Agenda item

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the attached Schedules of Planning Applications submitted by the Assistant Director.

 

The Committee considered schedules of applications for planning permission submitted by the Assistant Director for Planning and Environment (copies of the schedules were 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, set out in the schedules signed by the Chair.

 

(i)              25/00184/F

Docking:  Land west of Oaklands, Little Lane:  Proposed construction of 1 no. residential dwelling following sub-division of site:  Norfolk Signature Homes Ltd

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the proposal sought full planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling on land west of Oaklands, Little Lane, Docking.

 

The application site comprised an area of residential curtilage to the west of the donor dwelling known as Oaklands.  The site consisted of a gravel parking / turning area and various ancillary buildings and structures.

 

An application to extend / alter the donor dwelling to create a larger two storey dwelling was approved under application reference:  24/00520/F and those works were currently taking place on site.

 

The application site was within the Docking Conservation Area and within the Nutrient Neutrality Catchment.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as it had been referred by the Planning Sifting Panel as the officer recommendation was contrary to the views of the Parish Council.

 

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

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Morgan Smith (supporting) and Andrew Skelton (objecting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the case officer explained that condition 8 referred to a construction management plan and the overshadowing of the garden area was detailed on page 23 of the agenda.

 

At the request of Councillor Lintern, the case officer displayed the street view.

 

Councillor de Winton added that having seen the site, he considered that the proposal, once built out, would fit in fine with the surroundings.  He was pleased to see that there was a condition requesting a construction management plan.  He therefore supported the recommendation.

 

Several Members of the Committee expressed concern that it was a small plot and there could be issues in relation to maintenance to deal with.  The case officer advised that this could be addressed through the Party Wall Act which was outside the planning regime.

 

In response to a comment from Councillor Ryves about the possibility of developing the strip of land next to the site, the Planning Control Manager advised that each application had to be considered on its own merits, and although it was a very small plot  it did not stop planning permission being sought for ancillary buildings.

 

The Vice-Chair asked that with the house on the boundary was this the right way forward and good design.

 

Councillor Barclay added that he considered that the proposal would enhance the street-scene and made reference to the Parish Council’s comments.

 

The Planning Control Manager provided an explanation of the Party Wall Act to the Committee.  The Legal Advisor added that there was statutory provisions to allow works to be carried out under the Party Wall Act.

 

Councillor Ryves proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds of the scale and height of the proposal, it was a cramped form of development and would cause disamenity to the neighbour and would be contrary to LP21.  This was seconded by Councillor Devulapalli.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out roll call on the proposal to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote was carried (11 votes for, 2 votes against).

 

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

 

Members considered that the height and scale of the development was a cramped form of development which also had an impact on neighbour amenity which was contrary to LP21.

 

(ii)             25/00280/F

East Winch:  Old Railway Yard, Gayton Road:  Retrospective application for 3 storage yards separated with palisade fencing and lockable gates:  JN Crane Hire

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that retrospective planning permission was sought for the construction of three storage yards separated with palisade fencing and lockable gates.  The application site was within a larger commercial / employment yard, which had primarily been used as a storage yard for a considerable period of time.  The site was accessed via Gayton Road, East Winch.

 

The application site was located in the countryside, outside of the development boundary for East Winch and to the northwest of the village.  East Winch was categorised as a Rural Village (tier 5) in the adopted Local Plan 2021 – 2040.  The site also included the protected route of a disused railway track bed (from Middleton Towers to the borough boundary at Pentney) as identified in Policy LP12 of the Local Plan.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor 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 Yarham (objecting on behalf of the Parish Council) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In response to comments raised in relation to drainage, the case officer advised that the applicant had stated that no drains had been filled in to facilitate the development and no evidence could be found to suggest that the drains had been filled in and that this was proposal was responsible for the issues in the surrounding area.  Condition 4 had been imposed to require full details of the surface water drainage arrangements for the site had been agreed.

 

The case officer referred the Committee to pages xxxx of the agenda

 

Several Members of the Committee made reference to disused railway track.  The Senior Planner advised that LP12 was discussed in the report on pages 36 and 37 of the agenda.  It was explained that the development included three modest concrete pads, fencing and three small storage containers (which could be easily relocated).  There was sufficient space within the ownership of the applicant (to the south of the concrete pads) to potentially provide a route through the site for a path / cycleway.  If a larger scheme were to come forward for new rail facilities for example, the nature of the modest development was such that it would not prevent / prejudice such a potential future use.  As such the development was in accordance with Local Plan Policy LP12.

 

In response to whether the wording was strong enough in Policy LP12, it was   explained that Officers considered that it was and to add an additional condition would not meet the tests.  The Planning Control Manager advised that an informative could be added to the decision notice to remind applicants of the need to ensure that the potential future use of the disused railway trackways for active travel or rail facilities purposes is not prejudiced.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote was carried (11 votes for and 2 votes against).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended.

 

The Committee then adjourned at 10.40 am and reconvened at 10.50 am.

 

(iii)           24/02233/F

Holme next the Sea:  10F Drove Orchards, Thornham Road:  Retrospective – Erection of a 4 x 8 metre heavy duty tent.  Main construction is based on connected steel poles covered with a heavy duty made to measure tarpaulin and positioned on a concrete pad.  There is access at each end of the tent:  Mr Stephen Harrison

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application site related to a ‘juicing tent’ to the north of the Old Grain Store at Drove Orchards, Holme next the Sea.

 

Retrospective planning permission was sought for the siting of the tent for pressing apples from the farm to make apple juice and cider which was then sold at Drove Orchards Farm shop on site. 

 

The tent measured 4 x 8 metres and was sited on a concrete pad.

 

Holme was classified as a Smaller Village and Hamlet within Tier 6 of the Settlement Hierarchy under the Local Plan.  However, the application site was located outside of the development boundary.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as Councillor Jamieson had an interest in the land at Drove Orchards.

 

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 roll call on the recommendation to approve the application together with the additional condition regarding a maintenance scheme, as detailed in the late correspondence and, after having been put to the vote was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended subject to the inclusion of the additional condition as detailed in the late correspondence.

 

(iv)       25/00264/O

            Roydon:  Land at E569785, N323575, and SW of 31 Church Lane: Outline planning permission with some matters reserved for:  Sub-division of plot to create new dwelling, garage, access and boundary wall following removal of tennis court: Professor David Viner

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application sought outline planning consent with access only for the sub-division of the garden of The Old Parsonage to create a new dwelling following removal of a private tennis court.  The scale, layout, appearance and landscaping will be determined as part of a later reserved matters application.

 

The application site was located within the development boundary as seen within the policies map, as defined by the Local Plan 2021-2040 and Figure 3 of the Grimston, Pott Row, Roydon and Congham Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2036.

 

The site comprised approximately 0.18h of residential garden land with existing trees and outbuildings, with most of the site covered by a private tennis court.  Residential dwellings were located to the east, north and west of the site.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination 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, David Viner (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that an amendment to Condition 12 needed to be made and added “for the site” to the end of the condition in order to make it more precise.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out 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 subject to the amended Condition 12, as detailed above.

 

(v)             25/00270/F

Upwell:  Land and buildings at E550219 and N300679, Back Drove:  Self-build – Demolition of barn and construction of new self-build 3-bedroom dwelling, and formation of new access:  Mrs C Leigh-Walker

 

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

 

Councillor Spikings left the meeting for this application and did not take part in the debate or vote on the matter.

 

The case officer introduced the report and advised that the application was for the demolition of a barn for the construction of a self-build three-bedroom dwellinghouse and formation of a new access along Back Drove in Upwell.

 

Upwell was classified as a Tier 4 settlement, alongside Outwell, under the settlement hierarchy of LP02 of the Local Plan 2021-2040.  The site falls outside the development boundary of Upwell by approximately 156m.

 

Members were informed that the decision would be balanced against the extant fallback permission 24/00500/PACU3, for conversion of the barn into one dwelling.  This planning permission remained extant, and all works were required to be commenced and completed by the expiry date of 16 May 2027.

 

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

 

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 roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote was carried (11 votes for and 1 vote against).

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as recommended.