it currently is (i.e. an active landfill site). 5.70 The development as proposed is considered acceptable in the context of Policy WAS 16 (Traffic) given that no unacceptable harm would be placed on the local highway network in terms of environmental harm, structural damage, safety and congestion. However, based on the information submitted, notwithstanding the fact the proposed access road cannot be constructed, the location of the road proposed is not in accordance with North Norfolk LDF Core Strategy Policy CT5 due to the detriment that would be caused to the amenity and character of the locality of a new road on a restored landfill site. This is further elaborated on in section 5.91 below. 5.71 Water Resources 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”.

5.72 A number of measures have been proposed to ensure the AD plant would not pose a risk of contamination to surface groundwater resources or drainage. In addition to the use of a sealed drainage system within the building which would collect water to be stored in a sealed holding tank, a concrete apron would be provided outside the waste reception/processing building which would slope to a central low point with gulleys to drain the surface water. From the gulleys the water would be channelled through an oil interceptor to the balancing pond. From this balancing pond, which would also be feed with roof water, water would then drain away to the River Glaven. Potentially contaminated water from the compost storage area would be directed to a sealed tank and re-used to either dampen down compost or used in the digestion process. 5.73 Drainage for the proposed access road would on the eastern site connect, via a series of drains, to a perforated pipe to allow the surface water to soak away, and on the western side, connect to the surface water drain proposed as part of the final restoration for the landfill site. 5.74 Whilst limited details have been provided with regards to the balancing pond, in terms of drawings identifying its depth, gradients etc, the Environment Agency (EA) is satisfied there is adequate room on site to construct this pond. Subject to a condition concerning the submission of a comprehensive working practices procedure with regard to preventing pollution and minimizing environmental impacts of operations during construction, the EA has raised no objection with regards to the risk of contamination to ground or surface water. 5.75 Saved policy WAS 19 (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 impediment to the free flow of surface or groundwater resulting in flooding either within the vicinity of the site or elsewhere”. 5.76 The site is located in the EA’s Flood Zone 1 but by virtue of the fact the site is area exceeds 1 hectare a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was required to determine whether the development would exacerbate flooding in the surrounding area. A Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment was also submitted as part of the ES. 5.77 The EA is satisfied that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on or off site and that the surface water scheme is suitable for the scale and nature of the development. An approval of this application would therefore need to be subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the FRA submitted.

North District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy & Development Control Policies (September 2008) 5.78 Core Strategy Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy

This policy, which reaffirms that the application site is in a countryside location, states that within the countryside development will be restricted to particular types which include the provision of renewable energy.

5.79 Core Strategy Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside This policy advises that in the countryside development will be limited to that which requires a rural location, and both waste management facilities and renewable energy are amongst this list. 5.80 The principle of the development here is for waste disposal which would also create renewable energy as a by-product. In this instance it is not felt that the development would comply with these policies given that the supporting text makes reference to the need to protect and where possible enhance the quality and character of this sensitive area which is enjoyed by both residents and visitors. It is acknowledged that the both polices SS1 and SS2 provide weight for a countryside location, however in this instance the level of detriment to the countryside caused by the industrial nature of the plant is considered unacceptable.

5.81 Core Strategy Policy SS 4: Environment The proposal would undermine this policy which seeks to ensure the protection and enhancement of natural environmental assets. Whilst accepting the scheme would produce renewable energy (although not principally a renewable energy proposal), the impact on the landscape would be unacceptable because of the nature of the design of the plant and the location in a sensitive area protected for its high landscape value. 5.82 Core Strategy Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure The scheme would comply with this policy given the close proximity to the highway network and the availability of utility services. 5.83 Policy EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character The proposal is not in accordance with this policy as the location, scale, design and materials of the scheme would not protect enhance or conserve the setting of the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. 5.84 Policy EN 4: Design The industrial nature of this design, which would include cast concrete composter tunnels and a central mixing area accommodated in a steel portal framed structure clad with plastic coated profiled steel sheeting, means it is not considered to be in accordance with this policy. The development is not considered to be designed to a high quality and would not reinforce local distinctiveness. Overall the design would not preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area.

5.85 Policy EN 6: Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency According to the application documentation submitted, the scheme would meet its own energy requirements (through the electricity created from biogas). The application states that biogas would be directed via an overground pipe to the existing landfill gas engines to generate electricity. It is explained that the electricity would then be exported to the local distribution network using existing underground cable. However, no reference is made to how this energy would also be transported back to the AD plant for it to meet ‘its own energy requirements’ as detailed in the application. Whilst not disputing that it is the applicant’s intention to do this, at this moment in time insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that at least 10% of predicted energy usage (this being the threshold for developments over 1000 square metres) would be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. Without this detail the application cannot be said to be in accordance with the policy. 5.86 Policy EN 7: Renewable Energy The application is principally for a waste management development however it would create a source of renewable energy from the biogas produced as a result of the digestion process. The proposal would undermine this policy because of the significant adverse impact on the local landscape. 5.87 Policy EN 8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment This policy seeks to preserve and where possible enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas. Because of the industrial nature of the design process, and the time it would take for the proposed landscaping to come to fruition, it is considered that proposal would actually have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to this policy. 5.88 Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & Geology There is no indication that the scheme would cause a direct or indirect adverse impact on nationally, or any other designated sites, and the proposal is therefore considered consistent with this policy. 5.89 Policy EN 10: Development and Flood Risk The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and by virtue of the fact the site area exceeds 1 hectare in size, a FRA was submitted with the application. The Environment Agency confirmed that it is satisfied that the proposal would not increase flood risk on or off site and that the surface water scheme is suitable for the scale and nature of the development. The proposal accords with this policy. 5.90 Policy EN 13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation Subject to appropriate conditions, in the event that planning permission is granted, it is not considered that the scheme would create emissions or other forms of pollution. The proposal is therefore consistent with this policy. 5.91 Policy CT 5: The Transport Impact of New Development As detailed in earlier sections of the report, the scheme requires the development of an access road across (what will eventually be) a restored landfill site in order to access the public highway. Irrespective of the fact that the road could not be constructed possibly until December 2013, if permission were to be granted, the principle of developing a 4 metre wide concrete road on a restored landfill is unacceptable because of the landscape impact and the fact it would be in breach of the approved restoration and aftercare schemes. With regards to this policy,

because of the detriment to amenity and character of the locality that would occur by developing the road, the scheme is considered to undermine this policy. 5.92 Policy CT 6: Parking Provision

The proposal would have limited parking needs given the small number of employees required to operate the site. No issues have been raised with regards to the adequacy of parking provision and the scheme accords with this policy. 5.93 In addition to the Core Strategy and Development Control policies contained in the LDF, there are also other Supplementary Planning Documents that are also to be given due weight in the determination of an application in this district. 5.94 North Norfolk Design Guide (December 2008)

The proposed development would not achieve a high standard of design which would be compatible with the character and appearance of the area, due to the industrial nature of the development proposed. The scheme would also impinge on views into, and views within, the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. 5.95 Landscape Character Assessment of North Norfolk (June 2009)

Reference is made to this in the ES submitted with the planning application. This concluded that although there will be a detrimental impact on the landscape; this is offset by the degraded nature of the existing landscape, i.e. against the backdrop of the landfill site. This is referenced in North Norfolk District Council’s consultation response where no objection has been raised because the suggested planting will provide mitigation.

5.96 However, as discussed in section 5.39 and 5.40, this fails to acknowledge that the terms of the planning permission for the landfill site require the landfill to be restored by 2013 and then enter a 5 year period of aftercare. Therefore, the land will not be left ‘degraded’ and a significant amount of negotiation took place when the latest planning consent (reference. C/1/2009/1020) was issued for the landfill site earlier this year to ensure an appropriate restoration scheme was agreed which will provide an enhancement to the landscape.

5.97 The County Council disagrees with the ES and North Norfolk District Council with regards to the Landscape Character Assessment. The landfill site is in the process of being restored to a high standard with a significant level of tree planting, in addition to the grassland proposed, to ensure the site assimilates with the wider landscape. It is felt the proposed AD plant would radically alter the sensitive landscape and would have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape.

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

5.98 Further to a recent successful legal challenge which rendered the Secretary of States 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.

5.99 Policies WM1, WM2: Waste Management Objectives/Targets

The waste polices contained within the plan reinforce the policies in PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and the Waste Strategy for England 2007 which promote the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy and 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 waste required for the recovery and disposal of the region’s waste.

5.100 The RSS also makes reference to waste management being carried out near to where it arises to minimize the impact of transporting waste. The planning application however provides limited details on the source of the waste stream and only brief references are made to meeting the ‘County’s needs’ and ‘wastes of this nature arising in North Norfolk. When dealing with applications of this scale it is expected that a greater level of detail is required regarding the source of waste in order to ensure compliance with the proximity principle.

5.101 Significantly, reference is also made to the ‘environmental impact of waste management’, and given the already explained impact on the (protected) countryside; it would clearly have an adverse impact on the environment in respect of the detrimental impact on the landscape. This fundamental issue, coupled with the lack of information on the source of the waste stream, means that the application is not in accordance with the waste policies in this plan.

5.102 Policy ENG2: Renewable Energy targets

The waste facility would produce a source of renewable energy by producing electricity from the biogas that would occur in the anaerobic digestion process. The scheme would therefore assist in the aim of producing 10% of the region’s energy by 2010 and 17% by 2020.

National Planning Guidance

5.103 In addition to the relevant polices in the respective development plan documents, there is also national planning guidance that is material to the determination of this application.

5.104 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

The most direct relevant guidance in this case is PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. 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. Whilst the scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner i.e. through moving waste up the waste hierarchy, using it as a source of energy, and only disposing of it as a last resort, when looking at the detail of the document, the proposal clearly falls foul of the more detailed guidance provided for assessing waste development.

5.105 In accordance with paragraph 17 of PPS 10, the County Council identified in its Waste Site Development Plan Document: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities which would support the apportionment set out in the RSS. An allocation for a similar site area to this planning application was put forward by the owner of the applicant company which has submitted this application for an anaerobic digestion use. Significantly, the site was assessed and the conclusion in the DPD was that the site should not be considered further as a preferred site on landscape grounds. Therefore, not only is the site not actually required to support the apportionment (of waste required to be disposed of) set out in the RSS, it has also been deemed unsuitable at an earlier date.

5.106 Notwithstanding the fact that the principle of an AD facility at this location has already been deemed unacceptable, for unallocated sites (which this site currently is), PPS 10 guidance is that applications for new facilities at unallocated sites should be considered favourably when consistent with policies in the PPS including those in paragraph 21 of the guidance, and the authority’s Core Strategy.

5.107 In terms of policies in the PPS, the most relevant of these relate to the physical and environmental constraints that exist, as referred to in paragraph 21 of the guidance. Annex E of the PPS provides further detail of the Locational Criteria to be considered and the two relevant of these are ‘visual intrusion’ and ‘historic environment and built heritage’. With regards to the former, it has already been established in this report that the setting of the proposed location is not acceptable (in the Rural Conservation Area) and would represent a visual intrusion to the wider landscape. Furthermore, it is not felt the design would be appropriate, and that the ES has failed to address the impact of the development on local residential properties.

5.108 With regards to the historic environment and built heritage, PPS 10 makes reference to the consideration of any adverse effect on a site with a nationally recognized designation, in this instance this being a Conservation Area.

5.109 Other criteria when assessing unallocated sites to be considered include the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities. In this instance, the existing Edgefield landfill site, which is located here solely because of the occurrence of mineral at this site, has had a significant adverse impact on the environmental quality with regards to impacts on the landscape and amenity. Whilst the existing landfill site is to be restored (this was not appreciated in the ES), the existence of the landfill does not provide justification to further degrade the landscape in perpetuity as intimated by the applicant (in the ES) and by North Norfolk District Council.

