Agenda item

To consider and determine the attached Schedule of Planning Applications submitted by the Executive Director.

The Committee considered schedules of application for planning permission submitted by the Executive Director for Planning & Environment (copies of the schedules are published with the agenda).  Any changes to the schedules are recorded in the minutes.

 

RESOLVED:   That the applications be determined, as set out at (i) – (xii) below, where appropriate, to the conditions and reasons or grounds of refusal, set out in the schedules signed by the Chairman.

 

(i)         18/01750/RMM

            King’s Lynn:  The Nar Ouse Regeneration Area (NORA), Wisbech Road:              Reserved Matters:  Development for 94 dwellings:  Lovell Partnership Ltd

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings explained that the Committee had visited the site for clarification purposes only.

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application sought reserved matters approval for 94 dwellings in relation to the outline consent for the Nar Ouse Regeneration Area (NORA) granted under application ref:  09/02010/F.  The reserved matters were:  access, appearance, scale, landscaping and layout.

 

The application site covered an area of approximately 2.5 hectares that had previously been cleared for development under outline permissions dating back to 2002 and already had reserved matters approval for 126 residential units under application ref:  14/00997/RMM.  To the north and west the existing residential development was located which had been developed under earlier NORA phases as well as more established dwellings on Kitchener Street, the River Nar which was located to the east and Morston Drift to the south.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the applicant was the Borough Council and the proposal was for a major development.

 

It was explained that as part of the discussions with Homes England, should the application be approved it would form part of the Government’s ‘Accelerated Delivery Program’ and be built as modular units. 

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Planning history;

·        Form and character;

·        Residential amenity;

·        Highway safety;

·        Affordable housing;

·        Open space and landscaping;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Other considerations; and

·        Crime and disorder.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr D Gagen (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings drew the Committee’s attention to page 4 of the report, where it stated that an additional 16 visitor spaces would be provided but further in report it stated that 12 spaces would be required, and asked for this to be clarified.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that 16 additional visitor spaces would be provided.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings also referred to page 5 of the report under Design Statement, where it stated that the dwellings layout and size exceeded the governments Technical Housing Standings, creating high quality spaces for people to live. 

 

The Assistant Director advised that the standards related to Homes England requirements as the Council was receiving a grant from them.

 

Councillor Wareham asked for clarification as to where the affordable housing was located on the site.  The Principal Planner highlighted the affordable housing on the plans.

 

Councillor Wareham added that he was pleased to see that the affordable units had been pepper-potted across the site.

 

Councillor Morrison asked whether within the scheme there was the provision of retail units, meeting places, etc to provide a sense of community.

 

The Principal Planner advised that this scheme was purely residential as part of the wider NORA development.  The Principal Planner advised that permission had been granted for the enterprise zone and there were local facilities such as South Lynn Community Centre and shop within walking distance.

 

Councillor Morrison added that South Lynn was already an established community and with this application for a further 94 dwellings, no social facilities had been provided.  He asked whether a shop had been provided for these new dwellings.

 

In response, the Assistant Director explained that there was an existing shop nearby, a new school, multi-use games area, football pitches and South Lynn Community Centre.  He advised that the area had been planned out.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings referred to the bottom of page 10, where it stated that condition 4 of outline planning permission 09/02010/F gave a time limit for commencement of ten years from the date of the decision which remained extant.  She added that other schemes had shorter time periods.

 

The Assistant Director explained the site was part of a complex regeneration scheme for the area and was subject to extensive remedial works which was why a longer permission had been granted.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that if a shorter time period had been granted, then the units might have been built out sooner.

 

Councillor Parish stated that this was an excellent scheme in nearly all aspects apart from the fact that there had been no provision for energy efficient measures, such as solar panels to the roofs, etc.  He added that this was an excellent opportunity for the Borough Council to take the lead in this area.  He added that the Council had been awarded funding to promote the modular scheme and should take it further and make the dwellings energy efficient.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that whilst she agreed that something needed to be done nationally, she did not want to see increased costs added to the houses. 

 

Councillor Crofts asked whether the Borough Council would be taking on the responsibility to maintain the green areas in perpetuity.

 

The Principal Planner advised that going forward the Borough Council would be taking on responsibility for the green spaces, and this was covered by condition 6.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings drew the Committee’s attention to the need to amend conditions 1 and 4 and the correction, as outlined in late correspondence, which was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended, subject to amended conditions 1 and 4 and the correction, as outlined in late correspondence.

