Agenda item

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

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

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

(i)        20/01136/F

East Walton:  The Old Pheasantry, East of Keepers Cottage, Church Lane:  Siting of 38 storage containers:  Westacre Estate Management

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site related to a former Pheasantry and later a quail egg farm, which comprised two single storey buildings, a timber clad building and a concrete building which were both disused and in a state of disrepair.

The site was located on the eastern side of Church Lane, to the southern side of an unmade track which joined the B1153, East Walton.

Full planning permission was sought for the siting of 38 storage containers to the eastern side of the existing buildings on site.  There were currently 37 containers present on site.  East Walton was a Smaller Village and Hamlet within the Core Strategy’s Settlement Hierarchy.

The Committee attention was drawn to the late correspondence, where it explained that the summary was incorrect - it should have stated: 37 containers currently on site out of the 38 total number proposed, and also to the proposed additional condition.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Manning and De Whalley.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application as set out in the report.

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr John Thorpe (objecting) and Alec Birkbeck (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor de Whalley (objecting) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ryves proposed that a site visit should be carried out and this was seconded by Councillor Lawton.  

The Assistant Director explained that deferral of the application might be better as it would allow officers time to assess whether a site visit could be carried out.  It would also allow for the report to be updated to include information on the heritage assets.

Councillor Ryves as proposer of the site visit and Councillor Lawton as seconder, agreed to amend the proposal to defer the application to allow for further information to be provided on the heritage assets.

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer the application and, after having been put to the vote, it was carried unanimously, it was:

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.

(ii)       20/01222/F

Walpole Cross Keys:  West Holme Nursery, 65 Station Road:  Proposed storage unit extension:  Bedcare Ltd

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application was for the extension of a storage building which served an existing business (Bedcare Ltd) and was part of a wider nursery / business site (blue land).  As part of the application it was proposed to remove two large greenhouses to the south-west of the proposal which would reduce the amount of non-permeable surfaces at the site.

The application site was located outside the development boundary of Walpole Cross Keys at an existing nursery and business site.  The existing business site was not immediately to the development boundary but was 170m from the southern edge.  However, it was located in close proximity to the A17 and the associated highway network.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the Parish Council comments were at variance with the officer recommendation and at the request of the Planning Sifting Panel.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

Councillor Squire proposed that an additional condition be imposed to ensure that a traffic management scheme was provided.  This would include signage to direct HGV’s to the A17 rather than through the village.  This was seconded by Councillor Mrs Bower.

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application with the additional condition to require a traffic management scheme to be provided and, after having been put to the vote was carried unanimously, it was:

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as recommended subject to the imposition of an additional condition requiring a traffic management scheme.

The Committee then adjourned at 10.30 am and reconvened at 10.40 am, where the Democratic Services Officer carried out a roll call to confirm those present.

(iii)      20/01082/F

North Runcton:  Derelict Esso Filling Station, 38 West Winch Road, West Winch:  Demolition of existing built form on site, and replacement with 2 x 3-bedroom bungalows: Motor Fuel Group

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application site was located to the east of the A10 and fell within the development boundary of West Winch.  The site was immediately adjacent to the existing petrol filling station and was last used as a commercial repair garage in association with the filling station. 

The application sought consent for the construction of a pair of single storey semi-detached bungalows.  The bungalows were three bedroomed with parking and turning areas to the front and side and private gardens to the rear.  Access for the dwellings was proposed via Regent Avenue.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the views of the Parish Council were contrary to the officer recommendation and at the request of the Planning Sifting Panel.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application as set out in the report.

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Rick Morrish (objecting on behalf of North Runcton Parish Council) and Andrew Dowell Ingleton Wood (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Kemp addressed the Committee objecting to the application.

Councillor Storey proposed that the application should be deferred for clarification on the legal advice, which was seconded by Councillor Lawton.

The Democratic Services Officer carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer the application and, after having been put to the vote was carried (14 votes for, 3 against), it was:

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.