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 and Environment (copies of the schedules were published with the agenda).  Any changes to the schedules were recorded in the minutes.

 

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

 

(i)               22/00704/FM

Sedgeford/Snettisham:  Land at Sedgeford Hall Estate, Fring Road:  Construction and operation of a solar farm comprising an array of ground- mounted solar photovoltaic (“PV”) panels and containerised batteries and associated infrastructure:  Regener8 Power Ltd

 

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

 

Members were reminded that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to enable the applicant to investigate comments from the RSPB (informed by the Wash Wader Research Group) relating to curlews recorded on the site.  This issue has now been given full consideration.

 

Other issues raised in late correspondence had also been covered as well as some amendments sought by the applicant in relation to conditions.

 

The Senior Planner explained that full planning permission was sought for a 21 megawatt (MW) solar farm with battery storage capacity of 10 MW hours (MWh) comprising approximately 31,800 ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure.

 

The site comprised approximately 44.6ha of Grade 3b agricultural land north of Fring Road within the parishes of Sedgeford and Snettisham.  The site was located approximately 1.2km west of Fring, 1.65 km south of Sedgeford and 2.6km to the east of Snettisham.

 

The current land-use was mainly crop cultivation whilst the south-western field contained free ranged pigs.

 

A separate parcel of land within the applicant’s ownership to the west of the northern field was proposed to be field managed for farmland birds.

 

Access to the site would be taken via a new junction off Fring Road which formed the southern boundary of the site.  Vehicles would approach the site from the south-east from the A148 via Great Bircham.

 

The site fell within both the parishes of Sedgeford and Snettisham, both of which have Neighbourhood Plans, and incorporated three medium sized fields which were predominantly enclosed by hedges with occasional hedgerow trees.  Agricultural fields surrounded the site on all sides with very few buildings outside of the nearby settlements of Sedgeford, Snettisham, Shernbourne and Fring.

 

The construction phase of the development would be approximately 6 months, with the lifetime of the development expected to be 40 years from the first export of electricity.

 

The site was not subject to any landscape designations.  However, the site was located 215m southeast of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) at its nearest point and 1.1 km northwest of a scheduled monument.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the operational area exceeded 1ha and it had been called in by Councillor Parish.

 

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

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Cherie Gregorie (supporting) addressed the Committee.

 

The Chairman Councillor Mrs Spikings raised the issue that the report said that the solar farm would heat 3,500 homes, but queried how much food would the land provide. 

 

Councillor Mrs Bower responded that a lot of solar farms did have sheep grazing underneath the panels.  In addition if wild flowers were planted this would attract bees insects and pollination. 

 

Councillor de Whalley welcomed the comment of the comments of Norfolk Fire & Rescue Service.  He had concerns regarding Condition 12 and noted that Norfolk Coast Partnership comments which suggested that there would be no lighting on the site only during the construction phase.  He asked for clarification with regards to this.  He also questioned Condition 18 and asked that the site should be returned to greenfield, once the solar farm was decommissioned. 

 

In response, the Senior Planner explained that it was the intention that the site should be returned to agricultural but the condition could be amended and made more precise with the removal of the word or and the following words.  This was agreed by the Committee.

 

With regards to lighting, the Senior Planner advised that this was for when the site became operational, so at the moment in time there were no details of any proposed lighting.  Details would need to be submitted if the applicant wished for any lighting during the operation of the solar farm.  The lighting during the construction stage was known and considered acceptable.

 

Councillor Parish outlined his concerns to the application, in particular the loss of agricultural land which was Grade 3b and food production.  Food security was needed as well as energy security.  He also had concerns that the electricity produced from this solar farm would be sold abroad.  He added that the best sites for solar panels were on the roofs of buildings which would benefit members of the public and local businesses and would take away the need for land.  The refusal of solar farms had increased significantly and was becoming common practice because of the loss of land and food production.  He also made comments regarding carbon neutrality and pollution.  

 

Councillor Parish then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds off loss of agricultural land and food production.  This was seconded by Councillor Lawton.

 

Councillor Hudson left meeting during the debate and therefore took no part in the discussion or voted on the matter.

 

The Assistant Director advised that Government policy had not changed and no policy change which had been outlined in late correspondence.  The Local Plan policy did not preclude the use of Grade 3b land for solar developments.

 

Councillor Squire stated that she was pleased with the increase in biodiversity although the area set aside for birds was small.  She added that it was a very narrow access road.  Condition 8 was for a construction management plan and asked if this included the repair of damaged roads and verges.

 

The Assistant Director advised that in principle the condition could include the repair of verges and the road although this would be difficult to prove and tractors, etc also used the road.

 

Councillor Crofts added that he had some sympathy with the Parish Council’s point of view.  He stated that he felt that it was acceptable to use the Grade 3b land but he would be against if it was Grade 1 land.

 

Councillor Nockolds stated that this was a beautiful area and she was pleased with Condition 13.  She felt that it was important to have renewable energy for the future.  She asked for clarification in relation to the status of Grade 3b agricultural land.

 

Councillor Storey explained that Grade 3b land could still produce high yield crops with irrigation.  He added that the loss of productive land was always going to be controversial.  There was an option for an alternative to a solar farm. 

 

The Senior Planner advised that the recommendation was in accordance with planning policy.

 

The Assistant Director advised that this was a finely balanced application.  There were clearly things in favour of it and against the application. In terms of the definition of agricultural land, Grade 1-3a was the highest grade of land.  The policy referred to a significant loss of agricultural land, this was 44 hectares, and the Committee needed to decide if they considered it to be a significant loss.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings added that she considered it to be a significant loss.  The agricultural land could not be replaced but solar panels could be added to roofs.  She added that the food chain needed to be maintained as it was an uncertain future. 

 

Councillor Bubb stated that more details were needed on battery storage.  He felt that the land would be much better used for food production.

 

Councillor Lawton stated that the application had been pre-determined as it had appeared in the local paper.  The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings advised that the recommendation to approve was reported, but this was not pre-determined.

 

Councillor Holmes stated that the grass would be of great benefit to wildlife and biodiversity.  He considered that the construction traffic would due less harm to the lanes and verges than the existing farm traffic. 

 

Councillor Bone welcomed the fact that the scheme would introduce new hedgerows.  He also felt that it would be improve biodiversity.  On balance, he supported the application, as he felt that there were not many alternatives at the present time.

 

Councillor de Whalley stated that there was a climate emergency and experiencing climate change now.  Climate change would see sea level rise. There was a need to decarbonise power urgently and the power generation outweighed the dis-amenity and loss of Grade 3b agricultural land.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to refuse the application on the grounds that the loss of a significant amount of agricultural land outweighs the benefits of the solar farm contrary to Policy DM20 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan, and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (10 for refusal, 6 against and 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED:        That the application be refused, contrary to recommendation for the following reasons:

 

That the loss of a significant amount of agricultural land outweighs the benefits of the solar farm contrary to Policy DM20 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan.

 

The Committee then adjourned at 11.05 am and reconvened at 11.20 am.

 

(ii)             22/01430/F

Brancaster:  The Ship Hotel, Main Road:  Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 21/01108/F:  Demolition of walls and garden structure and the erection of hotel accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping:  The Ship Hotel Brancaster Ltd

 

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

 

The Senior Planner introduced the report and explained that the application was for the variation of a permitted and extant scheme at The Ship Hotel in Brancaster.  The Hotel was located in the Norfolk Coast AONB and Brancaster Conservation Area.

 

The Senior Planner advised that Brancaster did have a Neighbourhood Plan and this had been taken into consideration when producing the report.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Lawton and the officer recommendation was contrary to views of the Parish Council.

 

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 Chris Borrman (supporting) addressed the Committee.

 

The Planning Control Manager advised that Condition 18 needed to be amended to read ‘in outside areas’. 

 

 

Councillor Lawton stated that he had called in the application at the request of the Parish Council who were concerned about the noise emanating from the hot tubs.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve with Condition 18 being amended, and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (17 for and 1 abstention).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended subject to Condition 18 being amended to read ‘in outside areas’.

 

(iii)           22/01092/F

Boughton:  Land west of Woodstock, Mill Hill Road:  Proposed new residential dwelling:  Mr C Bond

 

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 construction of a new dwelling on land to the west of Woodstock. Mill Hill Road, Boughton. 

 

The application site was located on the west side of Mill Hill Road, west of Woodstock.  The site was approximately 300m from Boughton’s village centre and was 0.14ha in size.  Boughton was classified as a Smaller Village and Hamlet and as such did not have a development boundary.  Therefore the site was categorised as countryside in the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016.

 

The application site was outside Boughton’s Conservation Area, which ended along the east boundary of the application site.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee at the request of Councillor Sampson.

 

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 Simon Lemmon (supporting) addressed the Committee.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Sampson addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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 (16 for and 2 against).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as recommended.

 

(iv)           22/00892/F

Burnham Norton:  Denning, 7 Marsh Lane:  Extension of three bedroomed, two storey cottage involving modest modifications to single storey lean-to at west end of cottage, minor internal alterations and enhancements, removal of existing timber shed and oil tank, and modest localised adaptations to hard landscape.  The gardens remain almost entirely untouched.  Construction of two storey extension providing family rooms and additional bedrooms connecting to existing cottage’s west end at ground and first.  New extension predominately timber clad under a pantiles roof, with timber windows throughout:  Mr Gerard Nieuwenhuys

 

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

 

The Planning Control Manager introduced the report and explained that the application site related to a two storey dwelling known as Denning No.7, situated on the southern side of Marsh Lane, Burnham Norton.