 

(ii)        19/00679/CM

            Heacham:  Heacham Recycling Centre:  County Matters Application:  Change of use to a mixed development to allow the disposal of trade waste in conjunction with the existing household waste recycling centre (a maximum of 5,000 tonnes per annum), the installation of a reuse shop (two portable steel containers) for the onsite sale of waste items suitable to reuse, and the ancillary small-scale sale of non-recycled items (Christmas trees, logs, compost bins and green waste sacks) to operate Monday to Sunday from 7:00 to 18:00 hours all year round, excluding Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day):  Norfolk County Council

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application was a County Matters application for a change of use at Heacham Recycling Centre, Millennium Wood, Chalk Pit Road, Heacham.  The Borough Council was not the determining authority, but was a statutory consultee.

 

The site was set within woodland at the end of Chalk Pit Road in Heacham and currently operated as a household waste recycling centre and was accessed from the A149.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Parish.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of the development;

·        Form and character / impact on the AONB;

·        Neighbour amenity; and

·        Highways.

 

Councillor Parish outlined the reasons why he had called-in the application, which included the fact that he had seen the application on the weekly list, but Heacham Parish Council had no knowledge of the application as Norfolk County Council had sent details of it to an old email address, which was no longer working.

 

Councillor Parish explained that Heacham Parish Council owned the land but leased it to Norfolk County Council.    He had taken some advice from the Parish Council who had concerns that the car park at Millennium Wood could be used if the recycling centre became too busy.  He also added that when the Parish Council first leased the land to Norfolk County Council there was no questions of retail activity.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that she considered that this was a good idea to have a re-use shop and supported the recommendation.

 

Councillors Parish and White abstained from the vote for the following resolution.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the Committee raises no objection to the application.

 

(iii)       19/00442/F

            Castle Acre:  The Water Tower, Peddars Way:  Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 17/02168/F:  Re-use and develop existing water tower structure to a two bedroom residential dwelling:  Definitely Not Limited

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site related to a former water tower located on Peddars Way in          Castle Acre.

 

Planning permission was granted in 2016 for the re-use and development of the existing water tower structure to a two bedroom residential dwelling.  Subsequent variation of condition applications were submitted in 2016 and 2017 and approved, and a non-material amendment application was submitted in 2018 and recently approved.

 

The application sought to vary the approved plans.  The only change was the increase in the height of the balustrading on the roof by 30 cm due to Building Regulation requirements.  The application was retrospective.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Moriarty.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of development;

·        Form and character;

·        Amenity; and

·        Other considerations

 

In response to a query from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings, the Principal Planner pointed out the window which was to be obscured glazing and non-opening.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that she had seen the water tower whilst out on site, which looked very good and was a good re-use of the building.

 

Councillor Morrison referred to the comments made by the Parish Council on page 17.  The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that the increase in height of the balustrading was to satisfy the Building Regulation requirements.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended.

 

(iv)      18/02278/F

            Downham Market:  48 Paradise Road:  Construction of 3 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling:  Client of Ian J M Cable Architectural Design

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that No.48 was one of three modest 2 bedroom bungalows built on the corner of Paradise Road and the rear access road to AT Johnson (fronting Bridge Street).  This dwelling and the corner unit had access off the yard whilst the other bungalow had access direct onto Paradise Road.  There were commercial uses to the east and south, and residential to the north (bungalows) and rear (traditional terraced cottages).

 

The site was located within the development area of the town, and was bounded to the west and south by an historic wall with the Conservation Area beyond.

 

It was proposed to demolish the existing bungalow and redevelop the site with a block of three 2 bed houses, with 4 parking spaces direct off the commercial access road / yard.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the views of the Town Council were contrary to the officer recommendation.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Lucy Chase (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

Councillor Tyler stated that this was a light industrial area mixed with houses.  The existing bungalow had no architectural merit and considered that the proposed houses would enhance the area.  He therefore proposed that the application be approved on the grounds that the proposal would enhance the area, would not cause any harm and would fit in with the street-scene.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor White.

 

Councillor White added that the proposal would have its own parking and would be an improvement in the area.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings referred to the reason for refusal (2) that the proposal would be sited 1 m away from the existing dwellings and would result in overlooking to the terraced cottages to the immediate west.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that the middle terraced cottage had its own rear access.

 

Councillor Wareham explained that the site was in a sustainable location.

 

The Assistant Director explained that the principle of development was not the issue.  The issue related to the impact of the development on the neighbours.  It was considered that the site could accommodate two dwellings rather than three.  The site already had an extant permission for one new dwelling.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that she thought that the site could be developed and any overlooking could be designed out.

 

In response to a query, the Principal Planner explained that Nos. 52 and 54 Paradise Road were Grade 2 listed buildings.

 

Councillor Storey also considered that the proposal would be a planning gain.

 

Councillor Crofts referred to the comments from the Conservation Areas Advisory Panel that three dwellings were too many and two dwellings would be more appropriate. 

 

The Committee then voted on the proposal to approve the application, which was carried.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be agreed, following consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the following reasons:

 

The proposal would enhance the area, would not cause any harm and would fit in with the street-scene.

 

(v)       19/00484/F

            Downham Market:  6 Greenwich Close:  Construction of car port:  Mr & Mrs S Ewing

 

The Planner introduced the report and explained that the application sought consent for the construction of a single bay open sided car port attached to an existing garage outbuilding in the front west corner of the site.  The structure had a hipped roof facing Greenwich Close, with the ridge height of approximately 3.5m.  The proposal was substantially smaller than the existing two bay car port, which had previously been refused planning permission primarily due to its prominence in the street scene and was dismissed at appeal.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the application was the subject of a dismissed appeal.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of development;

·        Highway safety;

·        Visual amenity;

·        Neighbour amenity; and

·        Other material considerations.

 

Councillor Tyler asked for clarification in relation to the dimensions of the new garage.  The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings advised that the dimensions had been included in the late correspondence. 

 

The Assistant Director clarified that the depth had been reduced from 6.2 m to 3.4 m and was reduced from a double bay garage to a single bay garage.

 

Councillor Tyler asked for clarification in relation to the enforcement notice and removal of the structure.

 

The Assistant Director explained that time had to be given to the applicant to comply.  The applicant had already demonstrated a willingness to comply as he had submitted a revised application following the Inspector’s Decision Notice.

 

The Committee discussed how long to give to the applicant to get the new scheme developed.  Councillor Wareham proposed 12 months for the new scheme to be implemented, which was seconded by the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings and agreed by the Committee.

 

Councillor Peake added that the applicant had gone a long way to comply with the Inspector’s Decision Notice.

 

Councillor Tyler added that the structure was still in place and needed to be sorted out quickly. 

 

The Assistant Director assured the Committee that officers would work with the applicant in relation to the enforcement notice but he had done what he was required to do.

 

It was agreed that an update would be provided to the Committee in 3 months’ time.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be approved, subject to condition 1 being amended to 12 months for the development to be completed.

 

(vi)      19/00189/F

            Gayton:  13 Lime Kiln Road:  Construction of dwelling house and new vehicular access to retained dwelling:  Mr Kevin Catton

 

The application site was located within the development boundary of Gayton.  Gayton was classified as a Key Rural Service Centre according to Policy CS02 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011.

 

The proposal sought permission for the construction of a dwelling house in the rear garden of 13 Lime Kiln Road, Gayton and a new access to the donor dwelling.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determining by the Planning Sifting Panel.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of the development;

·        Impact on form and character;

·        Impact on neighbour amenity; and

·        Other material considerations.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be refused as recommended.

 

(vii)     19/00374/F

            Little Massingham:  Manor Lodge, Station Road:  Proposed replacement dwelling:  Buck Estates

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site related to the proposed replacement of a residential property ‘Manor Lodge’ located on Station Road, Little Massingham.  The surrounding area was rural in character with relatively few neighbouring properties, although there was a property directly adjacent to the proposed site.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the views of the Parish Council were contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Planning history;

·        Principle of development;

·        Form, character and amenity;

·        Highways; and

·        Other considerations.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be approved, as recommended.

 

The Committee adjourned at 11.40 am and reconvened at 11.45 am

 

(viii)    18/01957/F

            Stow Bardolph:  Wilks Place, 34 The Drove, Barroway Drove:  Change of use of land from ostrich farm, livery, dog day care / boarding, storage of vintage vehicles and continued temporary retention of two mobile homes:  Mrs J Wilks

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings left the meeting during consideration of the application.