5.110 In terms of locating new sites, the PPS also seeks to give priority to the re-use of previously developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages. The applicant has not proposed to utilise any of the aforementioned sites.

5.111 Planning Authority’s Core Strategies are also referenced in PPS 10 as a consideration for unallocated sites. The proposed Core Strategy for mineral and waste development is currently out for public consultation as part of the process of producing a Minerals and Waste Development Framework. While this document has very limited weight as a material planning consideration, it does contain a policy relevant to this type of development.

5.112 The relevant policy is CS7 Recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion and waste transfer sites. The policy advises such developments will be considered favourably so long as they would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and/or highway impact. The adverse environmental and amenity impacts of the scheme have been fully detailed throughout the report to warrant further discussion.

5.113 In addition to this guidance on identifying suitable sites, PPS 10 also makes reference to the design of waste management facilities. Pertinently, the guidance states that facilities in themselves should be well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located. Not only is the proposal poorly designed with regards to the structures and materials proposed, but it would undoubtedly not positively contribute to the character and quality of the area.

5.114 As has been discussed, there are a number of policies within this PPS that underline that this proposal is not consistent with this Government guidance.

5.115 In addition to PPS 10, which the application does not comply with, there are also a number of other policy documents that are relevant to the assessment of this proposal.

5.116 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Whilst the scheme proposed would deliver a more sustainable method of dealing with a waste stream that may otherwise need to be landfilled, and would therefore move waste up the waste hierarchy and recover value in the form of the energy recovered, it is not considered that the scheme accords with PPS 1 due to the impact on the development on this sensitive area of countryside. The guidance states that the Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment. Furthermore, planning decisions should be based on the potential impact on the environment both long and short term. In addition, the PPS advises that planning authorities should seek to enhance the landscape as part of the development proposal and that ‘significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided…’. The scheme is therefore not considered compliant with this PPS which sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

5.117 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth This policy guidance is applicable as the proposal would provide a small number of employment opportunities in the operation of the facility. The scheme is however not in accordance with the policy statement because it would not continue to protect the open countryside for the sake of its own intrinsic character and beauty (for the benefit of all) which is one of the Government’s objectives.

5.118 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning For the Historic Environment There are two aspects of this PPS that are relevant to the determination of this application: archaeology and the impact on the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. English Heritage has highlighted that the area has high archaeological potential however a response from Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has not been received at the time of writing this report thus the potential impact on archaeology cannot be determined. In terms of the impact on the Conservation Area, it is not felt the benefits of the scheme outweigh the detrimental impact on the designated area, thus the proposal undermines this policy statement. 5.119 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas The scheme is not in accordance with the policy because it would not conserve the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area, a specific feature of landscape and historic value. As referenced in the PPS it is the role of the planning authority, when considering applications to ensure the quality of the countryside is protected and where possible enhanced. The development of an AD plant at this site would not do this and consequently the scheme is not considered compliant with this guidance. 5.120 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Neither Natural England nor the County Council’s own Ecologist have any issues that would suggest that the scheme would have an adverse impact on any designated sites of ecological international/national importance or any other ecology in the wider area. The scheme is therefore consistent with the underlying principles of this guidance. 5.121 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transportation The proposed development would not result in any major traffic increase, is served by roads of appropriate standards and would not have a detrimental impact on the existing highway network. Accordingly, the development is considered compliant with the principal aims of this guidance. 5.123 Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy This guidance is applicable to this application because it makes reference to the renewable energy that can be created from waste. However the scheme would undermine the guidance because it would compromise the objectives of the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area, and it is not considered that this would be outweighed by any environmental, economic or social benefits. 5.124 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control This policy statement 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. In short, the County Council 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.

5.125 In this instance, the Environment Agency would be the relevant pollution control authority and in its consultation response it confirmed that the development would require an Environmental Permit which would cover issues such as the management of the site (systems, accidents, energy efficiency), the operations (storage and containment), and significantly emissions and monitoring (including odour, noise and vibration).

5.126 The Environment Agency (EA), as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development subject to conditions. Furthermore, North Norfolk’s EHO has raised no objection subject to conditions including noise levels, operating hours, and odour controls. Accordingly, the development is considered compliant with this guidance.

5.127 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise A Noise Assessment was carried out and formed part of the ES that was submitted with the planning application. Having modelled predicted noise levels against the surveyed existing noise levels the ES concludes that the plant is not likely to cause any loss of amenity to residents or lead to complaint.

5.128 It is considered that, following consultation with the EA and North Norfolk’s EHO, the development accords with the requirements of this guidance as shown by the Noise Assessment submitted with the ES, and would not, subject to appropriate conditions, result in any adverse noise to the surrounding area.

5.129 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) formed part of the ES that was submitted with the application by virtue of the fact the site area exceeds 1 hectare in size. Subject to appropriate conditions, the Environment Agency is satisfied that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on or off site. An approval of this application would therefore need to be subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the FRA submitted. Consequently, the scheme is consistent with this guidance.

6.0 Resource Implications

6.1 Finance: The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 6.2 Staff: The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 6.3 Property: The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 6.4 IT: The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.0 Crime and Disorder Act

7.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application. 8.0 Human Rights Act 1988

8.1 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. 8.2 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. 8.3 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. 9.0 Conclusion and reasons for refusing permission 9.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of an AD facility on a site adjacent to the west of Edgefield Landfill site. It is proposed that the AD plant would deal with 30,000 tonnes of mixed household, garden and kitchen waste together with other suitable waste food stuffs and surplus or spoiled agricultural vegetable products per annum. The gas produced by the digestion process facility would be piped to the existing adjacent landfill gas engines (which this application seeks to retain) to generate electricity. 9.2 The application also includes an ancillary office (which form an extension to an existing building) and weighbridge, construction of a new access road (around the northern boundary of the landfill site) from the B1149 (Holt Road), and the provision of landscaping.

9.3 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 constitutes a departure from the County Council’s Adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan as it is contrary to ‘saved’ policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection) which presumes against waste development in the open countryside. The application site is significantly located in the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area.

9.4 The proposal is also contrary to a number of other policies within the development plan in terms of both the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000), the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (2008) and other associated Development Plan Documents. It is also contrary to the East of England Plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy), and would undermine a number of the Government’s planning policy statements that are also material planning considerations when determining applications.

9.5 The scheme would interfere with the approved restoration scheme for Edgefield landfill site thus any grant of permission would result in two conflicting planning permissions being issued for the same land. Furthermore, the application could not actually be fully implemented if permission were to be granted because the area of the landfill site where the proposed access is to be located has not yet been restored: under the terms of their permission, the operator of the landfill site is not required to complete this until December 2013. 9.6 Whilst the proposal would divert waste from landfill and move waste up the waste hierarchy, it is not felt the scheme represents an acceptable form of development. There are no other material considerations that would override the fundamental policy conflicts this proposal has with the development plan and national guidance, and would justify granting planning permission.

9.7 Therefore it is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons detailed below.

Recommendation (i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to refuse planning permission on the following grounds: 1. The application site is located in the countryside within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area as designated in North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework (2008). Saved policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) presumes against waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, and transfer and storage of waste, in the open countryside, unless at mineral extraction and waste disposal sites. Whilst the application site, which is currently used for agriculture, is located adjacent to an existing landfill site, this is due to be restored by December 2013. The proposal, which would be visually intrusive and incongruous in the landscape due to the industrial nature of the design proposed, is therefore contrary to the aims of policy WAS 4 (Countryside Protection), Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and would conflict with Locational Criteria C (Visual Intrusion) of Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. 2. The application site lies on the valley side of the Glaven River within the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area as designated in North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework (2008). Saved policy WAS 9 (Landscape) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) seeks to only permit waste development in river valleys and conservation areas where it can be shown to provide a significant enhancement to the local landscape. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would provide a significant enhancement to the local landscape and therefore it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to policy WAS 9 (Landscape) and North Norfolk LDF Core Strategy (2008) policy EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character. 3. The application site lies within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and as such is in an area identified for its historic interest because of its high landscape value. Policy EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the North Norfolk LDF Core Strategy (2008) states that development proposals should preserve and where possible enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas through high quality

sensitive design. The industrial appearance of the proposed design, and the re-moulding of the landform, would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and as such the proposal is in conflict with policy EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, Locational Criteria E (Historic Environment and Built Heritage) of Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, and Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004). 4. The application proposes the formation of a new reinforced concrete access road on adjacent land which is currently being used for the landfill of non- hazardous waste. Therefore any approval of this scheme would detrimentally interfere with the agreed restoration scheme for the landfill site that was approved in May 2010 under planning permission reference C/1/2009/1020. Any approval of this scheme would therefore have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape with regards to both the planting areas that would be lost from the approved restoration scheme, and also the concrete road that would be engineered. The proposal is in conflict with policy WAS 9 (Landscape) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) and would result in a neighbouring land owner being unable to implement a restoration scheme that they are required to do in order to comply with their planning permission. Furthermore, no information has been submitted to indicate that the landfill operator would be prepared to lodge an application to vary their approved restoration and aftercare schemes notwithstanding the fact the County Planning Authority would be unlikely to approve such an application given it would be likely to reduce the quality of the approved restoration. 5. The application proposes the formation of a new access road on land which is currently being used for the landfill of non-hazardous waste. Under the terms of the extant planning permission for the landfill site, reference C/1/2009/1020, the landfill site is required to be restored by 31 December 2013. Given that the proposed access road relates to the northern area of the landfill site which is the final area of the landfill to be restored, a grant of planning permission could result in consent for a development that would not be utilised for at least three years in the event that restoration is not completed until December 2013, notwithstanding the fact that the application, as proposed, would be in breach of the approved restoration scheme as outlined in ground number 4. Therefore, it would be premature to grant planning permission for a development that could not be utilized for up to three years. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient highway information to demonstrate the access is acceptable. 6. The proposed Anaerobic Digestion plant would be erected in a countryside location on land to the west of the existing Edgefield Landfill site. A number of residential properties are situated to the north west of the site and in close proximity of the application site. The application fails, however, to examine the impact of the development on the outlook of these properties and whether it would represent a visual intrusion to residents. Notwithstanding the landscaping that is proposed, it is considered that the issue of visual impact has not been explored in sufficient depth to make an informed assessment of impacts of the scheme. Furthermore, the plant would be visible from permissive footpaths in the locality in the short to medium term before the landscaping comes to fruition. This would result in a detrimental impact on the recreational enjoyment of the area. Consequently, it is considered that the

proposal is contrary to saved policy WAS 13 (Amenity) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. 7. The proposed Anaerobic Digester plant would be erected in a countryside location on land near to residential dwellings and within the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. With regards to lighting, the application documentation proposes floodlighting to illuminate the waste reception area. However, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the countryside and residential amenity. Without this information the application cannot be considered to be in accordance with saved Policy WAS 13 (Amenity) of the adopted Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) which seeks to prevent unacceptable harm to the amenities enjoyed by all, North Norfolk LDF (2008) Core Strategy Policy EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. 8. The industrial nature of the proposed design, which would include cast concrete composter tunnels and a central mixing area accommodated in a steel portal framed structure clad with plastic coated profiled steel sheeting, means the development is not considered to be designed to a high quality and would not reinforce local distinctiveness. Overall the design would not preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area and it is considered contrary not only to North Norfolk LDF (2008) policy EN4 (Design) and the North Norfolk Design Guide, but also Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005). 9. The proposed application site is located in the parish of Edgefield in the North Norfolk District of the County. The application states the site is ‘ideally suited to meet the County’s needs and is well placed to manage wastes of this nature arising in North Norfolk’. However, no further locational detail is provided on exactly where this waste stream would arise and be collected from. It is expected that this information is included in planning applications to ensure authorities can determine whether waste management facilities would comply with the ‘proximity principle’. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); The East of England Plan (2008), advises that waste management should take place near to where it arises as communities take responsibility for their own waste. Therefore without this information, the application cannot be demonstrated to accord with this development plan document. 10. North Norfolk LDF (2008) policy EN 6 (Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency) requires development proposals over 1000 square metres to include on-site renewable energy technology to provide 10% of predicted total energy usage. According to the application documentation submitted, the scheme would meet its own energy requirements through the electricity created from biogas. However, no reference is made to how this energy would be transported from the landfill gas engines back to the Anaerobic Digestion plant for it to meet ‘its own energy requirements’ as detailed in the application. Whilst not disputing that it is the applicant’s intention to do this, at this moment in time insufficient information has therefore been submitted to demonstrate that at least 10% of predicted energy usage would be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. Without this detail the application cannot be said to be in accordance with the policy.

11. The drawings submitted by the applicant contain inconsistencies and a number do not accurately reflect the development that requires planning permission on site. On the basis of the current plans, the proposed access could not be constructed because the plans do not represent the current situation on site, namely an operational landfill site. Consequently, it is considered that the drawings are of an inadequate standard to fully asses the proposal and moreover any grant of planning permission would be unenforceable due to the disparities between the respective drawings submitted. 12. The proposed application site has a high archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential. However, the applicant has provided insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on these features. As such the proposal is not in accordance with saved Norfolk Waste Local Plan (2000) Policy WAS 15 (Archaeology) and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

Background Document(s): Norfolk Waste Local Plan ‘Saved’ Polices Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Waste Site Allocations Development Plant Document: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies North Norfolk Local Development Framework Design Guide North Norfolk Local Development Framework Landscape Character Assessment Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 4: Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth PPS 5: Planning For The Historic Environment PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG 13: Transport PPS 22: Renewable Energy PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk Application file references C/1/2010/1005 (and Environmental Statement), C/1/2009/1015, C/1/2009/1020 and C/1/94/1013. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address Ralph Cox 01603 223318 [email protected] If you would like this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Ralph Cox 01603 223318 textphone 0844 8008011.

±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 22 November 2010 22 November 2010

C/1/2010/1005 Metres Planning & Transportation GIS 0 365 730 1,460 2,190 2,920 Edgefield Scale 1: 50000 Centred on 608463 335406 ±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 22 November 2010 22 November 2010

C/1/2010/1005 Metres Planning & Transportation GIS 0 20 40 80 120 160 Edgefield Scale 1: 3000 Centred on 608390 335721 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011

Item No. 5b

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination Broadland District C/5/2010/5012: Mayton Wood Landfill Site: Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission C/5/2007/5006 to extend the operation and to restore the site by 31 December 2011: Norfolk County Council

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Planning permission is sought for the variation of Condition 1 of planning permission C/5/2007/5006 in order to extend the operation and to restore the site by 31 December 2011. Planning permission, reference C/5/2007/5006 was granted on 24 August 2007, for a Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission C/5/2002/5003 to amend the restoration contours of the site by on 31 December 2010.

Condition 1 of planning permission C/5/2007/5006 states; “The development to which this permission relates shall cease and the site shall be restored in accordance with conditions 4 and 5 below by 31 December 2010”. Condition 4 relates to the site being restored in accordance with approved drawings, and condition 5 relates to the site being planted and landscaped in accordance with approved drawings.

The former landfill site is managed by Norfolk County Council who are seeking further time in which to fully restore the site using specific engineering capping materials, and available soils which are currently on the site in order that the approved contours are achieved, and the site is restored to its proposed after-use of low-maintenance grassland. The applicant has advised that the full restoration of the site has been held up due to the continued use of the north western area of phase 1, which was used for green waste composting operations. When these operations ceased, little time was available in which to restore the site, not only ground conditions during the latter part of 2010 were not ideal for engineering works, nor the movement of soils, which needed to be placed when they are in a suitable condition so as not to damage soil structure.

The composting infrastructure has been removed from the site but processed composted material remains and will be used in restoration works. It is proposed to complete these works over 2011 during periods of dry weather which will enable the remaining area to be completed in a satisfactory manner. No objections have been received.

In accordance with the County Council’s Constitution, the application needs to be reported to this committee because the application has been made by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development.

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and matters outlined in Section 11.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Proposal : The application seeks to extend the life of the landfill site which has been closed for waste, in order to allow time for the completion of restoration only, by 31 December 2011. 1.2 Location and Access The site is situated approximately 8km north of Norwich, 1.8km south east of the village of Buxton and approximately 2.5km north west of the village of Coltishall. The site is accessed via the C532 Frettenham Road which leads to the south eastern corner of the landfill site, sharing access with the County Household Waste Recycling Centre and access to the quarry operated by Frimstone Limited. 1.3 Type of Development Variation of Condition to extend timescales for completion of landfill restoration works to December 2011. 1.4 Area 24.5 hectares.

1.5 Duration : One further year.

1.6 Hours of Working 07.00 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday; 07.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturday; no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 1.7 Restoration and After-use Restoration to low-maintenance grassland. 2. History

2.1 Planning permission C/5/2002/5003 was granted on 25 July 2002 for a variation of condition 1 and 9(iv) of planning permission C/5/1988/1231 (the original mineral extraction and waste disposal, with land raising permission) to facilitate the restoration of phase 5 and to regularise the final restoration contours.

2.2 Planning permission reference C/5/2007/5006 was granted on 24 August 2007, for a Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission C/5/2002/5003 to amend the restoration contours of the site. This restoration had an expiry date of 31 December 2010. Due to the recent cessation of composting operations on the site in 2010 land has now become available which has to be restored as part of the overall restoration scheme. The applicant has advised that this was not feasible during the spring and summer of 2010 due to ongoing composting operations, therefore there was little time available during suitable soil moving

seasons, and ground conditions were unsuitable over the late autumn early winter period.

2.3 Planning application C/5/2010/5012 seeks to extend timescales by twelve months to allow for restoration to take place when soils are in a suitable condition for placement, for example during the period of 31 March and 31 October, thus completing full restoration of the former landfill site and composting area.

2.4 The application has been submitted by Norfolk County Council who have responsibility for operations relating to the former landfill site, and who will continue the environmental management of the site post-closure.

3. Policy 3.1 Government Planning Policy : Policy PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Statements and Guidance Development Policy PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Policy PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control 3.2 The Regional Spatial Strategy: No relevant Saved Policies The East England Plan (2008) 3.3 Norfolk Waste Local Plan : Policy WAS 3 : Industrial Land & Adopted Version December Brownfield Sites 2000 Policy WAS 6 : Landfill Policy WAS 10: Landscape Policy WAS 13: Amenity Policy WAS 16: Traffic Policy WAS 19: Water Resources Policy WAS 34: Planning Control Policy WAS 36: Conditions & Legal Agreements 3.4 Broadland District Local Plan : Policy ENV 1: Protection and (Replacement) 2006 Enhancement of Environmental Assets Development Control Policies Policy CS 12: Pollution Prevention 4. Consultations 4.1 Broadland District Council No objection.

4.2 Buxton With Lammas Parish No objection. The parish council Council supports this application.

4.3 Frettenham Parish Council No response received.

4.4 Coltishall Parish Council No response received.

4.5 Horstead with Stanninghall No response received. Parish Council 4.6 MOD Defence Estates No safeguarding objections.

4.7 Highway Authority No Highway objections.

4.8 Broadland EHO No objections.

4.9 Environment Agency No objections.

4.10 Natural England No objections.

4.11 Norwich Airport No response received.

4.12 Public representations No responses received.

4.13 Local Member No objections or comments to make. (Mr D Harrison) 4.14 Local Member No objection, agrees with the proposal. (Mr T Williams) 5. Assessment 5.1 The site is situated approximately 8km north of Norwich, 1.8km south east of the village of Buxton and circa 2.5km north west of the village of Coltishall. The site was a former sand and gravel pit, with mineral operations taking place since 1971, and subsequent land filling to 2005 when it was finally closed for the acceptance of waste. Having been used as a landfill for household waste, the site has periodically undergone significant restoration works over recent years, and current restored areas include a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC). A further area to the north of the HWRC has been used for green waste composting. 5.2 The application is for a variation of Condition 1 of planning permission C/5/2007/5006 to extend the operation to restore the site by a further twelve months because the applicant has not restored the site due to the winding- down of composting operations. The last green waste for composting was accepted in September 2010 and was subsequently processed, with stockpiles of processed material remaining on the site for use in restoration. 5.3 The restoration of this part of phase 1 of the site has taken longer than expected, and the remaining engineering works, if to be completed by 31 December 2010, would have had to take place when ground conditions were unsuitable for the required engineering works, and in conditions not suitable for carrying out soil movements. The applicant advises that further site investigation works will be carried out to identify the extent of remedial works required, following this the works are programmed to take place in accordance with the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan as approved by the

Environment Agency, which is concerned with how the site is capped. 5.4 The operation to restore the site will involve plant and machinery; though will be relatively low-key and largely unseen from outside of the site. Some engineering materials such as sand may be required and this will be sourced locally, either from the adjoining mineral working, or from mineral workings nearby. No objections have been raised regarding this proposal including no objections from highways, landscape or ecology. 5.5 An extension for a further twelve months is considered not to be unreasonable given that all that remains is a relatively small area of approximately 1.5 hectares of phase 1 to be restored. This would grant time to achieve a satisfactory restoration, that is best carried out during suitable weather and ground conditions, and which an extension of time will offer. 6. Resource Implications

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

7. Other Implications

7.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.2 Human Rights : The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the first protocol, the right 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 can be adequately safeguarded by the approval of recommended planning conditions. In this case it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents will be infringed because their rights will not be significantly affected. 7.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case. 7.4 Communications : There are no communication implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.5 Health and Safety Implications : There are no Health and Safety implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.6 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. 8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

8.1 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. 9. Risk Implications/Assessment

9.1 There are no known risk implications with the proposal.

10. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

10.1 The application seeks to extend the operation to restore the former landfill site until 31 December 2012. This will allow time over the spring and summer months to satisfactorily engineer the capping of the site and replace soils, thus completing the full restoration of the site to an after-use of low maintenance grassland. 10.2 No objections have been received and the proposal does not conflict with Norfolk Waste Local Plan or other development plan policies, and it is recommended that permission be granted.

11. Conditions/Recommendation 11.1 It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including: (i). The development to cease and the site to be restored by 31 December 2011.

Development to take place in accordance with details in the statement accompanying the application. Correct bunding of oil/fuel containers

The restoration of the site to be in accordance with approved scheme.

Scheme of planting and landscaping to be implemented.

Hours of operation.

Plant and machinery to be effectively silenced.

Measures to control dust.

Measures to prevent mud etc from being tracked onto the public highway.

Vehicular access control.

Use of category 1 material only in restoration.

No other waste handling, storage or treatment.

Handling, movement and spreading of top soil and sub soil.

No material to be removed from the site.

Differential subsidence to be made good if occurring after restoration..

Final one metre of fill to be free of materials likely to interfere with final restoration and drainage etc. Aftercare scheme to be approved..