 

The site was located within Burnham Norton’s Conservation Area and AONB.

 

Burnham Norton was classified as a Smaller Village and Hamlet within the Core Strategy Settlement Hierarchy.

 

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

 

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

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, a letter was read out from Councillor Sandell supporting the application.

 

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 (17 votes for, 1 against)

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as recommended.

 

The Committee then adjourned at 12.25 pm and reconvened at 1.00 pm

 

Councillor Hudson left the meeting at 1.00 pm

 

(v)             22/01484/F

Downham Market:  Vacant unit, 9 Fairfield Road:  Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 21/01105/RM:  Reserved matters:  Construction of 8 dwellings with access:  Mr Mark Attridge

 

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

 

The Principal Planner presented the report and explained that the application site was an area of 0.12 ha of land, located to the west of the town of Downham Market.  Access to the site was via Fairfield Road, which was a private unadopted road and a Public Right of Way.  The site was situated between the railway tracks to the east and the River Great Ouse to the west with Fairfield Road consisting of a mixture of residential development and employment uses.  The site was previously in employment use but had been cleared and was vacant.

 

The application sought full permission for the construction of eight residential units comprising of two-storey dwelling houses with designated parking spaces and private amenity space.

 

The application site already had planning consent for the construction of 8 dwellings and this application sought to vary condition 1 of the reserved matters application to amend the approved site layout.

 

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

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended.

 

(vi)       22/01014/F

            Emneth:  Elme High Hotel, 69 Elm High Road:  Change of use from Hotel (C1) to large HMP (Sui Generis):  Mr D Cornetta

 

It was noted that this application had been deferred.

 

(vii)      22/00982/F

            Ingoldisthorpe:  Aldorcar, Coaly Lane:  Construction of one and a half storey dwelling:  Mr Gerald King

 

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 construction of a 1.5 storey dwelling.  The application site measured approximately 0.043 hectares which situated south of Coaly Lane, which was located north of the village of Ingoldisthorpe.

 

The site had recently been subject of a dismissed appeal for the same development.  The appeal Inspector outlined that the location of the development despite being contrary to Policy DM2 was acceptable.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the officer recommendation was contrary to a dismissed appeal and had been referred by 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, Samantha Anthony (supporting) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Bubb outlined his concerns to the application and proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal was overdevelopment of the site, however there was no seconder for the proposal.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (15 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended.

 

(viii)     22/01496/O

            Walpole:  Land adjacent Roseville, Chalk Road, Walpole St Peter:  Outline application for a new residential development:  Mr J Heavey

 

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 a strip of land on the western side of Chalk Road comprising 0.35ha of mostly paddock land.  The site was located outside the village development area for Walpole St Peter and was in Flood Zone 3a of the Council adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

 

Members were reminded that the same development being proposed under application ref: 21/02490/O was refused at the 4 April 2022 Planning Committee.

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Kirk.

 

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 S Lemmon (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Kirk addressed the Committee in support of the application via Zoom.

 

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 unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as recommended.

 

(ix)       22/00910/F

West Acre:  Abbey Farm, River Road:  Retrospective External Tap area adjacent to brewery (temporary):  Duration Brewery

 

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

 

The Planning Control Manager presented the report and explained that temporary planning permission (2 years) was sought for the change of use of an existing hardstanding outside of Duration Brewery Co in West Acre to use as an external Tap Area.  Proposed plans indicated the siting of tables and a bar area, as well as space for a food truck on an existing courtyard hardstanding central to the existing business use at Abbey Farm, known as the Westacre Estate.

 

The use was proposed as an outdoor extension to the brewery’s existing Tap Room and was proposed for a temporary period of 2 years whilst the building operations were completed on the south section of the existing barn building (approved under 17/01212/F).  The application had been amended since its original submission to respond to comments from neighbours and CSNN.

 

Abbey Farm and the surrounding land were designated as a Scheduled Monument by Historic England.  The main barn on site was Grade II* Listed, and Abbey House further to the east of the application site was a Grade II Listed Building.

 

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, as set out in the report.

 

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

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Moriarty addressed the Committee in relation to the application.  He asked the Committee to consider adding conditions relating to lighting, parking and the generator. 

 

Whilst speaking in support of the application, Councillor Mrs Spiking proposed that additional conditions be added further details of the proposed lighting and parking arrangements, to be submitted to, and agreed by the council.  This was seconded by Councillor Squire and agreed by the Committee.

 

Councillor de Whalley proposed an additional condition regarding the use of generators, and this was agreed by the Committee.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application together with the additional conditions regarding lighting, parking and generator and, having been put to the vote was carried (15 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved, as recommended, subject to the addition of additional conditions relating to lighting, parking and the use of generators.