YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → YouTube transcript (lPqlgq1NreU)

YouTube transcript (lPqlgq1NreU) — Transcript

23,056 words · 3,579 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:06Good morning everyone
0:09and welcome to the July meeting of the
0:12development management committee. We
0:14have no practice alarm today. So if the
0:16alarm sounds, can you please make your
0:19way through these doors and out onto the
0:21car park where you'll be supervised? If
0:24you got a mobile phone, could you turn
0:26it to silent or turn it off, please?
0:29One of the things you won't know is
0:30there are no speakers around this room.
0:33The speakers are in the microphone.
0:36So if you find it difficult to hear,
0:39gently pull one of them towards you and
0:42you'll be able to hear better. Don't
0:44grab it by the stem. Just bring it
0:46forward. So the microphones are in here.
0:48Sorry, speakers in here, not uh around
0:52the room.
0:54And a warm welcome to the public
0:55watching our podcast, our webcast and
0:58this meeting will be on our YouTube site
1:00and archived in line with the South
1:02Milford District archive policy. An
1:06agenda has been published uh on our
1:08website with any updates uh which are in
1:11today's agenda has four applications.
1:15This is a meeting held in public not a
1:18public meeting. So we have registered
1:20public speaking in place and it starts
1:22with the town or parish council
1:25then objectors then the applicant agent
1:27supporter followed by the local district
1:29council and you'll be invited to come up
1:32to this public speaking desk and I'm
1:34going to ask the first person up to move
1:36that to the middle um microphone when
1:40when when they get there. Each group can
1:42speak for up to five minutes and if you
1:46wish you may use more than one speaker.
1:48We have to share the time. We will not
1:50go beyond the five minutes.
1:53And I will tell you at that point or my
1:56colleague here will tell you with one
1:58minute to go and then I'll ask you to
2:00come to your conclusion [snorts] at five
2:02minutes.
2:04Planning officers will present the key
2:06uh points of each application for the
2:09committee and the members will determine
2:11by a show of hands uh the applications
2:14before us and I'll give you the result
2:16of the vote. And please note, if you've
2:18registered to be a public speaker, your
2:21name will be recorded in the minutes and
2:23kept on record indefinitely with
2:26reorganization coming. I'm not sure what
2:28indefinitely now means. Um, so
2:32apologies, Leah, please.
2:34>> Yes, chair. We received apologies from
2:35absence from councelor Roberts,
2:37councelor Rosen, councelor Pearl with
2:39councelor Hooton appointed substitute,
2:41councelor D. Thompson with councelor
2:43Bill's appointed substitute and
2:44councelor Weber with councelor Sprat
2:46appointed substitute.
2:48>> Thank you. Um
2:52I have no urgent business. Nobody's g
2:54with urgent business. Declarations of
2:56interest on behalf of the of the
2:58committee. We've been lobbied on item
3:00application one and on application
3:03three.
3:05Minister of the last meeting. Members,
3:07are you
3:07>> apologies? Chair Council Hooton has a
3:10declaration.
3:11>> Council Hooton has a decoration.
3:13>> Oh, sorry.
3:14>> Yes, chair. As um
3:16>> as a cabinet member, I will exempt
3:18myself from I think it's item four.
3:21>> Okay. Thank you.
3:24Members who were here minutes of last
3:26meeting, any problems? No. All agreed.
3:31And now we're going to go to application
3:33number one which is the former feather
3:36factory site park road disc and we've
3:39got Richard who's going to do the honors
3:44when you're ready Richard.
3:46>> Okay. Thank you chair. Um just to
3:48clarify as I've just said um that there
3:52we have had some IT difficulties today.
3:54So I don't currently have any access to
3:55our corporate drive. So um unfortunately
3:59um uh that includes my notes for today's
4:01presentation. So I will be uh doing it
4:04by memory. Um but hopefully um I'll be
4:06able to go through in some detail what
4:08we have today. So just to start with the
4:12update sheet um we obviously had the
4:15update sheet issued yesterday. Um we did
4:19mention in that update sheet that we'd
4:21had um at the very late last minute 33
4:24letters of support um generic letters of
4:27support. Um since they've actually been
4:30uh processed and looked at in some
4:32detail and obviously that was just uh
4:35following the update sheets publication
4:38it has been clarified there are actually
4:3915 letters of of support. Um, I'll just
4:43go through now we've had opportunities
4:44to read through the brief points that
4:46have been made. Um, they refer to need.
4:50Um, the care home being a good idea,
4:52prevents hospital emissions, people
4:54getting older, um, convenient next to a
4:57food store, and someone would also like
4:59a roundabout on Two Park Road. Um, so
5:03that's the representations clarified.
5:06Um, also as an update today, um, at 5.83
5:1083 of the paper um it talks about an
5:14increase of 34.05
5:17BNG units um for uh habitat um it's
5:22actually meant to be 16.43 43. So slight
5:25clarification there, but I think that's
5:27everything on the clarified on the
5:29update.
5:32So um here we are. Uh this is the
5:34location plan. The site edged red. Um
5:37the site is uh 065
5:42hectares. Um it's expanded to 0.7
5:45hectares based on a uh uh inclusion of
5:48the red lines take on board the access
5:51road that currently serves the Aldi
5:53which I will come on to in a minute.
5:59Um so this is the site location within
6:02uh within this itself. It's to the sort
6:04of south of Park Road the A1066
6:08busy through fair through the town. Um,
6:11generally on the on the south side of
6:13the uh town center, it's starting to
6:16transition from the uh commercial town
6:19center environment into a more
6:21residential area. And that's the point
6:24at which this site lays that transition
6:26between the two. Um, generally speaking,
6:29you're in quite good proximity to the
6:31town center about 175 meters away. Um,
6:34also locally around here, you've got uh
6:36the local bus station on Park Road. Um
6:40you've also got a number of food stores.
6:42So the new Aldi that has arrived near to
6:44the site um is also in a run where
6:47you've also got Morrison's and Tesco's
6:50in close proximity.
6:53So this is the site edged red. Um as you
6:57can see here, this is when uh it was
6:59being used as a construction compound
7:01for the new Audi. So um this was taken
7:05um round about 2024, I believe. Um,
7:09obviously the site was a former factory
7:12and we'll come on some slides showing
7:14that in a minute, but for all intents
7:16and purposes, it is a Brownfield site.
7:18You've also got residential properties
7:20on the west. Um, and then you've also
7:23got a another piece of vacant commercial
7:26land uh industrial land to the south
7:30which is also subject of a pending
7:31application which has recently arrived.
7:36So this is the site uh the former f
7:39former feather mills factory site. Um
7:41obviously as you can see um there were a
7:44number of um uh traditional sort of
7:47corrugated uh steel type buildings um
7:52fairly um basic in appearance. Um
7:55generally one story in height of varying
7:58degrees um with some open space around.
8:01Um obviously it is an area in
8:05transition. This is all part of what we
8:06call the wave courts in the D district
8:09neighbor plan.
8:12So this is the uh this is what you would
8:14have seen in 2022
8:16from Park Road looking south. This is
8:18the the obviously the former factory
8:20buildings prior to the demolition. As
8:23you can see um fairly utilitarian in
8:25appearance, basic um and obviously
8:29they've been added to over time.
8:33This is the proposed care home building.
8:35It's a 66 bed care home. Um it involves
8:3927 parking spaces accessed off this
8:42spine road that's already serving the
8:45Aldi food store. You've also got notably
8:48a run of uh trees, large mature trees on
8:51the northern boundary which lie just
8:53within the conservation area which are
8:55under also under tree preservation
8:57order. um number of lime and sycamore
9:00trees there. Um you've also got
9:02obviously the residential properties of
9:04water gardens and piper gardens on the
9:08west and southwest. The Aldi store is
9:11now operating has been since last year
9:14and you can see the car park serving
9:15that just to the east of the site. Um
9:17the care home itself um it's um it's
9:22primarily a a model format that LNT um
9:25the applicants produce um based on uh
9:28conventional layouts and conventional uh
9:31ways of working. Um and the main
9:33entrance would be in that corner uh
9:36between the two wings.
9:40This is what the building would look
9:42like. Um, you've got a a three-story
9:45proposal here, um, with a hipped roof,
9:48um, and gable elements. You've got, um,
9:52a number of different materials, mainly
9:54brick with some render, um, and also a
9:57cladding system, um, a green cladding
10:01system and and the light render. You've
10:03also got the gray windows and doors and
10:07solar panels to all roofs. Um, as you
10:10can see, um, obviously, um, we've got
10:13the north elevation on on the top image,
10:16which is the one that you see from Park
10:18Road. You've got the east elevation,
10:20which would face the Aldi. Um, then
10:24you've got the south elevation facing
10:26the um, the vacant uh, development site.
10:30And then the west elevation at the
10:32bottom is the one um that is viewed from
10:35resident properties on that side of the
10:37development with the main access in the
10:39corner.
10:42This is the uh set of floor plans. Um
10:46it's as you'd expect um pretty much the
10:49same all the way throughout the floors.
10:50So you've got a sort of simple system
10:53where you've got front entrance coming
10:55into a reception area. You've got um
10:57communal uh lounge uh in the corner. Um
11:01the corridors route through centrally
11:04and bedrooms off either corridor. Um
11:07kitchens at the bottom. Um you have lift
11:10access as well to the top. Um and
11:13stairc.
11:18This is the ground floor. Just showing
11:20that in a bit more detail. gives you an
11:22idea of the sort of the bedroom sizes
11:24and also the communal space. Um
11:30this first floor very similar. Um you
11:33have got a tea room um which then leads
11:35onto a balcony area above the front
11:38entrance on that corner. You've also got
11:40some on the northern uh point of the of
11:44the northern wing you've got some
11:46further uh sort of habitable areas,
11:48quiet lounges, etc.
11:51And that's the second floor. There
11:53you've got uh again a slight difference.
11:56You got a library added um and a and a
11:59bar area at the at the uh northern
12:01point. Again,
12:04this is a photograph taken um of the new
12:09access into the Aldi um but also the
12:13spine road which will serve these other
12:15development sites. You can see the site
12:17there behind the to trees which line
12:19onto Park Road.
12:23Slightly further closer into site now.
12:26As you can see, you've got the food
12:28store there um starting to come into
12:31your shot and you've got obviously the
12:32resident properties in the background
12:35there um to Water Gardens, Piper
12:37Gardens.
12:40This is taken a bit further along Park
12:42Roads looking into the site between the
12:44trees. um gives you an understanding of
12:48you know the the sort of the the amount
12:49of vegetation uh down on the west
12:52boundary. Um as you can see uh pretty
12:56much as you expect cleared site.
12:59This is a view north from the Aldi. Um
13:03then the service road uh and obviously
13:06as you can see um the uh the site is
13:11just simply just a a cleared brownfield
13:13site. you've see the sort of the
13:15treatment that some of the residents
13:16have got on on their properties which
13:19generally uh do face towards the east.
13:24So slightly further up the spine road
13:27and looking now more west you've got the
13:30properties there water gardens piper
13:32gardens shown a bit clearer.
13:36So now um I've gone into one of these um
13:39properties to take some photos um with
13:42their agreement and you've got here the
13:46uh view from Freewater Gardens um
13:49roughly from the point of where their
13:52property starts. Um you can obviously
13:54see the food store the Audi in the in
13:57the in in in the image there just
13:59popping up above the wall. Um and
14:02obviously you can see some further
14:03development in the in the in the
14:05distance. Again,
14:09uh another image from uh number three
14:11water gardens. You can see from the
14:13arrows I've produced in the bottom left
14:15corner where I'm where I'm stood. Um and
14:18again, this is at the first floor. I
14:20think it's a bedroom window this one. Um
14:23again looking out towards the
14:24development site.
14:28So this is now uh from the garden of
14:32free pipers gardens um which is a bit
14:35further south of where I've just been
14:36stood and you can see looking to west uh
14:40sorry looking east again um you can see
14:43uh the development site. You can see
14:45more clearly the tpo trees for a bit of
14:47context.
14:50This is the landscape plan that's been
14:53produced. Um you can see uh hopefully
14:56you can pick out there's some slightly
14:58darker colored trees which are if I can
15:01just hover over them these ones here
15:03which are the um heavyduty
15:07uh trees which um would be uh the larger
15:10specimens uh being planted. Um there
15:13were some native species um and uh sort
15:17of likes of Rowan and White Beam off
15:20memory um and I think um one or two
15:22non-native species as well. You've also
15:25got um some of these trees in this sort
15:27of area in the communal gardens, orchard
15:29trees, the sort of likes of apple and
15:31pear trees um and some other specimens
15:35dotted around the car park like silver
15:36birch etc. Just to give you a bit of
15:39context as to the proposal landscaping.
15:45This uh image here, this illustration
15:48shows a section drawn through the
15:51northern wing um with uh the perception
15:54of what that landscaping would look
15:56like. Um and the properties uh to uh
16:00water gardens, pipe gardens uh on the on
16:03the left of that image. um gives you an
16:06idea of of what the architects feel that
16:08will look like in the future.
16:13This um image again is back from Park
16:16Road. Um if you can remember where one
16:18of the photos was taken again shows uh
16:21illustration of what the perception of
16:24what the um the landscaping would appear
16:26as um looking towards the south. Um and
16:30it obviously again you can see uh you
16:33know a number of the mature tree trees
16:35have reached maturity so this would be
16:37some point in the future
16:40maybe 15 years time perhaps. Um so I
16:44have put a slide here which is um one
16:47that's nearest to us so you might well
16:49be familiar with it. It's just down the
16:50road um just next to the little
16:54development. Um, another LNT scheme, 66
16:57bed. Uh, this one was built, um, uh,
17:012023.
17:03Um, I think, um, it's obviously been,
17:06um, open for three years now. Um, it's,
17:10you know, a very similar format for
17:12intents and purposes. It's a similar
17:14material mix. Um, you can also see the
17:17landscaping that's gone in three years
17:20later. So this is, you know, what what
17:22what what we've got on site.
17:26This image here is taken from the
17:29daylight and sunlight assessment that
17:31was submitted quite late into the
17:33process just around about the time the
17:36uh committee papers were being um
17:38produced. Um and this shows the image of
17:43the building relative to the resident
17:45properties uh on Water Gardens Piper
17:48Gardens.
17:51So just coming on to the daylight and
17:53sunlight assessment. This is based on um
17:56a BRE that's building research
17:59establishment um guidance um that uh
18:03looks at how much daylight sunlight a a
18:07window will receive um during the day um
18:11based on vertical sky component. So it's
18:14um it's uh based on um existing
18:17conditions as well as as proposed and
18:20how much difference there is as well as
18:22whether it meets the um the threshold
18:24for allowing sufficient light. Um not
18:28surprisingly um you know the daylight
18:31sunlight assessment does confirm that um
18:33it considers that there will be
18:35sufficient daylight into into
18:37neighboring properties. Um there is one
18:39property number three um water gardens
18:42that that would be affected more than
18:44others. Um and uh that that's what I've
18:47got here just to show you. But
18:49essentially the daylight sunlight
18:51assessment is a is a is a tool really
18:54just to look at at that precise issue in
18:56terms of internal habitable rooms.
19:01What the daylight sunlight assessment
19:03also produces is the impact on the
19:06external amenity areas um and whether uh
19:10an area has the ability to receive two
19:13hours of sunlight
19:15um uh dur during during that uh period
19:19of the day uh for at least 50% of its
19:21area. Um now in this case um again um
19:26not surprisingly it does meet that
19:28threshold. um it's quite a high high
19:30bar. Um so uh you know we we we don't um
19:34don't dispute the findings of a daylight
19:36and sunlight assessment has been
19:37submitted.
19:40Um what what we have said though on the
19:43daylight and sunlight assessment um and
19:44what we've recognized is that there will
19:46be quite a significant impact in terms
19:49of some properties at specific times of
19:51the year and particularly with these
19:54resident gardens um particularly in the
19:56springtime early to midm morning. We
19:59think there will be quite a substantial
20:01amount of overshadowing of some gardens.
20:04Um, and that is part of our overall
20:06recommendation in terms of our concerns
20:08around residential immunity.
20:11This is a view of the main entrance. Um,
20:16as you'd look from from the west, um,
20:19you can obviously see that balcony area
20:21as well that I talked about earlier.
20:28This is a view from the spine road that
20:32we were looking at um a bit earlier. Um
20:35and this is the sort of point nearest
20:37roughly to where the entrance is to the
20:39Aldi food store.
20:44Um so this slide here shows um the
20:48site's location in terms of uh flood
20:51zones two and three. Um you will notice
20:55on the update sheet that we've got an
20:57update that we're recommending not to uh
21:00not to recommend that reason for refusal
21:02two is part of the overall
21:04recommendation. Um I'll come on to why
21:08that is as we go through but basically
21:10whilst the slides were still um has had
21:13been formed I thought worth just showing
21:15the context to this. So this is uh flood
21:18zone 2 in the lighter color and it just
21:20shows where the site is there. As you
21:23can see affected on more the southern
21:25part of the site
21:27that's fluial flooding. So this this
21:30image here this slide is the EA's uh
21:34flood uh GIS uh mapping. Again this is
21:37in terms of surface water flood risk and
21:40again shows where the site's affected.
21:42But again, it's more towards a sort of
21:45southern uh south southern southwest
21:48corner, southern boundary.
21:54So we had found um a site that we felt
21:59um that was listed in what they call the
22:01sequential test, an exercise that the
22:04applicants have to produce uh where we
22:06do find development within flood zone
22:09two, residential development like this.
22:11Um as part of that uh background of
22:14papers that was submitted, there was a
22:16uh list of sites within this sequential
22:18test that considered whether there was a
22:20preferable site as as the requirement of
22:23the sequential um uh analysis within the
22:26MPPF. The MPPF obviously directs you
22:29towards any sites that might have a
22:31lower flood risk if they're available,
22:33deliverable or suitable. Um, this one
22:36was discounted at the time by the
22:38applicants as not being suitable and it
22:41wouldn't become suitable until the end
22:43of the plan period when the site to the
22:45north would come forward for residential
22:47development. That site's been allocated
22:50and it is expected to come forward for
22:52residential development in at some point
22:54in the plan period. Um we we we had
22:57actually discharged conditions on a
23:00particular assisted living scheme which
23:02was not unfamiliar in terms of size. Um
23:06slightly larger site this one and we
23:08felt it offered a really good
23:10alternative. Um and it did seem to be
23:12marketed um on the internet in the
23:15checks that I was doing. But it does
23:18seem to uh it does seem to be that uh
23:21since we've done some further checks and
23:23the applicants done the same that
23:25actually that site is not available. Um
23:28uh and whilst it's still a vacant uh
23:31Brownfield site which could accommodate
23:33a care home of of this scale, it the
23:36site doesn't appear to be available. So
23:37we have had to agree that actually that
23:39reason for refusal to is not one that we
23:41would wish to substantiate any any uh
23:45any appeal.
23:48That shows the site that we're talking
23:51about at Nelson Road relative to the
23:53site in question today.
23:58That's that's the Nelson Road site.
24:02Again, the Nelson Road site just showing
24:05its current condition.
24:08And again, that just shows the site in
24:10terms of the floods risk mapping.
24:14Obviously you can see it's outside the
24:15flood zones two and three and that's the
24:19surface water mapping as well. So all
24:21the these slides were produced before
24:23the update sheet. Obviously just showing
24:26you them for context clarification.
24:29Um this slide shows the access proposals
24:32in terms of um the entry onto the spine
24:35road. There has been quite a bit of back
24:37and forth with highways as the county
24:40council consult
24:42um which eventually have meant that they
24:44have decided not to object to the scheme
24:47but very much on the basis that this
24:49arrangement here whereby you'd have
24:51white lining for keep clear uh hatching
24:55as well provided um would need to be uh
24:58part of any approval to ensure that
25:00there was no blockage of the access um
25:04so close to part road not to cause issue
25:06of the free flow of traffic.
25:11So coming to some benefits, um the
25:14proposal will undoubtedly um have a very
25:18good uh economic um package um to the
25:22local economy providing around about 50
25:25to 60 jobs around about 47 full-time
25:29equivalent jobs that is um and obviously
25:32that's a a recognized benefit of the
25:35scheme.
25:38uh some heritage considerations. Now uh
25:41here we are in terms of uh where I'm
25:45stood where the yellow star is looking
25:47more towards the sort of north stroke
25:50northeast. U we did get one
25:52representation from um one of the
25:55residents in one of these listed
25:56buildings um there on Denmark streets
26:00sort of having concerns that there would
26:01be uh an impact on on the setting of
26:05that listed building from the threetory
26:07proposal. We've had a good look at this.
26:09Um, we think that there might be some
26:12some slight views of this at upper story
26:14levels of some of these properties, but
26:17um, we think it'll be less than
26:19substantial harm given the amount of
26:21view that you will have. You can also
26:23see in that photo the Aldi store,
26:26although the Aldi store is a lot lower.
26:29Um, you can you can just about see it
26:31through the break in the trees. We don't
26:33feel that there is um going to be
26:35anything more than less than substantial
26:37harm and the public benefits of this
26:39scheme would would uh in terms of the
26:41economic job creation would outweigh
26:43that that harm.
26:47Um so the key points we just want to
26:50sort of focus on here. So the proposal
26:51for a care home as an accessible and
26:53specialist form of housing uh can be
26:56supported and is supported in principle
26:59under GNLP policy 5. Um, no problems
27:02with this site being offered as a care
27:04home uh development site. Um, but that's
27:08the important bit unless there are
27:09significant adverse impacts that justify
27:11refusal. Um, just to be clear, the
27:14five-year housing land supply and the
27:16tilt balance does not apply on this
27:18class 2 development unlike a class 3 uh
27:21residential scheme for instance. Um
27:24policy two, the regeneration of the
27:26waving quarter of the D district
27:28neighbor plan um is again important. It
27:31focuses on the area being a central
27:33point for leisure recreation and accept
27:36some residential development if
27:37sensitive in scale and design. Benefits
27:41include the provision of specialist
27:43housing 66 beds and the economic impacts
27:46through construction operation and
27:48staffing which will be approximately 47
27:50to 48 full-time equivalent jobs.
27:53The impacts however are considered to be
27:55significant upon residential immunity,
27:58the scale and the dominance, the
27:59overbearing nature, the orientation, the
28:02overlooking and some overshadowing.
28:05sequential tests. Um, concerns as to
28:09another more suitable site are now have
28:11now been considered to fallen away, but
28:14we've taken a fresh look and we still
28:16think that the reason for refusal one um
28:19stands on its own grounds and uh
28:21therefore overall the impacts are
28:23considered from that to be significant
28:25enough to outweigh the benefits of the
28:27scheme and therefore refuses
28:28recommended. Chair, thank you.
28:32>> Thank you, Richard. Members, any
28:34questions of Richard Gary?
28:38>> Um, thank you chairman. Um, thank you
28:40Richard for the the report. Obviously
28:41you state um one of the refuse reasons
28:43for refusal was dominance overlooking
28:45overshadowing. Um were any mitigation
28:48measures considered or could be required
28:50that would address them?
28:53>> Yep. So I mean basically the landscaping
28:55is important here and obviously um you
28:57know the landscaping will have some
29:00effect over time probably 15 years of
29:02maturity. Um there is you know some
29:06level of existing vegetation in terms of
29:08hedgeros and some some uh trees within
29:11the gardens of residential properties
29:13that already do provide something of a
29:15screen but it generally is pretty open
29:17on that boundary. Um so it would take a
29:20number of years before those uh those
29:23trees that are shown in that landscape
29:25plan would take some maturity. um whilst
29:28we can look at the species and the
29:30conditions and so on um we've obviously
29:33looked at you know this other scheme
29:36down the road and I think you know it's
29:37fair to say that um you know it does
29:41take some time to reach maturity and I
29:43think um you know I think I think
29:45obviously whilst you can rely on
29:47landscaping to a certain extent
29:49obviously during the winter that's not
29:51going to be a situation that we can you
29:54know really rely on. So whilst yes um we
29:57have looked at and wondered whether
29:58there was more we could do, we've uh you
30:01know considered that given the scale of
30:03the scheme at three stories, that's only
30:05going to do so much particularly in the
30:07in the winter time
30:11and that won't be a full screen across
30:13the whole piece. It will just be looking
30:15at the planting will be some trees and
30:18and the 12 m high that was before the
30:22pitch roof. So, it's 12 m plus plus a
30:26bit more.
30:30>> David,
30:32>> um, which just an odd question really,
30:35are the fire services a statue consult
30:38on a building this size that houses
30:40elderly people?
30:42>> No, they're not. Um so um obviously we
30:46do in terms of the sort of flood risk
30:48side of things um whilst obviously there
30:51is potential that you know there could
30:53be a flood event um generally speaking
30:56it's going to be um a low-level flood
30:58event which should prevent access via
31:01that access point for emergency
31:03vehicles. So um we would have as part of
31:06any approval a condition that would have
31:09an emergency and evacuation plan and you
31:12know we would certainly obviously at all
31:14times try and the aids with the relevant
31:15authorities. I think probably on this
31:17one the fire service you know we we do
31:20involve the the environment agency at
31:22times in these these sort of documents
31:24we might involve the fire agency the the
31:26fire rescue service as a as a consulty
31:28although they're not statutory just to
31:30sort of uh flag the the plan if
31:33obviously we got to that point
31:34>> but it would have to be built to um
31:37specific standards for fire safety.
31:39>> Oh yes.
31:40>> Yeah. Yeah.
31:42>> David,
31:44>> thank you chairman. Um it sort of
31:45follows on from my colleague Gary. I'm
31:48consider concerned over the the impact
31:51of this on the residential houses
31:53around. So for example on um I have in
31:56front of me three pipers gardens you
31:58showed us. Would it be possible to show
32:00with your uh arrow key thing
32:05where that building would show on that
32:08picture?
32:12>> I'll just bring up the photo. So um so
32:15from here
32:16>> well that one yeah that one or the next
32:18one. Yeah
32:18>> it's very hard to say. I mean obviously
32:20the oldi the oldi scheme is single story
32:23of to a certain height um in some
32:25distance away.
32:26>> Um I don't have a an illustration of of
32:29what that would look like. I mean the
32:31the the applicant has you know obviously
32:33put down some distances here which are
32:36between 30 and 40 meters away and and we
32:39don't dispute that. That that's that's
32:41fine. Um I think obviously the height
32:44will you know be considerably higher
32:47than what you see in terms of these
32:49buildings in in the distance. Um I think
32:52particularly the the third story is the
32:54one that really concerns us in terms of
32:56that you know that whole width of
32:59windows and the level of habitable uh
33:03accommodation habitable openings that
33:05would look towards the west. So, um,
33:07it's very hard to say, but it's
33:09substantially higher than what you see
33:11here at at sort of eye level in in the
33:13sort of rear of their property.
33:22>> Sorry, the one you've got nearby
33:25that's in not in a residential area at
33:28all, is it?
33:30>> So,
33:30>> right next to again, it's next to Aldi.
33:33>> Yeah. So this is part of the broadland
33:35gate area which is sort of wider
33:37development mixed use development area
33:39and yeah it's next to this one is a
33:41little this one in this case next to
33:44little or on the other side of the road
33:45from it. Um so you've got other
33:47development sites around you can just
33:49see in the aerial photo in the bottom
33:51left corner. So yes it is a slightly
33:53different context. Well you know very
33:56different I would say. Um so yeah we we
33:59didn't have any concerns with obviously
34:00this proposal in that setting.
34:48at Three Water Gardens. My husband and
34:50I, who are both retired, really enjoy
34:52our small back garden. We planted every
34:55flower, plant, and bush, and laid the
34:57lawn. Our home was designed and built
34:59with planning permission.
35:02Our
35:03home was designed and built with
35:05planning permission granted by South
35:07Morford Council so that our garden did
35:09not overlook any of our neighbors
35:11gardens on either side and with our
35:13garden not being overlooked as well.
35:15This private area will be lost. We use
35:17it all year round with our patio area
35:20being lit and heated. Without any doubt,
35:22this enormous proposed care home will
35:24take away our privacy. Every inch of our
35:27back garden will be overlooked, as well
35:29as our lounge, our dining kitchen, and
35:31two main bedrooms. The occupants in the
35:34care home will spend most of their time
35:35looking out of their windows or sitting
35:38on a sky balcony, all of which will face
35:41our home and our neighbors will be
35:43completely overlooked. We can already
35:45see customers at Aldi, which is much
35:47further away. When the lights are on, we
35:49can actually see inside Aldi. This
35:52proposal is significantly nearer and
35:54more than double the height of Aldi. It
35:56would be out of keeping when looking at
35:58the height of all surrounding
35:59properties. It will set a damning
36:01precedent for other proposed builds and
36:03discs. There will be overshadowing for
36:05us with this overbearing building. We
36:08will lose natural daylight we get in our
36:10garden and all the many rooms that face
36:11the site. All these rooms will be
36:14darkened being rooms we use the most and
36:16each day. Policy DM3.13
36:19is key. It requires that particular
36:21regard will be paid avoiding overlooking
36:25loss of private residential immunity
36:27space, loss of daylight, overshadowing
36:30and overbearing impact and states that
36:32planning permission will be refused
36:34where proposed development would lead to
36:36an excessive or unreasonable impact on
36:39existing neighboring occupants. This
36:42proposal will do all these things. If
36:44you're in any doubt about this, please
36:47defer your decision and carry out a site
36:49inspection at our homes to see for
36:51yourself. Um, I've got photographs,
36:53please, to refer to
36:56the three. I'm losing time. Can we just
36:59stop?
37:02Look, the first um, this is the view.
37:04Yeah, this is the view uh, I took on my
37:07mobile phone with me sitting on my bed.
37:10The next photograph, please. This is the
37:12view from our dining kitchen and the
37:15final one is our patio area. Thank you.
37:20>> Good morning. My name is Glenn Smith and
37:22myself and my wife live at three Pipers
37:24Gardens next door to Tamson and Kevin.
37:27Uh we've enjoyed living here for coming
37:28up to 20 years and our boundary is the
37:31closest to the proposed development. The
37:34proposed scale and size of the building
37:36is very very overbearing and overshadows
37:39all the houses it would be adjacent to.
37:42It's out of proportion to its
37:44environment and location and it would
37:46tower over all of our houses and
37:48gardens. It would mean a total loss of
37:50privacy and the enjoyment of our homes
37:53and gardens would be lost. Approximately
37:5615 to 18 plus windows and balconies
37:59would overlook us, meaning we would be
38:01forced to live in a goldfish bowl. Also,
38:04the residents who would live in the care
38:05home would also lack privacy as we and
38:08our neighbors would there in turn
38:09overlook them. Our bedroom would face
38:12their bedroom windows in a very close
38:15proximity. We would be forced to live
38:17behind closed blinds and drawn curtains
38:20to retain any level of privacy.
38:23The loss of light and amenity, it would
38:25block sunlight for varying hours every
38:27day through the year, casting shadow
38:29into our gardens where there was
38:31previously sunshine.
38:33the glare and disruption caused by many
38:36many solar panels on a on a pitched roof
38:39angled towards our homes through that
38:41day and the extensive glaring external
38:43lighting in the evening would be
38:45intolerable and bear in mind that all of
38:46our bedroom windows will face onto the
38:49proposed development.
38:51The design uh of the location of the
38:54services for the the home total
38:56disregard for our well-being and
38:58enjoyment of our homes. There was a
39:00blank canvas to draw their plans. And
39:02yet they chose to site the services
39:04right next to where we all live to our
39:06gardens and our boundaries. A solar PV
39:09store which carries a fire. The bins
39:11area which will create odor, constant
39:13noise and rodent risk. The deliveries in
39:16the kitchen and extraction are all the
39:18closest point to our boundaries. The
39:20staff would probably take smoking breaks
39:22again out in that area just the other
39:24side of our small wall. the communial
39:26garden again just over the other side of
39:29a very small wall of our garden.
39:32If this goes ahead the one of the
39:35biggest concerns of this construction
39:37would be the uh the piling. When Audi
39:39was being built there was extensive
39:41piling which shook our houses for 12
39:43weeks, eight hours a day every single
39:45day and caused significant damage to
39:48ours and six other properties.
39:50Um, all in all, and also just on a
39:54personal note, my wife and I gave up a
39:56thriving child mining business when the
39:57Audi construction began because of
39:59safeguarding. It's on hold. A
40:02development like this would mean we
40:03would never be able to resume our
40:05business again.
40:07>> Thank you. Just stay there for a second.
40:09There may be some questions. Any
40:11questions at [snorts] all, members? No,
40:14you shut off lightly. So, if you just
40:16turn the microphone off and then take
40:17your place again. And now we've got the
40:20applicant Joe. Hello Joe.
40:38>> Sorry if you just sit down for a second.
40:43>> And your question is
40:45>> some of the visuals shown in the
40:47presentation were superseded.
40:49So they're not correct
40:51>> of your drawing
40:52>> of our
40:55>> Is it major differences?
40:58>> Yes.
41:12>> So
41:13[snorts]
41:15>> what we're saying now is that isn't a
41:17pitch roof. It is a pitch roof,
41:21>> right? So a pitch roof adds some height
41:24to it
41:25>> and there are solar
41:26>> that's a
41:28reduces
41:28>> and there are solar panels on the pitch.
41:31Okay, so we understand that. Yeah,
41:33>> the the elevations are correct. So maybe
41:46>> Richard did you hear the last bit? Sorry
41:59>> if we can get them up on the it. Um,
42:03let's see what we can do.
42:21>> Yeah, I don't think that's working.
42:23Anyway, you can do that.
42:26Try try the work.
42:29See
42:31if it works.
42:56USBC
43:16gases.
43:41We'll be with you in a minute.
43:44>> But presentation.
43:46>> Yeah.
43:47>> Well, no. I I want them to listen as
43:49well. So,
43:51>> we'll come to I could do that. Let's get
43:54into Absolutely.
43:58Just get it onto this.
44:13>> So Joe, the first one was the thing
44:17shown a flat roof and it's a pitch room.
44:19>> That's the first thing. This one is
44:22about what
44:24>> we something we've shown is incorrect or
44:27>> yes on the presentation old design was
44:30shown
44:31>> right
44:31>> the elevations at the end but the
44:33visuals the 3D CGI the old schemes
44:39inreased a lot but also the whole
44:41materiality of building
44:46That's correct.
45:03>> That's it. Thanks. Yeah.
45:06>> Right. So Joe, you've got five minutes
45:09and we'll warn you with one minute to go
45:12>> and sorry.
45:14>> Yeah. And then please give your name for
45:16the record.
45:18Carry on.
45:27>> Yeah. Sorry.
45:29>> Good morning, chair and members of the
45:31committee. I'm Joe Kemp from LntTair
45:33Developments and I'm the agent for this
45:35application which proposes the
45:37redevelopment of this vacant brownfield
45:40site in a sustainable location in order
45:42to meet an identified housing need by
45:45providing a 66 bed care home for local
45:47older people. L&T is the UK's leading
45:51care home developer, having built and
45:53operated over 260 care homes nationwide.
45:57As well as building care homes, we also
45:59operate them through our sister company.
46:01So, if members choose to approve the
46:03scheme today, we would be on site very
46:05soon to begin construction of this
46:07muchneeded care facility, and we'd be
46:09here to stay, becoming a valued part of
46:12the community once the home is open,
46:14forging links with schools and community
46:16groups and hosting events and
46:17activities.
46:19There were no objections to the
46:21application from statutory consultes
46:23including highways and the senior
46:25heritage and design officer removed
46:27their objection upon receipt of our
46:29revised plans.
46:31Although the council's environmental
46:33quality team have no objection to the
46:34proposal, we understand that neighboring
46:36residents have concerns over the
46:38construction phase and were the
46:40application to be approved, we have
46:42agreed to a condition restricting piling
46:44to non-percussive methods. I hope it
46:47also puts minds at ease to know that we
46:49have offered to have the nearby
46:51properties independently surveyed prior
46:53to any work starting with a view to
46:56carrying out any remediation works at
46:58our cost. Although of course we would do
47:00everything possible to avoid these being
47:02required.
47:04In relation to residential amenity, the
47:06proposed home is positioned so that any
47:08habitable room windows directly facing
47:11properties on water gardens are 41 and
47:1343 meters away, which far exceeds any
47:16separation distance guidance. The
47:19closest windows, the windows closest to
47:22three pipers gardens, apologies, are
47:24corridor windows, so not habitable
47:26rooms, and these are 32 meters away. We
47:29would be happy to obscure glaze these
47:31via condition if this is required.
47:34Number four, Pipers Gardens does not
47:36directly face the care home and the
47:38nearest habitable room window of the
47:40home would be 26 meters from the corner
47:42of this house with landscaping along the
47:44boundary to provide screening.
47:47If the site were to be developed as
47:48another industrial use or residential
47:50dwellings, it's likely that the impact
47:52on neighboring properties would be much
47:54more severe than the proposed home in
47:56visual terms, as well as overlooking
47:58noise and traffic impacts. A row of
48:01dwellings may only have 10 m long rear
48:03gardens, for example, so any houses will
48:06be over 30 meters closer to the existing
48:08dwellings than the proposed care home.
48:12Adult social care were not consulted on
48:14our application. However, a recent
48:16telephone call with Norfolk County
48:17Council confirmed they are in favor of
48:19the application and our submitted needs
48:22assessment which was carried out by a
48:23specialist consultant indicates a need
48:26for 156 on suite care beds in the market
48:30catchment area and 717 in South Norolk.
48:34With regard to car parking, the care
48:36home would benefit from 27 parking
48:38spaces. And as many of our operational
48:40homes of this size have 25 spaces, we
48:43are confident this will be more than
48:44enough in this sustainable location.
48:47There will be up to 24 members of staff
48:49on site at the busiest part of the day
48:51and shifts are staggered to avoid busy
48:53changeovers.
48:55Staff generally come from within the
48:57local area and residents will either
48:59come from or have family within the
49:00locality which means that visitors and
49:03staff are able to travel sustainably to
49:04the home.
49:06Visiting hours are also unrestricted and
49:08most visitors tend to arrive in the
49:10evenings when there is less staff on
49:11shift, therefore more parking spaces
49:13available.
49:16In order to help combat climate change
49:18and reduce running costs, over 70% of
49:21the home's energy will come from on-site
49:22renewables, including a battery to store
49:25surplus energy for future use.
49:28The development would also generate
49:30significant employment. Thank you. with
49:3250 to 60 jobs being created for local
49:34candidates. It would provide
49:36multi-million a multi-million pound
49:38investment into the local economy.
49:41I just wanted to touch briefly on the
49:42landscaping. I know I mentioned that's
49:44been updated. The broadland lodge
49:46broadlands lodge scheme around the
49:47corner was as as the chair rightly
49:49suggested there's a completely different
49:51different scheme and no screening was
49:53actually required and no neighboring
49:55residents. Um hence it's very different.
49:58Um, and finally, we uh we really do know
50:00the value that a great care home brings
50:02to a community and we would really
50:04welcome the opportunity to provide a
50:06home and a greater quality of life for
50:0866 local residents in need of care.
50:10Thank you.
50:12>> Thank you. Good timing. J members, any
50:15questions?
50:18>> Yeah, Ian. Um, with regards to
50:23overlooking the neighbors, I'm just
50:26trying to clarify, um, the landscaping
50:30shadowing and it was the last thing you
50:32mentioned. Um, now
50:35um, obviously [snorts]
50:37I understand fully about shadowing and I
50:41got the impression that this was being
50:42referred to the building. Um obviously
50:47trees are being planted as a screening.
50:51So um one which would help the benefit
50:55the neighbors that are concerned but if
50:57they were too close to the boundary
51:01obviously they are going to create it's
51:04simple perspective they would create far
51:08more shadowing
51:11of the gardens than the actual building
51:14that is positioned how many meters away
51:16from the resident's gardens
51:19>> between 30 and 40. Yeah. So if the trees
51:23were planted,
51:25you know, the boundary trees were
51:26planted which are very good
51:28environmentally
51:30but the height of those would completely
51:32with the position of the sun would
51:34completely over o pardon the pun
51:37overshadow
51:39um the situation because they would
51:41create far more. So could proper
51:44planting protocols be put into place
51:47that would limit the height of the
51:51foliage which would actually act as a
51:54double you know double whammy as it were
51:56because it would it would protect the um
52:00privacy of the residents
52:03but it would also
52:06um cater for BNG for all the
52:09environmental issues and not be
52:12detrimental to your resident. So that
52:15would be one issue that I would you know
52:18from purely a visual and and and um
52:23in protective point of view that's
52:25that's that that would be something that
52:27I feel should be approached and dealt
52:30with for the benefit of all. And can I
52:32just say that at the moment this is for
52:34refusal. So there are no conditions.
52:37>> So we can't at this moment
52:40>> it was just an observation.
52:41>> Yeah, that's fine. That's fine for an
52:42observation, but we can't put any any
52:45conditions on. Any more questions of
52:47Joe?
52:49>> No. Joe, thank you and thank you for
52:51helping us earlier. And uh we come to
52:55councelor Graeme Minsel.
53:07and you know all the rules so I don't
53:08have to repeat them. So pull the
53:11microphone towards you grant because it
53:13is a thing. Okay, off you go.
53:17>> Okay, thank you very much. Um let me
53:19start by saying that contrary to media
53:21reports our town are not against elderly
53:24people. Um and we welcome uh um this
53:28kind of development in the town. Um and
53:32to be fair to the applicant um we've
53:35been having in discussions for probably
53:37the last two to three years with regards
53:39to this site. Um one of the first things
53:43that I pointed out was that this
53:45building was too high um and that there
53:48was going to be problems there. Um,
53:50unfortunately I was informed that their
53:53business model did not allow it to be
53:55any smaller, which was a shame. Um,
53:58there's several reasons um why I and the
54:02residents of the town have issues with
54:03this. Um, first of all, um, is it its
54:07design. Um, it's virtually identical to
54:10the one around the corner, which is
54:11perfectly fine for there, but for this
54:13particular site, um, is not I don't
54:17consider suitable. um all of the
54:19buildings around the maximum is two and
54:21a half stories. Um so you kind of have a
54:24look at that and think that doesn't meet
54:26with the the neighborhood plan and the
54:28policies around that. Um it also um
54:32takes no regard to um our own design
54:35code. You know we we've published that
54:37and we've asked people to consider that.
54:39Um there is no consideration in that on
54:42that. The main problem is is the um the
54:45size and the massing of the building.
54:47And one thing I did notice was the
54:49photograph uh the the images that were
54:51produced um with regards to the um the
54:55light report. Um is it number number
54:58five?
55:00Photograph number five. Bring just bring
55:02that up.
55:04>> Sorry, we have the one the one of the
55:06building the green building. Um,
55:10I was I was a bit uh bit amused to see
55:12that the actual drawing sitting on the
55:15plan actually sits on the road um off to
55:19the side. It doesn't actually sit where
55:21the where the building is. Um, so I'm
55:24not sure whether the figures on that
55:26whether that's just an error in the
55:27drawing or whether that's a question
55:29building it. Um, not that one. The
55:34the one three Yeah, that's the one. the
55:363D one
55:39you see there you can see the road
55:41coming in and you can actually see that
55:43the the building sitting on the road
55:45rather than actually sitting and I don't
55:46know what how that's worked out but
55:49whether or not that's just a an im image
55:51error or whether that's a a question
55:53about it but it does demonstrate the
55:56actual size of this building. Um I would
55:59also question the need for this. Back in
56:022021, this committee approved um a care
56:05home down on the Nelson Road site. Um
56:08and speaking to the land agent for that,
56:10he tells me that they have not managed
56:12to achieve the numbers um required to
56:15actually build out that site, hence why
56:17it's still sitting vacant today and they
56:19haven't actually built it. Um so is
56:23there is there a need for for something
56:24like this? You've also got the Churchill
56:27site um which is just alongside it built
56:30four years ago that's still standing
56:33nearly half empty. Um so you're kind of
56:36looking at that and thinking okay I
56:38would question the uh the the um the the
56:42traffic and the parking issue. Um 27
56:45spaces um and um as the applicant has
56:48pointed out 24 people on site at any one
56:51time. If you say half of those is still
56:5412. you've then got um care staff coming
56:57in and visitors um to to the site. I
57:00would look and kind of go I think you
57:02need a few more parking spaces that is
57:04going to result in um in people parking
57:08on the access road and down on the
57:10pavement alongside the road blocking the
57:12traffic from Aldi store. We already know
57:15that um the Aldi site
57:17>> one minute ago.
57:18>> Sorry. Yep. Um, we already know the Aldi
57:20site is is causing traffic problems on
57:23on Park Road. Um, yeah, it's on on the
57:27whole I think had it been reduced in
57:30height to two stories and would have and
57:33had some amendments, it it probably
57:35would have been okay for this site. Um,
57:37but it is just literally too big um and
57:40too too obtrusive. You know, you got the
57:43you got the overlooking on into people's
57:45gardens, into their houses. you've got
57:47the issues with um they're overlooking
57:50into into the to the site. Um I wouldn't
57:54want to to live in one of those houses
57:55and I think the people trying to sell
57:58their houses will will have a difficult
57:59time um on on the whole um reduce the
58:04height and and do some work on it and it
58:07would have been a um a presentable site
58:10but the the size mass etc just will not
58:13work on on this particular site. Um, and
58:16I'd like to see the applicant come back
58:18with something more reasonable that
58:20actually takes into consideration our
58:22design code to concl
58:30John.
58:30>> John
58:32Graeme, how many um care homes have you
58:34got in the distance surrounding area at
58:36the moment?
58:37So there are as between 12 and 14
58:41depending on what you consider to be a
58:44care home because some of them are small
58:47care homes with only maybe half a dozen
58:49places. But yeah, there's about about 14
58:52alto together offering a mixture of care
58:54between dementia care and and um just um
58:57elderly housing.
59:03>> Thanks Jeff.
59:06[clears throat] So um we finish with at
59:09that we going back to members or out of
59:11public speaking? Um so members any
59:15thoughts? My one of the things that gets
59:18to me is yes adult services in county
59:20will say there is a need and there is a
59:22need but not at all costs. So any
59:25thoughts and comments from members?
59:30>> David.
59:33>> Thank you chairman. I think um
59:37presentation by councelor Mshaw was very
59:40uplifting and I I I do have to agree
59:43that this overlooking of the properties
59:45that are there already is probably one
59:48of the major problems. I think the
59:50building itself is good. I think the the
59:54the style of it is in the right place is
59:57good. I think the facility just one
59:59question is the is there a dining area?
1:00:02I know there's a tea room. Is there a
1:00:03dining Yeah, good.
1:00:05>> Yes, there are dining area.
1:00:06>> I like my food. Um, [snorts]
1:00:09so for me that the concern really is
1:00:12this is this um overlooking of of uh the
1:00:17surrounding properties and it it the the
1:00:20right thing in the wrong place put
1:00:22bluntly quite honestly. Um it's not for
1:00:26us to determine whether you should or
1:00:28shouldn't have another uh care home.
1:00:31That's a business proposition and it's
1:00:32up to the business people to say yes we
1:00:34can we can do this and I'm sure they've
1:00:36looked at the figures and come up with a
1:00:39reason why they can do it but
1:00:40unfortunately as far as I'm concerned
1:00:43and I just repeated it's the right
1:00:45property but in the wrong place thank
1:00:48you
1:00:50Gary
1:00:51>> um thank you chair can I just have um
1:00:53verification from the office if that's
1:00:54okay on something please can I just have
1:00:56verification from the office on
1:00:58something please um obviously
1:01:00One of the objections is the
1:01:02overlooking. Um, now obviously there's
1:01:04I'm guessing a minimum
1:01:07um distance for overlooking because as
1:01:09we know we all get housing estates and
1:01:11my own house I can kind of see into my
1:01:13neighbors front room and other bits and
1:01:15pieces. Obviously the applicant said
1:01:16that this property will be 30 40 mters
1:01:19from the their property and most of the
1:01:24windows that will be overlooking are
1:01:26corridors rather than houses. uh sorry,
1:01:29house rather than bedrooms um or living
1:01:31areas. How does that then affect the um
1:01:35overlooking part of the objection if
1:01:38nothing is actually overlooking it
1:01:39unless you're walking down a corridor?
1:01:44So the side facing or looking towards
1:01:47the west are all faced with habitable
1:01:51rooms. So the corridors actually go down
1:01:52the center of the building. Um so in
1:01:56terms of overlooking what you know you
1:01:59always have the conventional guideline
1:02:00distance for like 21 mters between
1:02:03twostory conventional residential
1:02:05properties where you have a rear main
1:02:08living room to another person's rear
1:02:09main living room and bedrooms above. And
1:02:12obviously you know this is a different
1:02:14situation in that yes we've obviously
1:02:17got 30 to 40 m but it's a very different
1:02:20proposition. Obviously, you meant to
1:02:22increase your distance for spacing when
1:02:25you go up in story height, but I think
1:02:27this is not really a conventional
1:02:29situation. This is not a a large
1:02:31residential property. This is a number
1:02:33of habitable bedrooms. So, there's a
1:02:36number of occupants in those rooms which
1:02:39we think will be there for large parts
1:02:41of the day. So um over three stories
1:02:43it's it's there's not a sort of
1:02:45conventional guideline distance but um
1:02:48you know for all intents and purposes
1:02:50even at 30 to 40 mters we think there's
1:02:52still a lot of potential for overlooking
1:02:54by the fact that they're all habitable
1:02:56rooms you know it's not as if like a
1:02:59conventional family house you might move
1:03:00between rooms people will rely on those
1:03:03rooms um and you know you when you've
1:03:05got to look at things like co where you
1:03:07could have a situation where people are
1:03:09are room bound so you know I I think it
1:03:11is a concern um and I don't dispute
1:03:14there is quite a diff you know quite a
1:03:17marked difference in terms of um you
1:03:20know from a conventional 21 m twotory
1:03:23property but this is not a conventional
1:03:25situation
1:03:27correct me if I'm wrong but I'm looking
1:03:30at it from a bit different viewpoint
1:03:32you're looking this way overlooking
1:03:35what I'm looking at what I've heard is
1:03:37from the houses we're looking at this
1:03:40huge thing in front of us. Is that got
1:03:43that right?
1:03:44>> To be fair, the the main concern was
1:03:46more about the scale and the mass and
1:03:47the feeling of overdominance over
1:03:49bearing. I think you get a real sense of
1:03:51that in the gardens of those residents
1:03:53that it will be a very dominant feature
1:03:55in their in their in their properties.
1:03:59>> Yeah, I think just just to clarify that
1:04:01on that point, I think yeah, Bridget
1:04:02makes a valid point. I think it's around
1:04:04the fact it's quite visually intrusive.
1:04:06gives us a design point as well as one
1:04:08of residential amenity in its own right.
1:04:11So there's fact that it's quite a large
1:04:13bulky building. So I think need to
1:04:16consider that in terms of what the
1:04:17recommendation is in the report.
1:04:25[clears throat]
1:04:26>> Um yeah I mean I I don't have any issues
1:04:28supporting care homes. Um and I was in
1:04:31dish about three or four weeks ago on
1:04:33the car park of the oldie supermarket
1:04:36and that alone is quite a substantial
1:04:38building. But when you look at this care
1:04:40home that's going to be possibly two or
1:04:43three times taller than the oldie
1:04:46building. It sort of puts in perspective
1:04:48that the massing is huge. I mean
1:04:50basically I have no issues with gones
1:04:52but I think the design is wrong in this
1:04:55place.
1:04:59>> Thank you. So, no more. Uh, so we're
1:05:01going to go to the recommendations.
1:05:04Um,
1:05:05and and a phrase we've just learned I'm
1:05:08going to come to. Um, the
1:05:10recommendations refuse following
1:05:12completion and final evaluation
1:05:14oversight of the further riparian animal
1:05:16survey. A phrase I'm going to use over
1:05:19and over. So, members, all those in
1:05:21favor of the recommendation, please
1:05:22raise your hand.
1:05:25>> And sorry, just to clarify, that second
1:05:27recom uh refusal reason is removed. So
1:05:29it's just the one. Yep. And that looks
1:05:31to Hang on. One, two, three, four, five,
1:05:34six,
1:05:35>> seven for refusal.
1:05:38>> Oh, you voted. So sorry, it's
1:05:39unanimously refusal then.
1:05:42>> Right. So it's unanimous.
1:05:43>> Unanimous for refusal, chair.
1:05:45>> Right. Thank you.
1:05:47>> So number two, we're going to go on to
1:05:49number two.
1:06:14I haven't seen it.
1:06:17>> He did.
1:06:38Hannah, can you pull that microphone a
1:06:40bit towards you, please?
1:06:44>> Sorry about that.
1:06:46>> Yeah, it's a long way, isn't it?
1:06:52Okay,
1:06:53>> Hannah, off you go and lead us through.
1:06:57>> Thank you very much.
1:06:59>> Uh, good morning, members. So, the
1:07:01application before us is seeking
1:07:02planning permission for the erection of
1:07:04free uh bungalows and garages on land
1:07:08north of Common Road in Dicklebra. Um,
1:07:10the officer recommendation for this is a
1:07:13refusal.
1:07:15The site comprises a vacant plot between
1:07:18uh South View which is an existing
1:07:20dwelling here and Willow Farm um which
1:07:24is situated here. You can see the layout
1:07:27of the the land sort surrounded in red
1:07:29here. This access this is currently an
1:07:32access track to the fields behind
1:07:34agricultural access would remain as part
1:07:36of this application uh with access taken
1:07:38separately on onto the site. Um while
1:07:42the application site is positioned
1:07:44within a small group of existing
1:07:46dwellings and some farm related
1:07:47buildings, it is outside the defined
1:07:49settlement boundary of Dickra and
1:07:52therefore in palion terms it is
1:07:54considered part of the countryside
1:07:56although it is not considered to be an
1:07:58isolated dwelling um due to sort of its
1:08:02positioning.
1:08:04Um our key issues in front of us today
1:08:06regard the principal development um
1:08:09sustainable access to services and
1:08:11facilities, impact of the scheme on
1:08:14rural character and landscape and the
1:08:17loss of a um highly distinctive um hedro
1:08:22in order to facilitate the access.
1:08:24>> Yeah. So the side in front of us um you
1:08:28can see sort of the site um in context
1:08:31to uh the so we've got site down here um
1:08:35on this sort of parcel surrounded you
1:08:37can see this sort of cluster of of of
1:08:40dwellers that does exist along common
1:08:42road and sort of these setback kind of
1:08:46settings. This site sort of formulates
1:08:48that transitioning period um element
1:08:52between sort of these forward facing
1:08:54dwellings the site and then this sort of
1:08:57set back kind of moving into rurality.
1:09:00As you can see this site does sort of
1:09:02form an important kind of permanent
1:09:06um kind of bit within the landscape and
1:09:08is fairly sort of viewed separate to the
1:09:11builtup form of decor in the north here.
1:09:15Um we can al see accesses off of the
1:09:17A140 with sort of disc as a larger sort
1:09:20settlement with some more facilities um
1:09:23further along to the southwest. Digra
1:09:27does have some facilities but it's
1:09:29considered sort of a service village in
1:09:30terms of the hierarchy of allowing new
1:09:33development.
1:09:36Um this scene sort of shows the
1:09:38development boundary and the context
1:09:40within the site. Now it's important to
1:09:41say that um the policies in our
1:09:44development plan basically direct
1:09:46housing growth towards sustainable
1:09:47settlements generally within the
1:09:50development boundaries generally in
1:09:51locations with good access to jobs,
1:09:53facilities and services. What we have in
1:09:56front of us is a scheme sort of looking
1:09:58in line with DM1.3
1:10:01which restricts development in the
1:10:02countryside unless it is supported by a
1:10:04specific policy or where there are
1:10:07overriding economic, social and
1:10:09environmental benefits. As stated there
1:10:12is no policy that applies for the
1:10:14principal government in this case. So
1:10:15therefore we need to be looking at those
1:10:17three principles in terms of the
1:10:19benefits. Um it's really important to
1:10:22say that we do have a neighborhood plan
1:10:23as well in place. uh DR3 of that is
1:10:25really important which sort of seeks for
1:10:27new development to respond to a
1:10:29settlement panel pattern of the parish.
1:10:32Um but
1:10:34officers do consider the proposal
1:10:38basically would have a further extension
1:10:40of a small I um would be a f extension
1:10:44into kind of a rural location and the
1:10:46principal generally would not be
1:10:48acceptable but you can see the context
1:10:50of the site here. Um this side gives us
1:10:53the proposed site plan. Um as you can
1:10:56see access is taken from common road. Um
1:10:59and actually while we sort of have some
1:11:02setback and a further setback it does
1:11:04generally sort of follow some flow um
1:11:08within the street scene. Um it does
1:11:10comprise three detached bungalows uh
1:11:12arranged around the private access
1:11:14roads. Um the
1:11:17individual dwellings are considered to
1:11:19be acceptable in terms of appearance and
1:11:21scale. Um concerns some concerns were
1:11:25raised by the parish council with
1:11:26regards to compliance with one of the
1:11:28policies DR neighbor policy DR5 seeing
1:11:32that generally given we are in the
1:11:34country each plot should be larger and
1:11:37get larger as it progresses further away
1:11:39from the boundary. um that's very much
1:11:42to be in keeping with that rurality kind
1:11:44of nature of that countryside outside
1:11:46the builtup setting. Um I will say there
1:11:50have been no significant concerns with
1:11:51regards to neighbor amenity um amenity
1:11:54of future uses heritage assets um or or
1:11:58highway safety um in these terms.
1:12:03You can sort of see on this slide the
1:12:05design as said they are singlestory
1:12:07bungalow. There's a range of different
1:12:08housing types across the site. Uh
1:12:11generally the detailed design scale and
1:12:13materials are considered acceptable. Um
1:12:16the proposed islands also are um to a
1:12:22um sorry to meet accessibility
1:12:25requirements and also the space
1:12:27standards. So generally um the designs
1:12:30can be acceptable and the variation
1:12:32given across that cluster that it comes
1:12:35with each twirl in already a long coming
1:12:38road is a variable design. Um so
1:12:41generally that variability is is kind of
1:12:43considered acceptable though it doesn't
1:12:45follow that increase in pattern.
1:12:48Um a key concern for the application as
1:12:51mentioned is the sustainability of the
1:12:54site. Uh the site is located um roughly
1:12:59about under 700 meters from the
1:13:01settlement boundary and in order to
1:13:04access kind of the facilities within
1:13:07Dickorbra which as Ray is a service
1:13:09village it does have some facilities
1:13:12such as a primary school um some shops
1:13:16but generally for sort of larger scale
1:13:18services we would probably see um future
1:13:21users potentially moving into this as
1:13:23well as Dickra
1:13:25In order to access Dickerborough itself,
1:13:27where you would be able to catch um to
1:13:30to get public transport and some of
1:13:33those sort of small scale services, you
1:13:35would need to walk along common road uh
1:13:37which does not have a pavement and is
1:13:40unlit. Um you can sort of see the access
1:13:42along here. So you'd be walking along
1:13:44the road here without any pavement or
1:13:48lighting. Um you would then need to
1:13:50cross um Ipsswitch road which you can
1:13:53see here where there is a pavement along
1:13:55the side but it is predominantly unlit.
1:13:57While it's not materially sort of far in
1:13:59terms of distance um generally we would
1:14:02see more likely than not a reliance on
1:14:06um private car in order to access digra
1:14:10as well as service facilities and
1:14:12essential needs in this as digra
1:14:14wouldn't be able to meet all of those
1:14:16requirements for future users. Um as
1:14:20such it's kind of considered that the
1:14:23it would have a reliance on a private
1:14:26vehicle. There would be limited sort of
1:14:29um provision towards sustainable
1:14:31transport. Um just to give some more
1:14:34context in terms of that road as well.
1:14:36Um we're looking sort of the sites on
1:14:39the side here. We're looking down the
1:14:40road here and then we're looking east
1:14:43again. the sites. You can just sort of
1:14:45see to the side here just to demonstrate
1:14:47sort of that access.
1:14:52Um this side actually shows you the site
1:14:55which is great. So we're standing up the
1:14:57field access here. So this field access
1:14:59will maintain the access to the site
1:15:01itself will have a separate access to
1:15:04this field access. As you can see it is
1:15:06an undeveloped patch of land. You can
1:15:08see the existing dwelling um across the
1:15:11site there.
1:15:14Um this is some further images of the
1:15:16site. This is the hedro that runs across
1:15:19the front. Um as stated this hedro is um
1:15:24has been in existence for at least 27
1:15:27years due to the public images available
1:15:30to me. Um it is a mature hedro. It does
1:15:35very much build into this idea on that
1:15:37context of rurality. As stated the
1:15:40surrounding area of Dickra by its very
1:15:43nature is um within the wave tributary
1:15:48farmland landscape character area which
1:15:50is characterized by dispersed
1:15:52development a some sense of rurality and
1:15:56what's quite mature in this case is
1:15:57although that you can see properties on
1:16:00either side it does create quite a
1:16:03perable gap um and we're standing sort
1:16:05of looking across that site which very
1:16:07much gives into this idea idea of
1:16:09reality that hedro does form part of
1:16:11that kind of character image as you as
1:16:13you can see.
1:16:18Um coming on to that hedro um you can
1:16:21see the section of hedro here which is
1:16:23where the proposed access is. So the
1:16:25access would be sort of roughly from
1:16:30this side of there of the tree all the
1:16:33way to the other side of the tree. You
1:16:35can sort of see in the image. Um so
1:16:37access would be going in that location.
1:16:39Um all of that that's about 25 mters of
1:16:42hedro that would be removed as well as
1:16:44one of the trees on the site. Um
1:16:48as stated that hedro is of very high
1:16:51distinctiveness. It is a herit. It is a
1:16:54species rich hedro which would be lost
1:16:56as part of this replacement planting is
1:16:59proposed as part of the scheme and in
1:17:01terms of length of hedro that would be
1:17:04provided by the replacement that would
1:17:06exceed the amount being lost. There is a
1:17:08full landscaping scheme and bodiversity
1:17:11net gain can be achieved through both
1:17:13on-site and also off-site per um
1:17:16purchase of credits. So in terms of
1:17:18biodiversity net gain that can be
1:17:20achieved on the site. However, the hedro
1:17:22itself has intrinsic value. It is a
1:17:25mature hedro. It builds into that idea
1:17:28of reality. The, you know, it has value
1:17:31within itself both separate and linked
1:17:34to those biodiversity.
1:17:36um as such in line with kind of um our
1:17:40hedro policy and as well as um Dickra no
1:17:44plan policies which restrict the loss of
1:17:47the hedro um that has been put down as a
1:17:49reason for refusal. Um I think it's
1:17:52really important to specify within this
1:17:54that um there is a precise policy in the
1:17:56DRA neighborhood plan that um basically
1:18:00states that it's if it's within an 1884
1:18:02map the hedro has extra protection. This
1:18:05hedro is not contained within that map.
1:18:08It is also not considered important
1:18:10under the hedro regulations. However, as
1:18:13stated due to like the age and the value
1:18:15in this right, it still is considered of
1:18:18value.
1:18:23Okay. So, I just wanted to provide um
1:18:26this I just sort of shows you that sort
1:18:28and that layout coming back to those key
1:18:29issues. Something I've not mentioned so
1:18:31far which is I think really really
1:18:33important to to to raise is currently we
1:18:36do not have a five-year housing supply.
1:18:38So as such um paragraph 11D of the
1:18:41national planning policy framework is
1:18:43engaged and the tilted balance does
1:18:45apply. Um there are benefits associated
1:18:48with this scheme. It is small scale. It
1:18:50would provide the delivery of free
1:18:52additional dwellings free um free single
1:18:55storage dwellins. it would um have
1:18:58limited economic benefits through the
1:19:00construction activity and future
1:19:02household expenditure.
1:19:04um there would be EV charging provided
1:19:07as part of it but ultimately it is not
1:19:11considered those benefits um it is
1:19:15considered that the the harm caused by
1:19:17the SK scheme by nature of the conflict
1:19:20of the spatial strategy the
1:19:22unsustainable location reliance private
1:19:24vehicles the harm to the rural character
1:19:26landscape and the loss of that hedro um
1:19:29outweigh the benefits caused by the
1:19:30scheme and as such on that tilted
1:19:32balance um
1:19:35the the those benefits are are
1:19:38outweighed by those. Um so as such it's
1:19:41not considered um to kind of complete
1:19:44the balance.
1:19:47Um I think that's everything. So yes, in
1:19:50summary, four reasons for refusal. Um
1:19:53any questions?
1:19:55>> We will in a minute. Um just something
1:19:57up I'm not quite sure of. Did you say
1:20:00there's going to be a replacement hro?
1:20:03Yes. So there is
1:20:04>> do we have to take down the whole 25
1:20:06mters? It's a double question if you
1:20:09like. Do we have to take the 25 mters
1:20:11and what where will the replacement
1:20:14hedro be?
1:20:15>> Absolutely. So the 25 m does need to be
1:20:19taken out in order to have safe access
1:20:21onto the site. It's to facilitate the
1:20:23visibility space. So so yes it would
1:20:26need to be that extent. Um the
1:20:28replacement hetro is going around the
1:20:31rear and side.
1:20:33>> Um not at the front. Um so um I think
1:20:37it's a mix of medium um distinctively it
1:20:41doesn't quite meet the very high
1:20:43threshold but there is a mix of kind of
1:20:45quality heter going in um and that would
1:20:48I can't remember the exact number but it
1:20:50is at least I think double the amount
1:20:52that would be taken out. Consider it
1:20:54landscaping proposed.
1:20:57>> Thank you. Members, questions questions
1:20:59only.
1:21:01Okay, sir.
1:21:06>> Yeah. Um, so just picking up on what Vic
1:21:09said for for that hedge was that
1:21:10highways stipulation had to come out.
1:21:12Okay. So you've made you made a lot on
1:21:15the the highways. Would the sorry on the
1:21:17hedgeways would that hedgeway hedge
1:21:20point B be enough to refuse this by
1:21:24itself and does it mean that on that
1:21:27basis there can never be any development
1:21:29on this land because of hedge and then
1:21:31will that apply to other times we come
1:21:33across hedge and what at what age would
1:21:35a hedge need to be at which point we say
1:21:37well we just can't develop on that land
1:21:42>> that's very fair so um the reason that
1:21:46condition um sorry that reason for
1:21:47abuser was put put in is because
1:21:50inherently we want to um protect that
1:21:55the loss of hedro and as part of the
1:21:58consideration of putting that in our
1:21:59policy basically states that
1:22:02um if there were overriding benefits of
1:22:05the scheme and it could also be
1:22:07mitigated against um it would be more
1:22:10acceptable
1:22:11what um the summary I I that I've
1:22:15presented
1:22:16is that there is not benefits of the
1:22:18scheme that outweigh that loss. So it
1:22:21would stand on its own. But using that
1:22:23kind of idea of future applications or
1:22:26weighing up within your own
1:22:27deliberations, if you felt the benefits
1:22:29of the scheme did overweigh that, then
1:22:31no, it would not stand on its own. If
1:22:34you did not feel it would, um that would
1:22:38be part of kind of the decision- making
1:22:40balance suit you would make. Um,
1:22:43does that answer that question?
1:22:47>> You got that?
1:22:48>> Yeah.
1:22:50>> It it's sort of sat within there's harm
1:22:54is the policy allows for overriding
1:22:58benefits of the scheme to counter that
1:23:00harm. In this case, the way up is that
1:23:03those benefits haven't undone the harm
1:23:05of that loss of that hedge um within its
1:23:08own rights. Um, but you might draw a
1:23:10different
1:23:10>> Okay. So the hedge the hedge itself is
1:23:12not as the final block. It's a
1:23:16judgmental thing on whether they are
1:23:17overriding
1:23:19other measures which would compensate
1:23:21for it.
1:23:21>> Correct.
1:23:23>> Consider all those all those points
1:23:25together.
1:23:30>> So sorry Jeremy.
1:23:34[snorts]
1:23:36>> Yeah. Just to clarify saying in terms of
1:23:38the hedge loss, you have to consider all
1:23:40of those points and reasons for refusal
1:23:42together in the context of paragraph 11D
1:23:46of the MPPF I the tilted balance. So
1:23:48that plays into that in terms of what
1:23:51Hannah was explaining.
1:23:54>> Just a silly question popped into my
1:23:57head. This mature hedge row is on the
1:24:00roadside, the front of the thing that
1:24:03will disappear and some hedgero will be
1:24:05at the back facing the fields.
1:24:10It in a balance
1:24:13we're losing something that's a boundary
1:24:15and viewable from the road and replacing
1:24:18with something. Does that is that part
1:24:20of it? Trying to get my head around
1:24:22that.
1:24:24>> No, it's an important question. So I
1:24:26think there's there's multiple
1:24:27considerations here. I think firstly
1:24:29there is the consideration of the
1:24:32quality of the hedro that exists at the
1:24:34front within its own right. You know it
1:24:36is at least 29 years old. It it has
1:24:39benefits. It has quality. It adds to
1:24:41rurality. There is then that question of
1:24:44um you and it is classed as very high
1:24:46distinctiveness. Is that an question of
1:24:49you are providing replacement and you
1:24:52are increasing the amount of hedgero but
1:24:54the the the quality wouldn't quite reach
1:24:58the very high level but it would be of a
1:25:00medium to high quality depending on the
1:25:02position. It would screen the side of
1:25:05the site. Um and then you might also
1:25:08want to consider it in terms of um the
1:25:11second reason refusal
1:25:13sorry the third reason refusal around
1:25:15the rural character and landscape as
1:25:17well. Um so it's there's a lot of
1:25:20different elements going on. There is
1:25:21also then consideration of biversity net
1:25:23game which is separate to it the
1:25:25provision of landscaping scheme as well
1:25:27as the hedge for equality within its own
1:25:29rights um which would exist at the
1:25:31front. You know once that's removed it
1:25:33it would it would no longer cease to
1:25:35exist. Um,
1:25:38>> thank you. Members, any more questions?
1:25:41>> No. So, we're going to go into public
1:25:43speaking and we've got Pam.
1:25:59>> Hello, Pam.
1:26:02>> So, you've been watching carefully, so
1:26:03you know the routine. You've got five
1:26:05minutes.
1:26:06>> Okay.
1:26:07>> We'll warn you with one minute to go and
1:26:09when you turn on the microphone, please
1:26:10give your name for the record.
1:26:12>> So, when you're ready.
1:26:14>> Yep.
1:26:15>> Hi. Um I'm Pam Ricky, uh parish
1:26:18counselor for Dickle and Rush. Um our
1:26:21main concern, well, we've got many
1:26:23concerns, but this um proposal doesn't
1:26:26address anything in our neighborhood
1:26:28plan, and we wonder why we've spent so
1:26:30long producing this when it's going to
1:26:32be ignored. Um the site is outside the
1:26:37um settlement of Dicklebara and is in a
1:26:39rural location. It's it's historically
1:26:43sparssely populated. Um and actually
1:26:46building three bungalows on this quite
1:26:49small site. It might look quite big
1:26:51here, but it's not a very big site would
1:26:54really urbanize this common road which
1:26:57is has been known as a very rural uh
1:27:00lane on the edge of of Dicklebar.
1:27:03Um, as they said before, there's no um,
1:27:06pavement there and walking is quite, you
1:27:09know, it's it's not that easy. Um, and
1:27:12we know that people will start using
1:27:14their cars and three houses, you're
1:27:16going to have at least um, probably six
1:27:18cars there. So, it's bringing more cars
1:27:20into the village. Um, more pollution.
1:27:25Um
1:27:26it's it's because it's in a in the rural
1:27:30situation. Three houses seen as
1:27:32significant development for for Dickle
1:27:35Burough and we you know we we really
1:27:38don't want to see this happening in our
1:27:40rural area.
1:27:44It it should actually address the
1:27:46heritage of that that street.
1:27:51We've also got concerns about the space
1:27:55around the houses as a as a as a site on
1:28:00the edge of Dickleborough. The
1:28:02neighborhood plan says that we um garden
1:28:05should be bigger for each each building
1:28:08as they move out of the village. As you
1:28:10can see here, the the actual gardens get
1:28:13smaller as and it's a concentrated area.
1:28:18Also that a lot has been said about the
1:28:20hedro. The biod diversity is a net gain.
1:28:24It doesn't it doesn't add anything to
1:28:26our village. Um this is an it's an
1:28:29established hedro. We all know how diff
1:28:32you know when you've got an established
1:28:33hedro the amount of um biodiversity that
1:28:37lives and and uses that is is
1:28:41significant. It's it's shelter, it's
1:28:44food, and it's part of a green corridor
1:28:47that links um migration of animals and
1:28:50and that can live in that area. Um he
1:28:54they say they're going to put new hedge
1:28:56in, but we all know how long they take
1:28:58to establish. And also in the climate
1:29:02change we're in at the moment, I don't
1:29:03know if you've seen I mean it was
1:29:05interesting to see the disc um um
1:29:08development with all the the trees. I
1:29:11mean trees are really struggling to get
1:29:13established in our climate at the
1:29:15moment. So this new hedgero, there's no
1:29:17actual guarantee that that is going to
1:29:19establish itself and build and have the
1:29:22biodiversity that hedro that's there has
1:29:25at the moment.
1:29:28Um
1:29:30there's also no real evidence of of
1:29:33harvesting water to recycle water on on
1:29:37the site. And although there's um car
1:29:40charging um electric um points put in,
1:29:45there's no evidence of solar or any or
1:29:48any other um carbon reduction measures
1:29:51on on a new development. You'd expect to
1:29:54see something like that and that's not
1:29:56there.
1:29:58Um so really coming to conclusion the
1:30:02parish council believes that the
1:30:05proposal which is situated outside the
1:30:08development does not address the
1:30:10numerous policies within the national
1:30:13planning policy framework.
1:30:16the
1:30:18the Wavely um tributary farmland
1:30:21landscape character area
1:30:25um aspects of the greater Norwich local
1:30:28plan and definitely it doesn't address
1:30:30policies in Dicklebraw neighborhood
1:30:33plan.
1:30:37>> Thank you. If you just stay there a
1:30:39second you might get questions. Are
1:30:41there any questions?
1:30:45No. So, you got off lightly. Thank you
1:30:47for your comments.
1:30:50I've got Delme down to speak.
1:30:53>> Ellie, can you do me a favor?
1:30:57>> I think so.
1:31:19You'd like to come to the public
1:31:20speaking down, please.
1:31:25[snorts]
1:31:27[cough]
1:31:31>> So, you know the rules very well. Five
1:31:33minutes. We'll warn you with one minute
1:31:35to go. And then as you start to speak,
1:31:39please give your name for the record.
1:31:42>> Thank you, chair. I'm DMY Thompson, the
1:31:44applicate applicant for this scheme of
1:31:46three accessible bungalows in an
1:31:48existing cluster on the edge of
1:31:50Decorbra. The scheme has been designed
1:31:52to support people at different stages of
1:31:54life, maximum care for the environment,
1:31:56and in compliance with the majority of
1:31:58neighborhood plan policies. The officer
1:32:01has tested the scheme and found it
1:32:04acceptable against nine key planning
1:32:06areas. Heritage, amenity, highways,
1:32:09drainage, BNG, ecology, carbon, neutral
1:32:13neutrality, gyrams, all compliance as
1:32:16well as the design of the actual homes
1:32:18themselves.
1:32:20No agency consulty objects and the only
1:32:23comment from the public is a letter of
1:32:25support. So the viability of the scheme
1:32:28rests on a well trodden walk into the
1:32:29village and 25 meters of hedging.
1:32:33Slide two shows the landscaping details.
1:32:36Now let us be clear. This scheme more
1:32:38than doubles the hedging on site. Not
1:32:41the hedging that's been removed. The
1:32:43total hedging on site more than doubles.
1:32:45We're removing 25 meters purely for
1:32:48highway safety. Planting 91 meters. So
1:32:5252 becomes 118 m of hedging.
1:32:56The officer confirms at 565 that the
1:32:58hedging being removed is not a heritage
1:33:00hedge, so nothing historic is lost. In
1:33:04addition, the scheme has full B&G
1:33:06credits, bird and bat boxes, water
1:33:08harvesting, a landscaping condition
1:33:10offered for garden sizes and a new
1:33:13license despite no trace of NES on site
1:33:15whatsoever. We've taken great care to
1:33:18minimize environmental impact here. on
1:33:21the neighborhood plan. Slide three shows
1:33:23the layout of one of the bungalows. The
1:33:26neighborhood plan actively calls for,
1:33:28and I quote, homes for the elderly, such
1:33:30as bungalows, and it says the Parish
1:33:33Council would welcome housing suitable
1:33:35for older people, including bungalows.
1:33:38We're proposing three accessible and
1:33:40adaptable bungalows specifically
1:33:42designed to support different stages of
1:33:44life. There are 16 policies in the
1:33:46neighborhood plan. The officer finds no
1:33:48conflict with 10. The remaining address
1:33:51rural character, rurality, and the walk
1:33:53into the village. So on rurality, slide
1:33:56four shows the before and after view
1:33:59from the village before the new planting
1:34:00has grown. You can barely tell the
1:34:03difference. Roof height, scale, and
1:34:05hedging are deliberately aligned to
1:34:07continue the existing view. The officer
1:34:10confirms at 1.2 that this is a vacant
1:34:12plot between homes and we are filling a
1:34:15gap to complete the building line. She
1:34:17also confirms at 536 that this is not a
1:34:20protected view or designated vista and
1:34:22at 548 that we're providing an
1:34:24acceptable standard of immunity.
1:34:27Members, filling a gap with wellspaced
1:34:30acceptable homes isn't strategic
1:34:32development, nor is it urbanizing
1:34:34countryside.
1:34:35On location, slide five shows the site
1:34:38in relation to its neighboring
1:34:40properties and the simplicity of access
1:34:42to the village. We recognize it sits
1:34:44outside the current boundary, but as the
1:34:46officer confirms at 5.3, these are not
1:34:49isolated homes in the countryside. And
1:34:52as she states at 510, the distance is
1:34:54not materially far. Her words, not
1:34:57materially far. The MPPF reminds us that
1:35:01sustainable transport will vary between
1:35:03urban and rural areas and that this must
1:35:05be taken into account. Next slide,
1:35:08please. In reality, these homes are 3
1:35:11minutes from a school bus pickup point,
1:35:14roughly 12 minutes walk from a shop,
1:35:16church, pub, chip shop, village hall,
1:35:18meeting rooms, history center,
1:35:20playground, primary school, and regular
1:35:21bus services to this, Norwich, and
1:35:23Ipsswitch. Neighbors approaching 80 and
1:35:26a family with primary age children make
1:35:28that walk comfortably on a daily basis.
1:35:32Next slide, please. In conclusion, South
1:35:35Norolk Council do not have a 5-year land
1:35:37supply. Pepperra must deliver 25 homes
1:35:40under GNLP. The neighborhood plan calls
1:35:44for flexible bungalows such as these,
1:35:46but offers no actual plan to deliver
1:35:48them. We are proposing three
1:35:50well-designed accessible homes in a
1:35:52scheme that takes great care for the
1:35:53environment, aligns with the majority of
1:35:56neighborhood plan policies the officer
1:35:58themselves find compliant across nine
1:36:00areas and agree are not materially far
1:36:03from services. On weighing all the
1:36:05evidence, members, it cannot be claimed
1:36:07that harms significantly demonstrabably
1:36:10outweigh the benefits. So I ask you to
1:36:13apply the tilted balance appropriately
1:36:14and grant permission subject to
1:36:16conditions.
1:36:18Thank you.
1:36:19>> Thank you. Good timing. Members, any
1:36:22questions?
1:36:25>> Gary,
1:36:27thank you chairman. Um
1:36:29there's always a kind of
1:36:32debate on accessible housing on what
1:36:34that actually means. Um to me accessible
1:36:37housing means that it's suitable for
1:36:38someone in a wheelchair. Um and I just
1:36:41want to ask is that kind of what your
1:36:43plan is or is it um more the it's just
1:36:46accessible for members of and the
1:36:48elderly community. So if on the slide
1:36:52that shows on the slide that shows the
1:36:54bungalow layout when we had them
1:36:56designed they're specifically designed I
1:36:58think there's a phrase that M4 part two
1:37:00what it is um that is designed to ensure
1:37:03that the doorways there's enough turning
1:37:05space within each room and the doorways
1:37:07are designed with enough space for
1:37:09wheelchair users.
1:37:13Any more questions?
1:37:16>> No.
1:37:17Ian, um, have you taken into
1:37:20consideration anything in the planning
1:37:22with regards to solar panels? I know
1:37:25you've got [snorts] electric chargers
1:37:26there or any other sustainable heating,
1:37:31cooling possibly. [snorts]
1:37:33>> There's no details on solar planning at
1:37:35this stage. Certainly something else
1:37:37could be open for discussion.
1:37:40>> You do you're doing the 10% requirement.
1:37:44Yeah.
1:37:44>> For green.
1:37:45>> Yeah. The carbon criteria has been met
1:37:48>> which is a standard thing. Thank you. No
1:37:51more questions. Oh
1:37:52>> yes.
1:37:54>> You you did say there was rainwater
1:37:56harvesting and recycling. Not that that
1:37:57is it.
1:37:59>> Yeah. Rain water has been included.
1:38:00Yeah.
1:38:02>> No more. Thank you Donnie. If you'd like
1:38:05to
1:38:08And now we have the district counselor
1:38:09Clayton Hudson. Clayton.
1:38:25So you know the rules again 5 minutes
1:38:27we'll warn you with one minute to go and
1:38:28when you press start speaking please
1:38:30give your name for the record.
1:38:32>> Uh good morning members chair. Um my
1:38:34name is Clayton Hudson. I'm one of the
1:38:35local members for Beckale Dicker and
1:38:37Skull. Um, as you probably noticed from
1:38:40the bases best the officer's report,
1:38:42which I commend. Um, besuit under power
1:38:454.2, I submitted no comments. Um, I was
1:38:48pretty confident that basically this
1:38:50recommendation from the officer would be
1:38:52for review. So, and there would be no
1:38:53need to come from that committee and I
1:38:55just want to put it on public record
1:38:56because the besie the applicant is a
1:38:58member of this council. Uh, that's the
1:39:00reason it's before you today. Um, besie
1:39:03first of all I want to put on record
1:39:05that I fully support the officer
1:39:07recommendation for refusal. Uh, likewise
1:39:10I 100% stand behind the parish council's
1:39:13comments both in the committee report
1:39:15and the port points reped by um, uh, Pam
1:39:18this morning before you. Given this
1:39:21council has adopted Dicklebar Nall's
1:39:23neighborhood plan this year back in May,
1:39:26I'm disappointed that the proposal in
1:39:28front of you doesn't demonstrate clearly
1:39:30or respond to the relevant policies from
1:39:33that neighborhood plan.
1:39:36The material reasons I'm objecting is
1:39:38the proposal is clearly outside of the
1:39:41uh neighborhood plan. Oh, sorry, the uh
1:39:44settlement boundary. You'll probably see
1:39:45a couple of drone shots. I took them on
1:39:48Monday uh of basically the site. Um and
1:39:51you can I think slide two might be
1:39:54helpful. Um you can basically see the
1:39:56southern end of the settlement boundary.
1:39:58Uh you can see Dicker Church and over to
1:40:01the right you can see the most recent
1:40:03development in the last um 10 years um
1:40:07that was basically approved and was
1:40:09contentious at the time uh because
1:40:11there's actually a white line on the
1:40:13road um basically to allow those people
1:40:15to walk back into the but there isn't a
1:40:17footpath but they've put a white line on
1:40:19the road to allow the people to walk
1:40:21back into the into the settlement. So
1:40:24you can see where this site is in
1:40:27relation to the divine settlement
1:40:29boundary of the village. It's in a very
1:40:31rural location. Um if you go back to
1:40:34slide one please um you will uh you'll
1:40:38see that basically the center of the
1:40:40village as the crow flies is 530 m. Uh,
1:40:44and if you're to walk it, it's 1.15
1:40:46kilometers and 350 meters of that is
1:40:50along an unlit um, very rural road. Um,
1:40:55you know, anybody who's going to
1:40:56basically, you know, purchase and live
1:40:58on these properties should it be
1:40:59approved, um, is basically going to be
1:41:02using a car. They're not going to be if
1:41:04they're going to the school, uh, if
1:41:06anybody's going to go to the school from
1:41:07here, you know, children aren't going to
1:41:09be walking from here to the school, nor
1:41:11are their parents. um they're going to
1:41:13be taking the car. So, it's really not a
1:41:15sustainable location.
1:41:18Um as I said, the footpath is 350 mters
1:41:20away. Uh the nearest bus stop is 800
1:41:23meters away. Uh and the propo the
1:41:26proposal in front of you fails to
1:41:28promote sustainable transport and does
1:41:30not uh is not in my opinion a suitable
1:41:33location for residential development.
1:41:36I'd also like to point out that
1:41:37basically I think it's a little if you
1:41:39look at the context and maybe slide two
1:41:43um helps with this. I just think the
1:41:45site is slightly overdeveloped too. um
1:41:48you know basically you know I still
1:41:50think it's you know not a sustainable
1:41:52location but basically actually in
1:41:54context potentially if there was one
1:41:56then we might be having a slight
1:41:58different discussion with regard to
1:41:59being overdeveloped but I actually think
1:42:01in the context of where I think it's
1:42:03overdeveloped
1:42:05although I have some concerns with
1:42:07regard to the uh hedro and I obviously
1:42:09wouldn't want it to be lost I I wouldn't
1:42:11want you to put a huge amount of weight
1:42:13on that I think that basically the
1:42:14significant weight is basically with
1:42:17regard to whether this is a s
1:42:18sustainable location and outside of the
1:42:20settlement boundary. I think the the
1:42:22hedro and basically there being
1:42:24replacement hedro might be a you know a
1:42:27red herring.
1:42:29So with regard to concluding this I 100%
1:42:32support the recommendation refusal um
1:42:35with regard to pars 5.89 and 5.95
1:42:40i.e. It's outside of the settlement
1:42:41boundary. It's isolated, not
1:42:44sustainable. It has poor connectivity.
1:42:46It heavily relies on cars. Yes, there is
1:42:49the loss of the hedro. Uh and although
1:42:52this this council can't demonstrate a
1:42:545-year housing supply, this location is
1:42:57completely unaccessible. Uh and if it
1:43:00was approved, we might as well just go
1:43:02and pave over the whole of the
1:43:03countryside. So basically, thank you for
1:43:05your considerations this morning, and I
1:43:07hope you basically will agree with the
1:43:08officer recommendation.
1:43:11Thank you. Um just one thing be going to
1:43:14the beginning. If it's a member as an
1:43:17applicant, the constitution says it has
1:43:19to come to us. Just a big thing. Any
1:43:23questions at Clayton?
1:43:26John
1:43:28the the buildings next to it. Um I
1:43:32assume that they were outside the
1:43:33development area, were they?
1:43:37I think
1:43:39I I think most of these predate a lot of
1:43:42these buildings predate 1974 before this
1:43:44council.
1:43:57>> Yeah. Basically, you know, back back in
1:43:59the in the 70s there were much different
1:44:01rules and policies.
1:44:04Did they change then the boundary of the
1:44:08village from where the develop was and
1:44:10they pushed it in they
1:44:12>> well they would have put in a boundary
1:44:15>> but why wasn't the boundary put on the
1:44:16other side of that
1:44:18>> because they didn't think it was
1:44:19relevant that is
1:44:21>> okay
1:44:22>> because you'd have a lot of countryside
1:44:23in there in the development boundary I
1:44:25guess I don't know but that's a you know
1:44:28that's a not a material reason
1:44:30>> well it makes a difference doesn't it on
1:44:31your decision because there's
1:44:33development on on the other side.
1:44:35>> Yeah. But we can't we can't argue about
1:44:37when the development was
1:44:41outside the development area.
1:44:44>> Yeah. I think the key points to remember
1:44:45is is in the countryside is outside of
1:44:47the the settlement boundary for the
1:44:49purposes
1:44:49>> under.
1:44:56>> So we're out of public speaking, so
1:44:58we're going to go to members for
1:45:00thoughts. So lots of things in play
1:45:02here. Um, so be interested to see what
1:45:06members are thinking. Gary, you gonna
1:45:08carry start?
1:45:10>> Thank you, Kim. Can I just check one off
1:45:13based? Um, obviously one of the the
1:45:16policies that we're working on is
1:45:18obviously that Dick and Russell have a
1:45:20neighborhood plan and it obviously that
1:45:21was all done. Obviously the application
1:45:23was submitted back in um January,
1:45:27February time. I think it was March. Um,
1:45:29and obviously the neighborhood plan was
1:45:30actually agreed in May. Um, so how much
1:45:33weight do we have to put that? Seems the
1:45:35application was submitted before that
1:45:37plan was even that plan was even agreed.
1:45:40>> No, that that's an important question.
1:45:42The adopted neighborhood plan forms part
1:45:45of the adopted local plan. It that is
1:45:48given primacy and decision making. Um,
1:45:50and it forms part of the lo the local
1:45:54plan. Um when we make decisions we based
1:45:57it on the policies at the time of the
1:46:00decision making not at the time that
1:46:02something was submitted. Um this is
1:46:04similar to for example the draft the
1:46:07MPPPF
1:46:08um as soon as the new one comes in the
1:46:10decisions at that time takes the most
1:46:12recent version. Um but the neighbor plan
1:46:15is a um is forms part of the local plan
1:46:19and the development plan for this
1:46:21decision and is is important to to
1:46:24consider.
1:46:27David, did you want to say something?
1:46:30>> Yeah, just just a quick one. I'm I'm
1:46:32very much in two minds that for me the
1:46:35selling point of this is the fact that
1:46:37it's three bungalows in a rural area.
1:46:40Bungalows are very much sought after by
1:46:43certain
1:46:44a certain group of individuals as we all
1:46:47know.
1:46:49And it seems as if we could be losing
1:46:52those three based on the fact that it's
1:46:54so many meters away from from a
1:46:58boundary.
1:47:02>> But your policy
1:47:04>> I I know
1:47:04>> your local policy your members policy is
1:47:07quite clear.
1:47:09>> This is not adjacent to which would
1:47:11count. This is outside is clearly
1:47:13outside the boundary.
1:47:15What we have to say is are there any
1:47:18circumstances mitigating that that we
1:47:20could where people could get there? Um
1:47:26well
1:47:28comments have been made by the applicant
1:47:29that it's so many um I mean 1.6 miles is
1:47:34what
1:47:35I
1:47:36>> No, I think that was I think that was
1:47:37the district council
1:47:40mentioned.
1:47:42>> Are there any other
1:47:45No. So, we're going to go to the
1:47:48recommendation members. Uh, sorry, let
1:47:51me get to the page.
1:47:54Oh, so it's for refusal. So, all of us
1:47:58in favor of the recommendation, please
1:48:00raise your hand.
1:48:02>> That's one, two, three, four. Chair for
1:48:06refusal.
1:48:08>> All those against
1:48:11abstain. Oh, sorry. I've got three
1:48:15against chair
1:48:17>> and then
1:48:17>> can we do the against again?
1:48:19>> Yeah,
1:48:20>> against.
1:48:20>> Oh, I've got two against.
1:48:21>> What? Against the against
1:48:23>> refusal. So against refusal then chair
1:48:26>> any two.
1:48:28>> Sorry, four. So that's four. So it's
1:48:31your casting vote.
1:48:32>> Yeah, I'll stick with my casting vote.
1:48:34>> Just to clarify that is for refusal then
1:48:36with your casting vote. So that'll be
1:48:38five for with the chairman's casting
1:48:40vote to refuse.
1:48:41>> Right. Thank you. Let's go to number.
1:48:45Sorry, I'm looking at the time. Yeah,
1:48:47we'll go to number three.
1:48:55Don't question.
1:49:01We might. Sorry.
1:49:36Thank you. Thank you chair. Um good
1:49:38morning members. Um just before I start,
1:49:40members attention is drawn to the update
1:49:42sheet which included an email from
1:49:44councelor Evans which has been
1:49:45circulated to committee members as well.
1:49:47That was yesterday.
1:49:49So [clears throat] moving on to the
1:49:50application. This application is for
1:49:52full planning permission for the
1:49:54demolition of the existing agricultural
1:49:55building on the site. um including
1:49:58alterations to access access and
1:50:00landscaping. This is for one self-build
1:50:03dwelling. The site is located in Church
1:50:05Lane.
1:50:09So, moving on to the location. Um as you
1:50:12can see here um by the um arrow um
1:50:16that's where the site is. It's located
1:50:18in a relatively sporadic development
1:50:20within the countryside. Um here you can
1:50:22see um the development boundary of
1:50:25Burough St. which does include part of
1:50:27retail here as well. Um as I said um it
1:50:31would be considered to be in a
1:50:32countryside location.
1:50:35Moving in further to the proposal. So in
1:50:37the zoomed in aerial plan here we can
1:50:39see the um barn which is proposed to be
1:50:42demolished. Um also we can see here um
1:50:45the applicant's current residential
1:50:47premises which is the gardens and the
1:50:49associated out buildings with that. Um
1:50:52that's this T-shaped building here.
1:50:54Obviously these are within the blue line
1:50:55of the application and these are
1:50:58agricultural and storage units sorry
1:51:00stabling not agricultural units.
1:51:04Now moving on to the site plan as
1:51:06proposed here you can see that the
1:51:09proposal includes parking landscaping
1:51:12and access as well. uh to uh meet the
1:51:16access requirements and uh hedro is
1:51:18proposed to be removed to provide the
1:51:20required visibility.
1:51:25Here moving towards the proposal itself
1:51:28here you can see uh a twostory dwelling
1:51:33um with glaze a large glazed element to
1:51:36the front elevation. Also there's a
1:51:38singlestory um elevation which includes
1:51:40carport and garaging as well.
1:51:47Um the design of the proposal as you can
1:51:49see here includes extensive glazing um
1:51:53cladding brick plint detailing and also
1:51:56it' be pantile roofing as well. Uh the
1:51:59proposal is for a three-bedroom dwelling
1:52:02as well. I don't think I mentioned that
1:52:03before.
1:52:06And now moving into so you can get um a
1:52:09good idea of what the site's like. Um
1:52:12here I am situated within the access
1:52:14looking out. So the access is just by
1:52:16where this bin is here. So here I am um
1:52:19looking towards the east on Church Lane
1:52:21and this heads um towards
1:52:26um Oaks Lane which does then lead into
1:52:28Burough St. Peter. As you can see uh the
1:52:31road is very rural and single track in
1:52:34nature. Um again this is looking west uh
1:52:37towards the ex council housing along
1:52:39church lane as well.
1:52:42Next uh moving to the corner of Church
1:52:44Lane. So the council housing um was just
1:52:46out just in shot is behind me here. You
1:52:49can see it's a 30 m hour limit on on
1:52:51this road um which does include the
1:52:53access as well. And you can see from the
1:52:55arrow here where the access is uh to the
1:52:58proposal.
1:53:00Next here you can see the existing
1:53:02access.
1:53:04And then we're starting to move into the
1:53:06site. So you can see where I am taking
1:53:08photo from here. Here we can see the
1:53:10existing agricultural building which
1:53:12would be demolished to accommodate the
1:53:14proposal.
1:53:16And you can also see some of the other
1:53:17bits around the site which you'll get
1:53:19more of a glimpse of in a minute. Uh
1:53:22next I'm here by some house as well. Um
1:53:24and you can see the agricultural
1:53:25building here as well. Uh the existing
1:53:28the applicant's uh current premises
1:53:30which is this white building here which
1:53:32is the gardens. Um you can see here
1:53:33these black buildings which are the um
1:53:36associated out buildings I mentioned
1:53:38earlier.
1:53:41Moving on around the site. So here we
1:53:44can see a view looking towards we can
1:53:46see some semi- detached properties which
1:53:48are accessed uh further along church
1:53:50lane the roof line there and an existing
1:53:53manage which is outside of the red line
1:53:55of the proposal.
1:53:58Next we're Oh, sorry.
1:54:02Um, and then you can see uh the extent
1:54:05of the agricultural building as well
1:54:07here. And I'm looking out onto church
1:54:09lane there towards the access.
1:54:13And again, I'm currently at the stables
1:54:15looking in towards site. And again, you
1:54:17can see that summer house and the
1:54:19agricultural building to be demolished.
1:54:26So in conclusion uh the main issues in
1:54:29this case are the principle of the
1:54:30development and the proposal being in an
1:54:33area which is unsustainable. In terms of
1:54:35design, layout, neighbor amenity, flood
1:54:37risk and drainage, highway safety and
1:54:39access, ecology, trees and hedros, no
1:54:42harms been identified.
1:54:45By way of background, the application
1:54:47has been submitted as a full planning
1:54:49application. The site also has has an
1:54:51established planning history which
1:54:52includes a number of refused previously
1:54:55refused planning applications. These are
1:54:57set out in the committee report.
1:55:00As a forementioned uh there is a
1:55:02settlement boundary which does encompass
1:55:04part of weaker uh as set out inside the
1:55:07one of the first slides.
1:55:10Uh the application however does lie
1:55:12outside of this defined settlement
1:55:13boundary and therefore is considered to
1:55:16be located within the countryside for
1:55:17planning policy purposes.
1:55:19Whilst we taker forms part of the
1:55:21toman's older being had weaker and
1:55:23burough st peter cluster this is
1:55:25identified within the south nor village
1:55:27clusters allocations plan the site does
1:55:29not fall within a settlement boundary
1:55:31and must therefore be regarded um sorry
1:55:35must therefore be assessed against
1:55:36policies relating to development within
1:55:38the countryside.
1:55:40This section of weaker would not be
1:55:42considered to be a settlement without a
1:55:43settlement boundary either. This is due
1:55:45to the lack of nearby facilities and
1:55:47lack of transport connectivity.
1:55:50The proposal does not comply with policy
1:55:517.5 of the GNLP nor policy DM 1.3 of the
1:55:55South Norfolk local plan. Uh however on
1:55:58this basis that the council cannot
1:56:00demonstrate a 5year housing land supply,
1:56:02the tilted balance has been engaged as
1:56:04detailed within the report.
1:56:07Future occupiers of the property would
1:56:09be heavily relying on private car uh to
1:56:12access day-to-day services and
1:56:13facilities resulting in an unsustainable
1:56:15form of development contrary to policies
1:56:18DM 1.1 and DM 3.10 of the South local
1:56:22plan and the objectives of the MPPF.
1:56:25Within the applicant submission, the
1:56:27agents referred to a number of uh appeal
1:56:29decisions in support of the proposal.
1:56:31However, these relate to a different
1:56:33sites with their own particular
1:56:34circumstances and planning
1:56:36considerations. While such decisions are
1:56:38noted, each planning application must be
1:56:40assessed under its own merit having
1:56:42regard to the specific characteristics
1:56:44of the site and details of the proposal
1:56:46and the relevant development plan and
1:56:48material considerations. The application
1:56:50has been assessed in it own under its
1:56:52own merits and for the reasons set out
1:56:54in the committee report office has
1:56:56concluded that the proposal cannot be
1:56:58supported. Accordingly, it's concluded
1:57:00that the proposal represents an
1:57:02unsustainable form of development in the
1:57:04countryside. The application is
1:57:06therefore recommended for refusal uh for
1:57:08the reasons set out in the report. These
1:57:10are namely conflict with policy DM 1.1
1:57:13and 1.3 of the South local plan and
1:57:15policies two and 7.5 of the greater
1:57:18Norwich local plan and the MPPF.
1:57:21>> Thank you Naomi
1:57:23committee. Any questions? Questions only
1:57:26to Naomi.
1:57:29Sorry.
1:57:29>> Yes, please.
1:57:30>> Okay.
1:57:32>> Does the proposed buildings footprint
1:57:38align exactly with the current building
1:57:41or is
1:57:42>> this is not a park Q.
1:57:44>> Park Q is where it aligns.
1:57:46>> Okay.
1:57:46>> I'm correct there. Yeah.
1:57:47>> Is that right? Sorry. Okay. Yep. Thank
1:57:49you. Yeah.
1:57:52>> So, we're going to go into public
1:57:53speaking. We've got Helen.
1:58:00>> [snorts]
1:58:11>> and Helen is from the parish council,
1:58:14just so we know.
1:58:18So, you've been listening carefully.
1:58:20You've got five minutes. We'll warn you
1:58:21with one minute to go and give your name
1:58:24as soon as you turn the microphone on.
1:58:25up to speak.
1:58:28>> Yes, my name is Helen Hutton. I am a new
1:58:31parish counselor for Wetaker
1:58:33Bar and Peter primarily the Waker area.
1:58:37Um I I've come here today because uh I I
1:58:42feel that I've recently moved into uh up
1:58:45to Norolk from Kent. So I am in a very
1:58:48different area. Uh specifically moved to
1:58:50Weaker because of the community. Um, it
1:58:54has a fantastic community there. We've
1:58:56got a pub. We do have transport. We do
1:58:58have a bus. Uh, we do have fully stocked
1:59:01shop. We have a cafe at We Take a Hall.
1:59:04Uh, there is employment in the area. Uh,
1:59:07I myself work at the farm shop uh on the
1:59:10odd occasion just to help out. I can
1:59:12walk there. I don't need to use my car.
1:59:15Uh, as you can see, I am uh approaching
1:59:18uh older older age. I wouldn't say old
1:59:20age. Uh, and I specifically moved to the
1:59:23area because that's what I wanted. I
1:59:26didn't want to move into a town. I
1:59:28wanted to move into a village, a village
1:59:30community that has pretty much
1:59:31everything uh that a town has with the
1:59:35exception of uh too many people. So, um,
1:59:40the people in the area have been very
1:59:42welcoming to me. Uh, the community has
1:59:45been fantastic. We've got a a thriving
1:59:47village hall which serves Baris St.
1:59:50heater and or taker and uh there's lots
1:59:53of things happening there all within
1:59:55walking distance. I have a dog. I walk
1:59:58my dog twice a day. I don't have an
2:00:00issue with the minimal traffic uh that
2:00:03runs through the village. I've never
2:00:05felt unsafe at all walking along any of
2:00:08the roads. People are courteous. They
2:00:10will slow down if they see you as an
2:00:12animal. People ride their horses in the
2:00:15area.
2:00:16All problem free. Uh so as far as the
2:00:20community is concerned uh we taker is a
2:00:23thriving and sustainable community.
2:00:29>> I don't think I have anything else to
2:00:30say. [laughter]
2:00:34>> Yes please.
2:00:37>> Um are you here today speaking on behalf
2:00:40of the whole of the parish council or
2:00:42just yourself?
2:00:44>> I'm speaking on behalf of the parish
2:00:45council. We approved it 100%
2:00:48um at one of our meetings.
2:00:51>> Okay.
2:00:52>> A few weeks ago.
2:00:52>> Yeah. I just wanted clarification on
2:00:54that. Thanks very much.
2:00:55>> I'm just adding in the extra. I've
2:00:58recently moved here as well.
2:00:59>> Sure. Yeah. Thanks, Jeff.
2:01:02>> Any more questions?
2:01:04>> No. Thank you very much, Helen. If you'd
2:01:06like to take your CTN. Um
2:01:10sorry, we've got Andrea.
2:01:13I hope I've got that right.
2:01:26So again, you're pretty clued. Five
2:01:29minutes. We'll warn you with one minute
2:01:30to go. Can you just pull that microphone
2:01:32a bit towards you as well? So when you
2:01:34turn on and start to speak, please give
2:01:36your name first for the record.
2:01:39Uh my name is Andrea Bis and I am with
2:01:42my partner the occupier of the
2:01:43neighboring property uh Church Farm. Uh
2:01:46members, thank you for your time today.
2:01:48We politely ask that you support the
2:01:50officer's recommendation for refusal of
2:01:52this application. Uh the officer has
2:01:54concluded that the site is neither
2:01:56within nor adjacent to a recognized
2:01:59settlement within planning terms and is
2:02:03physically separated from the nearest
2:02:04development boundary by open
2:02:06countryside. Policy 7.5 requires
2:02:09development to be within or adjacent to
2:02:11a settlement uh in order to come
2:02:13forward. Officers have concluded that
2:02:15this site fails that basic requirement
2:02:17and therefore policy 7.5 should not
2:02:20apply.
2:02:22It's also relevant to note that previous
2:02:24applications seeking planning permission
2:02:25for this specific development on this
2:02:27site have already been refused. Uh
2:02:29whilst those uh decisions reflect a
2:02:32consistent approach to the suitability
2:02:34of this location for residential
2:02:35development under SE policy 7.5, whilst
2:02:38each application must be considered on
2:02:40its own merits, uh the repeated concerns
2:02:43res raised in each application in
2:02:45relation to the site demonstrate that
2:02:47fundamental planning constraints have
2:02:49not been overcome here. uh irrespective
2:02:52of the fact that the application falls
2:02:53down at that immediate hurdle, the
2:02:55offic's report has highlighted
2:02:57additional fundamental flaws with the
2:02:58proposed development which result in a
2:03:00recommendation for refusal. In any
2:03:02event, the report highlights a series of
2:03:05sustainability concerns which we draw
2:03:07the members attention to uh including
2:03:10limited access to services, the absence
2:03:12of pedestrian infrastructure and a
2:03:14reliance on private vehicles. Whilst
2:03:16there is a pub and a farm shop selling
2:03:18essentials was within the vicinity of
2:03:20the site, access to these services is
2:03:22impractical and dangerous by any method
2:03:25other than private vehicle as the routes
2:03:27from the site require travel along
2:03:29national speed limit roads with no foot
2:03:31paths and across blind bends. The
2:03:34available services also failed to
2:03:35provide for health care, schools,
2:03:38employment and other day-to-day needs
2:03:40without requiring travel further a field
2:03:41by private vehicle.
2:03:44Whilst it's been noted that there is a
2:03:45bus stop in the village, the officer has
2:03:47rightly concluded that this does not
2:03:49provide a realistic means of meeting
2:03:50everyday travel needs as the service
2:03:53operates on a very limited timetable and
2:03:55provides no service at all at weekends.
2:03:57This means that any resident will be
2:03:59almost exclusively relying on private
2:04:01vehicles.
2:04:03These limitations are contrary to the
2:04:05development plan strategy which requires
2:04:07the application to be capable of
2:04:09supporting sustainable residential
2:04:11development in accordance with the
2:04:13development plan. Ours and the planning
2:04:15officer's view is that this development
2:04:17is not. In the officer's report, weight
2:04:19has been given to the benefits
2:04:21associated with a self-build dwelling um
2:04:23and the five-year housing supply. Uh one
2:04:26house obviously contributing very little
2:04:27to that. uh the professional conclusion
2:04:30remains that the adverse impacts
2:04:33significantly outweigh those benefits.
2:04:36Approval would also risk undermining the
2:04:38consistent application of policy 7.5. If
2:04:41policy 7.5 is applied to a site that is
2:04:43clearly outside and physically detached
2:04:45from a recognized settlement despite
2:04:47this being against the location
2:04:49requirements of the policy, it becomes
2:04:52much harder to resist similar proposals
2:04:54elsewhere in the countryside leading to
2:04:57increased pressure for sporadic and
2:04:59unsustainable countryside development.
2:05:01Members are therefore not only
2:05:03considering this application in
2:05:04isolation, but how policy 7.5 should be
2:05:07applied in future. Uh, in conclusion,
2:05:10the officer has concluded that the
2:05:12proposal conflicts with policy 7.5,
2:05:15represents an unsustainable form of
2:05:17development, and that the harm
2:05:18significantly and demonstrabably
2:05:20outweighs the benefits. Uh, for those
2:05:22reasons, we therefore respectfully ask
2:05:24members to support the office's
2:05:25recommendation and refuse planning
2:05:27permission in this scenario. Thank you.
2:05:30>> Thank you very much. Any questions?
2:05:33>> Yes, please.
2:05:36>> Yeah. Um, as a clarification, you
2:05:39mentioned somewhere in there about this
2:05:41national speed limit applies and yet we
2:05:44saw photos earlier of 30 m an hour.
2:05:48Well, that was in this presentation,
2:05:50wasn't it?
2:05:51>> Am I right?
2:05:53>> Yeah. Yeah. Essentially, I'll just
2:05:55>> um could we just have some clarification
2:05:57on that point then, please? Andrew,
2:05:59you're saying national speed limit.
2:06:02We're saying 30, are we?
2:06:05>> Yeah. Just So I think we can do a part
2:06:07and part. So I think some roads are a 60
2:06:09mph national speed limit, but the one
2:06:11right outside the site is a 30.
2:06:13>> Yeah. So then the services themselves,
2:06:15so the pub and the shop, they are both
2:06:17on 60.
2:06:18>> Okay. Thank you very much for that
2:06:20clarification. Thank you, chair. Any
2:06:22more questions?
2:06:24>> No. Thank you very much. If you'd like
2:06:25to take your seat again and we have
2:06:28James.
2:06:31Hello, James.
2:06:38issue.
2:06:38>> If if you sit down, if you sit down
2:06:40first,
2:06:41>> I'd rather talk to you when you're
2:06:42sitting down
2:06:44>> then I'll look down on you. See, sorry.
2:06:46Just just a hint. Um, sorry, you wanted
2:06:49to cry.
2:06:50>> Just about the road. There is a single
2:06:51road at the national speed
2:06:54and in terms of the access for example
2:06:56pub
2:06:58speed. So I just wanted to clarify that.
2:07:01>> What you're saying is the patchwork of
2:07:03of road.
2:07:05>> Yes. Correct. There is a there is a six
2:07:07mile speed in place.
2:07:08>> And for clarification where this site is
2:07:10in the 30 mile
2:07:11>> Yes. And there is a via that 30 m hour
2:07:14network you can access the public.
2:07:16>> Right. Thank you. So you got five
2:07:18minutes to go. We'll warn you with one
2:07:20minute and please give your name right
2:07:23at the start.
2:07:25>> Thank you. My name is James Platt. I'm
2:07:27the planning agent on the application.
2:07:29[snorts]
2:07:29Good morning members. The application
2:07:31before you seeks to realize the
2:07:33applicant's aspirations to design and
2:07:34build their own home within the
2:07:36settlement and community of weaker.
2:07:38This process started with a
2:07:40pre-application inquiry to the council
2:07:42in response to which the council advised
2:07:44an application could be supported under
2:07:46policy 7.5
2:07:48based on that pre-lication advice the
2:07:50applicant chose to chose to proceed with
2:07:52an application despite the positive
2:07:54pre-lication advice given by the council
2:07:56which is not referenced at any point
2:07:58within the committee report. It is
2:07:59incredibly disappointing that we arrive
2:08:01in the situation we find ourselves in
2:08:03today whereby the planning officer is
2:08:05recommending the application be refused
2:08:06in spite of that advice. The support of
2:08:08both the parish council and the ward
2:08:10counselor and the absence of any
2:08:12objections from the consultes. Turning
2:08:14now to that recommendation for the
2:08:16purposes of policy 7.5 the planning
2:08:18officer states the site is not located
2:08:20within or adjacent to a settlement. The
2:08:23officer's assessment is very confused in
2:08:25this regard, appearing to acknowledge
2:08:26the existence of the settlement of
2:08:28Weaker, but essentially concluding that
2:08:30it constitutes nothing more than a small
2:08:32cluster of development, whilst also
2:08:34conflating it with the neighboring
2:08:35settlement of Boris and Peter. To be
2:08:37clear, the settlement of Weaker lies
2:08:39within the parish of Weaker. Weaker
2:08:42contains various homes, a church, a
2:08:45public house, a cafe, and a wellstock
2:08:47shop that is open seven days a week.
2:08:49This the settlement of Baris St. Peter
2:08:52and we taker are separate entities each
2:08:54lying within their respective parishes.
2:08:57The officer states the site is poorly
2:08:58located in relation to service and
2:09:00facilities whilst opportunities for
2:09:02walking and cycling are constrained by
2:09:05the absence of footways and street
2:09:06lighting. As mentioned, we take contains
2:09:09services and facilities that serve the
2:09:11surrounding community. By way of a
2:09:13comparison, the service and facilities
2:09:14and with within we take are exceed those
2:09:17of the nearby settlements of Aby and
2:09:19Buris and Peter settlements the planning
2:09:21officer I'm sure would confirm are
2:09:23acceptable locations for housing.
2:09:26Although we taker is absent of a
2:09:27dedicated footway and street lighting
2:09:29such circumstances are not uncommon in
2:09:31rural areas. Boris and Peter for example
2:09:33is also without footway or street
2:09:35lighting as identified by the parish
2:09:37council and the ward counselor and to
2:09:39the contrary the planning officer's
2:09:41findings. Residents of we take a walk
2:09:43and cycle when accessing service and
2:09:44facilities located there. It is
2:09:46self-evident that the absence of a
2:09:48footway or street lighting does not
2:09:50prevent this. To [snorts] summarize the
2:09:51case for the application, the proposed
2:09:54development lies within the settlement
2:09:55of weaker. Evidently, the settlement is
2:09:58more than a recognizable group of
2:09:59dwellings where vitality through a sense
2:10:01of community value and identity can be
2:10:03demonstrated. As a self-built dwelling,
2:10:06the proposed development complies with
2:10:07policy 7.5, whilst the proposed
2:10:09development also complies with the
2:10:11development plan [snorts] when taken as
2:10:12a whole. The council cannot demonstrate
2:10:14a 5-year housing land supply. In this
2:10:16case, this means granting planning
2:10:18permission unless any adverse impacts of
2:10:20doing so would significantly and
2:10:22demonstrabably outweigh the benefits
2:10:24when assessed against the policy in the
2:10:25MPF taken as a whole. The proposed
2:10:28development will provide social benefits
2:10:29to the provision of a new home that will
2:10:31contribute toward addressing the land
2:10:32supply shortfall in the south norolk
2:10:34supporting the vitality of weaker and
2:10:36the surrounding area. Economic benefits
2:10:38will arise a result the construction
2:10:40phase of the proposed development.
2:10:42Equally the occupation of the proposed
2:10:44provide further fiscal stimulus and
2:10:46environmental benefits will be acred
2:10:47through the biodiversity enhancement
2:10:49measures. Regarding the adverse impacts,
2:10:51it is noted that future occupiers of the
2:10:52proposed development are likely to be
2:10:54relying on a private car when accessing
2:10:55Beckles, for example, the nearest
2:10:57settlement offering a full range of
2:10:59day-to-day services and facilities.
2:11:01However, there are opportunities for
2:11:02future occupiers of the proposed
2:11:04development to access local and service
2:11:05and facilities by foot or cycle.
2:11:07Equally, there is a bus service to
2:11:09Beckless. With this in mind and that
2:11:11journeys to Beckles would not be
2:11:12significant in length nor number due to
2:11:14the quantum of housing proposed, the
2:11:16adverse impacts arising would be limited
2:11:19at worse.
2:11:21Taken together and by any reason
2:11:23reasonable measure, the benefits of the
2:11:25proposed development are at the very
2:11:26least moderate and are not therefore
2:11:29significantly demonstrabably outweighed
2:11:30by the limited adverse impacts.
2:11:32Consequently, the MPPF directs the
2:11:35decision maker to grant planning
2:11:36permission. The self-build act is also a
2:11:38material consideration. Contrary to the
2:11:41duty set out within that act, the
2:11:42council unable to demonstrate that
2:11:43sufficient planning missions have been
2:11:45granted to meet the demand for service
2:11:46plots in South Norolk. The proposed
2:11:48development will contribute a self-build
2:11:49dwelling toward this unmet demand, a
2:11:51factor that should be afforded
2:11:53substantial weight in the planning
2:11:54balance. In conclusion, the proposed
2:11:57development accord with the development
2:11:58plan. Whilst other material
2:11:59considerations, namely the MPPF and the
2:12:01self-build act indicate the planning
2:12:03mission should be granted. There are no
2:12:05material considerations that indicate
2:12:07otherwise. Therefore, we respectfully
2:12:09ask members to approve this application
2:12:11subject to the imposition of appropriate
2:12:13planning conditions. Thank you very
2:12:15much.
2:12:16>> Well time. Well timed. Are there any
2:12:19questions?
2:12:21Um
2:12:23you mentioned at the beginning which I
2:12:25find confusing. You said was it you said
2:12:28in a pre-application
2:12:31or an informal application? Was it a
2:12:34proper pre-application?
2:12:36>> Yeah.
2:12:41>> Yes. I'll take that one. Um say John to
2:12:43your mic off. Thank you. Yes. So there
2:12:46was a preapp um dealt with one of our
2:12:48former colleagues as well in the team.
2:12:49Um and at that point it was very early
2:12:51on in the 7.5 process and it could have
2:12:53been seen as a positive situation when
2:12:56the application was submitted. Obviously
2:12:58we all know that preapps are only
2:13:00informal advice and the informal advice
2:13:02is the key point there. It's not doesn't
2:13:04bound the council for a future decision
2:13:07and obviously we then reassess the
2:13:08application when it comes forward and
2:13:10reassess these in light of appeal
2:13:12decisions, inspectors roots etc. As
2:13:14obviously time goes on the policy kind
2:13:17of evolves and our learning of it
2:13:18evolves as well. So that is why we've
2:13:20the recommendation has been to refuse.
2:13:24>> While we're on that self build as I
2:13:27understand self build we are meeting our
2:13:31obligations on self build.
2:13:35>> So not for South Norolk we're not so not
2:13:38for self build. So I know there has been
2:13:39significant weight placed on decisions
2:13:41for from inspectors recently for that.
2:13:44There has been some um also dismissing
2:13:46the case despite that being a positive
2:13:49as well. So they have given weight to a
2:13:51self-build proposal but they are still
2:13:53claiming that some situations and saying
2:13:55not all because there have been some
2:13:57that have been allowed and I we
2:13:58acknowledge that. So there have been
2:14:00some still unsustainable location
2:14:02demonstrabably outweighs that harm.
2:14:04>> Okay. And James, one for you. There
2:14:07there have been three applications. Is
2:14:09this application different to any of
2:14:12those or is it exactly the same as the
2:14:15other three?
2:14:17>> I know one or two of them were under
2:14:18part Q.
2:14:22Sorry.
2:14:22>> Yeah. Um yeah. No, essentially there was
2:14:24a there were some class Q applications
2:14:26that that predated my involvement. There
2:14:28was then a a subsequent application that
2:14:30was submitted. Um this scheme is
2:14:32essentially the same scheme as as that
2:14:35was refused previously.
2:14:37>> Members any question
2:14:55but it was mentioned right at the very
2:14:57beginning. Could I just bring up a few
2:14:59points that are mentioned and ask
2:15:00clarification?
2:15:01>> Yeah.
2:15:02>> Um in his submission he has put I note
2:15:06that there's been no objection from any
2:15:09of the range of cones
2:15:12high in also that SMC panel considers
2:15:17that there is a small benefit the design
2:15:20of the building is appropriate and has
2:15:22no adverse impact
2:15:25on anyone else.
2:15:27advers
2:15:30environmental policy measures. Could I
2:15:32just ask for your comments on that
2:15:33particular
2:15:39>> so in terms So you're talking about the
2:15:41comments that were on the update sheet
2:15:42from this week. Is that right?
2:15:44>> No, these these are the comments if you
2:15:46remember it was mentioned right very
2:15:48beginning of the presentation. These are
2:15:50comments that have been submitted by
2:15:51email from the councelor Andy Evans.
2:15:55>> Yes. So that was the ones that were on
2:15:56your update sheet. Yes. So from on the
2:15:58update sheet. So we they came in I think
2:16:00it was either yesterday or the day
2:16:01before. So um they get placed on the
2:16:03update sheet which is circulated to
2:16:05members as well. Um so obviously I
2:16:08appreciate I've read them. Um there are
2:16:09no statutory objections in that respect
2:16:12but obviously that we're not going to
2:16:13have a consult who focuses mainly on the
2:16:16sustainable development. That is for us
2:16:17in our offices professional opinion to
2:16:19be able to judge and assess in line with
2:16:21the development plan. Um so obviously we
2:16:24have the self-build SPD for the 7.5 as
2:16:27well. So we have to take each
2:16:28application on its own merits. Um
2:16:30obviously we have identified that there
2:16:32is a harm in that respect in terms of
2:16:34the location of that development. So
2:16:35although there are the benefits of those
2:16:37those minor and I will say probably
2:16:39minor in that respect that they that
2:16:41doesn't outweigh the overall um harm
2:16:43we've identified.
2:16:45Okay.
2:16:46>> So on the on the out in the countryside
2:16:49rules.
2:16:50>> Yeah.
2:16:50>> There are no statutory consulties on
2:16:52that. That is us
2:16:54>> that that apply that applies that. So it
2:16:57wouldn't be up to highways to say
2:17:00where it is. You see what I mean?
2:17:03>> James, thank you. Your place again. So
2:17:07we're going to go out of public speaking
2:17:09and we're going to go and I can see
2:17:11Gary's hand up already. So Gary off you
2:17:15go.
2:17:15>> Thank you chairman. Obviously this is
2:17:16one for the opposite again just to
2:17:18clarify something. Um obviously when we
2:17:20as a council are deciding what is a
2:17:22settlement and what is not a settlement
2:17:25therefore what is inside a settlement
2:17:26boundary or not? What do we use as that
2:17:30kind of basis? Is it four houses, three
2:17:33houses? One h what is it? Because
2:17:35obviously I've just been looking at some
2:17:36bits and pieces on, you know, the
2:17:38government's own page about settlements
2:17:40and a settlement can be a development of
2:17:43houses that are scattered in a wide area
2:17:46as long as it has something like a
2:17:48church or a public house or thing that
2:17:50is then classed as a settlement in their
2:17:52eyes. But what is it in our eyes?
2:17:56>> That's fine. So uh we have the self um
2:17:59build uh SPD which is the supplementary
2:18:02planning guidance. So there is nothing
2:18:03written down to say what is a settlement
2:18:05in that as such. Obviously there's
2:18:06definition in the Oxford dictionary if
2:18:08you if people like to use that as well.
2:18:10Um so in our respect so I think off the
2:18:12top of my head because I don't have the
2:18:13document open in front of me to
2:18:15appreciate that. Um obviously we have to
2:18:17have a level of services and facilities
2:18:19to constitute what is self-contained in
2:18:23terms in my view has to form part of
2:18:25that settlement. So c can you get your
2:18:28local services within walking distance
2:18:30for example. um is there enough there to
2:18:33um kind of say without relying on other
2:18:36places? I know there is obviously you're
2:18:38going to have to but there's got to be
2:18:39some level of services and facilities
2:18:42available. Now I'll just turn that point
2:18:44round in the report um which states that
2:18:46we take forms part of Burough St. Peter
2:18:49as well. So there is a settlement
2:18:50boundary which is there which is located
2:18:52and I think I think it's about 800
2:18:54meters uh to the east I think off top of
2:18:58my head. Um so this is in terms of
2:19:00policy 7.5 we taker does have that
2:19:03settlement boundary and then therefore
2:19:05it's not considered to be adjacent to
2:19:07due to that intervening countryside.
2:19:10>> So basically
2:19:16>> so in terms of 7.5 there's obviously
2:19:18those two elements to it. So uh number
2:19:21one uh has to be adjacent to or within.
2:19:24Number two of that uh is the outside or
2:19:28it's a settlement without a settlement
2:19:29boundary. Okay. So in that sense it can
2:19:32there can be clusters of dwellings
2:19:33spotted around in in these rural areas
2:19:36doesn't necessarily mean it's a
2:19:38settlement in its own right. Um and so
2:19:40because it either has another settlement
2:19:42boundary further away or um instead
2:19:45there's not enough services and
2:19:46facilities to be able to make that
2:19:48dwelling uh sustainable in its own
2:19:49right.
2:19:52>> Quick one G. Um, obviously you just
2:19:54mentioned those parts you mentioned
2:19:56about the sustainability of the area and
2:19:58they don't meet that thing. What would
2:20:01you constitute as being enough services
2:20:03in an area? Because obviously it's got a
2:20:05bus service, it's got a pub, it's got a
2:20:07shop, it's got a church. The only thing
2:20:09is really missing obviously is a
2:20:10doctor's surgery and other bits and
2:20:11pieces, but then the next settlement may
2:20:13have that. And obviously again looking
2:20:15at what the government kind of says is a
2:20:18settlement is we're saying the
2:20:20settlement on its thing is three or four
2:20:22different parishes clumped together is
2:20:24the settlement not the parish on its own
2:20:27which is in my eyes a little bit long
2:20:29because all parishes are their own in so
2:20:33distinct um characters um so therefore
2:20:36the settlement of say well I say this
2:20:40one is its own right and not what is
2:20:42around it. Does that make sense? So
2:20:44you're quoting from a national thing
2:20:47whereas our is in the local plan outside
2:20:51the development boundaries in the local
2:20:53plan not in the national [clears throat]
2:20:56>> that's why we put it in in ours because
2:20:59we didn't want the national one I guess
2:21:02to be the primacy we wanted to build as
2:21:06we've done designed settlement areas.
2:21:09>> Yeah that's what I'm saying. In fact, if
2:21:11you look at the new inspector's report
2:21:13for BAP,
2:21:15>> he's he's proposed six more development
2:21:18boundaries in settlement.
2:21:19>> Yeah. But while I meant is our own
2:21:22policy doesn't stipulate what is a
2:21:25settlement. It just says it's a
2:21:27settlement. Is it in the boundary? Is it
2:21:29out the boundary? But then it doesn't
2:21:30say what settlement, what the criteria
2:21:33of a settlement actually is.
2:21:35>> I think to clarify, there isn't a
2:21:37prescribed amount of services that need
2:21:39to be But just to go back to what it
2:21:42says in the officer report is we're not
2:21:45looking at a settlement. We're
2:21:46considering it is a settlement without a
2:21:48settlement boundary. So it's a second
2:21:50part of that policy that Ellie has
2:21:53talked about. So yes, albeit there's a
2:21:55larger settlement 800 approximately
2:21:57meters away. This is its own cluster of
2:22:00housing in its own right which is
2:22:02distinctly separate from that. um within
2:22:06that there's no service provisions as
2:22:08it's clearly within the countryside. So
2:22:10that's how we've looked at it and that's
2:22:12how it is set out in the report. That's
2:22:14what members have to consider today.
2:22:17>> Any more? So we're going to go to the
2:22:20recommendation which is for refusal. All
2:22:23those in favor of the recommendation,
2:22:25please raise your hand.
2:22:26>> That's one, two, three. Sorry. Can
2:22:29members put their hands fully up because
2:22:30I can't quite see from here. Sorry.
2:22:32Thank you. That's one, two, three, four.
2:22:34chair for refuse for
2:22:36>> against
2:22:38>> and I've got one two three four against
2:22:40chair casting vote again.
2:22:42>> So I'll stay with my vote.
2:22:43>> So that would be 54 for refus or chair
2:22:46you're casting vote.
2:22:47>> Yeah, we've got some members who have to
2:22:49leave. So what I'm going to quickly do
2:22:52before they leave is go to page 86 and
2:22:5787 just to note that all the planning uh
2:23:01committee noted the appeals that we've
2:23:03got and the appeals that have been with
2:23:06decisions.
2:23:08Okay. So Martin you can leave. Yeah.
2:24:05>> [clears throat]
2:24:20>> Okay.
2:24:21>> Yep. Thank you, chair. Um
2:24:25this is for a proposed mural painting in
2:24:28the entrance building to the car park
2:24:30along Market Street in Windham. Uh the
2:24:33application is a South Council
2:24:35application um which is why it's been
2:24:37brought to committee today. Uh the
2:24:40building which you can see in the slide
2:24:42there uh is known as Fire Arch uh and
2:24:46originally um used to be the entrance to
2:24:48what was the fire station where the car
2:24:50park is now. Uh the building is not
2:24:52listed um but it qualifies uh as a
2:24:55non-desated uh heritage asset uh makes a
2:24:59positive uh con contribution to the
2:25:01street scene.
2:25:04Uh as a bit of background to the
2:25:05application, the proposal forms part of
2:25:08a wider local government investment in
2:25:10Windham co-unded by both South Norfolk
2:25:13Council and Windham Town Council to
2:25:16deliver a series of public realm
2:25:17interventions and town center
2:25:19improvements. The proposal has been
2:25:22subject to a public consultation uh
2:25:25prior to the application being
2:25:26submitted.
2:25:32Looking at the application site, um some
2:25:36of you will probably be familiar with
2:25:37this, I'm sure. Um clearly showing the
2:25:40uh fire arch building. Uh and in dark
2:25:44pink there is highlighted um all the
2:25:46listed buildings in the immediate area.
2:25:49Um the whole area shown there on the map
2:25:52uh is included within the Windham
2:25:54conservation area.
2:26:01Here we have the uh building again
2:26:03showing uh the view from Market Street
2:26:04on the left uh and the photo on the
2:26:07right showing the rear view of the
2:26:09building uh and the arrow is pointing to
2:26:12where the uh mural painting is to go. Um
2:26:16the aim is to um put all the notice
2:26:18boards on the um on the other wall on
2:26:22the opposite side uh to make way for the
2:26:24mural.
2:26:30This gives you an idea of this wider
2:26:32street views. Uh so you'll clearly see
2:26:34the mural uh looking west uh towards
2:26:37Beckett's Chapel as you move down along
2:26:39Market Street. Uh and then the other
2:26:42photos showing looking east, looking
2:26:44towards uh the marketplace.
2:26:55Uh this is the uh the mural itself. Um
2:26:58the idea here is to uh promote uh the
2:27:01town and make people aware of the sort
2:27:03of key historic sites in the town. Um
2:27:06many of many of you will know most of
2:27:08those. Um the fire arch building itself
2:27:10is actually in there with a small fire
2:27:11engine next to the green dragon. Um see
2:27:14wind abbys chapel railway station. Um so
2:27:17it gives that quite a lot of
2:27:19information. So
2:27:21people visiting the area may not know
2:27:23the town. Obviously you get quite a good
2:27:24idea of what the town's about just
2:27:26walking past that.
2:27:29The key policy considerations here are
2:27:32heritage and design policies in the NPPF
2:27:35and the South Norfol local plan. Also to
2:27:38be considered here is uh impact on
2:27:41neighbor immunity.
2:27:43Also relevant is the windm area action
2:27:46plan. The aims of that and the policy
2:27:48four policy four in the neighborhood
2:27:51plan. And we consider that the proposal
2:27:55complies with all these policies uh with
2:27:58no resulting harm to the existing
2:27:59buildings and non-desated heritage asset
2:28:02or to the character of the conservation
2:28:04area. the proposal resulting in an
2:28:07enhancement of both the building and
2:28:09street scene.
2:28:13[clears throat]
2:28:14Then finally um again another view of
2:28:16the street scene there with a picture of
2:28:18the mural next door just to give you an
2:28:20idea of you know what the impact is sort
2:28:22of likely to be. The pub opposite is a
2:28:25listed building. Uh there's a number of
2:28:27listed buildings down the street but we
2:28:29don't consider that uh what is proposed
2:28:31here is going to have an adverse impact.
2:28:34uh and will actually provide um interest
2:28:36to the street scene and um you know um
2:28:40improve an area you know on the sort of
2:28:43lower ground level the ground level of
2:28:44the fire arch building and improve that
2:28:47area uh which is probably not that great
2:28:49at the moment.
2:28:53So overall uh consider that the proposal
2:28:56will have a positive impact both
2:28:58visually and in providing information to
2:29:00provoke the town and therefore it's
2:29:03recommended to the committee that the
2:29:04application be approved.
2:29:07>> Thank you chair. Thank you Philillip.
2:29:08Couple of things. Um,
2:29:11there are bike stands in front of this
2:29:13and there are not on the other side by
2:29:15the look of it. And we thought about
2:29:17moving the bike stands, which you know
2:29:19with bikes there in front of a nice
2:29:21mural. Uh, it's not something that I
2:29:24discussed with um Joel who is the
2:29:27officer who's been involved with the
2:29:29community works in in Windham. But um I
2:29:32think I did actually mention initially
2:29:33it might be an idea to do something with
2:29:35them whether they can be removed or
2:29:37perhaps painted a different color. Um I
2:29:39don't know but
2:29:40>> can we put that as a is it allowable to
2:29:43put that as a because to me one side
2:29:47where the notice board is got none and
2:29:49the other side where we got this
2:29:50beautiful mural and even I recognize two
2:29:54buildings um just seems sticking bikes
2:29:58in front of it is
2:30:00>> I think
2:30:05>> yeah I think that's a very good point um
2:30:08probably don't planning commissioning
2:30:09themselves to be moved. So whether it be
2:30:11reasonable to condition them, but it
2:30:13might be something we could add as an
2:30:15informative note.
2:30:17>> Yeah, I think we could probably include
2:30:18that as an inform if members feel that's
2:30:20something.
2:30:21>> And my other point is that this is a
2:30:23beautiful mural and sometimes we have
2:30:27people who decide to do funny things and
2:30:29put graffiti on. Is this graffiti
2:30:34proofed as we did with the trout
2:30:36underpass?
2:30:37because it would annoy me intensely if
2:30:39we did this and then somebody comes
2:30:41along with a spray can.
2:30:42>> Um it's not something that's been
2:30:44discussed during the process application
2:30:46process. Um but I mean as has been
2:30:49mentioned before committee could be
2:30:51included as a as a condition perhaps.
2:30:54Yeah.
2:30:55>> We'll allow it. Yes. If you
2:30:57>> I don't think See if your microphone
2:30:59works, Joel.
2:31:04>> Yeah.
2:31:05>> Yeah. So two two points I'm trying to
2:31:07make here. One is to protect the mural
2:31:10and the other well and the other is not
2:31:12to hide it. Is that something that we
2:31:15could
2:31:16>> so
2:31:16>> or have taken on board?
2:31:18>> On the bike standpoint I think it is a
2:31:21fair point but I would just make the
2:31:23point that on the other side there is
2:31:25less space. The foot way is narrower. So
2:31:28I think it'd be difficult to move those
2:31:30bike stands. I mean obviously we are
2:31:32undertaking a wider public realm scheme
2:31:34and it might be that we can put some of
2:31:36those bike stands elsewhere in the town
2:31:37as part of it and I'll certainly
2:31:38consider that. That's that's shouldn't
2:31:40be a problem.
2:31:41>> You make a nice painting and you put
2:31:43things in front of it.
2:31:43>> Yeah.
2:31:44>> Yeah.
2:31:44>> Um in terms of the graffiti element so
2:31:47the artist will lacquer it with uh a
2:31:52covering which won't prevent graffiti
2:31:54but what it does allow for is in the
2:31:56event of graffiti for it to be removed
2:31:58with the right removal solvent. So that
2:32:00is mitigated. Yeah.
2:32:02>> Fine members.
2:32:05>> Um yeah, just one more question knowing
2:32:08knowing the you know that particular
2:32:09area very well. If you just come back
2:32:12from the main road that we're looking
2:32:15where past [snorts] the mural there is a
2:32:18current location that is set back
2:32:20between the toilets and that section
2:32:21[snorts]
2:32:23and that currently has I believe a
2:32:25scooter range. I would have thought that
2:32:28you could incorporate
2:32:30with a little bit of simple redesign,
2:32:32you could incorporate the scooter, you
2:32:35know, the existing scooter rack
2:32:38um with with the bike racks thereby
2:32:42um exposing the mural for its, you know,
2:32:46for its true visual impact.
2:32:50>> Joel, I'm going to leave it to you. You
2:32:52you know our feelings about it.
2:32:56straightforward. Um,
2:32:59if you could take those into account,
2:33:00please.
2:33:02>> Gary.
2:33:03>> Um, thank you. Obviously on the wall
2:33:05that the mirror is going on, it looks
2:33:06like currently there are notice boards
2:33:08of some sort. Um, I'm guessing those are
2:33:11being relocated to somewhere else and
2:33:14the thing. So, I'm guessing one of those
2:33:15poses the town council's notice board
2:33:17for their own agendas.
2:33:22I mean understand I think said earlier
2:33:25the um uh the notices from uh where the
2:33:28painting is going are just going to be
2:33:29removed to the other side and all the
2:33:32notices will be actually on the opposite
2:33:34wall as I understand it.
2:33:42>> Yeah, they're both noticeables. Yeah.
2:33:50I think it's absolutely fantastic. Is
2:33:52this sort of scheme of murals something
2:33:54that South Nora Council would consider
2:33:56working with other town and parish
2:33:57councils with?
2:34:05>> Yeah, I mean of course we we do it once
2:34:07it goes well then we can certainly look
2:34:09at other towns and places around South
2:34:11Norolk.
2:34:27match unanimous chair.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of YouTube transcript (lPqlgq1NreU) , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 23,056 words across 3,579 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.