Minutes:
The Committee was invited to determine the following application, which had been adjourned from the meeting held on 1 June 2015, and had been the subject of a site inspection held earlier that day and application (b), which had been deferred from the meeting held on 1 June 2015:
(a) 15/00190/FM
Snettisham: Snettisham Park, Bircham Road: Change of use from livery yard to camping with associated camping pods and amenities block: Stanton Farms Ltd
The Principal Planner explained the drainage arrangements following a query on the site visit and referred to a plan as well as describing where the connection to the mains drainage would be. He also highlighted the public footpaths on a plan and explained that the applicant had indicated that a route would be provided through land in their ownership so that occupiers could walk from the caravan site along the public footpath into the village.
Another query which had been raised related to construction traffic arising from the alterations to The Compasses which had been approved at the Planning Committee meeting on Monday. The Principal Planner advised that the permission for The Compasses had a three year life span so there was the possibility that the work could be completed before the camping/caravan site was up and running. It was also considered that during the construction works this was a temporary disruption to the traffic route.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings then invited John Shaw, Norfolk County Council Highways to address the meeting. Mr Shaw displayed a map showing the proposed waiting restrictions. He reminded the Committee that he had stated on Monday that it was not guaranteed that those proposed waiting restrictions would be approved as displayed. Mr Shaw confirmed that the two proposed waiting restrictions along Church Road in front of and two the east of the School had been approved, but the one to the west of the School would be moved to the southern side of the road and the section along Lynn Road may be removed,.and would be subject to further consultation.
In response to a question from Councillor Bubb, Mr Shaw explained that consideration of the access had gone back to the strategic route (A149) and was considered acceptable all along the route.
Councillor Gourlay asked whether there were enough brown signs directing people to the site. In response, Mr Shaw explained that it wasn’t the intention to upgrade or replace the tourist signs. He added that whilst on the coach he had pointed out the brown signs and they were in the expected places at each junction.
Councillor Mrs Wright asked for clarification that the waiting restriction outside the hairdressers had been removed. In response, Mr Shaw explained that it had been asked for cars to remain on the carriageway as a traffic calming measure. It would go back to public consultation as a result of the amendment.
Councillor Mrs Wright added that as a result of the other traffic restrictions this would push the problem further along Bircham Road towards the Church. In relation to the footpath, she explained that the footpath which was a more direct route to the village had not been maintained. She considered that the proposal was in the wrong location for the village. She referred to page 20 of the agenda where it stated that ‘clearly the use of the application site for additional vehicles in connection with the proposed camping and caravan site will have an impact on the local road network …’ Page 21 of the agenda also made reference to the fact that ‘the greatest occupancy was expected to occur during the school holidays when school traffic is absent.’ and explained that there was an activity on a daily basis along Church Road for example cricket, football, car boot sales.
Page 21 of the agenda also referred to CS11 7.4.3, which stated that ‘Vehicular related issues can be exacerbated during the summer tourist season and can cause a localised problem on coastal routes such as the A149, and through rural settlement. Whilst it is vital that West Norfolk is accessible by vehicle, the strategy will encourage the use of more sustainable transport methods, where possible, and will facilitate conditions for the reduction of vehicular traffic in the long term.’ She asked how that statement fitted in with the application.
Councillor Mrs Wright also expressed concern in relation to drainage issues. In conclusion, she considered that the proposal was not right for the village.
The Principal Planner clarified that the last 3 paragraphs on page 21 of the agenda were officer’s comments.
In relation to paragraph 7.4.2, the Principal Planner stated that in his view the facility by its very nature would have to be accessed by car.
He added that the Committee had heard from County Highways that the access and strategic road had been considered to be acceptable and in light of the comments from County Highways, the application was considered to be compliant with CS11.
In relation to drainage, the Principal Planner explained that this was as indicated on the plan. There had been no representation against the proposal from CSNN.
Councillor Mrs Wright added that the changes to the drainage came in later during the application process. The Principal Planner advised that there was no objection to the original scheme.
The Executive Director explained that in most cases it was not possible to deliver caravan sites within West Norfolk without the use of cars, and those areas were not particularly accessible by public transport. The site was accessible to the village, pubs, etc.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings explained that it had been acknowledged within the Core Strategy that in rural areas the car would be the main transport.
