Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes of the Meeting Held on 25 January 2013

Present: Mr J Rogers (Chairman)

Mrs H Cox Mrs J Leggett Mr P Duigan Mr P Rice Mr R Hanton Mr N Dixon Mr D Harrison Mrs J Murphy Mr M Hemsley Mr J Wilby Mr B Iles

1 Apologies and Substitution

Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Bremner, Mr J Shrimplin, Mr T Tomkinson (Mrs J Murphy substituted), Mr A Gunson, Miss A Kemp, Mr B Stone (Mr N Dixon substituted), Mr P Rice and Miss J Virgo.

2 Minutes from the meeting held on 16 November 2012

The minutes from the meeting held on 16 November 2012 were agreed as a correct record by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3 Declarations of Interest

Mr M Wilby declared an interest as a Member of South District Council. He confirmed he had not taken part in any discussions and retained an open mind about all the applications on the agenda.

4 Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

5 Applications referred to the Committee for Determination

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

6 District: C/7/2011/7020:Manor Farm, land off B1136, Loddon Road, , , NR14 6PN – Extraction, Processing, Bagging and Sale of Sand and Gravel with Concrete Batching and erection of solar panels within plant site void. Gravels Ltd.

6.1 During the presentation of the report, the following points were noted:

• Each phase of the extraction would take approximately 2 years, with the final phase (phase 10) finishing near Manor Farm in approximately 21 years from commencement.

• Once extraction had finished, restoration of the site would take place to form a nature conservation area, public footpaths, picnic areas, car parking area and also return some of the land to agricultural use.

• Solar panels would be positioned towards the top of the northern embankment within the plant site. These would be sited below ground level with an adjustable bund to screen them from public sight.

• 156 letters of objection had been received.

• South Norfolk District Council had objected to the proposals, citing concerns about the impact on public amenity, the impact of noise and dust, highway safety, the impact on St Mary’s Church and the surrounding countryside.

• The Environmental Health Officer had confirmed he was satisfied that the measures stipulated within the conditions to control noise and dust were acceptable.

• The Highways Authority, Environment Agency and Broads Authority had raised no objections to the application.

• The need for the development to help address the shortfall in the county’s sand and gravel landbank of permitted reserves and the economic benefits of the scheme within the guidance of the NPPF had been considered, and therefore the application had been recommended for approval.

6.2 Mr Rory Kelsey addressed the Committee on behalf of the Haddiscoe Stopit Association. A copy of his presentation is attached at Appendix A. Mr M Mears was also in attendance and would respond to any appropriate questions from the Committee.

6.3 The following points were made by Mr Kelsey in response to questions from the Committee:

• Haddiscoe Stopit Association had been set up by some of the residents of Haddiscoe to raise funds in order to legally fight this application. Illegal extraction of sand and gravel in about 1980 had taken place at a different site in Haddiscoe and this had taken over two years to be resolved.

• St Mary’s Church at Haddiscoe was an excellent example of a round Anglo Saxon Tower. English Heritage had not objected to the application, although they had considered some harm would result from the proposed quarry. Artists had painted the

church view on numerous occasions.

• The existing sand and gravel extraction pit had been dormant for approximately six years, therefore the planning permission had now lapsed. The site was currently being used as a fishing lake.

6.4 Mr William Kemp, District Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of South Norfolk District Council. His presentation is attached at Appendix B.

6.5 Mr Stephen Daw addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant. His presentation is attached at Appendix C.

6.6 The following points were made by Mr Daw in response to questions from the Committee:

• The calculations to contribute approximately £34m to the economy over the 21 year period were based on the last three years accounts for Earsham Quarry which was very similar in scale to the proposed Haddiscoe quarry.

• The applicant confirmed they would be happy to comply with all the conditions outlined within the report if planning permission was granted.

• The site was not allocated as a windfall site, although Norfolk County Council had stated they may grant permission in the future.

6.7 As local Member for Clavering Division which included Haddiscoe, Mr Tony Tomkinson addressed the Committee.

Mr Tomkinson, who was a member of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee, had tended his apologies for the meeting. He had previously stated he was opposed to the application and had been photographed wearing a Haddiscoe Stopit Association t-shirt. Therefore he was predetermined regarding this application.

