Planning Regulatory Committee

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 8 July 2011

Present: Mr J Rogers - Chairman

Mr B Bremner Mr D Harrison Mr D Callaby Mr J Rogers Mr N Dixon Mr J Shrimplin – Vice-Chairman Mr P Duigan Ms H Thomson Mr A Gunson Mr M Wilby Mr R Hanton Mr A Wright Mr P Hardy

Members also in attendance: Mr J Herbert Mr I Monson

Officers in Attendance:

Mr D Collinson - Environment, Transport and Development Ms F Croxen - Legal Services Mr A Harriss - Environment, Transport and Development Mr D Higgins - Environment, Transport and Development Mr N Johnson - Environment, Transport and Development Ms A Lambert - Environment, Transport and Development Ms N Levett - Environment, Transport and Development Mr N Palmer - Environment, Transport and Development

1. Apologies and Substitution

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Mr Hemsley, Mr Iles, Mr Plant and Mr Stone

2. Minutes

2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2011 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3. Declarations of Interest

3.1 The following declarations were made:

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 1

Mr Bremner - Item 5a as the portfolio holder for Planning at Norwich City Council. Mr Rogers – Item 5c as a Member of Breckland District Council Mr Duigan – Item 5c as a Member of Breckland District Council Mr Hardy – Item 5a as the Local Member

4 Urgent Business

4.1 There were no items of urgent business.

5. Applications Referred to Committee for Determination

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

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

5.3 It was stated that since the report had been circulated an objection had been received from a resident of Millgate. The officer had spoken to the resident and the objection was that there had not been a proper, comprehensive consultation and there were health risks from the site from dust and noise. There was also problems caused by the noise and vibrations of frequent freight trains shaking the nearby houses.

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

 The suggested conditions place more stringent limits on future expansion.  Britvic Soft Drinks did not object to the current permission granted on the site, it was only worried over any future expansion on the site.  All the conditions put forward by Norwich City Council had been accepted by the County Council in the report.

5.5 Mr Atkinson from Lanpro spoke in objection to the application raising the following concerns:  The impact that the application would have on dwellings in the area and development of affordable housing would be negative.  Lafarge’s ability to operate the site and manage the long term generation process.  The application was a permanent and high impact with 120 HGV movements per day.  There had been no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for this application and no proper assessment for economic growth.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 2

 There was no scope for mitigation measures and no details of how Lafarge would manage off site impact.  The site had changed radically since the temporary application was approved, the site was now in a residential area.  The site was too small to accommodate the quantity of aggregate being extracted.  The site would have the effect of capping the value and the sale of properties in the area. He summed up by saying that he requested the decision to be deferred until an Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out along with a detailed scheme of mitigation for the application to take into account noise and dust pollution and overspill from the site.

5.6 In response to a question from the Committee Mr Atkinson said that concerns related to the extent of the impact from the site and he felt that it was inappropriate to delegate powers to officers with regard to mitigation levels at the site. He would ask for a detailed series of mitigation plans and how the impacts would be dealt with.

5.7 Mr Anderson, Senior Planning and Estates Manager at Lafarge Aggregates, made the following points:

 Lafarge Aggregates was a major employer in the area and throughout the UK and supplier to the construction industry.  It had invested in rail transport and currently operated 50 trains per week. This all contributes towards sustainability targets and the carbon reduction strategy within the County.  The railhead at Trowse had been moving bulk materials by rail and road for over 50 years.  The application in 2008 resulting in the time limited consent allowed any issues needing solving to be addressed.  The site was a highly sustainable facility and essential to the supply of aggregates and coated roadstone to Norwich and mid-Norfolk.  The site supplied a local market which would have to be supplied from elsewhere if the application was not successful. This would mean materials would have to travel considerable distances by road which was not as environmentally friendly or sustainable.  Technical reports had been commissioned by Lafarge regarding noise, dust and environmental issues and appropriate mitigation.  The Planning Authority, Norwich City Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the Environment Agency (EA) and other statutory consultees had rigorously reviewed these reports. All concerns raised had been addressed by recommending strict conditions which would be included in any planning consent.  The application was a continuation of existing resources and there was no proposals to intensify the use of the site.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 3

 The site had operated for fifty years without any impact on neighbouring land users and the conditions proposed by NCC further strengthen an already tightly controlled site.  Lafarge would be willing to set up a liaison group with Trowse Parish Council, neighbours and local councillors.

5.8 The following answers were given in response to questions by the Committee:

 Some modifications would be needed to be made to the plant. The company needed the long term future that a permanent permission would guarantee in order to justify investing such money in the plant.  There were no plans to increase the range of operations at the site.  This planning permission was submitted prior to the expiry of the temporary planning permission.  There had been some spillage of materials through the perimeter fencing but this would be remedied by a solid retaining wall.  The movement of HGVs fluctuated from week to week.  Lafarge would not want to limit operations at the site they would be looking for an indefinite planning permission.  Planting trees on the boundary of the site would not have an impact on suppressing noise but would help visual impact.