(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 Planning Application Files. No. C/5/2007/5006 and C/5/2002/5003 Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 Saved Policies Broadland District Local (Replacement) Policies 2006 Government Planning Policy Policy PPS 1 : Delivering Sustainable Development Policy PPS 7 : Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Policy PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 Policy WAS 3 : Industrial Land & Brownfield Sites Policy WAS 6 : Landfill Policy WAS 10: Landscape Policy WAS 13: Amenity Policy WAS 16: Traffic Policy WAS 19: Water Resources Policy WAS 34: Planning Control Policy WAS 36: Conditions & Legal Agreements Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 Development Control Policies Policy: ENV 1: Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Assets Policy: CS 12: Pollution Prevention

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

Officer Contact

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

Mark Potter 01603 222761 [email protected]

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

±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 20 January 2011 20 January 2011

C//5/2010/5012 - Mayton Wood Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Frettenham 0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840 Scale 1: 30000 Centred on 624407 321167 ±

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

The Application Site

Land within the

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Applicant's Ownership Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 20 January 2011 20 January 2011

C//5/2010/5012 - Mayton Wood Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Frettenham 0 30 60 120 180 240 Scale 1: 4000 Centred on 624407 321167 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 6a

Development by the County Council Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Application Y/2/2010/2008 Hillcrest Primary School, Hillcrest, Downham Market, Norfolk, PE38 9ND Construction of New Pedestrian Access and Pathway from Civray Avenue to Downham Market High School.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Full planning permission is sought for the creation of a new pedestrian access and pathway from Civray Avenue to Downham Market School. The proposed pathway would cross the playing field of Hillcrest Primary School and is required to provide a safer and more convenient access for children who live in the residential area to the north of the School.

Objections have been received from two properties adjacent to the proposed access point onto Civray Avenue. Planning reasons for objection include concerns over the impact on residential amenity due to a loss of privacy and increased traffic and parking congestion that may result in Civray Avenue, and the impact on security at the School.

It is considered that the development will cause no material harm and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

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

 The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval;  Compliance with approved details;  Implementation and retention of the landscaping scheme proposed. (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 Downham Market High School is a large senior school located on Bexwell Road in Downham Market. Currently all the pupils must access the School through the main southern entrance on Bexwell Road, including pupils who reside in the housing developments to the north of the school. At present some pupils use an unauthorised route across the playing field of Hillcrest Primary School in order to gain access to Civray Avenue, which can be disruptive to the pupils of the primary school.

1.2 The aim of the proposed new access is to solve this problem and also provide a more convenient pedestrian route to the school for pupils who reside in the residential areas to the north. It follows discussions between both schools and the agreement of the head teachers and governors concerned.

2. The Proposal

2.1 The proposal is for:  A new 2 metre wide tarmac pathway from the northern boundary of Downham Market High School playing field, across the playing field of Hillcrest Primary School to the boundary where a new pedestrian access is proposed onto Civray Avenue.  A chain-link security fence running parallel to the pathway on the Hillcrest School side of the pathway in order to maintain security between both schools. Also proposed is the planting of a new hedge running adjacent to the fence to screen the development.  Security gates that will be fitted at both ends of the proposed pathway which will be locked at suitable agreed times to prevent unauthorised access.  The removal of five small trees and a small section of the existing hedge to make way for the proposed access. Six new trees are proposed to be planted as part of the landscaping scheme. 3. Constraints

3.1 Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (Saved Policies, 2007) – Built Environment Type D. 4. Policy 4.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation 4.2 East of England Plan : Policy ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment 4.3 Norfolk Structure Plan : Policy T.2 Transport – New Development

4.4 Borough of King’s Lynn and : Policy 4/21 Built Environment Type D. West Norfolk Local Plan (Saved Policy 9/14 Safeguarding open space for Policies): sport, recreation and leisure 5. Planning History

5.1 No relevant planning history for this site.

6. Consultations

6.1 Borough Council of Kings Lynn : No objections. and West Norfolk 6.2 County Highway Authority : Supports the proposal.

6.3 Downham Market Primary : No objections. School 6.4 Sport England : No objections.

6.5 Third Party Representations : Two letters of objection received. Planning reasons for objection:  There is an existing access to Civray Avenue nearby which could be adapted for the purpose proposed;  The proposal would increase the use of the residential road by traffic dropping off and collecting High School pupils, resulting in parking congestion and disruption to residents.  Concern that the new access would become a security risk for the school.  Invasion of privacy  Impact on residential amenity Non-planning reason for objection:  Extravagant use of public money at a time when we are being told to cut costs. 6.6 Councillor Shelagh Hutson : Supports the proposal.

7. Assessment 7.1 The main issues to be considered are: - Impact on neighbouring occupiers - Impact on trees - Visual impact of development - Sustainability / Accessibility benefits 7.2 Impact on neighbouring occupiers.

7.3 The proposed access onto Civray Avenue will open onto a spur road between two residential properties, numbers 70 and 72. It is not currently a through route for vehicles or pedestrians. The occupants of both properties have objected. The following paragraphs (6.4 to 6.8) discuss each of the reasons for objection in turn. 7.4 There will be an impact on privacy because both properties closest to the access have ground floor windows to what appear to be habitable rooms next to the proposed pedestrian route. Although this area is currently accessible by the public, there will also be an increased impact on residential amenity in terms of the increased footfall passing the houses and associated noise of pupils going to and from school. 7.5 However, these impacts would only occur for relatively short periods of time on weekdays during the school term at the beginning and end of the school day. The access would not be used during weekends or school holidays. Although it is recognised that there will be an impact on the properties next to the proposed route, it is considered that no material harm will be caused as a result of the development, because the use of the path will be limited to relatively short periods of the day during term-time. 7.6 Concerns have also been raised that some parents may choose to use this as a dropping-off area for pupils, resulting in increased traffic and parking congestion in Civray Avenue. Whilst accepting some dropping off may occur, the access will primarily serve pupils travelling on foot from the residential areas to the north and provides a safer walking route to school. This proposal should also encourage greater numbers of pupils to walk, thereby helping to alleviate parking pressure on the main access. The County Highways Authority fully supports this application and believes the positive effects offered far outweigh the negative highway effects of a limited number of parents choosing to drop off at this point. 7.7 Further concern has been raised that the new access could represent a security risk for the school. This is not considered to be the case as the gates will be securely locked at agreed times. 7.8 Another reason for objection is that better use could be made of public money but this is not a planning reason and therefore cannot be considered in determining this application. 7.9 Impact on Trees

7.10 During the course of the application process, a number of amendments have been made in consultation with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer in order to minimise the impact on existing trees and provide an enhanced landscaping scheme. The Arboricultural Officer is satisfied with the scheme and raises no objections. 7.11 Visual Impact of Development

7.12 There will be limited views of the development from the public realm. The gate onto Civray Avenue is of an acceptable design and the path across Hillcrest’s playing field will be screened by a new hedge. It is therefore considered that the visual impact of the proposal is acceptable. 7.13 Sustainability / Accessibility Benefits The proposal will increase accessibility to the school by walking and cycling, which is in accordance with the aims of national and local planning policy. In addition it will provide a far more convenient access point for pupils residing in the residential areas to the north of the school, reducing congestion at the main entrance which is also shared by vehicles. 7.14 In addition the proposal will put a stop to the current practice of pupils crossing the playing field of Hillcrest School to access Downham Market School in an unauthorised manner, by providing formal access arrangements. 7.15 These are considered to be material considerations in favour of the proposal.

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 the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right to enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights, but they are qualified rights. That is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the Human rights of other individuals. In making that balance, it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents can be adequately safeguarded by conditions. However, in this case it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents will be infringed because their rights are not significantly affected. 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 Issues of security were raised during the consideration of the application. It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate issues of crime and disorder. 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 The proposal will improve accessibility for pupil’s living to the north of the School by sustainable means and reduce congestion at the main gate. In addition it should end the practice of pupils crossing the playing field of Hillcrest Primary School to access the High School in an unauthorised manner. 12.2 While it is recognised that there will be some impact on the properties closest to the proposed access as a result of the increased footfall, this will generally be restricted to two short periods of the day during weekdays in term-time only. Therefore it is considered that no material harm will be caused as a result of the proposal. 12.3 The application is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the relevant National and Local planning policies.

Recommendation

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

 The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval;  Compliance with approved details;  Implementation and retention of the landscaping scheme proposed. (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 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development East of England Plan Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (Saved Policies, 2007)

Officer Contact

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

Robert Webb 01603 222872 [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 Robert Webb or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 17 January 2011 17 January 2011

Y/2/2010/2008 - Downham Market High School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Downham Market 0 185 370 740 1,110 1,480 Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 561981 303475 ±

The Application Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 17 January 2011 17 January 2011

Y/2/2010/2008 - Downham Market High School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Downham Market 0 15 30 60 90 120 Scale 1: 2500 Centred on 561981 303475 ±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 17 January 2011 17 January 2011

Y/2/2010/2021 - Wiggenhall St. Germans Primary School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Wiggenhall St Germans 0 125250 500 750 1,000 Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 559320 314253 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 6b

Development by the County Council Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Application Y/2/2010/2021 Wiggenhall St Germans Primary School, School Road, Wiggenhall St Germans, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE34 3DZ Single storey extension to existing school, comprising new hall, extended classrooms, toilets and ancillary areas and circulation, external hard play and landscape scheme and boiler room

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary

Planning permission is sought for a single storey extension to the existing school, comprising new hall, extended classrooms, toilets and ancillary areas, external hard play area and a boiler room.

The application site is within the built-up area of Wiggenhall St German. 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).

Concerns regarding the status of the access road, number of trees being planted and parking issues have been raised by Wiggenhall St German Parish Council.

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 conditions including those outlined in Section 13.2 of this report. (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 St German Primary School is a Victorian style school building which has had minor extensions. The building has been constructed using red brick walling materials with slate roof covering and stone detailing in terms of head, cills and quoins. 1.2 Vehicular access is off School Road, pedestrian access and deliveries are via School Lane. 1.3 The school has a number of deficiencies including no sports hall, small classrooms, limited storage and a playground that needs resurfacing. This proposal seeks to address that by remodelling and updating the facilities to improve educational provision. 2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : The proposal relates to the erection of a single storey extension (up to a maximum height of 7m) on the northern and eastern elevations and a small single storey extension on the western elevation. The existing external stores and servery on the northern elevation, the conservatory and boiler room on the eastern elevation and the detached building housing the oil store and tank will be removed to facilitate the proposals.

The extension will result in two existing classrooms being enlarged and the provision of a new multi-use hall with a PE store, chair store and a servery/kitchen; a new resource area, new WCs, new cleaners store, new plant room, new medical intervention room, a corridor/cloaks area and covered and uncovered external learning areas. Three new canopies will also be provided and the facilities within the existing school will be remodelled and upgraded.

In addition a new detached building will provide a fuel store, plant room (housing a new Biomass boiler) and recycling facilities. The existing cycle shed will be relocated, 3No.new car parking spaces including 1No. for the disabled will be provided and new fencing and hard and soft landscaping is also proposed. 3 Constraints

3.1 The application site is within an area defined as settled/built up areas – Built Environment Type C in the Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (saved policies). 4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS 22 - Renewable Energy PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 - Planning and Noise PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk 4.2 East of England Plan (May : ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment 2008) 4.3 Borough Council of King’s Lynn : 4/21 Settled or Built Up Areas - Built & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 Environment Type D - Saved Development Control 9/14 Safeguarding Open Space For Policies Sport, Recreation and Leisure 4.4 Supplementary Planning : Standard for parking in Norfolk Documents (November 1998) 5. Planning History 5.1 Y/2/2008/0033 - Installation of a 3-bay modular accommodation unit for a period of five years - Permitted 13/10/2008 5.2 Y/2/2008/2013 - Provision of 1 no. modular accommodation for a period of five years – Withdrawn 08/09/2008 5.3 2/1995/1142 - Provision of indoor toilets and demolition of out buildings– Permitted 16/10/1995 5.4 The planning history of this site does not impact or conflict with this proposal.

6. Consultations 6.1 Borough Council of King’s Lynn “No objections to the proposed and West Norfolk: development”. 6.2 Environmental Health Officer Suggest that conditions regarding noise, the kitchen extraction system and odour be attached on any grant of planning permission. 6.3 Wiggenhall St Germans Parish Has raised the following concerns: Council “1. In the planning Statement it talks about the access road – to our knowledge this road is a private road and this should be investigated further 2. We are amazed at the detail and number of trees that are shown, this is not a large area and yet it is proposed to plant 23/24 large specimen trees – is this a good idea in terms of cost and ongoing maintenance and space? 3. There are still several concerns about the parking and the implications of even more cars in this area needs to be looked at thoroughly”. 6.4 Highway Authority “I have no highway objection or conditions in relation to this application”. 6.5 Environment Agency No objections to the application but recommend an advice notice regarding Flood warning be attached to any grant of planning permission. 6.6 Natural England “No objections to the proposed scheme”

6.7 Heritage and Landscape No comments received at the time of writing this report. Any comments received will be reported to at the Planning (Regulatory) committee meeting. 6.8 UK Power Networks (formally EDF Cannot see any reason for UK Power Energy) Networks to object. 6.9 Local residents: No representations have been received.

6.10 County Councillor “No objections to the proposed Mr M Langwade development”. 7. Assessment 7.1 The main issues to be considered are as follows: The impact on visual amenity; The impact on residential amenity; The impact on highway safety; The impact on the trees within the site; The impact on ecology; The impact on the loss of open space; and The impact on flood risk 7.2 Visual amenity

7.3 The application has to be considered in respect of the scale, height and massing of the building proposed and the impact this would have on residential and visual amenity. The scale should be sympathetic to and cognisant of surrounding development. Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard of design. PPS1 states that design should take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. 7.4 Policy 4/21 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 – Saved Development Control Policies in respect of Built Environment Type C 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. 7.5 The school is located on the northern edge of the village which is divided by the river Great Ouse which runs to the east of the school site. It was originally built in the Victorian era with steep gables and intricate tone detailing and has been extended in the past. It has small rooms, a lack of internal corridors and large number of small external stores. The surrounding residential properties and adjacent village hall are of various ages and styles. 7.6 The proposed extension does not attempt to recreate the form of the existing school, but instead picks up some of its characteristics such as the vertical emphasis on the windows and its materials, with the latter used to form detailing similar to that existing. The roof of the new hall which forms the main part of the extension on the eastern side will be curved and set at a lower level than if it were pitched. This enables the extension to sit comfortably behind the existing building without appearing dominant. The extension to the northern elevation will then form the link between the new hall and the original school building. This is prominently glazed with brick infilling and is considered to successfully make the transition from the old to the new elements. 7.7 It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the criteria of the policy, Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan and guidance contained in PPS1 and is of high quality design and does not damage the characteristics of the host school building, the locality or the appearance of its surroundings. 7.8 Sustainability

7.9 PPS1 sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. The supplement to PPS1 on Planning and Climate Change (2007) sets out how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change. PPS22 advises that increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. 7.10 The whole project is being developed with a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating target, this is the most widely used environmental assessment method for buildings, setting the standard for best practice in sustainable design and is used to describe a building’s environmental performance. 7.11 In this case, the proposal includes a new heating system which utilises a biomass boiler, using wood pellets for fuel; high level shaded windows on the on the southern side of the hall; thermally glazed windows; ventilating units which provide daylight and ventilation avoiding the need for artificial lighting and together with high insulation levels will avoid the need for air conditioning. Lighting will be low energy and energy management systems will be used to reduce and encourage awareness of energy consumption. Water saving devices, including sensor taps will also be used. 7.12 In accordance with national planning policy it is a requirement of this scheme to limit its impact on the environment. It is felt that the energy efficiency and energy conservation measures incorporated into to the design of this scheme satisfactorily complies with the guidance contained in both PPS1 and PPS22. 7.13 Residential amenity

7.14 The nearest residential properties are situated to the north and eastern boundaries of the site. Due to the design of the proposed extension, the separation distance and extent of landscaping within the site, the relationship between the proposed development and the existing residential properties is considered acceptable. It is therefore felt that the proposal if approved will not have a significant impact on the occupiers of the adjacent residential properties. 7.15 Highway Safety

7.16 Vehicular access is off School Road, pedestrian access and deliveries are via School Lane. Due to limited space within the school site, the site currently accommodates 2 parking spaces, the remainder of the staff and visitors use the village hall carpark which is situated adjacent. This proposal increases the current parking provision to 3 parking spaces, including a disabled parking space and a cycle store accommodating 15 bicycles is to be re-located within the site. It is to be noted the proposal will not increase staff numbers or class bases. A Traffic Management Plan also accompanies the application setting out methods of screening the site whilst under construction, access routes, site operation hours, and delivery hours. 7.17 The Highway Authority has no highway objections to raise in relation to this application. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms and will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or the wider highway network in accordance with guidance contained in PPG13. 7.18 Landscaping

7.19 In relation to the Landscape proposals, A Tree Survey, Arboricultural Constraints Report, Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Arboricultural Method Statement undertaken by Andrew Belson Arboricultural Consultant are included in the planning application documents. 7.20 It is proposed to fell a number of trees within the site due to their condition and prune the trees that are to be retained. The proposed Landscape scheme consists of hard and soft landscaping, a mix of native grasses and flowering shrubs within the school site and tree planting along the northern boundary with the adjacent residential property – no36 School Road. 7.21 Both the Council’s Landscape and Trees Officers have no objections to the proposed scheme providing the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan. This can be conditioned on any grant of planning permission. 7.22 It is felt that the proposal can be accommodated within the site, without having a detrimental impact on the trees within the site. 7.23 Ecology

7.24 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. 7.25 The application site comprises grassland, buildings, hardstanding, trees and shrubs. An Ecology Survey undertaken by The Ecology Consultancy is submitted as part of the application, for which the results report that no ecological habitats will be affected and the proposed development area offers no suitable opportunities for protected species, although the wider school sites potential for protected species is limited. The report concludes that in terms of biodiversity enhancement measures, bird boxes may be used by nesting birds, the external walls of the extension may incorporate bat bricks to provide artificial roosting or hibernating opportunities and trees and shrubs of value to biodiversity may be planted. 7.26 The Council’s Ecologist agrees that no protected species will be affected as a result of the proposed works. However, on any grant of planning permission work should avoid the bird nesting period (March - August). It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a significant impact on protected species or important interest features of the area, thus in compliance with guidance contained in PPS9. 7.27 Loss of Open Space

7.28 Policy 9/14 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 – Saved Development Control Policies resists the permanent loss of open space and land with amenity value such as playing fields. PPG17 aims to ensure that open space, sports and recreational land is not lost unless it is surplus to requirements. 7.29 In this case, the school does not currently have any provision for playing pitches or hardsurfaced games courts. The existing recreational facilities both internal and external at the school are being remodelled. Part of an existing playing field to the North of the school building will be hard surfaced to replace the hard surfaced area lost due to the extensions and a new sports hall provided. 7.30 The grassed area is not considered to be capable of forming part of a playing pitch of 0.2 hectares or larger. Therefore no referral of the application to Sport England was deemed necessary. Overall, the improvements to the school and external play space are considered sufficient to compensate for the loss of the soft play area/open space and it is felt that the recreational facilities will be improved. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 9/14 and guidance contained in PPG17. 7.31 Flood Risk

7.32 According to the Environment Agency indicative flood map, the application site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is considered to have an annual risk of flooding of less than 0.1% or less than once in every 1,000 years. However, the site lies within Flood Zone 3 according to the Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where there is a high probability of tidal flooding. 7.33 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by JPC Environmental Services accompanied the application. The report’s conclusion confirms that the site lies within the aforementioned Flood Zones and recommends a soakaway beneath the new play area, with associated surface water drainage, that advice be given to parents on flood evacuation procedures and the use of flood construction resilient techniques. 7.34 Both the Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk and The Environment Agency have no objections to the proposal. The Environment Agency, however made advisory comments regarding Flood warning and evacuation. This can be attached as an informative on any grant of planning permission. 7.35 It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on flood risk and complies satisfactorily with the guidance contained in PPS25 which aims to ensure flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas of flood risk. 7.36 Noise

7.37 The school is located on the northern edge of the village, and adjacent to residential properties, a car park, village hall and sport and recreational areas. The proposal to extend the school and improve its facilities in these surroundings is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of adjacent residential properties in terms of noise generated, given that this site is already an established school use. 7.38 The Environmental Health Officer for Kings Lynn & West Norfolk has not raised any objections to the proposal and recommends that conditions regarding noise, the kitchen extraction system and odour be attached on any grant of planning permission. 7.39 It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with guidance contained in PPG24 which aims to provide advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise, outlining the considerations to be taken when determining planning applications for both noise sensitive developments and those which generate noise.

7.40 Lighting

7.41 A Lighting Scheme accompanies the planning application submission. This shows 4 types of lighting, consisting of wall mounted lights on all elevations of the school building, recessed ceiling lighting beneath the external learning area and bollard style lights adjacent to the School Lane access. This has been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer for Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, who is satisfied that the proposed lighting will not result in the loss of amenity to the occupiers of the nearest residential properties due to the lighting. 7.42 Comments in relation to the representation received 7.43 The application was advertised by means of site notices and neighbour notifications letters. No representation has been received from local residents; however, comments (see section 6 of this report) have been received from Wiggenhall St Germans Parish Council. 7.44 It is to be noted that the Highway Authority are aware that the access road is not a publicly maintained highway. If there are any covenants on a private highway, this is a matter for the applicant to address and resolve prior to implementation of the planning permission. The planning application documents state that the proposal is required to update and modernise the existing school facilities and that there will not be an increase in staff numbers or direct intentions to increase pupil numbers. On this basis, the Highway Authority has no highway concerns to raise as it is considered that the proposal will not generate additional cars within the area. 7.45 In terms of the landscaping within the site, it appears there may have been a misunderstanding, the submitted Landscape Plans show 9no Silver Birch, which are to be planted on the boundary with no.36 School Road. 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. 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 The proposed development provides much needed additional space at this village primary school and will also enable the existing school to be remodelled and all the facilities modernised and vastly improved. 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 visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety, trees within the site, sustainability, ecology, loss of open space or flood risk. 13. Conditions 13.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions including: 13.2  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents  Details of the biomass boiler to be submitted and approved  Details of the kitchen extraction system to be submitted and approved

14. Recommendation 14.1 That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission, subject to conditions including those outlined in Section 13.2 of this report. (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 PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS 22 - Renewable Energy PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 - Planning and Noise PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk East of England Plan (May 2008) Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 (‘Saved’ Policies) and Supplementary Planning Documents

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

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

±

The Application Site

Land within the Land within the Applicant's Ownership Applicant's Ownership

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 17 January 2011 17 January 2011

Y/2/2010/2021 - Wiggenhall St. Germans Primary School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Wiggenhall St Germans 0 5 10 20 30 40 Scale 1: 1000 Centred on 559320 314253 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 6c

Development by the County Council Broadland District Application Y/5/2010/5011 Heather Avenue Infant School, Heather Avenue, Hellesdon, Norwich NR6 6LT Erection of a single storey extension to the northern elevation of existing school building to form a kitchen area.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey extension to form a kitchen area. The kitchen area is proposed to be used for teaching facilities and will therefore be finished with domestic style fittings. The development would not result in any increase in pupils or teaching staff.

A representation has been received from a member of the public. The objection is concerned with current parking issues and the potential impact that the development may have on car parking during and after construction.

The representation cannot be resolved and, accordingly, under the County Council's Constitution, the application is referred to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for determination.

Recommendation (i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with approved plans and documents  Submission of details regarding the parking of construction worker vehicles (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 is to provide a kitchen area suitable for teaching in accordance with the school’s curriculum. 1.2 The proposed development would not result in the increase of pupil or staff numbers on the site. 2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : The application proposes development within the central area of the school upon an area of hardstanding which previously housed the oil storage tanks. The development would consist of the following elements:  The erection of a single storey extension using materials to match the existing building.  The extension would have a pitched roof in a similar style to those surrounding. 3. Policy

3.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation

3.2 East of England Plan Policy ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment 3.3 Broadland District Council : GS3 - General considerations Saved Local Plan Policies CS1 - Improving the level of community services CS2 – Surface Water Drainage ENV2 - Design TRA14 - Highway Safety RL8 - Loss of existing or potential recreational facilities 4. Planning History There is no planning history of relevance to the current application.

5 Consultations 5.1 Broadland District Council No objection, subject to the comments detailed below:

The proposed construction of a single storey extension to the northern elevation of Heather Avenue Infant School, has been considered against the Development Plan for the area, this being the East of England Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) 2008 and the Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006. The policies particularly relevant in this instance are SS1 and ENV7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and GS3 and ENV2 of the adopted Local Plan.

Policies SS1 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) 2008 only permit development that is of a high quality which complements the distinctive character of the local area and contributes to the creation of sustainable communities.

Policies GS3 and ENV2 of the Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 only permit development where there would be no unacceptable affects upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area and where consideration has been given to the layout and design of any development proposal. Policy GS3 also requires that the privacy and amenities of neighbours are adequately safeguarded.

The proposed construction of a single storey extension to the northern elevation of Heather Avenue Infant School will, by virtue of the proposed scale, form and location, have no significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenity or privacy of the neighbouring properties. The design of the proposed extension is considered to relate suitably to the existing property and consequently there will be no significant detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the school or the surrounding area as a whole.

As stated in the submitted AIA/TPP it is noted that the trees are located sufficiently enough away from the proposed development to be unaffected and as such this Local Planning Authority trusts that Norfolk County Council will act upon the information outlined in the AIA/TPP.

The proposed development is in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan, and therefore represents an acceptable form of development.

5.2 Hellesdon Parish Council No objection, the parish council wishes to express its support for the application.

5.3 Highway Authority No objection to the development proposal as there is no proposed increase in pupil or teacher numbers and it is not considered that the proposal will have any impact on the adjacent highway network. One condition suggested to be placed on any grant of approval regarding parking of construction vehicles. 5.5 Public Representation One letter of representation has been received from the public. The issues raised within the correspondence are the following:  No extra cars being left in Heather Avenue during construction or after completion. 5.6 County Councillor Mrs S Gurney To be reported orally

6. Assessment Site

6.1 The application site is situated within the identified development limits within the Broadland District Local Plan documents. It is not within a conservation area. 6.2 The school consists of a series of single storey buildings spread throughout the site. To the south of the site is the main school building which has retained its Victorian architectural features with red brick and dark slate, high pitched roof. These design principles have been reflected in most of the buildings on site even those which have undergone remodelling, which includes the building proposed to be extended. 6.3 The school site is surrounded on all sides by residential properties and their associated roads. The majority of the properties around the school are detached bungalows. 6.4 The majority of the playground area is hardstanding with some vegetation and hedging on the boundaries. 6.5 The building proposed to be extended is located to the rear of the main school building and previously had attached to its northern elevation an area which housed the schools oil tanks. The oil tanks have now been removed and the area bunded to deal with any potential contamination issues. Some of the walling from the oil tank storage area is still visible. Design

6.6 Saved Policy ENV2 – Design resolves that all new developments should take account of their siting, layout, use of materials, scale, form and mass. Furthermore the policy directs that new development should be of a high standard of design that takes account of existing buildings and sustainability issues. 6.7 The extension has been proposed to be sited on the northern elevation of an existing school building, it will extend past the length of that elevation allowing some of it to be viewed from the south. The roof of the extension will be built over the existing roof pitch and the walls will be over the footprint of the area which used to contain the oil tanks. 6.8 The materials to be used will match those which are existing, with the walls from the oil tank storage area being incorporated into the new build. The scale is in keeping with the buildings on the site, with the development proposed to be single storey with a pitched roof. 6.9 The design and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be appropriate in relation to the existing buildings and the established design principles in the locality. The building would not appear over bearing in relation to the existing school or the nearby residential properties. The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with design elements of Saved Policy ENV2 – Design. 6.10 The proposal includes provision for a high level of insulation with the use of long lasting materials. The building has also been designed to have a roof light to maximise the amount of natural light within the kitchen area. 6.11 The above elements allow for the building to be energy efficient and achieve a high BREEAM rating which is considered to meet the sustainability portion of Saved Policy ENV2. Access and Highways 6.12 The development does not propose to increase the number of pupils or teaching staff that would be using the school. Therefore in accordance with Norfolk County Council Highway Standards there is no requirement to provide any additional parking spaces or cycle spaces as a result of the development. 6.13 The Highway Authority has not objected to the application and have recommended that one planning condition be attached to any grant of approval. Broadland District Council have not raised any issues associated with highway safety. 6.14 Given the favourable response from the Highway Authority and the status quo in pupil/teacher numbers it is considered that the development complies with the requirements of Broadland District Council Saved Policy TRA 14 and the intent of PPG13. Landscaping and Trees

6.15 The area proposed to host the extension and the access route proposed to reach the site do not have any trees or vegetation within their immediate vicinity which could be compromised by the application. Therefore it is considered that the development will not have an impact on any vegetation within the school site. 6.16 Given that the area surrounding the proposed extension area is hardstanding playground, and that the development is minor in scale, it is not considered appropriate to request that planting be carried out for mitigation purposes. Sustainability and Community

6.17 As discussed previously within the report, the development proposal has many sustainable elements factored into the build programme such as a high level of insulation and a roof light. 6.18 The surface run off from the development will connect into the drainage system as present. Furthermore there would be no loss of permemable area through the development and therefore the application is considered to comply with CS2 – Surface Water Drainage 6.19 The development will allow for the school to provide educational facilities in a suitable environment and form that will be of benefit to the wider community. Playing Fields

6.20 The subject site by virtue of its siting and size is not considered to form part of, or be capable of, forming part of a playing pitch of 0.2 hectares or larger. Therefore no referral of the application to Sport England was deemed necessary. 6.21 Saved Policy RL8 seeks to protect existing or potential recreational, sporting or leisure facilities in a locality and directs that development on such land should only be permitted if compensatory land is provided for or there is a demonstrable surplus in the area. 6.22 The development site is not openly accessible to the community for recreational or sporting use. Therefore its is not considered necessary to provide for replacement land for the community. The kitchen facilities could be viewed as a community benefit, as it will help to provide a wider range of teaching curriculum available to the students. Furthermore Broadland District Council have not objected to the proposal in relation to this policy. 6.23 On balance it is considered that the application proposal is in accordance with both PPG17 and Saved Policy RL8. Representation

6.24 The application is subject to a representation from a member of the public. The representation raises an issue with regard to parking and access during construction and after completion. 6.25 The development will not result in an increase of pupil or teacher numbers therefore it is considered unnecessary to request that extra car parking should be provided. 6.26 The Highway Authority has advised that a condition regarding on-site parking for construction workers should be submitted and approved prior to the development commencing. 6.27 The imposition of the condition will allow the County Council to ensure that no detrimental impact on traffic movement and parking is created through the construction of the development proposal. Residential Amenity

6.28 Saved Policy GS3 – General Considerations is a broad brush policy which covers many topics that have been examined already in this report including landscape impact, drainage, public accessibility and highway impacts. The only notable exception is that of residential amenity and its protection. 6.29 The proposed development will not result in increased traffic or general use of the site. The development will not cause any issues associated with over looking, over bearing or over shadowing of residential properties. The application is considered to be compliant with the aims and objectives of Policy GS3 – General Considerations. 7. Resource Implications 7.1 Finance : There are no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.2 Staff : There are no staff implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.3 Property : There are no property implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : There are no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

8. Other Implications 8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.2 Human Rights : 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. 8.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility – no issues have been identified in this case. 8.4 Communications : There are no communication implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.5 Health and Safety Implications : There are no Health and Safety implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.6 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. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 9.1 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. 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 The development will provide educational and local community benefits which are material planning considerations. 12.2 The development proposed is of an acceptable scale, design and appearance in the locality. The building would not cause any issues associated with over looking, over bearing or over shadowing of residential properties. 12.3 The development has been designed to compliment the existing school buildings and to be energy efficient. 12.4 The application is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the relevant National and Local planning policies. Recommendation (i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with approved plans and documents  Submission of details regarding the parking of construction worker vehicles (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 PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Planning Application File Ref: Y/5/2010/5011 Broadland District Local Plan 2006 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 Ian Reilly 01603 224136 [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 Ian Reilly or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/5/2010/5011 - Heather Avenue Infants School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Hellesdon 0 175 350 700 1,050 1,400 Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 621460 311965 ±

The Appication Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/5/2010/5011 - Heather Avenue Infants School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS Hellesdon 0 5 10 20 30 40 Scale 1: 800 Centred on 621460 311965 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 6d

Development by the County Council Broadland District Application Y/5/2010/5017 Cantley Primary School, School Lane, Cantley, Norfolk Erection of a single storey classroom with link to existing school building to the east of the school site on the hard stand area.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey classroom with a link corridor to the existing school building and the creation of a hard stand area.

Three representations have been received from members of the public. The objection elements of the representations received are concerned with an increase in pupil numbers and its associated impacts, loss of daylight to residential property, the area of hardstanding causing loss of privacy and draining onto nearby property and construction traffic impacts, inappropriate development in relation to scale and position, access to the special needs room by disabled children and over development of the site.

The benefit to the school and the community of the proposed building is considered to outweigh the loss of the hardstanding area.

The representations cannot be resolved and, accordingly, under the County Council's Constitution, the application is referred to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for determination. Recommendation (i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents  Protection of hedging and trees in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to construction, with any damaged to be replaced accordingly  Revision of the school travel plan  Submission of a formal Construction Traffic Management Plan (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 school has increased their pupil numbers and in order to accommodate for the extra pupils the proposed application has been submitted. 1.2 The proposed development would not result in the increase of staff numbers on the site. 2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : The application proposes development which would consist of the following elements:  Single storey detached building with a pitched roof (approximately 60sqm)  Flat roofed link corridor between the proposed building and the existing school.  Creation of a hardstand area to the north east of the site upon an existing area of grass. 3. Policy

3.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation 3.2 East of England Plan Policy ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment 3.3 Broadland District Council : GS1 - Settlement Limit Saved Local Plan Policies GS3 - General considerations CS1 - Improving the level of community services CS2 – Surface Water Drainage CS9 - Flood Risk Issues CS12 - Pollution Prevention CS14 - Noise ENV1 – Protection of the open countryside ENV2 - Design TRA4 - Pedestrian Movement TRA5 - Cycle Movement TRA14 - Highway Safety RL8 - Loss of existing or potential recreational facilities 4. Planning History 4.1 There is no relevant planning history in relation to this current application.

5. Consultations 5.1 Broadland District Council No objection

5.2 Broads Authority No objection to the proposal.

5.3 Cantley Parish Council The parish council supports the application, however one councillor voted against the proposal due to concerns regarding over development of the site and increased traffic problems.

5.4 Highway Authority No objection to the development proposal but a condition is recommended regarding construction traffic management. 5.5 Public Representations Three letters of representation have been received from members of the public. The issues raised within the correspondence are the following:  Detrimental impact on residential amenity in relation to loss of light and privacy. Also increased noise levels.  Increased pupil numbers will result in an increase in traffic movements.  The proposed soakaway will drain into a residential property, due to the land gradient.  The work to construct the proposed development will result in more disruption to School Lane.  The school does not have the access or space to build another classroom.  The proposed development is inappropriate in scale and position when compared to the rest of the school.  The proposal details that there will be a special needs room. There is no disabled access available.  The extension to the school represents an over development of the site. 5.6 County Councillor Mr Proctor To be reported orally

6. Assessment Site

6.1 The application site is situated to the north of the village settlement. It is located outside of the identified development limits of the village within the Broadland District Local Plan. 6.2 To the east and west of the school are residential properties. To the north and south are open fields. 6.3 On the southern side of the school is School Lane. The school has no direct vehicular access from the road. School Lane narrows to a single carriageway outside of the school. The school and its grounds sit at a higher level than the road. 6.4 The school has on its southern boundary hedging and a low level fence. The eastern boundary has a planting bed and hedging between the playground and the neighbouring residential property. 6.5 The school site contains the main school building which is made up of a series of single storey red brick buildings with pitched roofs. The buildings are situated mainly on the western portion of the school. On the eastern side is an area of hardstand playground. To the north of the school are two mobile classrooms and an area of grassland. The grassland is directly behind the properties to the east. Principle of development

6.6 The application site is situated outside of the identified development limits. Saved Policy GS1 of the Broadland Local Plan advises that development should not take place outside of the development limits unless it complies with a specific allocation and/or other policy of the Local Plan. 6.7 Saved Policy CS1 directs that development can take place outside of the development limits for community facilities provided that a need exists for them. The increase in pupil numbers, for which the school needs to accommodate, has created the need for the development. 6.8 The development proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Saved Policies GS1 and CS1 and therefore the principle of development outside of the settlement limits is considered to be acceptable and established. Design 6.9 Broadland District Council Saved Policy ENV1 seeks to protect the environmental assets of the district. 6.10 The development would not lead to a loss of any protected vegetation or impact significantly on any landscape views. 6.11 The development proposed is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy ENV1. 6.12 Saved Policy ENV2 (Design) of the Broadland District Council Saved Local Plan resolves that all new developments should take account of their siting, layout, use of materials, scale, form and mass. Furthermore the policy directs that new development should be of a high standard of design that takes account of existing buildings and sustainability issues. 6.13 The building has been proposed to be sited close to the existing school and off the open grassland areas. The scale of the proposed classroom is in keeping with the existing school and will be subservient to its mass. 6.14 The design and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be appropriate in relation to the existing buildings and the established design principles in the locality. The building would not appear over bearing in relation to the existing school or the roadside. 6.15 The proposal includes provision for a high level of insulation with the use of long lasting materials. The sustainability elements allow for the building to be energy efficient and achieve a high BREEAM rating which is considered to meet the sustainability portion of Saved Policy ENV2. 6.16 The application is considered to comply with the requirements of Saved Policy ENV2 and the aims and objectives of the East of England Plan Policy ENV7. Access and Highways

6.17 The development does not propose to increase the number of staff that would be using the school. Therefore in accordance with Norfolk County Council Highway Standards there is no requirement to provide any additional parking spaces as a result of the development. 6.18 The Highway Authority has not objected to the application and has recommended a planning condition to be attached to any grant of approval. The condition relates to the submission of a construction traffic management plan. 6.19 Given the favourable response from the Highway Authority and the status quo in teacher numbers it is considered that the development complies with the requirements of Broadland District Council Saved Policies TRA 4, 5 and 14. Landscaping and Trees

6.20 It is considered that provided trees and hedges are protected in accordance with the relevant guidance there would be no impact on those currently on site. 6.21 The proposed building is set back from the roadside and there is an existing hedgerow along the raised embankment. These existing factors are considered satisfactory to mitigate the visual impact of the development. However, a condition will be placed on any grant of approval stating that any damage to the hedgerow at the front the school should be repaired accordingly. Sustainability and Community

6.22 The site has no known ecological constraints and as such the development is considered compliant with PPS9. 6.23 The development will allow for the school to provide educational facilities in a suitable environment and form that will be of benefit to the wider community. Playing Fields

6.24 The grassed area is not considered to be capable of forming part of a playing pitch of 0.2 hectares or larger. Therefore no referral of the application to Sport England was deemed necessary. 6.25 Saved Policy RL8 of the Broadland Local Plan seeks to protect existing or potential recreational, sporting or leisure facilities in a locality and directs that development on such land should only be permitted if compensatory land is provided for or there is a demonstrable surplus in the area. 6.26 The school owned land is not considered to be public open space. Therefore the school owned land should not be considered to be land that holds recreational, sporting or leisure potential for the local community, as it will not be open to the public to use. Furthermore this proposed development will be using an area of hard standing and creating another one not dissimilar in land area. 6.27 On balance it is considered that the application proposal is in accordance with both PPG17 and Saved Policy RL8. Representations

6.28 Concerns which have been raised by third party representations regarding the increase in pupil numbers using the site. The increase in pupils numbers will not lead to an increase in the number of teaching staff. The movement of pupils will be covered in a revised travel plan for the school, which is a recommended condition. 6.29 As there is no proposal to introduce more staff to the school through the development the proposal does not make provision for extra car parking, as there is no requirement to do so. 6.30 The development proposed will be single storey and it is considered that given its siting there will be no impact on the neighbouring property in terms of overshadowing. Also it should be noted that there are no windows proposed on the eastern boundary facing the adjoining property. 6.31 The building proposed is considered to incorporate the main design elements established through the existing buildings, the roof level has also been designed to be lower than the building facing the road so as to appear subordinate. 6.32 The development is not considered to be overdevelopment of the site as a new hardstanding area has been incorporated within the play ground to the rear and the development would not lead to a loss of vegetation or residential amenity. 6.33 Concern was raised with regard to the drainage of the hardstanding area. This issue has been raised with the agent and it has been agreed that the hardstanding area will be constructed with permeable asphalt to ensure that the surface run off does not cause drainage issues for any neighbouring property. A revised plan has been received detailing this minor change and is considered acceptable by virtue of its sustainable drainage proposal. Other Policy Implications

6.34 The development is not considered to be within a flood risk area and therefore no measures of that nature have been proposed. The application is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Saved Policy CS9 – Flood Risk Issues. 6.35 Saved Policy GS3 – General Considerations is a broad brush policy which covers many topics that have been examined already in this report including landscape impact, drainage, public accessibility and highway impacts. The only notable exception is that of residential amenity and its protection. 6.36 The development will not cause any issues associated with over looking, over bearing or over shadowing of residential properties. The application is considered to be compliant with the aims and objectives of Policy GS3 – General Considerations. 7. Resource Implications 7.1 Finance : There are no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.2 Staff : There are no staff implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.3 Property : There are no property implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : There are no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

8. Other Implications 8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.2 Human Rights : 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. 8.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility – no issues have been identified in this case. 8.4 Communications : There are no communication implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.5 Health and Safety Implications : There are no Health and Safety implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8.6 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. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 9.1 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. 10. Risk Implications/Assessment 10.1 There are no risk implications from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and reasons for Grant of Planning Permission 11.1 The development will provide educational and local community benefits which are material planning considerations. 11.2 The development proposed is of an acceptable scale, design and appearance in the locality. The building would not cause any issues associated with over looking, over bearing or over shadowing of residential properties. 11.3 The development has been designed to compliment the existing school buildings and to be energy efficient. 11.4 The application is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the relevant National and Local planning policies. Recommendation (i) That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents  Protection of hedging and trees in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to construction, with any damaged to be replaced accordingly  Revision of the school travel plan  Submission of a formal Construction Traffic Management Plan (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 PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG17 Open Space Sport and Recreation Planning Application File Ref: Y/5/2010/5017 Broadland District Local Plan 2006 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 Ian Reilly 01603 224136 [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 Ian Reilly or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/5/2010/5017 Metres 0 110220 440 660 880 Planning & Transportation GIS Cantley Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 637836 304499 ±

The Application Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/5/2010/5017 Metres 0 4 8 16 24 32 Planning & Transportation GIS Cantley Scale 1: 1003 Centred on 637836 304499 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 11 February 2011 Item No. 6e

Development by the County Council South Norfolk District Application Y/7/2010/7030 Diss High School, Walcot Road, Diss, Norfolk, IP22 4DH Re-cladding of former Farm start building (Use Class D1) including insertion of additional roof lights and preparation for additional doors (retrospective); erection of single storey extension and extension of roof to form covered storage and entrance areas to the northern elevation of the former Farm building; provision of new doors to the western and northern elevations of the former Farm Start building; erection of single storey flat roof canopy to the eastern elevation of the former Farm start building. Erection of a single storey mono-pitched roofed building for educational purposes (Use Class D1) to the North of the existing Farm Start building. Relocation of 3 no. mobile buildings (retrospective) and the proposed relocation of 1 no. mobile building to the North of the existing canteen building. Construction of new and relocation of existing car parking areas to provide 7 new car parking spaces including 2 car parking spaces for the disabled. Relocation of existing recycling storage area and staff cycle shed from the west of the oval turning area to the east of the existing former Farm Start building. Provision of lighting, landscaping and security fencing to the areas adjacent to the proposed new and altered existing buildings.

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary Planning permission is sought for alterations and an extension to the existing former Farm Start building and the erection of a new building to be used for practical and vocational education purposes, together with associated works including the relocation of existing mobile classrooms, landscaping and lighting to facilitate the proposal. The application site is located within a designated River Valley and outside the development limit for Diss. Due to the nature of the proposed scheme and character of the site, the proposal is not considered to be ‘inappropriate development’ and therefore not considered a departure from the Development Plan. One email of representation has been received from a local resident; the concerns are outlined in full 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) Delegate the application to Officers to grant planning permission, subject to no adverse comments being received following the application been re-advertised and, subject to conditions including those outlined in Section 13.2 of this report. (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 Diss High School, a part single, part two-storey red brick built building, with a combination of flat and pitched roofs. The school building has been extended and modified over the years. The Former Farm start building is of a traditional style construction with plastic coated steel cladding on a steel frame with a brick faced extension. The area in which the development is proposed is generally overgrown and unused. 1.2 Vehicular and pedestrian access is via Walcot Road, to the northern boundary of the site, with parking and turning provisions within the site. 1.3 There are a number of mature trees within the site. The group near to Walcot Road to the northern boundary of the site are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). 1.4 It has been identified that there is a need for additional practical and vocational learning facilities in South Norfolk to encourage students aged 14 – 19 to participate in course giving them hands-on experience into construction skills, land based studies or hair and beauty. This is aimed at giving the students an insight into such professions which they would then continue into higher education or skilled employment. The proposal set out in the planning application seeks to address the need. 2. The Application

2.1 Proposal : The proposal consists of: Various alterations (some of which are retrospective) including an extension to the existing former Farm Start building are proposed (as detailed in the description of development at the start of the report) which will facilitate its use for practical and vocational education purposes. In addition a new building located to the north of the former Farm Start building is proposed, also for practical and vocational education purposes. 4 No existing mobile classrooms (3 No retrospectively) will be relocated along with the existing recycling storage area, the existing staff cycle shed and some existing car parking spaces; all in order to facilitate the proposals. 7 No. new car parking spaces including 2 No. for the disabled, associated hard and soft landscaping, lighting and security fencing are also proposed 3. Constraints

3.1 The application site is located outside the development limit for Diss and also within a designated River Valley. 4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy : PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Statements Development PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13: Transport PPG24: Planning and Noise

4.2 East of England Plan (May : ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment 2008) 4.3 South Norfolk Local Plan (March : SP1 Sustainable development 2003) Saved Policies SP2 High standard of design SP3 Location for growth ENV 1 Protection of landscape ENV 3 River valleys ENV8 Development in the open countryside IMP1 Design IMP2 Landscaping IMP9 Residential amenity IMP10 Noise IMP25 Outdoor lighting TRA19 Parking standards 4.4 Supplementary Planning : Landscape Character Assessment – A Documents Rural river valley

5. Planning History 5.1 Y/7/2010/7013 Single storey extension and internal alterations to existing former Farm Start building – Withdrawn - 14/10/2010 5.2 Y/7/2009/7007 Alterations to Training Centre to form new Conference Centre – Permitted - 14/07/2009 5.3 Y/7/2009/7002 Replacement windows to English block – Permitted - 13/07/2009 5.4 Y/7/2007/7007 Provision of 1 No mobile science classroom due to an increase in pupil numbers and specialist curriculum requirements - Permitted - 10/04/2007 5.5 Y/7/2005/7004 New learning centre, 2 No new classrooms and removal of 2 No mobile classrooms – Permitted - 17/03/2005 5.6 Y/7/2004/7005 Provision of new double mobile classroom – Permitted - 29/07/2004 5.7 It is to be noted that the planning history of this site does not impact or conflict with this proposal. 6. Consultations 6.1 South Norfolk District Council No objection to the principle of the development, however wish to ensure a landscaping buffer along the western boundary with residential properties along Uplands Way. 6.2 Environmental Health Officer No adverse comments to make with regard to this application. 6.3 Diss Town Council In general acceptable but request detailed parking assessment of the whole site. 6.4 Highway Authority Following receipt of an amended plan showing parking provision, the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition to secure the parking provision on any grant of permission. 6.5 Sport England Do not wish to object to this application and do not wish to recommend any conditions on any grant of planning permission. 6.6 NLA Do not wish to comment on the application. 6.7 Public Representations The application was advertised by means of site notice and neighbour notification letters. One letter of representation has been received from a local resident. The main concerns are as follows:  traffic problems  waiting restrictions on Walcot Road  drawings show the site boundary going through the sixth form playing field and states not in use  the number of students there is going to be for the lessons  why is land being sold off when there is no carparking being provided for students  there are already major problems in the area 6.8 County Councillor: “ I am happy with the development of the Mrs J Chamberlin site for vocational education purposes” 7. Assessment 7.1 The main issues to be considered are: The impact on visual amenity; How the proposal incorporates sustainable design principles; The impact on residential amenity; The impact on highway safety; The impact on trees within the site; The impact on ecology; The impact on noise sensitive uses; and The impact of the proposed lighting 7.2 Principle of Development

7.3 As aforementioned, the application site is within a designated River Valley and located outside the development limit for Diss. 7.4 Policy ENV3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies relates to river valleys and states that in order to protect/enhance the distinct local landscape character ‘inappropriate development’ will not be permitted. The proposed development is within an existing school site and will result in an improvement to the appearance of an existing building and the erection of a new building, in an area which does not have views from/into the surrounding area. It is not considered to have a detrimental effect on the distinctive local landscape character and therefore is considered to be appropriate development. 7.5 In terms of development in the open countryside Policy ENV8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies applies. Whilst this proposal is not for the type of development which is identified in the policy, it does relate to development for educational purposes on an existing established school site. It is therefore considered to be appropriate development, for which the principle is acceptable. 7.6 Visual amenity

7.7 Policies SP2 and IMP1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies and Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) generally seek to ensure that new development (including alterations to existing buildings) is of a high standard of design and in keeping with its surroundings. In addition, PPS1 encourages sustainable development principles including high quality design. 7.8 The new build vocational studies block consists of a T-shaped, single storey built building with a mono-pitched roof design, constructed using a mixture of Red brick walling materials and rendered blockwork and grey slate interlocking concrete tiles. 7.9 The extension to the existing Farm Start building which is small in scale is to be finished in metal cladding to match the existing building. All windows and door frames are to be powder coated aluminium. 7.10 The proposed alterations to the existing building will improve its appearance and the new building will be similar in appearance. Both are relatively low key within the site and the proposed materials of construction are considered to be acceptable. As such, it is felt that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity, complies with the aims of Policies SP2 and IMP1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies, Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan (May 2008) and guidance contained in PPS1. 7.11 Sustainability

7.12 Policy SP1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to protect the essential character of the District, its biodiversity and the wealth of its main environmental assets including the setting of the built and unbuilt environment of towns and environmentally sensitive areas such as river valleys. Development should seek to conserve, and use efficiently, natural resources and the use of existing redundant and under-utilised sites will be sought. 7.13 Guidance contained in PPS1 encourages sustainable development principles through the planning system. The supplement to PPS1 on Planning and Climate Change (2007) sets out how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change. 7.14 In terms of sustainability this proposal brings back into use an existing building and site within the existing school site and the associated landscaping will result in an improvement to the appearance of the area. In addition, the proposal will provide educational facilities reducing the need to travel; the new building has been designed to minimise energy consumption; and materials from felled trees will be re-used for landscaping and habitat works. 7.15 It is therefore felt that the proposal complies with Policy SP1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies and guidance contained in PPS1. 7.16 Residential amenity

7.17 The application site is surrounded by residential properties to all boundaries. Policy IMP9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that new development does not have a significantly adverse impact on nearby residents through overlooking, overshadowing, damaging the setting of existing buildings or damaging the privacy and amenities of nearby dwellings. 7.18 In this case, the position of the new build and extension to the existing Farm Start building is no nearer to the adjacent residential properties than current. The separation distances of the new build and extension to the existing Farm Start building, to the boundaries of the dwellings on Uplands Way, together with appropriate boundary treatments is considered acceptable. 7.19 Due to the low rise nature of the buildings, the existing boundary treatment ensures that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents, thus in compliance with Policy IMP9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies. 7.20 Highway safety

7.21 Policy TRA19 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that provision is made for parking, loading and turning in accordance with the County Council’s adopted car parking standards. At a national level, PPG13 promotes accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling, reducing the need to travel by the private car. 7.22 Vehicular access is off Walcot Road. Following receipt of amended plans, it Is proposed to create 7 additional parking spaces including 2 disabled spaces, together with the relocation of the existing staff cycle shed. In addition, the school has an existing travel plan which promotes travel by bus, walking, cycling and encourages car sharing. 7.23 A number of comments have been made regarding existing traffic problems and issues and also the provision of double yellow lines outside the school on Walcot Road. In addition the Town Council has requested a detailed parking assessment of the whole site. However, this application can only address the increase in staff and classbases as a result of this proposal. 7.24 The Highway Authority considers that the proposal is acceptable and recommends that a condition regarding the parking provision be attached to any grant of planning permission. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and satisfactorily complies with Policy TRA19 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies and guidance in PPG13. 7.25 Landscaping

7.26 The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Arboricultural Method Statement undertaken by Andrew Belson Consultant. 7.27 Policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that new development incorporates a high standard of landscaping to ensure that the development will be integrated into its surroundings. Policy ENV1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that development will not harm the identified assets important to the character of the landscape. 7.28 There are a number of mature trees within the site. The group near to Walcot Road to the northern boundary of the site are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The accompanying statements conclude that various trees within the site will be felled due to their poor conditions; the trees to be retained are to be pruned. The submitted Landscape proposals consist of ornamental plant beds, grass and multi-stem trees within the site, native planting to the northern boundary adjacent to the mobile classroom used for art and fencing to enclose the an area of hardstanding for the Farm Start building and an area adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. 7.29 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the development will have a minimal effect on the valuable trees on the site, providing that the recommendations in the aforementioned reports are followed. This can be conditioned on any grant of approval. 7.30 In this case, the proposed landscaping scheme includes measures for the protection and enhancement of existing landscape features on site which are considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the aims of Policies IMP2 and ENV1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies. 7.31 Ecology

7.32 The Council’s Ecologist has no concerns regarding ecology for this proposal and is satisfied that no protected species will be affected as a result of the proposed works. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a significant impact on protected species or important interest features of the area, thus in compliance with guidance contained in PPS9. 7.33 Noise

7.34 Policy IMP10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that new 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. 7.35 In this case, with the exception of an electrically powered mortar mixer, which is to be housed beneath the extended roof of the Farm Start building (between the new store extension and the existing toilet extension), the proposal is not considered to be potentially noise generating. It is also noted that the Environmental Health Officer has considered the proposal and has no adverse comments to make. 7.36 The site is already occupied by a school and it is not considered that the additional use of this area for educational purposes will result in a significant increase in existing noise levels detrimental to the occupants of adjacent dwellings. It therefore felt that the proposal satisfactorily complies with Policy IMP10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies and guidance contained in PPG24 which aims to provide advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise, outlining the considerations to be taken when determining planning applications for both noise sensitive developments and those which generate noise. 7.37 Lighting

7.38 Policy IMP25 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies seeks to ensure that full details of any exterior lighting schemes are submitted demonstrating that they fulfil the minimum requirements of the proposal, that light spillage and glare are minimised and no detrimental impact will occur to residential amenity or highway safety. 7.39 A lighting assessment is contained in the submitted planning statement. In this case, two types of wall mounted lights both of relatively low wattage with hoods are proposed to be erected on the new vocational building, the Farm Start building and the mobile classrooms. The walkway and car parking lighting will have combined clock/photo cell control in order that the lighting can be controlled between dusk and dawn. 7.40 The proposed lighting is considered to balance the need to ensure safe passage around the proposed development whilst minimising light pollution. This is considered to comply with the aims of the policy without detriment to the amenities of occupiers of adjacent residential properties or highway safety and in compliance with Policy IMP25 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies. 7.41 Location for growth

7.42 Policy SP3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) Saved Policies relates to planned growth within selected towns, commensurate with their role as local employment centres such as Diss. The proposal complies with this policy providing employment for those teaching the practical and vocational skills courses which will be offered. 7.43 Response in relation to the representation received

7.44 The application was advertised by means of site notices and neighbour notification letters. 7.45 One letter of representation has been received from a local resident, who has concerns regarding traffic problems; waiting restrictions on Walcot Road; drawing shows the site boundary going through the sixth form playing field and states not in use; the number of students there is going to be for the lessons; why is land being sold off when there is no carparking being provided for students there are already major problems in the area. 7.46 In response to the writer’s concerns, the issues of current parking problems cannot be addressed under this application. It has been confirmed by the Highway Authority that there is a Traffic Regulation Order in the course of being processed which will prevent parking on Walcot Road. There will be approximately 45 students (from the existing and partner schools) for the proposed construction skills, land-based studies and hair and beauty courses. It is to be noted that the issue of selling land is not a material planning consideration and therefore cannot be considered when determining this application. 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. 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 accommodation to enable practical and vocational courses for young people to be offered at the school to encourage them to participate in learning. It will also result in an existing building been brought back into use and the improved appearance of the surrounding area which is somewhat of an eyesore. 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 visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety, trees within the site or sustainability. 13. Conditions 13.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions including: 13.2  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval  Compliance with the approved plans and documents  Details of the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the trees within the site to be submitted and approved  Requirement of the applicant to delineate the proposed access, parking provision, servicing, loading, unloading turning and waiting areas 14. Recommendation 14.1 That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Delegate the application to Officers to grant planning permission subject to no adverse comments being received following the application been re-advertised and, subject to conditions including those outlined in Section 13.2 of this report. (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 PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13: Transport PPG24: Planning and Noise East of England Plan (May 2008) South Norfolk Local Plan (March 2003) 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

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 Land within the Applicant's Ownership

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/7/2010/7030 - Diss High School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS 0 25 50 100 150 200 Diss Scale 1: 2500 Centred on 612235 280390 ±

The Application Site

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Norfolk County Council. Licence No: 100019340, 18 January 2011 18 January 2011

Y/7/2010/7030 - Diss High School Metres Planning & Transportation GIS 0 255 510 1,020 1,530 2,040 Diss Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 612235 280390