Request support for Breckland
We're not currently able to provide detailed weekly summaries for Breckland Council. We need support from the council to:
- Ensure we can reliably access and process council meeting information
- Cover the costs of processing and summarizing council data
- Maintain and improve the service for residents
You can help make this happen!
Contact your councillors to let them know you want Breckland Council to support Open Council Network. This will help ensure residents can stay informed about council decisions and activities.
If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate to support this service, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Planning Committee - Tuesday, 4th June, 2024 10.00 am
June 4, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting or read trancriptTranscript
Good morning ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Breckland planning for today. Could I first of all start with what we refer to as our general housekeeping, our first item at Fire Exits. Now, the both Fire Exits for this room are quite clearly marked on this outside wall. There's also another Fire Exo exit at the end of the corridor where the lavatories are. And I'm going to give you a quick look at what we're going to do, and I'm going to give you a quick look at what we're going to do and I'm going to give you a quick look at what we're going to do, and I'm going to give you a quick look at what we're going to do and I'm going to show you what we're going to do.
There's also another Fire Exo exit at the end of the corridor where the lavatories are, and of course, there was the door that you actually entered the building. There isn't a rehearsal of a fire drill on for today. So if we hear the alarms, we will treat them as genuine and vacate the building and meet in the car park. So all you need to do is follow this lock, but you'll have to be quick because I'll be at the door like a flash.
Next item, phones and mobile devices. Could you ensure that they are either switched off or switched to silent? I don't like to have the meeting disturbed.
It stops everyone in their tracks. And it's a £10 fine to the chairman's charity, and it's not me as the chairman of this committee, but the chairman of the council.
Our new chairman is Councillor Keith Gilbert. I haven't been told what his chosen charity is yet.
Big C, and he's staying in Children's Hospice. So with that in mind, you will be given £5 to each, which will make you feel really good, but not in my eyes, but charity wise, yes, but not for disturbing my meeting.
Next item, procedure. As each item is called, I have a list of people who have registered to speak. If you come and sit on the right-hand side where that young lady is sitting in a lovely green jacket to show you where you need to sit.
And the presentation will be taken by the case officer for the item, and then I will instruct you of your time.
When your time is finished, you will hear the bell. It doesn't mean your room is ready. It just means that we've had enough of you.
So if you'd like to wind up, it doesn't mean stop dead, just wind up. Wind up is not 15 minutes. It's just finished that sentence or try and wash up as quick as you can.
Introductions for the day. On my far side today, I have Simon Wood, who is the head man of planning. He's got a lovely official title, but he's the top guy.
Mike Horn, who is our solicitor to the council. On my right-hand side, my right-hand woman, Rebecca Collins, again, a very high-flying planning officer.
And on our far right-hand side, we have John Hannah from County Council Highways, so welcome to John today. At the back, we have Will Hornbuckle, one of our planning officers.
We've got a couple of others joining us later. And also, I have Chris Fitzgerald, who's our planning usher. Oh, and Mandy Simba Syne.
I don't know where you arrived from. And also, we've got Julie Britton down here, who's Democratic Services, who's making sure we do everything on time and what have you.
OK, so without further ado, I'm going to start on the agenda with item one, which is the minute.
Oh, sorry, Councillor Bambish didn't see you waving. That's all right, Chairman. I did write to you about this, but just to be clear, I am the ward member for Billingford, when that or those applications come up.
And I just want to have the site, I have spoken to the parish council and other parties involved in this, but I believe I've not made my decision yet, so therefore I am free to vote.
I'd find that would be item three. Well, I'm going to start on item one is the minutes. I'm going to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of May. Can I sign those off as read?
Thank you. Let me just do that.
There we go, Julie. Thank you.
Item two, apologies and substitutes. Do we have any, Julie, please?
We just have the one, Chairman. We have an apology from Councillor Peter Wilkinson, and we have Councillor Samantha Taylor standing in for him as his sub.
Thank you. Thank you, Samantha, for coming today.
Item three, we have direct declarations of interest and/or representations received, which we've just had from Gordon's.
Anyone else wishing to raise any item on that? No. Okay. Item four, Chairman's announcements. I haven't got nothing listed to say apart from it. Yes, we have a chairman's panel on Thursday.
And as you know, members, you are entitled to come and listen in at any time.
Item five, requested to further applications. Do we have any at all? No, we don't.
Items of urgent business? No, we don't. We're getting through it now.
Item seven, local planning update. I think it's up to you, Simon.
I'm afraid it is up to me, Chairman. Thank you very much.
So just to update members as to where we are on the local plan, we had a member briefing on the 23rd of May, just outlining the contents of the draft local plan and some of the issues that we were looking for.
Responses from members of the public and members generally for in order to inform the plan going forward.
We also presented an update to overview and scrutiny on Thursday, which was very similar to that briefing and was well received.
As members will be aware, the consultation on the Reg 18 document went live yesterday.
Members will be sent later on a list of all the events out of all parish in town councils, and we would encourage you to use that and advertise the events as much as you possibly can with your constituents.
The first event is tomorrow lunchtime is a virtual event, details of that are on the the Breckland web page and on the commonplace web pages.
And we're basically hoping that we get a good attendance. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Can I try to please?
Thank you for that update, Simon. Could you just check that the commonplace website is actually working, because I tried to access it last night and kept hitting the button and nothing was happening?
Yeah, one of the reasons why you've got me instead of lawyers that we have one or two minor technical issues with commonplace, which we're just seeking to to resolve.
I have one or two emails which are slowly updating me on that.
Any other further questions? No, thank you.
Okay, we're going to item eight deferred applications. We have an item on that, which we are going to run with this morning.
And that is at Dearham, 15, the Axum Roode, the reference 3PL 2022 0590, and that is a full application.
Speak is on this item. If you'd like to come and join on the right hand side is Richard Hootson, who is the agent.
And, oh, Councillor Webb, you're already there.
You could have kept his seat warm as well.
Come and see it a bit nearer to us.
That's terrific. Thank you.
Okay, on the hand over to Rebecca, please.
Thank you, Chairman. So this is a full application for a retail food store at 15, Axum Road in Dearham.
It will be.
So this is the location plan with the existing buses building within the centre of the site.
The existing cars and car garage buses building is located in an L shape towards the centre of the site and the red line D demarcates the application boundary with access off Yaxum Road.
Sorry, I don't know why my presentation is not working.
This is a slide to show the application site outlined in yellow for you just on the bottom of the screen and then just to the top of the screen outlined in grey is the town centre boundary.
That's the town centre boundary for Dearham town centre, and we'll talk about that when we talk about the principal section of the application.
Yeah, apologies.
So here is the aerial photography of the site just showing the application site on the screen for you outlined in red with the buses building in the centre of the site just to the north of the building is the Halfords and jollies units and then to the back of the site there are various units.
Sorry, apologies. This is the Halfords and jollies site and there are various buildings just to the back of the site and obviously this is the Yaxum Road.
We're working.
So this is the existing site plan which shows the buses building which is an L shape, single story building, metal cloud and we've got some images to show you of that later located in the centre of the site with wraparound parking, wraparound that building and access off the Yaxum Road in between that and Halfords.
Just shown to the south of the plan in front of you.
And this is the proposed site plan which shows the new store proposed food store located to the rear of the site in line with those industrial buildings just to the rear of the site behind Halfords and then the car parking located outside to the frontage of the site with the access remaining in the same location just off Yaxum Road.
With regards to the application the proposal is to create additional floor space of 101,411 square metres of floor space.
Just going to go back up to the town centre plan.
So with regards to the application there we have received 122 letters written into the application with some letters of support.
We've also received concerns from Dearham Town Council and Yaxum Town Council and all these matters are set out in the officer report.
Councillor Allyson Webb has also written in and obviously appears today to speak to you about her concerns.
I've note there are no statutory objections to the application or the proposal set out in front of you.
So looking at the application in terms of principle the slide in front of you shows the application site in relation to the designated Dearham Town Centre.
Paragraph 85 of the MPPF encourages business and investment in local areas and paragraph 92 states that when considering applications on the edge of town centre sites these should be accessible.
And paragraph 91, not paragraph 92 as referred to in the report, ask local planning authorities to apply sequential test to sites not in town centre locations.
And finally policy EC05 of the Breckland local plan seeks to enhance the vitality of the district town centres.
The application has been submitted with a retail impact assessment which has subsequently been updated for this planning committee.
This retail impact assessment has been assessed by an independent retail impact assessment and that is by Nexus and they are working independently on behalf of the Council.
In Nexus's initial review of the alternative sites and subsequently this has been updated for this planning committee.
Nexus agreed with the submitted retail impact assessment that the parameters the application, the applicants had employed for finding and assessing sites were acceptable.
And this view has remained unchanged following the submission of new information from the applicants and the passage of time.
Therefore no suitable sites within the town centre were identified or none were considered to be emerging as alternative sites within the town centre boundary to locate this door.
Nexus looked at the impact on investment in Deer and Town Centre and the impact on its vitality and viability.
Nexus concluded overall and has set out in a report that they did not consider the proposal would impact the future town centre investment of schemes coming forward within the town centre.
That the impacts of the store in terms of trade diversion would be relatively limited and not result in a significant impact on the town centre.
And that there would be a low level of diversion from the town centre stores so as not to be significantly adverse either.
And in the review of the updated information submitted in advance of this planning committee.