During his presentation the following points were noted:

• It would not be in the best interests to the county or the residents of Haddiscoe to approve this application as it would destroy the natural beauty the area was renowned for.

• Norfolk County Council had held a consultation in February 2008 about whether this was a suitable site for gravel and sand extraction and officers had deemed then that the site was unacceptable and should be disregarded.

• A similar application (number C/2/2008/2026) at Methwold for the extraction of sand and gravel had been refused after it had been deemed that there were more appropriate sand and gravel extraction sites available to meet the County’s needs. He asked for the Haddiscoe application site to be treated in the same way.

• The site represented approximately 0.56 years of mineral reserves which would take the landbank figure to approximately 5.86 years, although the site specific allocation showed 27 years of material in more accessible sites.

• Another local quarry at , which was approximately 4km away, had now applied to extend their planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. No local objections had been raised at that site, which was a much more suitable location than Haddiscoe.

• During the Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD consultation document dated May 2011, the County Council had concluded that the site was unsuitable for allocation on the grounds of landscape, highway, amenity and potential groundwater impacts and the Committee were asked to note that nothing had changed to alter that position.

• The site was only 130 meters from a beautiful round tower church, which was situated in a beautiful location and which had been painted by many artists over many years. There were also residential properties within 100 metres of the proposed site boundary.

• In 21 years time the site did have the potential to be a nice public amenity site, but it clearly failed the policy at the present time.

• The 156 letters which had been sent to County Hall objecting to the application amounted to an overwhelming proportion of the residents of Haddiscoe.

6.8 In response to a question from the Committee, it was noted that it was Mr Tomkinson’s view that although the planning officers had believed all the objections had been overcome, nothing had changed with the Minerals Site Specific DPD to suggest this was actually the case.

6.9 The following comments were noted during the discussion:

• Members’ expressed concern over the application, with its close proximity to the village of Haddiscoe and the potential detrimental impact on the church.

• The economic benefits of £26m over 21 years did not appear to balance with the potential harm to the church and the noise, traffic and dust disturbances which would be caused to Haddiscoe residents.

• 21 years was a huge amount of time to wait before the full restoration of the site would be completed.

• The close proximity of the extraction site to residential properties would be detrimental to the character of the village.

• The bunds would not be sufficient to screen the workings from public view, but they

would also detract from the views over the fields to the church.

• Members were not convinced there was an over-riding need for gravel and sand extraction at this location, although it was acknowledged there was a need to increase the landbank.

6.10 The Committee RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application on the following grounds:

i) The adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity, including the setting of St Mary’s Church. ii) The adverse visual impact on the character of the local landscape. iii) The adverse amenity impacts on residents and properties through increased noise, dust and traffic. iv) There was no need for the development at the present time. v) That the application was premature in that it should not be considered prior to the adoption of the Minerals Site Specific DPD.

7 South Norfolk District: C/7/2011/7018: Crossways Waste Management Facility, , Norwich: – Consolidation, update and decommissioning of infrastructure and operations, to include the following retrospective development: biofilter; extension to compost building; clarifier, shaker, conveyor, odour abatement system liquid scrubber; alteration to waste transfer building; relocation of trommel and filter press; office block; alterations to parking; ancillary buildings, equipment and storage. Proposed new development to include lagoon; raised northern bund; treated trade effluent discharge pipeline; reedbed; biofilter/air extraction; access road; ancillary buildings and equipment. M Gaze and Co. Ltd.

7.1 During the presentation of the report, the following points were noted:

• Some additional comments had been received which related to highways, although there was no information that had not already been considered by the planners and included within the report.

• The delay in the application being presented to the Committee had been caused by changes made to the site whilst the application was being determined (which needed to be addressed within it), and a further period of consultation required.

• The site was a protected site and part of the Norfolk Waste Strategy.

7.2 Mr Mitchell Gaze addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant, during which the following points were noted:

• M Gaze and Co. Ltd was a family run company, who used recognised processes to optimise waste recycling. They were based in Thurlton and specialised in the removal and safe disposal of liquid, powder and high density solid waste. They employed 14

people from the local area. • This application sought to consolidate the work which was done at the site.

• M Gaze & Co Ltd. appreciated the time that officers had spent preparing the application.

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

• To alleviate any potential increase in traffic movements, a Section 106 agreement would be entered into. This would be enforced by drivers having cards in their cabs to stop them using the C516 or the C390. The lorries would be routed along the B1136 Yarmouth/Loddon Road.

• Angling exits to prevent vehicles turning the wrong way when they left the site, did not form part of the Section 106 routing agreement as it was felt the measures included within the report would be sufficient.

7.4 As the local Member for Clavering Division which included Thurlton, Mr Tony Tomkinson addressed the Committee in support of the application. During his presentation, and following questions from the Committee, the following points were noted:

• Crossways Waste Management Facility was the largest industrial activity within Clavering Division.

• M Gaze and Co Ltd. currently obeyed an unofficial Section 106 Agreement where they didn’t use either Thurlton Road, or Green Lane, except in exceptional circumstances.

• This application was a retrospective application from an excellent company, with a good reputation and who employed several local people.

• The site would be screened from public view and the application also had the support of most of the villagers in Thurlton.

7.4 The recommendation was moved by Mr Wilby and seconded by Mr Hemsley. It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of a routing agreement, junction improvements and dedication of land to the county to maintain visibility splays, and the conditions listed in Section 12 of the report. ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

8 South Norfolk District: Y/7/2012/7012 – /Wreningham: Two storey extension to existing engineering facility to provide 16 incubator units, biomass plant including fuel storage and flue to rear, carparking, extended service yard, attenuation swale, landscaping and associated works at Hethel Engineering Centre.

9.1 During the presentation of the report, the Committee noted the following additional points:

• Following the publication of the application, South Norfolk District Council Environmental Health Officer had confirmed he had no objections to the proposed scheme subject to conditions.

• Condition 16 had been amended to reflect the consultation response received from South Norfolk District Council Environmental Health Officer.

• South Norfolk District Council Environmental Health Officer recommended that a condition regarding foul drainage be added to the list of conditions.

9.2 Following a question from the Committee, it was noted that Potash Lane would no longer be used by any construction traffic to access the building site. Traffic would enter the site from Road and access the construction area from the rear of Hethel Engineering Centre.

9.3 The recommendation was moved by Mr Wilby and seconded by Mrs Cox. It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 11 of the report. ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

The meeting ended at 3.15pm.

CHAIRMAN

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.

Appendix A

Mr Rory Kelsey, Haddiscoe Stopit Association.

“Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Rory Kelsey, Chairman of Haddiscoe Stopit Association. This is Martin Mears, or legal representative.

Stopit has a membership of the majority of households in the village. The Planning officer reports that letters from 156 individuals have been received in opposition to this proposal, some of the 156 are not members of our association. He also reports on receiving only 2 letters in support, what he omits to mention is that these two letters come from the land owner and his wife. So it appears nobody else in the village is prepared to write in support … nobody.

I hope you have had the opportunity to read our statement of case, sent to all committee members this week. It has also been sent to the Planning Officer, and he has offered no comment. In essence our case is that there is no need for this pit. This has been demonstrated by your own department. This is the document referred to on page 6, paragraph 9 that you have in front of you. In a painstaking 5 year process this document has identified the 26 sites that will provide Norfolk with all the gravel it needs beyond 2023. This site is not one of them.

Indeed in March 2012 this committee refused an application for gravel extraction in Methwold because, and I quote the planners recommendation para 11.3 ‘The 26 sites considered to be appropriate would provide the required amount of sand and gravel for the planned period 2010- 2026 which in total is 25.67 million tonnes’.

This application is only being considered because of the substantial mitigating measures that are proposed; but let’s be clear ‘mitigating’ means making something that is bad less bad. Think of a plea in mitigation before sentence.

I would like to refer you to the pictures that accompanied our statement of case.” (Attached at Appendix D).

“Pictures 1 and 2 show the size of the proposal in relation to the village and church. There can be no doubt that if approved this industrial operation will dominate village life.

Pictures 3, 4 and 5 give a feel for the rural/agricultural nature of the landscape and the outstanding position of the church in that landscape.

