Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs W Fredericks and Mr R Kershaw.  There were two substitute Members in attendance.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 12 September 2019.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 12 September 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(a)     To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be   considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

(b)     To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Deferred

The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mr R Carter (objecting)

Mr C Greenwood (objecting)

Mr A Bamforth (objecting)

Mr J Mackenzie (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including  the proposed access points, an indicative layout plan and photograph of the existing school site.  She reported that the latest figures provided by the Education Authority showed there had been 186 pupils on the school roll in May 2019.  The Highways Officer was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted a position statement prior to the meeting which did not raise any new matters.

Councillor D Baker, local Member, stated that the site was within the Countryside policy area and was therefore contrary to policy.  He considered that the school land was an inducement to grant planning permission on a site for which a previous application for 170 dwellings had been refused in 2014.  There was no current need for a replacement school as pupil numbers had fallen over the last 5 years and the County Council had no budgetary provision or timeline for building it.  He was also concerned that a new two-form entry school would lead to the closure of small local schools.  He considered that the proposed single access through Beresford Road was inappropriate as it would become a bottleneck, a rat run, chaotic and dangerous.  The proposal would add to the 500 new homes already scheduled for Holt, the population of which was set to double in five years.  Whilst there was a need for affordable homes, he considered that they should not be built at any cost in an area which was against policy, and that the environment and countryside should be protected.

Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, local Member, considered that although the forecast for primary school capacity supposedly established a need for a new school, the proposed location was not the most suitable site and the proposal was contrary to Policy SS2.  She was concerned that Holt could be left with no public benefit to justify a departure from Development Plan policies if the funding for the school did not materialise.  Her major concern related to highways issues in respect of the increase in traffic on nearby roads and associated road safety implications, detrimental effect on quality of life for local residents associated with inconsiderate driving and parking, and impact on the wider road network, particularly Hempstead Road which was already a safety concern due to the increase in traffic from other developments.  She considered that the single access via Beresford Road was unsuitable and inadequate.  Whilst the Highway Authority had raised no objection, she considered that there was sufficient concern to justify a re-examination of the highway issues.  She requested deferral of this application pending an independent highway survey.

Councillor A Brown stated that he was addressing the Committee as Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning, and as Member for Stody Ward which was within the Holt Primary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Deferred

This application was deferred at the request of the Head of Planning.

(Heading amended from published agenda)  Delegated conditional approval + Section 106

(Heading amended from published agenda)

The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mr R Wright (North Walsham Town Council)

Mr C Bird (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager explained that the proposed new access from Kidas Way had now been omitted from the proposal and it was intended to use the existing access.  He presented the report, displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons stated in the report.

Councillor Ms V Gay, the local Member, stated that she had sympathy with the speakers on this application but Councillor Seward would speak on this application as she had an interest in the decision.

Councillor E Seward considered that there were material considerations in this case to outweigh the SS1 policy objections.  He stated that there had been no objection from the public, North Walsham  Town Council and Worstead Parish Council, and there were no highway, design, landscape or amenity issues that could not be addressed by conditions.  The business was well-respected, financially viable and expanding.  He considered that the area was not physically remote or isolated, being only a short drive from North Walsham, and the site was adjacent to a busy County Council recycling site.  However, the actual location of the site was physically and visually isolated which raised security and safety concerns.  The applicant was of the view that he needed to live on site and that CCTV alone was not sufficient.   If approved, the applicant intended to close the existing site at Grammar School Road which would take HGVs away from the residential roads and be a major step to help the town.  He considered that the proposal was compliant with Policy HO5.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that it would be clearly beneficial for someone to live on the site on health and safety grounds.  He stated that the applicant was a respected businessman who had respect for the town and its residents.  He fully supported this application.

Councillor N Pearce considered that a dwelling on the site for management purposes in relation to the applicant’s future proposals would be a preventative measure against possible problems.  He supported this application.

Councillor P Heinrich also expressed support for the proposal and considered that the benefit of removing HGVs from Grammar School Road outweighed all other issues.  He considered that the possible future use of the existing site for housing or other purposes that would benefit the town had to be taken into consideration.

The Acting Development Manager explained that more weight could have been attached to the relocation of the business if planning permission had been in place and a legal agreement entered into to cease the present use at Grammar School Road.  There was no certainty that the use would cease.

The Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that there had to be clear reasons to depart from policy and to ensure that approval did not result in an isolated house in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Conditional approval

The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed a location plan and photograph of the site.  He recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the report.

It was proposed by Councillor N Lloyd, seconded by Councillor P Heinrich and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and any other conditions deemed necessary by the Head of Planning.

Deferred

The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mrs Bowland (Sustead Parish Council)

Mrs Williamson (objecting)

Mr A Temperton (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He explained that the photographs had been taken in 2018 and the site was now more overgrown.  He referred to an email which had been circulated to the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor J Toye, local Member, questioned whether the proposal was a suitable development for Sustead.  The previous scaffold yard had 2-4 small lorries which operated outside of peak times.  The proposed container yard and open storage could have many different users and most traffic would come from outside the village and include many more journeys by large vehicles.  He referred to the Spatial Strategy which addressed the need to reduce travel and encourage other modes of transport.  He considered that the proposed use would bring traffic into conflict with other forms of transport as the road network was used by horse riders and included the Weavers Way and National Cycle Route 33.  He referred to a number of comments in the report which were not supportive of this application.  He expressed concern that the proposal could cause more run-off due to the increased amount of ground which would be covered by the development, with the potential for pollutants to enter the waterways.  He stated that part of the lane to the front of the property had permission to be stopped up and a fence would further reduce visibility.  He considered that approval of this application would compromise the Spatial Strategy with regard to the need to reduce travel and would challenge the Core Strategy policies which aimed to enhance and protect the character of the countryside, landscape and local environment.

Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer stated that she was speaking as County Councillor for Sustead.  The previous scaffolding company had vacated the site a number of years previously which had immeasurably improved the quality of life for residents.  With regard to Policy EN2, Sustead was a tiny hamlet and very rural and the proposed containers would be damaging to the environment.  She accepted that the site needed tidying up but a planning application should not be used to do so.  She recommended that enforcement action be taken to tidy the site.  She considered that the amenity value would be hugely impacted by the proposal.  With regard to traffic, there was no speed limit and the lane was mostly single track with poor visibility.  Only one of the roads which converged on the site could be used to transport larger items and bring in the containers.  There were other commercial sites in the village but these were cottage industries which did not impinge on the village or its residents.    She considered that this was the wrong site for the proposed use and the landscape should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Conditional approval

The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed a location plan and photographs of the site, including the wider context to demonstrate the infill nature of the site.  He recommended delegated approval as set out in the report.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Councillor Mr T Adams and

RESOLVED unanimously

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to no further material comments in response to further publicity advertising the application as a departure from the current Development Plan, subject to the conditions listed in the report and any other conditions deemed necessary by the Head of Planning.

None.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions – Results and Summaries

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

(a)      NEW APPEALS            

The Committee noted item 14(a) of the agenda.

(b)      INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 14(b) of the agenda.

(c)       WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND      

The Committee noted item 14(c) of the agenda.

(d)       APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES

The Committee noted item 14(d) of the agenda.

(e)         COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS    

The Committee noted item 14(e) of the agenda.