Nexus remained of the view that the sequential tests remain valid, that the proposal would not result in significantly adverse impact on the town centre.
And that the above conclusions were based on the existing little store not being occupied by an alternative convenience retail operator.
And as set out in your report, Councillors, that matter has been secured by an already signed and agreed section 106 agreement.
On this basis officers agree with Nexus that the proposal is unlikely to have a significantly adverse impact on Deer and Town Centre vitality and viability and consider that the principle of development is acceptable in this location.
So the image in front of you shows the proposals for the revised access arrangement to make minor alterations in terms of the access to access the new store.
So the application was previously deferred from planning committee to seek clarity on the land ownership to secure a satisfactory access to the site for these proposals.
That required information has been submitted and the highways authority make no objection to the application on this basis.
With regards to the access, the existing access off Yaxon Road will be adjusted to form a wider access with the existing highways junction adjusted to form a right-hand turn lane from Yaxon Road into the new store.
So that's this lane in the centre of the road here and then the widening of the access round here to allow additional lanes for vehicles to access the site.
In the highways authority comments, they note the stress which currently exists on the network and could occur on the network following the relocation of the store.
However, the test in the MPPF is whether these impacts can be considered severe and this is set out in paragraph 115 in the MPPF.
And in the opinion of the highways authority, the proposals are not considered to represent a severe highways impact.
And on that basis, they do not object to the application.
Your note from the officer report that Dearhamtown Council has raised further concerns with regards to the highways impact and the highways authority have addressed these in their response to the application as set out in the deferred section of the planning officer report in front of you.
So, these are the existing elevations of the existing buses store on the site and you can see this is an existing single story building.
And then these are the proposed elevations for the proposed little store.
You can see on this corner, the start of a glazed entrance to allow light into the building.
But otherwise, it's a composite grade clad building of single story.
And like I said earlier, set back right back into the site with car parking in front of it.
And then these are the side elevations of the building with that glazing carried on down all one side.
And this other side will be the deliveries area.
This is the proposed floor pan. And as previously mentioned, there is to be created 1411 square meters of retail impact assessment with obviously associated delivery area offices, storage, kitchen, etc.
And then we've just included the proposed roof plan to show that the application includes roof mounted PV panels.
So the store itself is a typical design and construction for its type.
The proposal replaces a large single story car showroom with a large building to the rear of the site set back from the road with parking in front.
This is not unsimilar to other store layouts within the immediate facility.
A landscaping scheme, which you can see in front of you, has also been provided with the proposals and this has been agreed with the tree officer.
The deliveries are to be taken at the far corner of the site and the layout of design are considered acceptable, given the wider context of the area.
And obviously, we've got some photos to show you of that in a moment.
The site itself lies to the south of Dearham Conservation Area, and there are two nearby listed buildings, Moorgate House, which is a grey tea listed building and is the closest building, but 300 meters away, and the Malt House, which is also a grey tea listed building.
As you can see from the aerial photograph, the site is surrounded by modern development, which separates the proposal from the setting of the nearby listed buildings and conservation area.
The proposal is not of a scale to negatively impact the setting of these buildings either.
The proposals would, in fact, tidy up this otherwise unused site and improve the entrance to the conservation area.
And on this basis, the conservation, the character and appearance of the conservation area is considered preserved, as is the setting of nearby listed buildings.
With regards to contamination, flood risk and drainage, foul disposal will be disposed through the main system, and this will be dealt with via a condition, and a detailed surface water drainage scheme is also to be conditioned, and on this basis, no concerns have been raised by the lead local flood authority.
With regards to ecology, the applicants have submitted a preliminary ecology assessment over which the ecologist raised no objection subject to conditions, which would enhance local biodiversity and avoid light spill.
Obviously, all the conditions are listed at the end of your report.
With regards to amenity, I'm just going to, oh, this one I'll do, with regards to amenity, the site is largely surrounded by commercial buildings, however, there is a residential building.
Which is here at number 17, Yaxam Road, which is just to the southeast of the application site.
However, environmental health raised no objections to the proposal on the grounds of impact in terms of noise, subject to the impact in position of conditions to protect the amenity of this property, and taking into consideration the existing building on site and the usage of that building and comings and goings, which could invoke at any time.
So with regards to the application site itself, this is the existing building, the buses building, which stands on the site currently.
And here is the frontage of those buildings looking across to Yaxam Road on the far side.
This is the existing access to the site, which will be widened to accommodate the proposals.
This is obviously Halfords, which is directly opposite the site.
And then these are the buildings, the commercial buildings, which sit to the rear of the neighbouring site, which the new store will align with across the back of the site.
And we're just back to the existing site location plan.
So in conclusion, on the basis, this application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure the existing store does not operate as a convenience store.
And on that basis, we have recommended this one for approval members.
Thank you.
Councillor Webb, would you like to go first or last?
Could I go last, please?
Of course you can.
Thank you.
And we've got Richard Hootson, please, who's the agent?
Three minutes.
I'll tell you when you're on.
Good morning, Chair, and committee members.
I'd just like to applaud the Plan Officer for a very thorough presentation to this morning.
My name is Richard Hootson, Planning Partner.
A wrap is representing the applicant, Little.
As you're aware, this proposal is to replace Little's existing first-generation food store that no longer meets their operational customer requirements.
As a site is long locked and cannot come date any future expansion plans.
Therefore, Little have acquired a larger site near the existing store that can address their aspirations for Durham.
This application was deferred in July 2023 for highway's authority to seek clarity on land ownership matters.
Subsequent to the deferment, further comments have also been received from Durham Town Council in relation to accessibility impact on the local highway network.
I'm pleased to say through extensive discussions and close consultation with the Council officers and Norfolk's County Council,
Harry's Department, with small alterations to the previous agreed scheme and clarification on land ownership.
The Harry's Authority are now satisfied that this proposal is considered acceptable and any impact identified is not considered severe in accordance with national planning policy framework.
To ensure that suitable access and footway are delivered, Little have accepted additional conditions to be imposed subject to members agreeing to the plan officer's recommendation.
In terms of the proposed land use, the Council officers have confirmed that the principal of the joint is considered acceptable
and that it would be an effective use of the previously developed site.
We've also demonstrated compliance to relevant retail and sequential tests as confirmed by your planning policy team.
In respect to surrounding amenity, no objection has been raised by the Environmental Health Department and officers considered that no significant harm will be caused
to surrounding properties through the loss of privacy, light or outlook or from noise generated.
From either deliveries, customers or store operation.
In addition, it has confirmed that the impacts on air quality will not be significant.
Therefore, the proposed development fully accords with the key aims of national planning policy guidance which promotes presumption in favour of sustainable development
and encourages bodies involved in granting planning permission to prioritize both growth and jobs.
As such, on both the scheme's clear policy compliance, we kindly request that members determine the application and accordance with the plan officer's recommendation and approve this proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Webb, please.
Thank you.
Okay, so thank you, Chairman, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm here today because I have been outdated by the amount of residents who have contacted me with concerns regarding this.
Concerns regarding the amount of extra traffic on a yax and road which is always blocked up.
Anybody who knows who tries to go up that road knows now what it's like.
Imagine there's going to be another 20% uplifting sales from this building, littles, and that means at least another 15% in cars access in this site.
And please don't tell me that people are going to be walking to this site. How many of you actually walk back from the shops with your shopping when you've done a big shop?
Sorry, Robert.
Anyway, that's our side of things.
Norfolk County Council originally said in the report in March 22, the current congestion issues on the highway network with the vicinity of the sites.
So they recognise all that side of things, and yes, there have been alterations done. There's been do a link to the access.
But you imagine, right, you've been sitting in a queue on Yax and Road from Durham trying to get to the tab and lane junction, and there's this queue of other cars coming out from the other side.
Are you going to be kind enough to let these cars out to join the traffic?
If you've been sitting there quarter enough, you want to get to wherever you're going to be, so I think it's going to be a problem.
The other problem I do want to raise for you is the loading bay.
It says that the area cannot be accessed safely without the car parked being completely empty.
So the explanation is that deliveries will only be made when the store is closed or at quarter opening times.
And I'm glad that the conditions are put in there to say that no deliveries to be made to the store,
HDV refrigerator units run, or HDV engines idling outside the following times,
Monday to Saturday 7am to 10pm.
So what are little opening hours? 8 o'clock till 10 o'clock at night. So it gives them an hour.
And don't tell me that cars aren't going to start coming into that car park.
I'm really worried how safe that's going to be for our residents and people who are visiting the store.
I just feel that there are still issues that need to be resolved on this one.
I fully support business improvements and extra investment in Durham, as you all know.
But this is not the site to do without a huge amount of investment in the road infrastructure,
be it traffic lights or whatever.
Let's not let this end up with little meaning, long, long jams in Durham locations, please.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
It's open to questions from members.
I'll take Councillor Clark, Councillor Bambridge and Enskham, please.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Thank you for our office of the presentation and also the applicant and the objective.
I'm pleased that some of the issues have been resolved.
It seems around land ownership and widening the access and the strategic conditions around deliveries.
I've got a number of questions, some of which may be answered by our colleague from County Highways.
I know that there would be a 20% increase in sales in the new store, and my first question is to the Highways officer.
How far has been the modelling done in terms of traffic movements, if that's going to be displaced from the, not the tavern lane,
but if you like what we call the Tesco, a little current roundabout, so it's shifting it back on the assumption that people may only be going to littles
and they're not going on to Tesco.
That's one question.
If you can hold that one.
The second one, which is also really directed to both the Highways officer also possibly Rebecca, was that the impact is described in terms of the MPBF as being not severe.
So there is an impact, but it doesn't meet the threshold of severe.
It's a question of what that impact would be.
The third question I have, so if you bear with me, Chairman, is thinking about people who are currently using public transport both ways with buses.
If you're coming out, for example, from home-based turning left or carrying along back into deer room,
there's no pulling area that currently for buses there, and there are ready issues.
If you're coming out and say home-based, trying to turn right in the accent road,
whilst I think our planning officer has addressed the question of people coming out and turning left, et cetera.
I'm thinking about currently, if you were coming out of the little store and trying to turn right,
whilst there may be a pedestrian island, how that traffic flow is really going to be controlled or improved.
So those are my three areas. Thank you, Chairman.
Sorry. I think we'll start with our transport, please, highways.
Yeah, apologies. I've tried to make a note with the questions.
So in terms, I think the initial question was about the assessment.
Sorry about that. We'll try again. So in terms of the assessment, the applicants put forward,
despite technology and the fact, obviously, it's a current store moving to somewhere else within the town,
they have assessed the traffic impact as if the store was new and the old store was still in operation.
So all the traffic and effect has been classed as new.
Obviously, there's a distribution of that in terms of whether that's diverted or genuinely new traffic
on the network, because as you'll imagine, when you go to a supermarket,
it's not always the primary reason for your trip.
You'll have been to work, you'll have done the school run, you'll have gone into town and diverted into the site.
So they've assessed it robustly, even though they knew, obviously, they were relocating a store from one side
or one part of the town to the other. So in terms of that, it's been fully robustly assessed in terms of the site
if new and the old site could still operate, or would still be operating, but obviously, as you've heard from Rebecca's presentation,
that wouldn't be the case. So I think that's the first one.
In terms of, I don't know if Rebecca could come in severity. Yeah, we've always, we don't have blinkers.
We obviously acknowledge the pressures at the moment on the town of Lane Junction, the station road,
many around about, whilst these will obviously still exist and it would add to these pressures and strains,
it wouldn't lead to a situation where we could stand up in an appeal situation and say,
these are severe in terms of the MPPF and we could defend that position.
So it would add to that burden, but it's a marginal increase.
And what was the third one? Oh, passenger transport.
So in terms of the public transport, what they're offering in terms of improvements to the highway network,
there's a, they're enhancing the bus shelter on the home base side,
so they're finding a bus shelter on the home base side.
But suppose while I'm talking, just to be clear, just to add to bits of Rebecca's presentation,
in terms of the highway enhancements, if you like, what we have secured is, as you say,
there's a crossing for pedestrians of the Axham Road to the Tavern Lane side of the Junction.
The Junction itself will be increased. That was our request because that allows two lanes out of the site.
So obviously, you would think it would be a bit more problematic to turn right out of the site,
but those left can filter into, there are two lanes come out of the site.
What that tries to ensure is based on their modelling that they wouldn't be queuing to block the lane of little on those peak, peak times.
For those of you who know the Junction, there are very limited pedestrian links into the site at the moment.
What they are proposing to do, and I don't know if Rebecca's got the plan, I could probably talk through it.
There's just a pedestrian footway around both sides of the Junction and a crossing of the actual Junction onto the highway,
and then there's a cycleway footway into the site, along the site frontage of the cycleway footway.
Sorry, I've probably gone off a piece, but...
No, it's pretty out.
Just how do I...
Probably get...
That way.
So, as you say, this would be a new crossing facility for pedestrians.
That's the bus shelter I talked about.
This is a side frontage cycleway footway, which obviously is modest, but it's all helped.
This would be a continuous cycleway footway into the site, and the cycle shelters correct me if I'm wrong.
I think I hear you might want to just confirm that.
I think that is the case.
And then this is the major increase for pedestrians at the moment.
The footway just kind of stops, so this would bring pedestrians in safely into the Junction and crossing.
So, they are the main sort of enhancements from a highway perspective.
Was that all of the questions? Sorry, I've lost...
Yep.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
Can I answer them, please?
Thank you, Chairman.
My question also relates to traffic policy TR01, which states not adversely impact on the operation or safety of the strategic road network.
And whilst the...
If we could have that slide up again that we just had with the filter lines...
I'll carry on with the question.
Whilst there has been all the right to propose all the rights to that Junction and crossings,
I think one of the things we do have to consider here, that this is convenience retailing.
Over 80% of the sales area proposed is for convenience retail.
And convenience, as we know, is a grab-and-go on my home.
My concern is the peak-time trading.
We know what the congestion is like as Councillor Webb indicated.
So, the peak-time trading, four to seven on people on the way home, going home from school,
is the effect on how the congestion can be minimized,
because people still have to get coming out of little.
They still have to cross the going-home traffic on either way,
which is already congested.
How can that be minimized?
Or do you expect it to be minimized to what it is now?
I think, and obviously John's hearing a speech for himself,
but I think the highways are accepting that there is congestion within the highway network,
and there is potential for this store to create congestion at peak times,
stopping and queue lengths in and out of the store and on the carriage way.
What you need to ask yourself, members, in the determination of the planning application,
is having regard to the MPPF test.
So, under Paragraph 115, is that impact severe?
And, as Councillor Ascom just set out, policy TRR1,
say, does that have a severe adverse impact on the highways network?
However, Councillors, in your determination,
you must have regard to your statutory consultation,
and they're providing you within that regard,
and it is their opinion that there isn't a severe adverse impact on the highways network.
Yes, there is congestion on the network.
Yes, this store will generate traffic into and out to the site,
but your statutory advisor in this regard is telling you that that impact isn't severe.
So, you must take that into consideration in the determination of this application.
Thank you.
Councillor BANDbridge, please.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the other questions,
some of which have removed what I was going to say.
But I do have an additional concern, which is a little bit different.
This little store is coming in and they're claiming they're going to have a considerable increase in their trade,
and I'm happy with the principle of retail on this.
I think the officer made that quite well,
but I'm not so happy with the fact of a little store being the right unit to put on this site.
It doesn't appear to me that they're going to have sufficient car parking,
and most of the businesses around about do have pressures on their car parking already,
and I'm wondering whether we're happy with the car parking that's being provided with little on that site.
Thank you.
Just in terms of the car parking, I can confirm we have parking guidance standards and it records with those,
and I think also little are quite well versed with they have other stores of similar sizes,
so they often challenge or give a sort of a scientific answer to why they provided them.
What I would also add is they have an, unlike the existing store,
they have a high proportion of EV charging points as well in terms of that,
but in terms of the parking standard, parking provision, we can, we can tend.
Thank you.
Councillor ATRILL, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
First thing I want to talk about is, could we put up the plan of the site again,
showing where the delivery point is on the site?
Okay, yep, so looking at that, first thing I want to understand is, when an HGV delivers to this site,
how exactly is he going to manoeuvre down to the load and buy in an hour?
Have we done an assessment of the turning circles, et cetera, within the site?
So that's my first question, Chairman, and I'd like to follow up.
Okay, this was raised yesterday in Chairman's brief and by the Chairman himself,
but I would just like to ask the agent to just respond to that question,
Mr Hootson, if you got with regards to HGV?
So we did give a response yesterday, so I'll probably reiterate the response,
and then if you want further explanation, I can provide it.
So the overwhelming majority of little stores across the UK are serviced by the car part with no issues.
So that's 960 stores that they have up and down the country.
This is a standard little practice that are negligible safety concerns
and service vehicle movements within the store car parts across all the local authorities.
The service vehicle document manoeuvre takes approximately 40 seconds to conduct within the car part,
therefore they would have no impact on customers with only one or two service vehicles per day.
So in terms of vehicles, in terms of HGVs and deliveries to the store,
they only have one stroke to maximum per day on the store size of this site,
so they have no third party deliveries.
So all their produce comes on one of their trailers,
or their recycling rubbish, then the reverse logistics goes back on the trailer back to their distribution centre.
So there is literally only one stroke to HGVs a day that come to this site.
It's a model that they use, obviously there is a manoeuvre that they would take place in here,
so there is sufficient room for them to turn a HGV so it would reverse back into that loading bay.
And it's a standard procedure they have on all their stores.
So you're confirming to me that an HGV can turn into that and back up straight to that loading bay in that corner.
Or do they take things off the back of the lorry off a tailgate and wheel it in?
No, it's one of those loading bays, so the trailer comes right to the back of the loading bay.
So I'm sorry, I haven't got a pointer, but yeah, just that position there,
it will reverse straight back into that loading bay and it just rolls off the trailer.
Well, it's the grandson of a lorry driver.
The old boy be looking down on me no laughing his head off because he'd be saying,
Well, I won't want to be doing that to get in an eight flash for sure.
If you're saying that that can be done, that can be done.
I'd like to turn, if possible, to the highway issue.
I think we can probably all accept that it's good news that we've got a major retailer that wants to invest in the town of Deerham.
What's bad news is the transport network.
Now, I'm old enough to remember something called cumulative impact.
I'm also old enough to remember that Norfolk County Council promised us,
based on several developments around the town, that we were going to have a new roundabout at the Taven Lane Junction.
And that was one of the reasons that planning permission was granted,
because we thought this would be good, we'll get the improvements that we need in the town.
And lo and behold, what happens, the people at Deerham are sold a pup,
because what happened was planning permission was granted for all these sites,
and subsequently Norfolk County Council turned around and said,
No, we're not going to do the roundabout now because we can't make it fit.
Have we got an overall map that we can bring up of Deerham showing the existing site
and the proposed new site, please, with the A47?
Well, that's a shame, really, because my concern with this is the traffic impact,
because traffic that currently goes to and from that site tend to do the access and exit round the A47 circle.
Round Taven Lane, what we're now going to propose is all that traffic,
if that's coming up from the south of the district, or that's approaching from the A47,
we're now sending all that traffic up the Axon Road past home base
and expecting them to turn right into this site, which is a bit of a bottleneck,
you've just said that there will be an impact on the traffic.
It's up for us as councilors to decide whether we agree, whether that impact is severe enough.
Personally, I've got a problem with this with policy TR02,
and I don't think anybody's mentioned that here this morning,
where it clearly says that development should mitigate impacts
on the local or strategic highway networks arising from the development itself
or the cumulative effects of development through the provision of or contributions
towards any relevant transport improvement deemed to be necessary,
including those secured by legal agreement.
So we could have an argument about whether we think the proposed measures
proposed for this suitable also goes on to say that the development should avoid
inappropriate traffic generation and do not compromise highway safety.
It is for this council and this committee to decide whether we think,
I appreciate we've got a gentleman here from highways, but local knowledge tells me,
and councilor web knows, local knowledge tells me that this is a bottleneck,
that this is clearly going to create more traffic, it clearly is,
you've admitted as much as morning, and I don't see most people quite rightly
who are going to the supermarket, they're not going to be carrying their shopping home,
they're not going to be local shoppers.
Most people are going to go in and out of this site using the dear old car,
because there's the only way they're going to carry their shopping home.
You will get the odd food that you use a bus, and I hear the argument about,
we haven't actually got a pull-in proposed for this, for the bus shelter either,
but most people will use the dear old motor car, that is what people rely on
in rural Breckland, it's a necessity.
I have an issue with this, I'm not convinced that this won't have a significant impact
on the highway and the area.
You've done nothing in terms of roundabout, traffic lights, et cetera,
you haven't even put proposed down here, yellow boxes in the road.
It's not people blocking up the end of the junction.
I see that you've tried to do, make some effort in terms of improvements for cycle
and pedestrian, but I just don't think that the improvements for the motorist
are nowhere near adequate for this site.
There's a significant problem, and I know that the development proposals
can't be used to improve the current situation in the town,
but my question to you, County Council is,
when are we going to get the improvements in the town?
Because we're a growing town, we've got lots of development,
the situation's getting worse, and this is just going to add to it.
You've got lots of developments that keep adding little bits to it.
If we use the analogy of this jug of water, if I tried to pour that into that glass,
I'm going to get to a certain stage where I'm going to have a problem, aren't I?
Same thing with the traffic.
What are we going to do to improve it?
Why aren't we looking at cumulative impact?
Yeah, I think John can explain a little bit more about the transport assessment
and why he thinks that the measures are suitable to address the impact of this development.
But he certainly isn't here to talk about Deerham as a whole and the highway network as a whole,
and obviously with the emerging local plan and any potential future allocations,
part of that local plan process will be to look at the transport network,
and we've been very open about that,
that if there is any allocations in Deerham,
that will look at the wider transport network and the infrastructure to support that,
as with any town or settlement within the district.
So John isn't here today to talk about Deerham as a whole and the developments
that have occurred in Deerham and the transport network as a whole
and what we will do about future cumulative developments.
Obviously John's here to talk about this application,
and as Council Attawell's rightly pointed out,
that you can only consider the impacts of this development on the highway network
and in the context of those policies that Council Attawell, Council Ascom,
Ascom, sorry, and paragraph 115 of the MPPF are those highways impact severe,
and your highways authority have written in response to the application
and all the information submitted,
considering whether that impact is severe,
considering whether there's an impact on the safety of the highway
and whether any additional traffic movements would have a negative impact
on that highway safety network.
And also that the measures that they have proposed,
in addition to the measures that the applicants initially proposed,
they feel that those measures are suitable to address the highway's impact
that we generated from this store,
and therefore, yes, members, it is completely within your remit
to balance policies in a different way,
but you must take into consideration the advice of the highway's authority,
as would any inspector examining this application at a later date.
Yeah, it's in the words of my mouth.
Just in terms of the, obviously, the application at hand,
what I would say is, obviously, with any application,
with any, in terms of MPPF, we have to look at mitigation in terms of its proportion
of reasonable, does it pass the test of the MPPF?
In terms of the tavern lane, obviously, there will be a local aspiration for a roundabout,
it wouldn't be reasonable for us to ask for that off the back of this application
and the change in traffic that it would engender,
but what I would say, we've heard a lot of discussion about sort of right-turning out of the site.
The drawing that Rebecca has shown on the screen is indicative,
it's agreeing the principle of what the applicant will provide.
Obviously, like any works on the highway will be subject to a section 278,
so the detail, that's an indicative layout, it holds them to it,
but obviously, you can't carry out works on the highway without doing engineering drawings,
detailed design drawings, there'll be a safety audit,
and I've already made a commitment to the town council in my response to their consultation,
that we will look at yellow boxes, keep clear markings for pedestrians,
so what I'm just trying to say is, rest assured, any mitigation that's delivered on the highway,
what you're seeing now is pretty much what you're going to get,
but ultimately, it will be subject to a detailed design technical vetting process
where a full safety audit, like any scheme, will be safety audited before it's implemented,
it'll be safety audited after it's implemented,
so in terms of safety for pedestrians and vehicles, those things will be considered,
obviously, they already have been considered in terms of principle,
but the actual design of it will be considered and safety audited.
And yet, we already make commitments to, from the town council's discussions to look at,
sort of, minor tweaks in terms of modest lining to try and help those movements,
which would be a yellow box, keep clear, for allow pedestrians to actually cross the island.
And just to add, the highways authority would not recommend,
would not object to the application if they didn't think there was the chance of passing the safety audit,
so they would only recommend not to object to the application on the grounds that there was fair chance to pass that safety audit,
obviously, that is a detailed process based on detailed plans, showing the exact works for the highway,
which are conditioned as part of the application.
Sorry if I'm confusing, it's already been safety audited,
safety audited is a three stage process, basically.
Stage one safety audited is you safety audited the principle of the works on the highway,
which is what's a company is a typically a planning application where you've got work,
stage two is the detailed design, the actual, how the construction of the work,
and then stage three is once it's been built and are there any sort of minor tweaks and safety?
And I would say last thing for me, sorry, I'll keep rambling on.
This is not an officer decision, obviously, something of this nature has been considered by our development team,
which is a wide breadth of people from the highway authority with expertise in transport assessments,
safety, road safety, network, highway network, so it's not a me making this decision,
but this is a county decision and consideration.
Councillor KAIBORD, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
Two questions.
One, what is the net effect on jobs if there's a 20% sales increase?
And presumably, like other little stores, there will be limited-stay parking.
Is that consistent with electric vehicle charging? Thank you.
We'll ask the agent, please.
So, there will be up to 40 full part-time jobs, so similar as what there is at the present time.
It's obviously, you keep mentioning there's a 20% increase,
but obviously, the number of colleagues will still be the same number.
In terms of the car parking, we're not proposing any car parking management on here.
If it is a car park that is abused, and people are staying there all day and parking,
then that's something we will probably consider, but at the present time,
we're not considering any car park management in terms of number of hours to stay on the site.
Okay, Councillor Taylor, please.
Thank you.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, so long as we take into consideration
the response that's been made by our statutory consultation,
we can respectfully choose to disagree with that representation
and still come to our own conclusion as to whether or not it's a significant impact.
Your statutory consultation response is a material planning consideration in the determination of the planning application.
Ultimately, in the event the application is recommended for refusal members,
you will need to come up with reasons why you are recommending this application for refusal
and you will need to substantiate those reasons.
And therefore, if you're disagreeing with a statutory consultation,
you would need to sort of set out what is your technical knowledge to know that you are disagreeing
with their recommendation and their advice.
If not, you would be putting us at risk at a later date if the application was appealed.
I would like to add to that, if I may, what Rebecca has said is perfectly correct.
But as ultimately responsible for legal matters in the Council,
I fully appreciate that that answer puts you in somewhat of an invidious position.
Because if you were minded to do that, you might feel, well, hold on here.
I'm not a technical expert.
We have this advice from highways.
Therefore, who am I to give that technical advice?
So that's what I would be feeling if I was sitting where you are.
So in such an instance, if that is how you felt that you do feel that there is a severe impact
and you go against the advice in that respect of our statutory consultation,
then what I would advise in such an instance is that you defer the application
in order to get further technical advice that the Council would have to try and pay for.
Because otherwise, one would be at a public inquiry potentially without any technical advice
because our statutory consultation has already made it clear what they think.
That is what I would do.
You already have the advice of a statutory consultation.
Councillor ATROL, please.
Can I thank the Council's solicitor for that advice, which is most welcome.
In terms of the Council seeking effectively a second opinion, I think, is what you're asking.
Would it be fair and reasonable to ask for a second technical opinion,
specifically looking at policy TRO2 of the adopted Breckland local plan?
I am very concerned about cumulative effect in that area, which this policy specifically mentions.
I am concerned that that will generate inappropriate traffic in that location.
