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)              25/00389/F

Walsoken:  Land east of Willowdene, north of Clydesdale, Biggs Road:  Intensification of use of existing hardstanding at an existing Gypsy / Traveller site to enable standing of an additional five static caravans and one touring caravan (retrospective):  Mr J Rooney

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the Planning Committee meeting held on 1^st September 2025, to allow for additional information to be sought regarding drainage, and to clarify the full criteria of Policy LP32 of the Local Plan, as well the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

 

The Committee were advised that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the intensification of use of existing hardstanding at an existing Gypsy / Traveller site to enable standing of an additional five static caravans and one touring caravan.  The proposal included an extension of the previous site boundary to the east (rear) to increase the overall site area.

 

Application reference 23/01082/F granted consent under delegated powers for the siting of one residential static caravan and two touring caravans.  The site, known as ‘Land next to Clydesdale’ in the GTAA provided one G&T pitch.  The retrospective proposal would increase this to a total of six static caravans on the site at any one time.

 

The application site was outside of the development boundary and within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as it was deferred from the 1^st September Planning Committee meeting and it had originally been called in by Councillor Kirk, and 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.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol Rachel Bingham (objecting), Fred Leach (objecting on behalf of the Parish Council) and Stuart Carruthers (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Kirk addressed the Committee and outlined his concerns in relation to the application.

 

In response to comments made by the speakers, the case officer advised that in relation to ‘meeting the need’, she referred to the appeal decision provided in late correspondence paragraph 21, which outlined that the planning permission ran with the land and it was therefore not necessary for the Council to ask if the occupants met the definition as part of the planning application.  The proposed condition would ensure that anyone who occupied the site would meet the definition therefore the occupants would meet that need.   If they didn’t then planning enforcement could be taken.

 

The Senior Policy Planner advised that in terms of LP32, that went through the examination of the Local Plan including the evidence base behind it and was found sound by the Inspectors.  He added that a lot of work had taken place in relation to the Gypsy & Traveller Needs assessment. He explained that there were always limitations with studies of that nature, as it was carried out in a snapshot of time, and a degree of unmet need as part of the Gypsy & Traveller accommodation was accounted for.  As part of LP32 the criteria in Part 1 were all the allocations in the Local Plan.   Part 2 allowed for windfall development to come forward subject to meeting those criteria and that was how they would be assessed through the planning process.

 

Councillor Ryves proposed that a site visit be carried out as there were issues in relation to the proximity of residents and it had been raised a number of times the condition of the local roads.  In addition, having heard that the sewerage treatment plant was designed to accommodate between 40-60 people, this was a significant number of people who would be using the roads.

 

The proposal for a site visit was seconded by Councillor Blunt.

 

In relation to comments made by Councillor de Winton, the Planning Control Manager advised that in terms of the Local Plan and Policy LP32, this had recently been adopted with its own dedicated day for Gypsy & Traveller sites including relevant allocations.  The Plan would not have been found sound without this policy.  In relation to enforcing conditions, it was advised that enforcement action had been taken on all sorts of different sites including occupation conditions on G&T sites.  This application was being looked at as a site for gypsy and travellers and the condition itself was a well-worded standard condition used by the Planning Inspectorate and was capable of being enforced.  Therefore, if there was a breach it was capable of being enforced.

 

The Committee then voted on the proposal for a site visit and, after a show of hands was carried 8 votes for, 1 against and 4 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:That determination of the application be adjourned, the site visited, and the application determined at the reconvened meeting of the Committee.

 

 

(ii)            25/01068/FM

Methwold / Northwold:  Land at E572391, N297113 Brook Lane, Brookville:  Construction, operation, maintenance and eventual decommissioning of up to a 15 MW Solar Farm comprising the construction of solar panels mounted on metal frames, invertors, spares container, substation, auxiliary transformer, DNO substation, new access tracks, underground cabling, perimeter fencing with CCTV cameras and access gates, temporary construction compound, landscaping and all ancillary grid infrastructure and associated site works:  Sky UK Developments Ltd

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application site was approximately 25.68 ha in size comprising two parcels of land; a western square parcel of land approximately 11.6ha in size, and the eastern rectangular parcel of land approximately 13.4ha in size, and the access track egressing from B1122.  The application site was currently 3a, 3b and 4 classified agricultural land.

 

The hamlet of Brookville was located approximately 300m to the east.  The site was located around 1.7km north of both Methwold and 2.5km from Methwold Hythe.  Site levels varied between approximately 5.0 and 15.0m Above Ordnance datum (AOD).  The north-eastern corner of the site was located approximately 200m from the B1112.  The surrounding area comprised mainly low-lying agricultural land.