Councillor Crofts stated that he was pleased that the Committee had carried out a site visit. He added that if a 52-seater bus could negotiate the bends in the road, then he could not see why a car towing a caravan could not. He added that the worst places within the village would have restricted parking. He further added that the business would add to the local community and this should be encouraged. He stated that having been on the site visit he had changed his mind and now supported the recommendation to approve the application.
It was confirmed that the highway waiting restrictions were already in the County Council’s work programme and not a result of this application.
Councillor Morrison referred to the comments made by County Councillor Dobson at meeting on Monday regarding the bypass on the hinterland. Councillor Morrison considered that the Committee also needed to look at the impact that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the countryside. He added that tourism was the crux and was the mainstay of the local economy and was the main reason for the applicant’s argument. But to attract tourists he considered that the countryside should not be spoilt and he was concerned that the proposal might do this.
He referred to the stretch from Old Hunstanton all the way round the Salt Marshes which, in the past, was going to have a caravan site, but this did not happen because of the impact. He asked the Committee to consider what impact this proposal would have on the countryside.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings stated that she had had concerns about the application, but added that the shed in the field could be reused. She added that the caravans would be not be used every day and would possibly only be at full capacity in the summer season. In relation to the route to the site, she explained that in the majority of cases, occupiers would stay for a week and park the caravan and go out for days. She added that farms and businesses had to move on and diversify and should not be stifled. She considered that with careful timings in relation to arrivals and departures from the site this could overcome some of the issues raised.
She added that she was happy with the application, and some of the roads in Devon and Cornwall were much worse than these. The Committee had been advised that there was an adequate road system; together with the proposed waiting restrictions. She therefore supported the application.
In relation to the point raised by Councillor Morrison regarding visual impact, Councillor Wareham stated that having read the report, officer’s considered that there would be no visual impact on the countryside.
Councillor Morrison added that he knew Fring and Bircham Road very well and considered that 24 caravans and 55 tents would be a blot on the landscape. He therefore proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have an impact on the countryside. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Mrs Wright.
Councillor Crofts added that it was his impression that the number of caravans would gradually increase to 24 as the business expanded.
The Committee then voted on the proposal to refuse the application, which was lost.
RESOLVED: That, the application be approved, as recommended.
(b) 15/00137/F
Outwell: Oakley House Nurseries, Hall Road: Supply and install 2 x Victory 24060 wind turbines (22m): Oakley Nurseries
The Principal Planner explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on Monday 1st June 2015 to enable further clarification in relation to the comments from the Council’s Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team (CSNN). The Principal Planner advised that Alison Demonty, Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer was present to explain their comments.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings referred to page 92 of the agenda and asked further clarification as the comments appeared to be confusing and did not give any certainty.
The Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained the context in which the comments were made. She stated that it was predicted that the maximum noise likely at any of the noise sensitive receptors would be LA90 34dBa or less.
In response to a query from the Executive Director, the Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that 34dBa was not extreme and more in line with what would be heard on a day to day basis. She explained that the background noise had been measured at 25-30dBa therefore 34dBa was a little over that. She added that 5dBa above the background noise was considered to be acceptable.
Councillor Wareham asked whether the figures came from the applicant and if they were tested. In response the Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that the applicant had employed an Acoustic Consultant. She added that the Borough Council would have to employ their own Acoustic Consultant to be able to verify the figures.
Councillor Wareham considered that the amount of turbines on the site was close to becoming a wind farm. The Planning Control Manager explained that each application would be assessed on its own merits in terms of impact, but this would include an assessment of the cumulative impact.
Councillor Wareham then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of a lack of sufficient independent information to make a decision.
The Planning Control Manager advised against that proposal, given that an Acoustic Consultant had supplied the information which had been assessed by CSNN. In order to defend that reason for refusal the Council would have to employ its own Acoustic Consultant.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings then proposed an additional condition to limit noise from any turbines to 5dBa above the background noise when measured from the nearest receptor. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Mrs Watson and, after having been put to the vote, was agreed.
After hearing the advice and the proposed condition, Councillor Wareham withdrew his proposal to refuse the application.
Councillor Wareham asked for his vote to be recorded against the following resolution.
RESOLVED: That, the application be approved, as recommended, subject to the imposition of an additional condition to limit noise from any turbines to 5dBa above the background noise when measured from the nearest receptor.