I think the idea of a deferment is a sound one because I do not remain based on what I see
on my own eyes and ears when I'm in town and I know hundreds, if not thousands of people
that come into Durham feel the same, that something is going badly wrong with the traffic in that part of town
and I'm concerned that we will be adding to that problem, which is what has been said this morning.
It comes down to the level of severity.
I think it would be appropriate for us to get somebody to check the traffic impact assessments that have been carried out
and give the Council some independent advice so that we as committee members could feel more confident in the decision-making process.
Councillor Bose?
I will give a direct and very short answer and then I will expand.
If this committee resolves that it wants advice on a matter,
then it is within your purview to say I want advice on any matter that you decide that you want advice on.
And that's perfectly fair.
Now going back to the principle of all this, this is something that has come up time and time again over the years.
It's a situation in which a statutory consultation has given clear advice and you don't agree with it, potentially.
That is effectively what you're talking about here.
Now my position, I have to be fair.
On the one hand, you can't be put in the position in which basically you're told this is the advice, lump it.
You're a committee.
You've got to make reasoned decisions and therefore you have got to have some alternative.
If that's what you feel.
But equally to be fair, our statutory consultation is independent.
I think, Councillor Atwell, you use the expression if you want to get independent advice.
They are independent.
They are the ultimate experts and they are clear.
All I, and the starting point is that obviously you would follow our statutory consultees.
But you have got to have an alternative.
And in that instance, the only thing I would advise is that you do not just say we disagree because that puts the council in a very,
very difficult legal position when you are disagreeing without being technical experts.
And the only evidence we have is our statutory consultation.
Could I just respond to that?
Once again, thanks for the clarification.
We do have information and advice from a statutory consultation.
But I think it's also fair to say that when we're talking about cumulative impact on the traffic network in Durham,
Norfolk County Council does have a bit of a vested interest in that as much as they have got financial constraints.
So I think it would be fair to get somebody to do that assessment independently on the cumulative impact of this development on the network locally.
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
It's just coming back to that from a transport from a high authority perspective.
Obviously, we are a consortee.
You're right.
It's the prerogative of yourselves as the planning authority to make that decision.
All I would say, and it doesn't, which way ever way you go, obviously, that's your prerogative the end of the day.
All I would say is the assessment put in front of us and yourselves by the applicant has considered, as I said to you before,
the old site in situ, they've done traffic counts of the current traffic flows through all of the junctions in question.
They've considered the old store and the new store both in operation at the same time.
So you would think an independent would come to the same conclusion as we have.
Obviously, that's for yourselves to consider.
But what I would say, they've modelled it from 2022, which was when this was first put in front of us and 2032,
which is providing temporary uplifts.
So we are comfortable.
We're content with that.
Obviously, we've already touched on the fact that we accept there's going to be an increase in traffic,
but it's not going to be to the level.
Just to give you an indication, and I'm sorry, I'm just trying to dig through here to give you a bit more context.
The suggestions are the increase, for example, on London Road, station road in the AM, PM peak would be,
oh, AM peak would be under 1%, PM would be about 2%, and Tavern Lane, Yax, and Road again.
0.7% in the AM peak, 1.4% in the PM peak.
That's overall traffic levels as a result of this application.
With the existing store?
Yeah, with the existing store in situ.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I'd also question what the cumulative impact you're looking to assess, because as far as I'm aware,
we don't have any additional development in this location within the system at this time to consider the cumulative impact with
and any development that we've already approved has already wiped its own face in highways terms
so that the network has capacity to take the highways impact from those developments,
and we obviously recently considered this one-ton road housing, it would be what cumulative development
are we looking in addition to consider this development against, because there isn't a cumulative impact,
because the impact, as we've heard, is only moderate with the existing store in its use,
and the applicants are signing a Section 106 agreement to agree to the existing store not being used in convenience use,
so it's a worst-case scenario in terms of the low percentage figures that you've heard there.
So I'm not entirely convinced that the cumulative impact is necessary in this instance,
it would have there been further developments within that highway network that we need to consider in addition
that weren't considered within the already submitted highways assessment.
So I'll come back to my point right at the beginning,
when you talk about the developments already have been given permission wiped on their own face,
they were given permission on the basis that a roundabout was going to be built on tab and line
that never materialised. The Swanton Road development was given permission on the basis,
we're going to have good footpath access across the bridge, and that's been taken out.
Every time the developers come forward and put things forward in derem,
we think we've got everything right and where it needs to be,
and then as the development goes on and the process goes on, these things get taken away,
and we keep being told, Yeah, well, I can't happen because of X1Z.
That's why I'm talking about cumulative impact.
We are having hundreds of new houses in derem,
but we haven't got the promised improvements, all of the promised improvements,
that come with those developments when this committee is previously given permission,
granted planning permission. So cumulative impact is important in that area.
You are adding traffic to that area. It is a tight bottleneck.
Coming off that Lin Hill roundabout is difficult.
You are adding to it. Hence, we'll keep on with that cumulative impact.
I take your point, but we've got to consider this application.
And this application, you're hearing that the impact of this application is one or two percent.
That, it seems to me, cannot be described as either severe or very severe,
but I'm not making the decision. I'm an officer. You're the members.
If you disagree with the findings of our statutory consultation,
and bearing in mind what we've just been told,
that has to be spectacularly wrong for it to be a severe or very severe impact,
then all I am saying is, please, in that situation,
I'm advising, do not refuse it, at least get some further advice.
But it seems to me that your statutory consultation is very clear here,
and the figures are well, well short of being severe or very severe, meeting that threshold.
But if you believe that they are wrong, then it is your prerogative to get another opinion.
I'll take Councillor BAYERS, please.
I understand the reason for that question.
I will answer it. You're talking several thousands of pounds.
I would estimate 5,000 pounds, 10,000 pounds somewhere around that.
But you have to be careful there. The fact is that you need to make the right planning decision.
And when it comes to matters such as a council expenditure,
you have to put that to one side. You need to arrive at the right answer.
And what I'm saying is that the statutory consultation is perfectly clear.
If you disagree with them fundamentally, then you've got a choice.
Either refuse or get further advice. I'm advising you that you'd be in a very difficult position
if you just refused it, bearing in mind the advice we have from the statutory consultation.
In which case, if that's how you feel, we're going, we will need to find the money and get the further advice, however much it costs.
Councillor BANDBRICH, then Councillor Plummer.
Thank you, Chairman. We have heard the advice we've been given from all sides.
And we do have the advantage today of having the statutory consultation who has given advice actually in the room and willing to expand on that.
I think probably we ought to be coming up to making a decision on this issue.
We've gone round and round that quite small circle for some time.
And I'm not sure that we have a consensus on the committee on that particular stance.
Councillor Plummer. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Can I ask, when you did this transport assessment,
were we not signed that was any traffic coming out of this site at the moment because it's redundant?
Or did you allow for whatever movement would have come out of that?
And also, we're talking about all the transport that's coming from littles, which goes there at the moment.
So logically, that's in town anyway. So logically, what I'm trying to get at is,
are we trying to make a mountain out of a molehill that traffic is already in the town, but it's just moving to a different area?
You know where I'm coming from. And also from a highways point of view, that's just a comment.
The bus stop, the other side, I think, highways own enough land to put a little labor in there,
which then would stop the traffic having to get behind it. No? You don't think so? No. Sorry? Okay.
I'll leave it at that.
I was just to clarify, it's not our assessment. We assess, obviously, what the applicant, it's the transport's concerned.
It's the applicant's transport's consultant that obviously does the donkey work and goes through that assessment process.
We obviously look at that in detail and form an opinion on that.
In terms of, obviously, you're right. It's reasonable to assume those people from Deerham, who live in Deerham itself,
and currently travel through the junction, to have a land junction, to get to Little, will no, obviously, no longer need to do that.
But equally, as, because obviously, they don't need to go through to have a land junction, because they'll board E.B. and Deerham,
and they'll turn left into the Little and right out. But equally, there are people that currently come from the A47 direction
from other directions that we'll need and now go through the seven land junction.
But that's all been picked up and assessed in the TA.
OK, we're coming to the end. My own view, which you know I try not to get too carried away, because we could go all over the place.
But if we were taking shoppers into that site, Little's new shoppers into that site, we've got to go into establish a fairly decent filter lane,
sit there with your indicator. It doesn't take much for someone just to go, you go across in front of me. We can get them in, we can get them stacked,
we can get them happy shopping. I think the problem is getting them out.
Now, the problem getting them out is not even getting them out to turn left, because I think they can do that.
The problem is turning right. And what we're going to do there, we're not going to, anything at all,
we're not helping the traffic situation at all, which everyone has admitted.
So Councillor BAMBRIDGE said we're going round and round in a circle, so I'm trying to clarify everything that everyone else has said.
But I think what we'll end up with the situation is if we had Councillor ATALL's lovely roundabout,
which I gather you mean at the railway tavern, do you? Yeah.
Then people would turn left out of the new little site, round the roundabout and go back into town, because that's what I would do.
But we may be in a situation where people will come out of there and turn left,
and go right down to the Tesco roundabout where they used to go a little and turn around and go back into town.
So there is a way round it. It's not appropriate, but it's probably going to be the better thing than trying to sit there to turn right to come out.
So I'm not saying we should say agree the application because we're accepting that it's faulty,
but I don't think it's ever going to be any better.
And the traffic we're not helping at all, we're not building a flyover or anything else,
we're just trying to reestablish a business use on that site,
which previously probably didn't have much, even though it was a car sales,
and car works probably didn't have as much as what this mini supermarket type thing is going to create.
So I hope I'm not muddling it, but I'm just trying to say there are options,
and we may end up in a situation where that is what happens with it when it's fully operational,
because it's not going to suddenly get a set of traffic lights grow there.
OK, so that's where we're going with it.
No, don't pull face it like that because I'm not trying to muddle it.
I'm trying to say this is where I'm feeling, and I'm feeling the same as everyone else feels,
that that is one of our problems.
I've opened up a can of worms and no one have.
Good morning, Ken Zantro will make me feel bad.
Thank you for trying to stay at the committee.
I'm not.
But what you're essentially suggesting is,
as the chairman of this planning committee, yep, you knew it,
as you're suggesting that, yeah, we can see it's got to be a problem,
but the best thing we can do possibly is people are going to have to turn left,
go half a mile down the road, turn around Tesco, round a boat,
which is already chaos on certain days of the week, trying to get round that,
and then happen to go all the way back up to the town.
Is that really what we're saying?
Because that's what you're saying is going to be the answer,
because anybody wants to turn right out of the site.
That is the problem.
You are right to say that getting into the site really isn't the problem.
Getting out of the site is going to be a big problem.
Any traffic that wants to turn right and go up to the Lin Hill roundabout,
that's for the birds.
That is difficult getting out of there now.
No one's dared to say that.
No one has dared to say that.
I am saying that because I'm someone that does shop from time to time in Durham,
and I spend a lot of time in Durham.
And I'm being put in my common sense head on.
But I'm not saying that we do not need a store there.
I'm saying that whatever we do, we're not going to make it better.
Even if we were looking to building, I don't know, a sports shop
which sells all the sporting gear that would have people coming and going.
We'd still have a problem turning right.
There's a problem turning right there now, and we haven't got an operation.
We've got Halfords.
Yeah, but just to make my final, this is my final point,
comes back to cumulative impact.
We have already heard from the technical expert that this is going to increase
traffic coming out of that junction by virtue of the fact we're putting a retail unit on it.
We are saying, I think we're all agreeing that that's good that little want to invest.
We're not anti-business here.
We can see the benefits of it.
The problem is, and you've just spectacularly coloured a picture for us,
that that will happen, that we will have traffic, will have to turn left.
They've got no way of turning around at Tavern Lane roundabout.
They'll end up going down a Tesco roundabout to come back if they want to get back up to Lynn Hill.
That's going to create additional traffic on them junctions.
I know I'm not going to get around the much promised roundabout on Tavern Lane junction.
I know we're not going to get that.
We were promised that before, with all the other developments,
and it just didn't happen, it got pulled from under us.
All I'm saying is, cumulative impact, I don't believe we've properly looked at
what the impact, particularly turning right out of that site, is going to be.
We haven't really got any mitigation measures for it, have we?
We're increasing the traffic, but we haven't put, we've got no way of mitigating,
and that time turned right out of that site.
The fact that you have trouble getting out of there now, yes, so acknowledge that,
because there are existing retail units, but this is adding to it.
We will increase the traffic, cumulative impact.
That's all I'm saying.
That's why I suggested probably getting some advice.
I think, again, I'd question what the cumulative impact is with,
because this is the development.
In order for there to be cumulative impact, there has to be multiple developments
coming additionally into the network to create an issue.
What you can't consider is the issue already in the network.
You can only consider what this development is creating.
In order for there to be a cumulative impact,
there'd have to be multiple developments coming into the network.
Also, you've got two lanes coming out of the store, so you can go left,
and you can go right, and you can sit adjacent to each other.
Also, if you're queuing in the store to come out,
you're not creating an impact on the highway network,
you're creating an impact queuing into the store.
It's you idling as a customer, waiting to get out in the network.
It's not creating an impact on the road, because you're waiting within the store car park.
You're not further delaying that.
Also, the store is in operation up.
There will be customers coming from deer room through the Yaxam Road,
up to the tavern lane, and into the store at Tesco's,
at here, at the industrial state, and going back through that network.
You've got to take into account the people that are already emanating
from the town itself up to tavern lane, and they won't be going as far.
That will be taking pressure off the tavern lane.
I know that the Lidl store itself did a very extensive shoppers consultation
with people within the town to find out their shopping needs
and where they travel from.
In order to consider cumulative development,
there has to be another development to consider it again.
We all appreciate, and John's giving you the figures,
you know, about the percentage impact increase that this store is going to create
in this network in itself.
So we all appreciate that there is congestion in deer room.
What we can't use is this application to solve those congestion issues
that already exist.
Briefly, Councillor, at all, if you wish.
I appreciate everything you say, Rebecca.
I appreciate what you're saying that there may be traffic travelling
from Linhill roundabout near the BP garage down through tavern lane junction
to get to the existing little store.
But the thing is, they don't then have to try and set it a junction
to turn right to come out of the site to get back up to the Linhill roundabout.
That's my point.
That's the point that was so eloquently laid out by our chairman.
The difficulty here will be turning right out of the site.
We are increasing the traffic flow that will be coming from that junction
from the retail side, trying to get out of that junction and turn right.
That is a significant problem.
Nothing I have seen on any of these plans,
or we haven't put anything in place.
Basically, we're saying we're going to rely on a good wheel of motorists
to delay each other out and turn right while you've got traffic coming from the left.
That to me is not properly assessed.
I'm sorry, sir, but I think this has not been properly assessed.
Much more needs to be done on that specific junction to take account
of the increase in the traffic.
Any of those shoppers that are going to little at the moment,
yes, you're going to get shoppers come from the Linhill roundabout direction,
but a lot of those shoppers come off the A47.
I think we need to be careful between what is an inconvenience
for someone getting out of a right-hand turn lane
to what is a safety impact on the highway network.
I think we just need to be really careful that, yes,
I appreciate it might be difficult to turn right out of that junction,
but is it a material planning consideration that it's inconvenient
that you have gone and done your shop and now you can't turn right
and go quickly in the direction you want to go in?
Or is there an impact on highway safety there?
Councillor Taylor, please.
Sorry, can you just please go back?
Did you say that when the plan becomes more detailed,
there would be a yellow hatched box at that junction,
which would then aid people turning right?
Sorry, yes, what I said, yes.
So, just go back one step.
The reason there are two lanes going out in the site is precisely
some of the, to address the best mitigation the applicant can provide
in terms of providing that right turn, which might be more slow
than the left turn out, so that's why we ask for that.
But yes, you're right.
In my dialogue with Tony Needham at the Town Council through the LPA,
I've committed, yes, when it gets, if and when,
it gets a detailed design stage, we'll look at those kind of lining,
measures the yellow box, the keep clear markings for,
to ensure in queuing times that the crossing isn't blocked,
those kind of things.
So, yes, you're right.
We can do that, and that's something we've committed to.
Councillor interjecting.
Again, please.
Question for the solution, for me.
Would it be fair of us, if we wanted to as a committee,
to say that we wanted to see a little bit more technical detail?
You talked about, yes, we might put yellow boxes in, but we aren't sure.
Having been bitten before about the roundabout,
I'm just wondering whether it's possible to have a little bit more detail
of exactly how you're going to filter the traffic in and out of the site.
Bear in mind, looking at the paperwork that I read,
cyclists, the best that a cyclist is going to do to turn right,
is it says in their belief, a cyclist's way.
If they're minded to turn right out of the site,
the best they might get or achieve is they'll have to walk across to the
centre island, pedestrian centre island that's proposed,
and then go across to the other side of the road that way.
I don't seem incredibly safe to me.
I'm just wondering, would it be right of us to say,
we would like to see a bit more detail to satisfy ourselves
of exactly how you proposed, particularly turning right out of the site?
I don't think that's an unreasonable request, but I'll defer to you.
Councillor, if you feel you need that detail in order to make that determination,
then the request is fair.
Well, just to try and bring this to head,
can I make a proposal that the applications deferred subject to some,
we require some additional information,
particularly in relation to turning right out of the site to satisfy ourselves,
that the impacts won't be severe.
Would that be fair? I'll propose that.
Do I have a seconder for that, please?
Councillor CLARK, seconded that.
So it's deferred this for further information with regards to the turning
and exits and entrance to the site,
an introduction of possibility of yellow hatched areas.
Could I have a show of hands that we defer the item, please?
Two.
And those against deferring?
Any abstentions? No, not abstentions.
Okay, with that in mind, oh, sorry, Councillor Taylor.
Thank you.
My question was,
commitments have already been made to the town or the parish council
in respect of the yellow hatching.
To close this up, could we not just say,
well, the commitments have already been made,
but we'll include it as a condition to mitigate some of those risks and issues
that we're as a committee feeling that there are,
and hopefully can then move forward.
Okay, we'll condition that. That's fine.
Okay, so, wow, you can't say we haven't exercised this one.
So, with reference to item 8A,
3PL 2020-2020-0590,
Voll format endearum,
your officer's recommendation is one of approval.
Could I have a show of hands, please?
And those against?
Two.
Okay, this item is approved.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
We are going to break for a very late coffee.
We're just going to have 10 minutes.
Starting by that clock there at 25-2.
Thank you.
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
Okay, ladies, gentlemen, thank you very much.
We're back in operation again.
We will wait until Council Banbridge has sat down, okay, we'll carry on instead.
So we're moving to item 9A and 9B to taking them together.
That's 3PL 2020-2022 and 3PL 2022-1208 and that's at Billingford.
And our speakers on this one, I've got Keith Grudgington, a Billingford parish council.
Mr. and Mrs. Dawson, who are objectors, Mr. Dawson is speaking.
And Joanne Penil, who's the applicant.
If you'd like to come sit on the right hand side, please.
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
[BLANKAUDIO]
Okay, guys.
[BLANKAUDIO]
Don't worry about that, they are cardboard, they would have slid around, but if you're happy,
I was so happy, everybody.
Okay, fine.
Over to you then, please, Will.
Thank you. So we have two reserved matters applications at Land South of Old Bell's Farm, Road, Billingford. For context, outline permission was granted in November 2019 for two detached dwellings on site, with all matters reserved apart for access, which was agreed at the outline stage. The principle of residential development on this site has therefore been established with matters of layouts, appearance, scale and landscaping to be considered through this application. There's plot two, and there's a location plan for application zero, two, seven, two, slash D known as plot one. Here's the site in relation to the settlement. And there's the site in the wider context. As you can see, it's well set back from the public realm and street scene, approximately 85 metres from the highway, set within thick vegetation in Woodland. And there's a plot plan showing both plots as proposed, so the two smaller buildings just to the north of the proposed dwellings are the proposed cart lodges. These are the proposed elevations, and they're the same for both dwellings. This application is for reserved matters, and as such, details of the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are included. The proposed dwelling will consist of four bedrooms, with the fourth bedroom being a bedroom slash study, a large living area and dining space, as well as an enclosed balcony. And the development also proposes an upside down living arrangement with the accommodation at ground level and the living area on the first floor. There are a variety of dwelling styles within Billingford that appear to have been developed across different periods, but generally they have a rural aesthetic and character. The application site comprises a lush, tree covered and rural environment, including the existing barns, given their agricultural nature. The site is predominantly enclosed by hedging and woodland areas, approximately 80 metres from Old Bell's farm to the north, with mature boundary screening. The proposed pilot of materials comprised blue engineering brickwork, flint infill, zinc-cladding, natural timberboarding and sheet metal roofing. It is considered the development proposes a well-detailed contemporary interpretation of an agricultural building with simple elevations and a mix of modern and traditional materials providing visual interest. The design evidently takes inspiration from its immediate and wider surrounding areas of the Sylvan character and nursery barn situation on the site for demolishment. The site, the simple facades and pallet integrates well with the surrounding rural landscape and set back verdant nature of the site. The proposed buildings would display a roar of vernacular that aesthetically would be in keeping with the modern additions within the surrounding area. Its height and massing would also be appropriate in relation to surrounding built form whilst the proposal would not appear cramped in its plot. A number of representations have been received locally, including those of the Lincoln Parish Council, pointing out that there are discrepancies with the proposal compared to the outline application. Comments state that permission for the plot was for two three-bedroom properties, or for bedroom houses. The proposal is bigger in scale and differing to design at permission. These comments are noted, however, the number of bedrooms will not agree to outline or the design and given such matters were not relevant to the outline application. A scale layout and appearance will never agree at the outline stage. Is the proposed floor plans? There are some site photos, so the existing nursery that was on the site. And then this is looking north towards Old Bell's farm, interlating the distance and virtual boundary screening and set back nature of the site. This is looking into the site. And again, looking back into the site with the barns and the existing access. And then this is the parking area for Old Bell's farm, including the boundary showing the boundary treatments. And again, looking back into the site. And then this is looking down from the access. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents regarding the development site's access plans, compared to those who agreed to outline. And that based on the current plans, it's believed that the repositioning of plot one access now encourages one the existing shared access way compared to the access-related permission granted outline. These comments are acknowledged and discussions have been held with the local highways authority. And as such, given the concerns raised, it would be beneficial for the access improvement drawing, including the outline consent form part of the current applications for the avoidance of damage for therefore form parts of the approved plans. And just to confirm, this application seeks reserved matters for approval for one, two dwellings following outline permission in 2019 for both plots. All matters were reserved except for access, which has already been approved. The application is considered to accord with the development plan for the reasons given above, and it is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and delegated authority being granted to resolve the matters with regards to nutrient neutrality. But just for an update on nutrient neutrality, we had a response from Natural England on Friday, raising no objection to the proposed mitigation scheme on the site. So that, yeah. Thank you. Terrific. Okay. I've got Keith Grudgington, please, Billingford Parish Council. Three minutes, I'll switch the microphone on. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to just state that the building in its current form, contrary to the document here, there is a loss of immunity on these properties. Can you hear me now? That contrary to what is set out in this policy document, there is indeed a loss of immunity, and the parish council do feel that these plans do fulfil of policies DC1 and CM03. There is concern that there will be light pollution, noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties. The light pollution in particular from the Fellows' windows, bearing in mind that there are six per property, and Fellows' windows by nature are normally considered an alternative to windows. The noise will be especially amplified from the balconies. Balconies being at a higher elevation, noise does travel. It is clear from the plans that there is a large dining and entertainment area, and it states in the south literature leading onto the balconies, and that in itself, as I mentioned, will cause noise and disturbance to neighbours. The balcony on Block 1 from the bedroom will be looking into the neighbouring property of Old Bell's farm, and the bearing in mind that the trees that you see are deciduous, so in the winter it will look directly into the property of Old Bell's farm. There is a noise increase from cars and other traffic, bearing in mind the access point is situated between the properties of Old Bell's farm and threshers, so again this will impact on neighbouring properties. There will be a loss of outlook, so the size of the property has to be taken into consideration, because these were previously trees and nature in a water meadow. There is over defellement. It is a four-bedroom property, waste in common with bearing food itself. These are built in what was wood, and as I mentioned, a water meadow. The balconies are definitely not in keeping with the character of the area, and we mentioned here about, I think in the description, about metal roofs, sink lagging. These are not in keeping with the character of the area. They are not basically complement or enhance the existing built-in fireman, which is contrary to GEN2 of the local plan. The original outline also didn't have cart lodges, but parking spaces, these are extra built-in materials, which means extra runoff, potentially in contravention to policy ENVO1 of the local plan. Also, I would just like to draw your attention to 2.8 of the policy here. I would challenge that, because to say that the number of bedrooms were not agreed at outline stage, given such matters were not relevant to the outline application, I would draw your attention to your meeting of the July 2022 paragraph 2.3, and I quote,
The proposed site plan submitted demonstrates that the two dwellings will be of a similar scale to the barns to be demolished.And that was in your meeting, as I say, of the July 2022 meeting. Whilst it is a brownfield site, I would also draw your attention that the nursery, in the description, the nursery, it was a small plant nursery, it wasn't a garden centre. The nursery building was replaced by houses in the late 1980s, and I just want to clarify, I make this perfectly clear to all of you. No cars were inconvenienced in neighbours, as no houses were built on the site near the nursery. The actual nursery was active and built in 1906. It ceased trading over 40-50 years ago. As I say, it wasn't a garden centre, it was a small plant nursery, and it wasn't actually on the site of Old Bell's farm itself. It was where the houses of Desjardt Few and the laurels were located. So to suggest that it was actually a busy plant centre full of cars, so it was very inconvenient in the neighbours, it's simply not true. Those houses were not there when the plant nursery were there, and the actual plant nursery wasn't where Old Bell's farm was. It's very easy to see. It's on your own Brooklyn website and other websites. So it's very easy for you to look it up. And I did notice that that wasn't picked up in the report either. Thank you very much. Thank you. That was just over five minutes. Obviously, there's two applications. I hope you were covering both of you. I hope that was covering both. You're happy that you've covered both. And we spent extending the time because of it being two separate applications. I'm not asking you to all do six minutes. If you can keep brief, it would be great, but you have up to six minutes. I should have said that to you, but I'm pretty sure someone knew it fired you anyway. If I can add one more at the end, if I may. Yeah, if I've been cheeky. Well, if I could just add it in quickly now, and then I'll be done. Because I understand your legal counsel, where I would just like to pick up on the policy here of 7.6, which did give me a little cause for concern, where you've mentioned in respect of any issues that would create with regards to land ownership and boundary disputes. Why is this noted? These are non-material planning considerations, and any disputes in respect of the land would be a reciprocal matter. Well, if I could just respond to that, which I do have here. To state these are a non-material planning consideration, and any disputes in respect of the land and your civil matter may also clarify for the avoidance of doubt that Brooklyn District Council are determining a planning application, and you have been advised of the situation regarding the land, particularly to do with the access point. So to say that is a civil matter, I would say you are determining a planning application based on the information you have been given. Thank you. OK, thank you. Before we proceed, I'll allow this to comment. Can you switch your mic? Oh, it might be a big pun. Sorry, I don't understand that point at all. So I'd be most grateful if you could explain. I'm totally lost. Sorry, to me, you're basically making a decision on a planning application where the information on the layout and the boundary is incorrect on one of the drawings. Now, even though it's being corrected, the case officer has mentioned that the original outline planning commission will be looked at for the avoidance of doubt but actually be considered as opposed to the second drawing that has been put forward. The fact that it's still in this document concerns me because it's almost like, well, it's not a problem. It's a civil matter when, in fact, to me, it is important because you're making a decision on a planning application, but your sample is a civil matter because there is some inaccurate information in some of the information that you have received regarding