 

The case officer advised that there was a correction in condition 2, as detailed in the Correspondence received after the publication of the agenda.

 

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

 

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, Jack Ellis (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

Some members expressed concern in relation to:

 

·       The land was currently being used for agriculture and there was a need for food security.  

·       The applicant should be making a contribution to the community.

·       There needed to be an expiry date added to the restoration plan.

·       Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.

 

In response to the issues raised, the Committee was advised that:

 

Community contribution - it was explained that there was no local or national policy mechanism for the planning application to consider this as part of the consideration of the application, and it would not meet the legal tests for a Section 106 Agreement in this case.

 

Loss of agricultural land – the case officer advised that the Planning Inspector had recently allowed a development of a solar farm on good agricultural land.  This site comprised grade 3 and 4 (good – poor quality agricultural land), so it was considered that the development would be acceptable.

 

Biodiversity Net Gain requirements - the Committee were advised that conditions 8 and 9 covered this issue and would require a post consent plan, which would require details to be provided before works commenced.

 

It was also confirmed that condition 6 could be amended to include an expiry date in the decommissioning and restoration plan.

 

Councillor Long asked for his comments to be recorded in the minutes that he accepted the Planning Policy but personally he felt that each application should be refused until all homes had solar panels.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to condition 2 being amended (as detailed in the correspondence received after the publication of the agenda) and condition 6 be amended to include a timeline from commissioning date of the development to completion of restoration works in the decommissioning and restoration plan and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (8 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention).

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended subject to condition 2 being amended (as detailed in the correspondence received after the publication of the agenda) and condition 6 be amended to include a timeline from commissioning date of the development to completion of restoration works in the decommissioning and restoration plan.

 

The Committee adjourned for a comfort break at 10.35 am and reconvened at 10.50 am

 

(iii)          25/00865/F

Brancaster:  3 Saw Mill Road:  Variation of condition 2 and removal of condition 7 attached to planning permission 24/01167/F:  Extensions, alterations and remodelling of dwelling and proposed outbuilding:  N Barley

 

This application had been deferred (see urgent business).

 

 

 

 

 

(iv)          25/01058/F

Burnham Market:  Lowood, Herrings Lane:  Proposed self-build replacement dwelling following demolition of existing chalet: Mr T Roberts

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application was for the demolition of an existing two storey house along Herrings Lane in Burnham Market and construction of a replacement self-build two storey dwelling.

 

The application site was approximately 0.1ha in size, located on the east side of Herrings Lane.  The site was approximately 130m from Burnham Market’s Conservation Area and within the National Landscape.

 

Burnham Market was a tier 4 settlement under LP02 of the Local Plan 2021-2040.  As a replacement dwelling, the principle of development was considered acceptable.

 

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

 

Councillor Spikings referred to the objection from Anglian Water and commented that it was not fair and reasonable as the applicant had a solution.  The site was within Flood Zone 1 which was at low risk of flooding, and this was a replacement dwelling.

 

Councillor Lintern referred to the comments made by the Parish Council in relation to trade vehicles must be parked on the site as Herrings Lane was very narrow and must not be blocked and asked if a condition could be added.

 

The case officer advised that a condition requesting a Construction Management Plan could be added.

 

Councillor de Winton advised the Committee that he was the Fire Brigade Champion for the Council and added that fireman’s access to swimming pools was very important.

 

In relation to a comment from Councillor Long, the Planning Control Manager advised that construction parking would be included within the Construction Management Plan condition.  This was agreed by the Committee.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to the imposition of an additional condition requiring a construction management plan be submitted and, after having been put to the vote, was carried unanimously.

 

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

 

(v)            25/00256/O

Middleton:  Land north of Kiln House, Sandy Lane, Blackborough End:  Outline planning permission with all matters reserved for 4 self-build / custom detached dwellings:  Mr P Jackson

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application was for outline approval of four custom and self-build dwellings with all matters reserved bar scale.

 

The site was located just outside of the development boundary of a Tier 6 Settlement as defined by Policy LP01 of the Local Plan.  In line with Local Plan Policy LP02, residential development would not normally be permitted outside development boundaries in such a location, however, the provision of custom and self-build housing plots was a material consideration carrying significant weight.

 

The application had been referred to Committee for determination at the request of the Planning Sifting Panel and 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 a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended.