Agenda item

HOVETON - PF/19/1335 - Erection of detached chalet bungalow; 1 Three Acre Close, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8QL for Mr Bunting

Decision:

Conditional approval.

Minutes:

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site.  He also displayed a plan of the approved scheme for the adjacent industrial estate and a plan indicating the character of the area and location of the site in context with the remainder of Three Acre Close.  He referred to the conditions which had been imposed on boat building operations on the industrial estate.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

 

The Environmental Protection Manager explained that no concerns had been raised in respect of noise on the basis of a search of the complaints database.  No complaints had been received in respect of noise but there had been a previous complaint regarding odour.  The complaint had been investigated but no formal action had been required.  The Officer response to consultation on this application had been based on a previous noise survey which had been carried out in respect of an application for 28 homes at the northern end of the site.  One of the monitoring points for the noise survey had been in a garden on Three Acre Close and no impact had been shown.

 

The Acting Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of the Economic Development team, which expressed concern that the proposal could constrain the development of the industrial site and prejudice future uses.

 

The comments of Councillor N Dixon, a local Member, had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.  Councillor Dixon was in attendance at the meeting and presented his comments in person.  He expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site, given the subdivision of one of the smallest plots in Three Acre Close and resulting creation of two properties which were visibly out of proportion and character with neighbouring dwellings.  He considered that this would not comply with NPPF Section 12 or Core Strategy policies HO1, EN2 and EN4, or support the need to retain a diverse range of housing stock in Hoveton.  He expressed concern that the noise assessment referred to by the Environmental Protection Manager did not take into account the noise and vibration impact of all traffic passing close to the proposed dwelling along the new access road, which could only be determined by a new assessment once the road had opened.   He stated that at least three businesses on the industrial estate routinely operated extended hours.  He considered that the Environmental Protection comments were unreliable as its complaints log was incomplete.   He had provided evidence of noise and odour complaints made by residents adjoining the industrial estate which had not been recorded on the log.  With regard to economic development issues, the Economic Development team had highlighted the problems of residential development around industrial/employment sites in terms of operating constraints and reduction in the range of future uses and operating hours.  He stated that Hoveton was very short of employment land options and the potential of the Tilia site should not be harmed by the proximity of new residential development.   He considered that the proposal did not comply with Local Plan policies SS4 and EN13.  He requested refusal of this application.

 

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle, a local Member, stated that he could not understand why anyone would want to build a dwelling so close to the industrial estate.  He did not support the application.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett requested confirmation that the site was not within a flood zone.

 

The Acting Development Manager stated that the site was in Flood Zone 1 which was the lowest risk.

 

Councillor N Pearce was concerned that the Council could set a considerable precedent if this application were approved given the location of the industrial site, the size of the plot in a very secluded area and bearing in mind Councillor Dixon’s comments.

 

The Head of Planning advised the Committee with regard to balancing the issues on the basis of the evidence put forward.  Whilst he appreciated the concerns put forward by Councillor Dixon, Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of layout, design and environmental health considerations.

 

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Dr C Stockton regarding the reasons for the removal of permitted development rights for further extensions, the Head of Planning explained that the condition related to the small size of the plot and was not reflective of amenity or disturbance.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett proposed approval of this application as recommended.  She considered there were no planning reasons to refuse this application.  Although she considered that future residents were likely to make complaints, it would be their choice as to whether or not to buy the dwelling.

 

The proposal was seconded by Councillor P Fisher.

 

On being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour and 6 against, and on the Chairman’s casting vote it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

 

Following the vote, Councillor N Pearce referred to the complaints log and raised concerns that the matter had been decided with incomplete information.

 

The Environmental Protection Manager explained that all complaints were registered on the database and updated with information relating to them.  She did not consider that the database was incomplete and it was possible that complaints were made direct to the companies concerned.

 

Councillor Dixon responded that he had evidence of complaints being made to the Council and expressed concerns regarding the reliability of the complaints database.

 

The Chairman requested that the Environmental Health department take on board the concerns raised.

 

Supporting documents: