Minutes:
(i) 20/01954/RMM
South Wootton: Land north-west of South Wootton School, off Edward Benefer Way: Reserved matters application following outline planning permission 17/01151/OM for the construction of 450 dwellings with associated infrastructure to include access, landscaping, appearance, layout and scale: Larkfleet Homes Norfolk and Suffolk
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 on the northern side of Edward Benefer Way and to the north-west of South Wootton Junior School on Hall Lane to the north of King’s Lynn.
The site was currently arable agricultural land and extended to just over 31 hectares. The site was part of a wider housing allocation for South Wootton under Policy E3.1 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016, with the Policy requiring at least 300 dwellings on 40ha.
This application was for the approval of reserved matters for the construction of 450 dwellings and associated infrastructure. The matters to be considered under this application were landscaping, appearance, layout and scale. The application followed the decision for outline consent with access considered which was issued on 15 April 2019 under reference 17/01151/OM.
It was explained that the proposal maintained the central spine road which ran from a north to south alignment, which mirrored the outline consent. The spine road to the north connected to the adjacent development currently under consideration by the Authority (21/01944/RMM) to eventually continue and connect to Nursery Lane / Hall Lane to the north-east. The spine road to the south connected to a new roundabout on Edward Benefer Way. An additional access had been shown between plots 64 and 65 to facilitate future access to the rear of South Wootton Junior School via this proposal. A further access up to the boundary with the land to the south-east between plots 31 and 32 was also provided to facilitate access to the recently permitted Primary Care Facility (ref: 21/00995/FM).
The application had been referred to the Committee for determination due to the adverse comments from the Parish Council and in the public interest given the outline application was determined by Planning Committee.
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 M J Ray (objecting) and Mr S Scales (on behalf of South Wootton Parish Council) and Mr I Reilley (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.
In response to comments raised by the public speakers, the Principal Planner advised that in relation to access points there were conditions on the outline consent that required to be discharged and they related to connection to the connection to the existing rights of way and open spaces, connections to the road that would continue to the north-east.
At the request of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings the Planning Control Manager provided clarification in relation to the roundabout and access to the medical centre.
In relation to comments regarding amenity space for the properties, the Principal Planner explained that there were not currently space standards for gardens that was used. He explained in this particular instance a modest sized garden was provided for a lot of the properties with the expanse of public open space within close proximity to the houses. This particular development did give a range of options for future occupiers to enjoy their private spaces in addition to the public open space and parks.
The Planning Control Manager advised that the open space maintenance agreements would be covered by the Section 106 Agreement. She also advised that the garden space would be nothing less than 10 m in depth.
Councillor Bone addressed the Committee and stated that he liked the design of the scheme and the public open space that had been provided. He did have concerns over the lack of bungalows for the elderly. He also had concerns regarding the traffic congestion particularly towards the docks. He added that the affordable housing had been well pepper-potted across the site. He also proposed that there should be an additional condition regarding cycleways being up to LT 20 standards. This was seconded by Councillor Long and agreed by the Committee.
The Planning Control Manager also confirmed that there would be 10 bungalows across the site, 3 of which would be affordable.
Councillor Bone asked if the number of bungalows could be increased however the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings reminded the Committee that they needed to consider the scheme that was in front of them.
Councillor Rust stated that there would be 450 homes in the open countryside. She also had concerns in relation to the play areas and added that the Committee must ensure that they were ROSPA safety approved otherwise the Council would not adopt them. She also stated that the homes would have gas boilers, which was not very energy efficient.
The Assistant Director advised that the site had outline planning permission and all the Committee needed to consider was layout, design, landscaping, etc. It was an allocated site for housing and was not considered as countryside but as an allocated housing site because it had been through the Local Plan process. He added that the Building Regulations were changing in June 2022 and would require new dwellings to significantly reduce their carbon emissions, so there would be a much more stringent Building Regulations regime coming into force which those properties would have to comply with.
The Planning Control Manager advised that all details regarding the play areas would need to be agreed with the Council and would be subject to maintenance arrangements.
In response to a comment from Councillor Rust regarding problems with play areas, the Assistant Director acknowledged that there had been historical issues with play areas but hopefully things had tightened up since then and conditions were now attached.
The Assistant Director referred to the comments from the LLFA and explained that there was a detailed condition 18 attached to the outline consent which had to be discharged prior to the commencement of the development.
Councillor Nockolds added that she was the Ward Councillor for the area but had not been in discussion with the Parish Council regarding the application. She added that she was pleased with the variety of houses, the cycle routes, and open space. She wanted to confirm that public transport would go through the site.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings referred to the removal of trees and hedging but was pleased with the amount of replacement trees and hedges that would be going into the site.
Councillor Rose stated that his concern related to drainage and what safety precautions were being taken. The Principal Planner confirmed that it would be swales.
Councillor Squires stated that she was impressed with the amount of replacement trees and hedges going into the site and it was very rare for developers to do that voluntarily. She added that it was one of the better designed schemes that had come before the Committee. She added that she didn’t see any bird boxes, hedgehog highways, etc to incorporate into the green corridors.
The Principal Planner confirmed that the mitigation and enhancement measures (condition 31), had been included on the outline consent.
In response to a comment from Councillor Morley regarding surface water, the Assistant Director explained that the surface water solution would be in phases.
He also explained that that the roundabout was part of the outline consent granted in 2018. The detailed design of the roundabout would have to be approved by County Highways.
The Assistant Director advised that with regards to a comment from South Wootton Parish Council regarding access up to the school, this was conditioned on the outline consent. The Assistant Director also made reference to the parish council’s request for an alternative access to the proposed medical centre.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings proposed that there was an additional condition to ensure that the access road also went up to the boundary with the medical centre, to give an alternative and preferable access to it. This was seconded by Councillor Tyler and agreed by the Committee.
Councillor Hudson referred to the roundabout on Edward Benefer Way and asked whether the roundabout going to be suitable for the amount of traffic.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings advised that the roundabout was not part of the discussions today. The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that they were considering layout, appearance and landscaping today. The access arrangements had already been agreed at the outline stage.
The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to adding a condition regarding LT20, ensuring the access was up to the medical centre and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (13 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention).
RESOLVED:That the application be approved, as recommended, subject to the imposition of additional condition(s) regarding LT 20 and ensuring the access was up to the boundary with the proposed medical centre.
(ii) 22/00461/F
Pentney: 1 Abbey Lakes Close: Variations of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 19/01495/F: Proposed garage and boat store: Mr E McDonnell
Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.
Councillor Long declared a non-pecuniary interest as the applicant was the son of his cousin.
The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application sought to vary conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 19/01495/F which gave consent in October 2019 for the construction of a garage / boat store at the application site. This application sought to amend the approved plans, in order to alter the design of the proposed garage / boat store.
The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the Parish Council comments were at variance with the officer recommendation and was referred by the Planning Sifting Panel.
The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.
The Committee took a vote on the recommendation to approve the application and, by a show of hands, was carried.
RESOLVED:That the application be approved as recommended.
The Committee then adjourned at 10.35 am and reconvened at 10.45 am.
(iii) 21/01596/F
Walsoken: Elme Hall Hotel, 69 Elm High Road, Emneth: Proposed change of use from a hotel to a large HMO (Sui Generis): Mr D Cornetta
Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.
The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application sought full planning consent for the change of use of the application site from a hotel to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) consisting of 26 rooms (with a maximum occupancy of 39 people) with 4 communal rooms including a lounge and a kitchen / diner on each floor.
The application site was 0.35 ha and was part of a larger hotel site (approximately 1.2ha in total), the remainder of which would be retained as a hotel. The external form of the building would remain unchanged, although there would be changes to the site to accommodate the parking and area of amenity space.
The application site was located to the north-east of the A47, with access via the existing entrance off Elm High Road. The site was 1.3 miles to Wisbech town centre and abutted the built extent of the town. However, it was located within the parish of Emneth and the site was within the development boundary for the village of Emneth, as detailed on Inset Map G34 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan.
The application had been referred to the Committee for determination by the Assistant Director.
The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.
Councillor Crofts stated that the application was within his Ward, and he was pleased to see that consultation had taken place with Wisbech Town Council and Fenland District Council. He referred to the comments by Emneth Parish Council. He questioned what ARLA stood for.
In response to a query from the Chairman, the Principal Planner explained that the tenancies would be for 6 months, and they would carry out checks.
The Planning Control Manager advised that ARLA stood for the Association of Residential Letting Agents.
Councillor Bone added he was confused over its purpose and that this sort of accommodation lends itself more to temporary supported living accommodation. He could not see how young professional would be attracted to it and questioned the business model.
Councillor Long stated that it was not up to the Planning Committee to question the business model.
In relation to noise issues, Councillor Crofts clarified that the site was at least 100 m away from Morrisons.
Councillor Spikings added that she was concerned over the loss of accommodation in Wisbech. She added that the hotel was on the A47 and added to the tourism offer.
Councillor Hudson added that there was very little short-term accommodation for single people or a couple in Wisbech. She considered that the proposal would be good for Wisbech. It would give people an address and somewhere to call home. This type of accommodation was needed in Wisbech.
Councillor Morley felt that the business model needed further information.
Councillor Lawton proposed that the application be deferred for further information however there was no seconder.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of the loss of tourism in the locality. This was seconded by Councillor Tyler.
The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (8 votes for refusal, 7 against and 1 abstention).
RESOLVED:That the application be refused, contrary to recommendation for the following reasons:
The proposed development would result in the loss of existing tourist accommodation, and it has failed to adequately demonstrate the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the tourism industry in the locality, contrary to the relevant provisions of the NPPF and policy CS10 of the Core Strategy.
(iv) 21/02397/F
Walsoken: Rosalie Farm, Lynn Road: Proposed conversion and extension of silos to form dwelling: Mr Clark
Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.
The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that full planning permission was sought for the conversion of 4 silos to a single dwelling at Rosalie Farm, Lynn Road, Walsoken. Plans showed the conversion of 4 existing silos which were proposed to be linked via the construction of a rear extension measuring approximately 15 x 4.5m from the rear of the existing silos. The extension provided the majority of the residential floor space proposed.
The site was outside of any defined development boundary on land which was therefore considered to be within the wider countryside for the purposes of the Local Plan. The applicant quoted the use of policies allowing the conversion of redundant rural buildings as justification for the proposal.
An application was refused at Planning Committee in October 2021. Members primary concern related to the extent of the garden land proposed and included within the red line, as opposed to the principle of the extension / conversion of the silos. The application had been submitted with a significantly reduced red line area shown on drawing no. PL05c (from 0.45 ha to 0.2 ha).
The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of the Assistant Director.
The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.
Councillor Squire stated that the conversion of the silos would retain them for future generations as they had been an important feature in the countryside. She considered that it was an innovative design and different. She therefore proposed that the application be approved, which was seconded by Councillor Bone on the grounds of conversion of redundant farm buildings, historical significance to the local area, innovative design and unique, and recycling existing materials.
The Chairman Councillor Spikings asked what the position would be if planning permission was granted and the proposal was not built, whether the permission would be for the land. In response, it was explained that the land would change to residential, and any new dwelling would require a planning application to be submitted.
The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be agreed following consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, (9 votes for approval, 6 against and 1 abstention).
RESOLVED:That the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, with the imposition of appropriate conditions to be agreed following consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and for the following reasons:
The proposal is considered to be an innovative scheme which would involve the conversion of redundant farm buildings and would retain the historical significance of the silos. The benefits identified outweigh the harm, and it is therefore considered to be in accordance with paragraph 80 of the NPPF.