Agenda item

Deferred.

The Major Projects Manager presented the application.  He explained that whilst only location, land use and amount of development could be considered under this “Permission in Principle” application, other matters of detail had been included in the report as they had an influence on the amount of development that the site could accommodate.  He outlined the issues for consideration and recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speaker

David Taylor (supporting)

Councillor E Seward, Ward Member, referred to the redevelopment of the adjacent Melbourne House which had been previously approved.  He considered that the site was not detached from North Walsham.  It was part of the settlement area although the site itself was not within the settlement boundary. He referred to the disagreement between the applicant and officers as to whether housing could be permitted on the brownfield site and considered that this issue needed clarification.  He considered that safe access was not an issue as the applicant was willing to provide a footpath link.  He referred to a new woodland and orchard which had been developed by the applicant, which did not suggest that he would cause damage to trees and the landscape.  He requested constructive dialogue to address the contaminated land issue.  He considered that the best way to judge the impact of the nearby poultry farm was to visit the site, and referred to a recent appeal case which determined that it was necessary to have clear evidence of complaints which could not be satisfactorily resolved if refusing an application close to a poultry farm. Environmental Health had raised no objection in respect of the development at Melbourne House.  He considered that the only way to arrive at an informed and proper decision in this case was to undertake constructive dialogue with the applicant and for the Committee to carry out a site inspection.

Councillor P Heinrich, Ward Member, stated that he had had no contact with the applicant or visited the site and that Councillor Seward had dealt with this matter.  He stated that this was a brownfield site, which was part of the grounds of Melbourne House where conversion of outbuildings had recently been permitted.  He considered that the notion that development could not take place outside the development boundary was inconsistent.  It was unclear as to whether or not the proposal would breach Local Plan Policies SS1 and SS2.  He considered that small scale development would complement the existing buildings at Melbourne House and that bungalows were very much needed given the age profile of the District.  He supported Councillor Seward’s views in respect of highway issues and considered that further information was required in respect of noise and odour nuisance.  There was no evidence that protected species and trees would be damaged.  He considered that more information on layout and how the buildings would sit in relation to Melbourne House would be useful.  In view of the complexity of the site and the need for the applicant to provide further key information, he proposed deferral of this application until a physical site inspection could take place and additional information provided regarding:

·         The layout of the proposed bungalows within the site

·         How trees and other landscaping can be protected

·         Details of proposed footpath including views of Highway Authority

·         A full ecological assessment

·         Proper assessment of noise and odour issues to include the appropriate involvement of EH officers

·         To enable further objective dialogue with Planning Officers to find an appropriate approach to the reuse this brownfield site.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the normal voting process would need to be followed.

Councillor R Kershaw stated that although the site was outside the development boundary of North Walsham, it was adjacent to a large caravan park.  He was familiar with Melbourne House and considered that there was no problem with highways or access.  He considered that the buildings to be removed were not pleasant and refusal of this application at this stage would be hasty.  He seconded the proposal.

Councillor N Lloyd stated that he had been the Ward Member until May 2019 and had no recollection of any complaints regarding the poultry farm.  He concurred with Councillor Seward’s appraisal of the situation.  The existing building was an eyesore and he would welcome tasteful redevelopment.  He considered that refusal of this application would be inconsistent with the permitted development at Melbourne House.  He supported deferral of this application for a site visit and further dialogue with the applicant.

Councillor J Toye requested clarification with regard to brownfield and whether the proposal was infilling rather than extension of the town as there were buildings beyond the site.  He stated that the prevailing wind blew away from the site towards the farm.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she had experience of the technical side of the poultry industry.  She explained how the potential for nuisance differed according to the type of poultry and requested clarification as to which birds were farmed.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Taylor confirmed that the birds were chickens up to 35 days old.

The Major Projects Manager referred to Members’ comments regarding the proximity of the site to the development boundary and advised the Committee to consider how this application complied with Policy SS2.  He stated that it was important not to undermine policies that had been in place for a long time and with which the Council had success at appeal.  He reminded the Committee that changes to policy should be considered through the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party.  He also advised that less weight should be given to paragraph 118(c) of the NPPF relating to brownfield sites as the site was not within the development boundary.

Councillor N Pearce considered that the proposal defined what should be done with brownfield sites.  He supported a site inspection and further dialogue in this case.

Councillor Heinrich requested clarification as to whether the proposal would have been considered differently if it had related to conversion of the existing building for housing.

The Major Projects Manager explained that conversion of the existing building to residential use would have been appropriate under Policy SS2.  However, the application proposed clearing the existing building and it therefore conflicted with that policy.  The brownfield element of the proposal was a consideration, but in his professional opinion, it was not an overriding issue that would support approval of this application.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this was an application for permission in principle and not a planning application, it did not relate to conversion of the building and had to be assessed under the three criteria outlined in the report and presentation by the Major Projects Manager.  He reiterated the issues which had been raised by Members.  He stated that site inspections could not be carried out at the present time and restrictions were unlikely to be lifted in the short term.  There were a number of significant complex matters to be resolved, on which Officers would need to negotiate, and an extension of time of at least three months would be required.  He requested that the Committee vote on the Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Lawyer advised that under an application for permission in principle, Members had to consider whether that amount of development in that location was acceptable in principle.  Members should not take into account the potential details of the proposed development at this time.

.

Mr Taylor indicated that he would be happy with deferral of this application regardless of the length of time.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.  This was seconded by Councillor P Fisher.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost by 2 votes to 10.

Councillor P Heinrich proposed deferral of this application in the terms he had put forward earlier in the meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor R Kershaw.

RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1

That in view of the complexity of the site and the need for the applicant to provide further key information, this application be deferred until a physical site inspection can take place and additional information is provided regarding

·         The layout of the proposed bungalows within the site

·         How trees and other landscaping can be protected

·         Details of proposed footpath including views of Highway Authority

·         A full ecological assessment

·         Proper assessment of noise and odour issues to include the appropriate involvement of EH officers

·         To enable further objective dialogue with Planning Officers to find an appropriate approach to the reuse this brownfield site.

(Councillor A Yiasimi did not vote as he had been unable to join the meeting for the start of this item.  Councillor Dr C Stockton had not joined the meeting at this stage due to technical difficulties.)