5.9 Local Member Mr Hardy made the following comments:

 The perceived impact on house prices would generate a lack of confidence to businesses and residents in the area.  Could the application be deferred until an EIA had been carried out?  He wanted companies such as Britvic and Lanpro to have the confidence to stay in the area.

5.10 It was confirmed that the planners had concluded that there was no need for an EIA to be carried out in this case. There was a comprehensive list of conditions placed on the application.

5.11 The recommendation was proposed by Mr Wilby and seconded by Mr Gunson. With nine votes for none against and four abstentions it was RESOLVED:

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

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 4

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

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

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

 The proposal did not necessitate the need to remove any of the oak trees from the two visibility splays.  No comments had been received from Norfolk Wildlife Trust.

6.3 Mr Ponder spoke on behalf of the objectors in the village making the following points:

 The application was to make a temporary permission permanent.  The site would be in the middle of a conservation area and a wildlife corridor to Wymondham. It was an oasis for bio-diversity and local residents would like to see it returned to natural parkland.  There had been a lack of consultation by the Parish Council with villagers and 40 letters of objection had been received.  Local residents did not want to have to put up with the dust pollution, noise and mud and spillage on the local roads for a further 17 years.  All minerals had been extracted from the site.  A steering committee had been set up but had been disbanded and no minutes of the meetings that took place were available.  The issue still had not been debated properly at the Parish Council Meetings.

6.4 In response to questions from the Committee Mr Ponder stated that agendas were published for Parish Council meetings and objectors did speak at the meeting but their objections were not heard.

6.5 It was confirmed by officers that the site in question was neither within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nor a Conservation Area but there was one listed building within the site.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 5

6.6 Mrs Jordan, Chairman of East Carleton and Ketteringham Parish Council addressed the meeting stating the following points:

 The project was a long running one and the opportunity for the Parish Council to acquire the land would benefit the whole community.  The Ice House would be preserved and there would be a vast green area that would embrace nature conservation and lottery funding had been granted for this purpose.  A permanent planning permission would ensure maintenance and management of the land and would not have an impact on the tax payer.  The Parish Council would be responsible for ensuring site safety.  Middleton Aggregates had been good neighbours over the years, running a discreet operation with very good and courteous drivers.  The Parish Council wished to acquire the site for the good of the community.

Ms Fairman, Vice-Chairman of East Carleton and Ketteringham Parish Council addressed the meeting stating the following:  A steering Project Group had existed for six years.  There had been regular meetings and open forums for villagers to attend. Some of these meetings had been held out of working hours so as many members of the community were able to attend as possible.  Lottery money had been granted for the project and this had been well advertised.  It would be a site that would engage all ages and there was no other amenity site in this area it would bring all the community together.  One hundred villagers had been involved in the consultation.

Ms Fairman displayed copies of the posters and flyers that were circulated to each house in July 2007 which she herself delivered.

It was noted that the land was gifted to the parish council 10 years ago and a steering committee had been set up in order to ascertain whether the parish council could support it financially as they did not want it to be a burden.

6.7 Mr Daw, the applicant’s agent addressed the meeting stating the following points:

 He was satisfied with the report and clarified that the breach of condition notices mentioned on page 35 were nothing to do with his client.  On page 42 of the report it stated that landfilling would be completed by May 2013 but it would actually be complete by the end of September 2011.  The application had met the desires of the parish council and had the support of NCC planners.  The current proposal was for only for a quiet, informal recreational area, this was a sensible compromise as this was not what was planned originally.  The benefits of the application was that there was financial provision for its

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 6

upkeep until 2038, there was the provision of a communal facility for everyone to use.  The application did not propose any new activities on the site, the site had been operational for 10 years and activity was now likely to decrease.  The vehicle movements had decreased slightly overall and movements to landfill would be ceasing soon.

6.8 Mr Herbert, Local Member made the following points in support of the application:

 Fifty four acres of land was being returned back to the community.  There was strong support from South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) and the parish council.  There had been a lot of consultation and many functions had been arranged for the community so they had a chance to see the proposals and to put their own views of what they want to see happen to the site.  The majority of the villagers wished to see it used for the benefit of the community and the wider area.  The application site had direct access onto the A11 which was the economic corridor for SNDC.

6.9 Mr Gunson proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mr Shrimplin. It was unanimously RESOLVED:

That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be:

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

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

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

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

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

7.2 The planning officer pointed out that the recommendation in the report at (i) third

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 7

bullet point should read “Height restriction of the materials stored” not “Height restriction of the storage area.”

7.3 Mr White, Chairman of Wretham Parish Council addressed the committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

 When the site was originally granted planning permission, Pearsons went to great lengths to ensure the local population that the application was sound and that the developments would be controlled through supervision by the Environment Agency and NCC and that nothing would happen on site for which Pearsons had not been granted permission.  The planning permission subsequently granted to Pearsons included a clause that stated no waste transfer or recycling operations should take place on the site outside the confines of the buildings approved for this purpose and no waste shall be deposited or stored outside other than clean recyclable materials.  Members of Wretham Parish Council were disappointed to receive the retrospective planning application to regularise a breach of planning law that had been going on for some considerable time.  Reports were obtained of inspections carried out on the Larkshall site and references to construction and demolition rubble being stored in breach of planning permission conditions first appeared in the report in July 2007.  An inspection in September 2008 showed that storage bays were under construction for which planning permission was required.  In June 2009 it was noted that the bays had been constructed.  A planning application was received in August 2009 but was deemed to contain insufficient information to progress but the situation was allowed to continue without enforcement action being taken.  The parish council objected to the application to register a vote of no confidence in the planning system. The breaches have existed and authorities been aware of them since 2007. The villagers had been assured that the EA and NCC would look after their interests but they had not enforced the very planning permission conditions that were in place to protect the village.  Compliance with the conditions had not been enforced since 2007 so there was no reason to believe that this would change in future.

In response to questions from the Committee Mr White said that he would not be against the application if a roof were to be placed on the storage bays at a maximum height.

7.4 Mr Walton, the applicant’s advisor addressed the Committee stating the following:

 He was present at the parish council meetings and undertakings had been given that there would be no extension of permissions on the site and no expansion had taken place.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 8

 The current permission allowed for 75,000 tonnes of extraction per year and the site was running at just over half of this amount. The application was for the same operation.  Retaining walls were built on the site for operational purposes.  The application had taken a long time to get to this stage but not through neglect on the applicant’s side.  Approval of the application would regularise an operation which would be monitored and regulated by NCC and the EA.

7.5 Mr Monson, Local Member, addressed the Committee making the following points:  He had previously spoken in objection to support the parish council and residents but he was generally in favour of recycling operations where possible.  Dust and noise pollution would need to be taken into account in this area as at the south end of the site there was a pet food factory and potato producer and the application would generate a lot of dust which would create airborne pollution for these neighbouring sites.  A canopy over the site would not be detrimental and would contain the dust and the noise of loading shovels and protect the businesses to the south of the site.  Expansion of trade, not physical expansion of the site concerned him.  Wood should be stored separately to other materials to prevent accidents.  If the storage area could be enclosed and made weather proof he would support the application.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the dangers of spontaneous combustion in a covered area, Mr Monson felt that having a canopy would in fact contain any fire spreading if it was it to happen. The storage area was in need of being properly controlled.

7.6 Some Members of the Committee stated that they felt that a stronger line should be taken with retrospective applications and that sanctions should be tightened.

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

 There had been no complaints from local residents regarding the current operation of the site.  A limit could not be placed on the expansion of the site.  A well developed control and monitoring function existed within the County Council. The department aimed to carry out four visits to each site per year and because the Development Control Department was so efficient they were able to pick up so many retrospective applications. Once an operation was discovered that had no permission the Monitoring and Enforcement Officer would assess whether or not the site would get a permission, if it could then the operator would be encouraged to submit an application and if not the site would not be suitable to gain a permission

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 9

then it would be closed down.  Retrospective applications were not unlawful but were not desirable.

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

That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be:

(i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below:  Compliance with approved plans and documents  Restricting the types of materials to be stored outside  Height restriction of the materials stored.  Submission of details relating to existing ground levels

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

8. Development by the County Council

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

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

8.3 Mr Harvey, Headteacher at the School, addressed the Committee making the following points:  The reason for the application was to safeguard the children at the school.  The wall around the school was to be made 7-8 inches higher than the existing one.  The wall was easier to get over in some areas than others due to the ground outside the school being at uneven levels in places.  Balls and other objects could be thrown from the playground out onto the road which would be a hazard to drivers and pedestrians.  The fence had been designed sympathetically in order to fit in with the surrounding area.  A recent health and safety audit was keen for the school to address the safety issue of the fence.  Access to the school would be reduced and limited to just one point.  There were plans to make the gates to the school slightly higher in the

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 10

future.

8.4 Mr Duigan moved the recommendation which was seconded by Mr Shrimplin. It was unanimously RESOLVED:

That the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below:  The development to be commenced within three years of the date of approval.  Compliance with the approved plans and documents.

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

The meeting concluded at 12.05pm

CHAIRMAN

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

Planning Regulatory Committee – 8 July 2011 11