Picture 6a is a computer generated image from the same viewpoint as picture 6 photomontage, one of the many provided by the proposers. This is the sort of stuff developers always give out, they have a calming effect, you look at them, dream of an airbrushed future and when you wake up you’ve got, to quote Prince Charles, ‘a carbuncle on the face of a favourite friend’. In this picture the middle ground is obscured by the grass bund which won’t change much with the seasons. It does not show the dust netting that will need to be erected (para 3.1 dust

management plan November 2012). Strangely the church no longer dominates the landscape but requires a label to show where it is.

When it is all over in twenty something years time, we are promised ‘restoration’ originally to be managed by the developer for five years, grudgingly extended to ten years in the May 2012 version of the proposal. What happens beyond these ten years? The control of the land will return to Manor Farm with the only possible access on public rights of way (para 4.2 response to request for further information May 2012). There are already unmaintained rights of way on this land.

Picture 8 in the pack is the middle of the village, another pit that still has planning permission to extract mineral until 2020 but has been closed since 2003. Your report states ‘should mineral extraction resume … there would be no material harmful impact from both sites being operated’ (6.124. It also says ‘around 50 percent of this site has been restored’ (para 6.123). The pit is surrounded by fencing and impenetrable brambles.

In summary, the pit is superfluous to Norfolk’s requirement for gravel, the only beneficiaries are the land owner and the contractor, residents are still not reassured by the proposer’s plea in mitigation. The legacy will come after most of us are dead and even then will only last for ten years, leaving Manor Farm free to enjoy its extensive landscape park without any guarantee of access for enjoyment by residents.

The County Council doesn’t need it, the District Council don’t want it, the Parish Council and residents don’t want it. We are now in your hands”.

Appendix B

Mr William Kemp, District Councillor, South Norfolk District Council.

“Thank you Mr Chairman.

In May 2011 Members voted unanimously to reject this site for mineral extraction. Para’s 6.17 to 6.21 of your report suggest that Officers and Members would not have made that decision given the mitigations put forward but would the mitigations proposed really make this one of only 26 of 71 sites chosen? Your prior rejection is a strong material consideration against this application (para 11.6).

Heritage The comments at 5.11 relate to the pre-NPPF comments from English Heritage. Updated comments were made and are rather less supportive given the enhancements to heritage protection in the NPPF. Indeed the quote “less than substantial” from English Heritage is missing from post NPPF comments, because “less than substantial” is no longer current planning policy. Turning to the comments made by English Heritage based on current planning policy they state:

“I remain of the view that the proposed quarry and particularly the permanent change to the landscape…will cause harm to the significance of the church.”

They continued: “NPPF para 132 states clear and convincing justification is required …harm should be considered in terms of NPPF para 134 – public benefit. The statement makes reference to possible public benefit resulting from the production of minerals …employment and…conservation” English Heritage concluded that “a lack of such a justification may be reason for the Council not to favour the application”

Is the justification clear and convincing?

Para’s 6.54 to 57 set out the economic benefits of this site as if they are facts. English Heritage correctly pointed out that these are only possible benefits, unsupported by anything more than sales puff. Haddiscoe is a gateway village to the Broads with more than half a dozen tourism businesses currently employing people which will be damaged by this development. Why has the impact on these actual jobs not been considered?

Visitors come from St Olaves way and from the railway station with its links to Yarmouth and Norwich. They drive through on their way to the Waveney River Centre, to Beccles and to Loddon. What sort of message are we sending to these potential visitors? South Norfolk has two main attractions – its landscape and its heritage. This application destroys both. This site will be in use for 21 years - tourism is essentially timeless especially with assets like our countryside and heritage assets.

Turning to para 6.42 - policy 18 of the JCS sets out that this application must enhance the economy of the Broads Area its tranquillity and recreational value and your Officer rightly

concludes that this application is contrary to the JCS but fails to address that this is grounds to refuse this application.

Turning to the restoration of the site – the concept that a restoration of this site can be better is strange. What is wrong with the site now? It is not in need of restoration. It’s like saying to someone with a healthy arm – that you are going to cut their arm off but it’s OK because the prosthetic replacement won’t get tired. The restoration will destroy the character of the site as a plateau, replacing it with an artificial ‘valley’ (para 6.40) – something “permanent and harmful” as per English Heritage (para 6.50).

The main mitigation proposed is to screen this site behind 2 meter high bunds. To suggest that these will not damage the wider landscape is absurd. The landscape is a gently rolling plateau and river valley and to introduce so alien a feature would disfigure the Parish as your report states at para’s 6.36 and 6.37.

Additionally what sort of impression will that leave to people driving through the Village to, or from, the Broads – what remains of the valley will be hidden behind an unsightly dirt bund. How does this enhance the attractiveness of the area?

So to conclude, at para 11.8 your Officer has drawn the balance in favour of approval - ignoring the economic harm to Tourism in South Norfolk and the concerns of English Heritage. The enhancements of the restoration phase are a sham – altering the landscape permanently when there is nothing wrong.

On balance and considering the thrust of national and local planning policy this application should be rejected as the economic benefits to the applicant do not outweigh the significant harm to the existing economy of the village, to tourism, to the environment, to the amenities of residents and to the nationally important grade 1 listed Church of St Mary. The NPPF is clear on this point: the justification must be “clear and convincing” – if not you must refuse this application. If you are unsure then you must at the very least visit the site before making a final decision. Thank you for your attention – and I and Wendy Alford on behalf of the Parish Council are happy to take any questions.”

Appendix C

Mr Stephen Daw, speaking on behalf of the Applicant.

“Firstly, the Applicant would wish to thank the Officers for preparing a very thorough and fair report.

Secondly, I would wish to emphasise to Members the critical importance of today’s decision for the Applicant. They are a Norfolk based family run company who see this site as securing their future, maintaining existing jobs as well as creating additional new jobs.

The Officers report reflects the care and attention given to preparing a planning application which can now be recommended to you for approval.

In this I would wish to emphasise some of the benefits of the proposal. The Committee will appreciate the benefits are a material consideration in the determination of the application, particularly in the context of a proposal which the report confirms is compliant with the Development Plan.

The Benefit to the Landbank / Supply Position – this proposal presents an opportunity to reduce the current shortfall in the landbank. The minimum level of 7 years required by Adopted Core Strategy is not close to being met. With the current landbank figure of 5.3 years there is a shortfall approaching 4½ million tonnes. This application is for slightly less than 1½ million tonnes.

The application is rightly viewed as helping the County meet its statutory obligation. This obligation needs to be met now and cannot be put off, especially as the Minerals Allocations Document is still some way from being adopted. What is more the County in their defence of the Pre-Submission Document acknowledge that ‘windfall’ applications will come forward and permissions may be granted, even after the Plan is adopted.

Benefit to The Economy – the recent National Planning Policy Framework reflects how the planning system needs to respond to the seriousness of the economic situation. In first place, it states, ‘when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ... give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy’.

In round figures it is calculated over the life of the development Haddiscoe Quarry will contribute some £8,000,000 into the British economy and some £26,000,000 into the local economy. That is a total figure of some £34,000,000 over a 21 year period, certainly an economic benefit which must be given great weight.

Benefit to the Wildlife and Geomorphology – the proposed restoration scheme has been accepted by all statutory consultees as being of benefit to local wildlife and the environment in general. The Scheme will be assured of success through the entering into of a 10 year management plan by the applicant and the landowner as part of a legal agreement.

Benefit to the Local Community in terms of Public Access – the Application is accompanied by comprehensive proposals for the staged formation of 1,350 metres of new permanent public footpath. Along the footpaths there will be viewing points, information boards and seating as well as a purpose built car park and picnic area. This will enable both young and old to access the restored site and to enjoy the nature conservation after use. The first stage will be opened to the public around year 3 of the proposal and then added to as the development progresses.

In summary, the proposal is in full compliance with the Development Plan. It will bring significant benefits to the national and the local economy. It will also benefit the local community in terms of public access and it will benefit the local environment and wildlife, all at a time when adopted Core Strategy needs the Sand and Gravel from this site to make a contribution to an under-supplied landbank.

On behalf of the Applicant I would ask the Committee to follow the Officers recommendation and grant approval to this Application”.