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site was located on the south-eastern side of The Drove, Barroway Drove approximately 450 m to the north-east of its junction with Lady Drove.  It comprised an area of approximately 3 ha and contained two mobile homes and a collection of agricultural buildings.  Vehicular access was gained from The Drove via an existing gated track.

 

The two mobile homes were granted temporary permission in September 2016 for a period of three years in order to establish an ostrich farm.

 

The proposal sought a further temporary permission for the retention of the mobile homes and diversification of the ostrich farm business to include DIY livery, dog day care / boarding and storage of vintage vehicles.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the discretion of the Executive Director.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact upon character and appearance of the countryside;

·        Impact upon neighbouring properties;

·        Flood risk; and

·        Other material considerations.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr G Martin (objecting) and Mrs Wilks (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor David Pope addressed the Committee. Councillor Pope stated that the proposal was not compatible for a residential area in relation to noise and disturbance from the dogs and visitors to the site. 

 

In relation to the barn where the dogs would be kept, Councillor Pope explained that it was not built for this purpose.  Councillor Pope referred to the business plan and added that no accounts had been provided since 2016 and failed to demonstrate how the business would be viable.  It also did not take into account license fees, pensions, wages, etc.  He added that he did not think that there was a need for the applicant to be living on the site.

 

Councillor Pope considered that the application was not in accordance with the NPPF paragraphs 83 and 84 as it created an unacceptable impact.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application, which he considered was against local and national policy.

 

Councillor Hipperson added that he admired the applicant for pursuing the business venture but considered that it was in the wrong location and needed to be somewhere more isolated.  He added that more details were needed in relation to the storage of vehicles.

 

Whilst agreeing with the comments made by Councillor Hipperson, Councillor Crofts added that he felt that this was an extension of a hobby and queried the business case.

 

The Principal Planner explained that the Committee had granted permission for the ostrich farm business which had been in operation for two years.  She added that the applicant was seeking to diversify, and this was classed as rural diversification.  The applicant would need to demonstrate at the end of the three year period that the business had worked.

 

In response to a query regarding whether the vintage vehicles would be worked on or were just for storage, the Principal Planner explained that condition 13 related to the storage of vintage vehicles only and the building itself was quite small.

 

Councillor Storey commended the applicant for taking on this project.  He added that the CSNN Team had raised no objection.  He suggested that if the kennels were moved more to the rear of the site then this might help with the situation.

 

Councillor Mrs Young added that this was a longer term project and the applicant should be given time to prove the business case.

 

Councillor Mrs Fraser asked for confirmation of how the dogs would be looked after and was concerned that the diversification had gone too far.

 

The Principal Planner advised that the applicant already had permission for the ostrich farm and so the numbers could increase.  The Principal Planner further explained that the Business Case had been outlined on page 61 of the report.

 

Councillor White expressed concern in relation to the business plan and proposed that the application be deferred to allow more information to come forward on the business plan.  This was agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be deferred, in order to allow more information to be supplied on the business plan.

 

(ix)      19/00122/F

            Thornham:  The Pastures, 6 Choseley Road:  Construction of 9 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling:  Butler & Le Gallez Ltd

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that full planning permission was sought for the erection of nine dwellings following the demolition of the existing dwelling.  One of the dwellings would be an affordable unit and a further £36,000 financial contribution would also be required towards affordable housing provision.

 

The site was located wholly within the development boundary of Thornham (a rural village) and the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was adjacent to Thornham Conservation Area.

 

The site was heavily treed, and during the determination period of the application all the existing trees to be retained have had a group Tree Preservation Order placed on them.  The TPO also took into account of the tree planting that was required under the current proposal to ensure their on-going protection.  The site was also located in a low flood risk area (Flood Zone 1).

 

The application had been referred to the Committee at the request of the Assistant Director.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

 

·        Principle of development

·        Impact on AONB and Conservation Area;

·        Highway safety;

·        Neighbour amenity;

·        Protected species; and

·        Other material considerations.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Dr Warren (objecting), Mrs Warren (objecting), Jonathan Doughty (supporting) and Andrew Coombes (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In response to comments made by the public speaker, the Principal Planner advised that the number of objections had been verified in late correspondence.

 

Also comments had been made about some of the units 4, 8 & 9 and the affordable unit not having any solar gain, and the Principal Planner highlighted the units on the plans in relation to the trees. 

 

The Arboricultural Officer explained that all of the trees on the site boundary were covered by a Tree Preservation Order.  The trees outside the site were not deemed to be threatened and therefore did not warrant a Tree Preservation Order.

 

Councillor Mrs Watson explained that 8 new houses and one affordable unit was of huge benefit to Thornham.  She hoped that the affordable unit would go to people from the village.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings advised that a letter could be written to encourage the affordable housing unit to be given to someone in the village.

 

Councillor Mrs Watson added that the people who adjoined the site were happy with the proposal and the objections had come from those living opposite the site.  She was also pleased that the trees were being thinned out.  However the screening of the trees was very important.  She also considered that the access was in a good position and the traffic was limited.  She felt that the proposal would be a great addition to Thornham and supported the application.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings drew the Committee’s attention to the additional condition 23 as outlined in late correspondence, which was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:   (A)       That, the application be approved, subject to the completion of an acceptable Section 106 Agreement within 4 months of the date of this resolution, subject to the additional condition 23, as outlined in late correspondence.

 

(B)       That the application be refused if an acceptable Section 106 Agreement was not completed within 4 months of the date of this resolution.

 

The Committee adjourned at 12.45 pm and reconvened at 1.20 pm

 

(x)       19/00118/RM

            Wretton:  Clover Social Club, Low Road:  Reserved matters application for the construction of 8 dwellings:  Mr & Mrs L Peake & Family

 

The Vice-Chairman left the meeting for this item of business.

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site was located on the south east side of Low Road, Wretton.  It was located in the countryside as defined by the Core Strategy 2011 and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMPP) 2016.  Wretton was a Smaller Village & Hamlet as defined by Policy CS02 of the Core Strategy 2011.

 

This was a reserved matters application for the construction of 8 dwellings, and followed the outline planning consent ref. 17/01856/O.  The outline planning consent was for the demolition of the existing business premises known as The Clover Club and Peake Physique along with other outbuildings and bowling green, and its redevelopment with 8 dwellings.

 

The proposed development consisted of 8 detached dwellings, with a mix of housing types; 4 of which were chalet bungalows and 4 were two storey dwellings.  The dwellings proposed had front and rear gardens and driveways for off-road parking.  Access would be via Low Road.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the applicant was related to a Member of the Committee.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application namely:

 

·        Principle of development;

·        Ecology;

·        Form and character;

·        Neighbour amenity; and

·        Any other matters requiring consideration prior to the determination of the application.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be approved, as recommended.

 

(xi)      2/TPO/00586

            Upwell:  Orchard Gardens:  To consider whether Tree Preservation Order 2/TPO/00586 should be confirmed, modified, or not confirmed in the light of objections

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings left the meeting for this item of business.

 

The Arboricultural Officer introduced the report and explained that the Walnut T1 was situated to the rear of 25-26 St Peters Road, Upwell.  The tree was visible from St Peters Road and, more importantly, as the tree matured it would continue to contribute to the wider landscape within Upwell Conservation Area.

 

The Arborcultural Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the following:

 

·        Reasons for making the Tree Preservation Order;

·        Outline of objections and representations; and

·        Response to objections and representations.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr G Seaton (objecting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

Members of the Committee were concerned that they could not see a close-up photograph of the tree.  Councillor White therefore proposed that the report be deferred, which was seconded by Councillor Crofts and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the application be deferred.

 

(xii)     2/TPO/00587

            King’s Lynn:  Land S of Extons Place and E of Kings Avenue, Rollesby Road, Hardwick Industrial Estate:  To consider whether Tree Preservation Order 2/TPO/00587 should be confirmed, modified or not confirmed in the light of objections

 

The Arboricultural Officer presented the report which explained that the woodland (W1) and the group (G1) were growing between the residential roads of Extons Place and King’s Avenue and the western edge of the Hardwick Industrial Estate at Rollesby Road.  The trees were a green buffer between the industrial units and the residential home and also provided an excellent habitat for wildlife in the urban area.

 

The Arborcultural Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the following:

 

·        Reasons for making the Tree Preservation Order;

·        Outline of objections and representations; and

·        Response to objections and representations.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr Abel (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

RESOLVED:   That, the Order be confirmed without modification.