the drawings of the boundary to do with the access, which is actually owned by Old Bell's farm, not by the applicant. Yes, but if they can't implement the permission because there is some dispute as the ownership of the land, they can't implement the planning permission. It is a civil matter. But the land registry very clearly shows where the boundary lies. We shall agree to disagree. I'm not going to say, I'm not going to say what I was going to say because I've said enough today. I know what I'd love to say to highlight who I'm not going to. OK, I've got Mr Dawson, please, and again, so it's a double application. So if you wish to cover off both applications in your statements and then I'll give you up to six minutes. If you're 2.5, that would be lovely. Thank you. I had prepared separate comments thinking it would be separate. I think it was still good morning. Thank you to the community for the opportunity to speak on the planning application. There are two main points we'd like to raise. First with regards to policy comm 03, we respectfully disagree with the reports assertion that the plans are compliant. The reverse living arrangements, expansive glazed gable end and balcony combined to have what we use a detrimental impact on residential immunity. It paragraph 3.3 of the report that outlines some of the concerns, rage and consultation and offers two mitigations. First, the presence of a mature true line providing screening. I'm not sure there was an additional photo. So it's going to be seen in hope for this picture. The true lining question provides no effective screening at first full or height due to historical tree maintenance. This was raised during the consultation process, but seems to have been overlooked in the report. It was. So you can see the trees have been made, they've been crown lifted. So there really isn't any foliage coverage at first full or height. The second mitigation is the distance to neighbouring house buildings. We feel this appears to have ignored the issues of privacy, light and noise disturbance the neighbours using their gardens. Whilst we acknowledge that there are gradations of privacy with respect to comm 03. To say there's no significant adverse loss of residential amenities simply because the gardens are long seems dismissive. Currently, neighbouring properties enjoyed privacy when using their whole gardens. And this will be significantly impacted by the overlooking nature of the gable windows and the balcony. Light and noise disturbance will also be amplified by the reverse living arrangements. And given these points, a loss in residential immunity for those neighbouring properties seems indisputable. And as mentioned, we don't believe the plans include any effective mitigations. So in regards to this point, given these points, we would request that the balcony is not be permitted on the north elevation. And that windows on that elevation are smaller to be in keeping with surrounding properties and more consistent with previous planning permissions and conditions granted in the village. The second point concerns policies on your EMV06 and comm 03 and relates to the discussion in paragraphs. 4.3 and 4.4 of the report. Our concern here is that the current plans show that the driveway for plot one now being on top of an existing tree line. So we have another image. So, yes, can be seen from the expert on the plan, which on the right, it's the cluster of trees, sort of the top right hand side. Yeah, the horizontal lines. It's towards us. Yeah, there. So, yeah, so you can see they're shown on the driveway that servicing plot one. Yeah, how there's no explicit mention of needing to remove around 20 trees and the aforementioned true report classifies them as category B, I suitable for attention. M06 states that trees should be retained as part of the green infrastructure network. And the trees also provide the only screening on this side of the development site. And their removal would create a loss of residential amenity country to call M03 as well as lessening the stated verdict and still the nature of the development site. The specified mitigation in the report relates to conditions made outlined stage, but for the opposite end of the access way, which seems irrelevant to these accepted concerns. We therefore believe is appropriate to request additional conditions or TPOs for the duration of the bill to protect these trees from removal and ensure that the required policies can be complied. And that makes it talking about plot one. Quickly move on to plot two. Given the self-billed conditions applied at outlined stage, we're surprised to see no reference to them in the report, despite being raised during the consultation. As owned as the shared access way, we believe we have an interest in the associate S106 agreement. We therefore once again seek confirmation from Breckland that they have performed due diligence and fulfilled their obligations as per the S106 deed. Given the plot's design is largely a mirror of plot one, the concerns with this planning application are similar. The two main points would like to raise with regards to policy comm 03. Again, we did disagree with the report's assertion that the plans are compliant. The reverse living arrangements and expansive gavel glazed end combined to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity in paragraph 3.2 of this planning report. Again, outlines some concerns raised and offers the full implications. Again, firstly, the distance to neighbouring house buildings. So in this case, the report appears to have conflated neighbouring properties. And in doing so discounted, the concerns raised by plots most immediate neighbours that are Breckland-filled and thrashers. It appears to ignore the issues of privacy, light and noise disturbance from neighbours using their gardens. Currently, neighbouring properties enjoy privacy using their whole gardens and this would be significantly impacted by the overlooking nature of the gavel windows and the reverse living arrangements. Light and noise disturbance again will be amplified by the reverse living arrangements. And again, given these points, we would say there's no significant adverse loss of residential amenity simply because of the neighbouring gardens are of a good size is dismissive. The second state of mitigation is the presence of a mature tree line providing screening. So, we're talking about that same change of trees, although in the first instance, whilst not reflected in the tree port, the trees on the western boundary of the access way have already been removed by the previous owner, thus leaving Breckland-filled. With no screening in that area. And then the tree line on the plots side of the northern boundary, so that's the ones we were talking about previously. Indeed, mature and would offer very effective screening, but not if they're removed in order to accommodate plot ones driveway. And so, similarly, really, what we're asking is similar conditions with regards to. And then just finally, given the development site is surrounded by private gardens, we would request a condition for adherence to Breckland's acceptable working hours policy. So, thank you. Okay, join panels, please, the applicant, and you have six minutes. You need to turn your microphone on. Yeah, sure. Okay, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. So, I just want to talk about the history. So, as will explained, previously owner applied for planning in 2018. The report from the planning website states is for two detached houses. On the 19th of November, 2018, Billingford Parish Council posted that they had no objections to the development. Obviously, it was for two houses. The site itself. Sorry, could we go back to the site photos, please. So, this is a site itself. As you can see, it's a beautiful wooden site. There's a tree lined avenue. There are palms. There is a water meadow. There is an orchard. And, obviously, then you have the build site as well, which is north of the site. This is the build site here. There was no intention to remove very, very few trees, if we're allowed to. So, it's a beautiful setting. You know, the house was designed to be in the woods. So, our vision was in 2020 during COVID, the pandemic, we decided to move home to be near our parents and our families to help us support them. In their latter years. We fell in love with the site, and it's a included location, magical enchanted woodland, water meadow and orchards. The moment we stepped foot on the site, we felt it would be our forever home. Prior to purchasing the site in 2021, we were in contact with Rebecca for her advice on the design. This continued during '21 and '22, with Will and Rebecca regards the design. The design had been changed completely to fit in with what the planners requested. The balcony, which was referred to overlooking Old Bell's farm, was actually on the original drawing. We actually changed that completely, and we removed that balcony. So, there is no balcony to the north of the property. There was only one balcony to the south of the property. It's a balcony terrace, it has screening at the sides, and it overlooks all of the woodland. The woodland runs for around 40 metres in length, and then beyond the woodland, there is a water meadow, which is approximately 80 metres. We have had no objections from the east or the west neighbours or the south neighbours on any noise or pollution that potentially the objecters are talking about. The aspects of the property that we changed, we worked with the planners, so the aspects were to remove the front balcony, but timber screening on the southern balcony that overlooks the woodland at Flintwork to the property. So, if we look at the design now, please. So, the design that we'll show you, it's a contemporary barn-style home, it's set in spacious grounds, surrounded by mature trees, with a capturing view of the tree tops and landscape beyond. A natural palette of materials, agricultural style, with natural timber boarding and a metal roof. This is the design here. The windows on the side of the property look west, and just the two windows look east, which would then overlook the second plot. The accommodation is designed as a barn-style accommodation. It's got large scale glazing, open plan living space with vaulted ceilings to the first floor, and timber and agricultural style planning. If you could just show the other houses now, we'll please in the area. So, these are the houses that are within a very close proximity of the site, so this particular property here is 0.2 of a mile away. It overlooks the church in Billingford, and it was granted planning permission in 2019, I believe. So, as you can see, it's a timber property, again, naturally blending into the landscape. If you go to the next one, please, well. This is another property, which is 0.9 of a mile away. As you can see, again, it's the barn-style modern property with cladding. Obviously, this property does have render on which we're not intending to do because of the tree location and obviously the maintenance that's involved. So, again, it's a similar style property with the gable end glazing. Next property, please, well. This property here, again, it's a barn which has been converted. It's 0.1 from the site. Again, it's on Bintry Road overlooking the church. As you can see, this property is a barn-style with a triple garage, a double garage, cart shed, and a further double garage. Was there any more? Yeah, one more, sorry. One more. Yeah, this property here was recently had planning permission granted in 2021. It's King's Head Farm Barns in North Elmer. It's 1.9 miles from the site. And as you can see, this is a traditional barn. Have you got the other photograph? Well, please, with the colors on. Yeah, so, again, natural palette of colors and a modern barn-style home. So, thank you all for listening. If you do have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you'd like to switch your microphone off for us, please. Thank you. Okay, it's open to questions from members. Councillor Caibert, please. Thank you. Can I ask the officer if the design has been assessed against the new Breckland design guide, in particular, the percentage glazing on a north-facing elevation? Thank you. Yes, that was taken into consideration because the application was prior to the adoption of the design guide, and then we had regard to that during the determination of the application. Anyone else wishing to catch that or please? Can I just ask the officers, would it be possible to place a condition on here about the design of any external lighting, so that we could ensure that we're happy with the design bearing in mind the woodland setting? Yep, that's fine. Anyone else wishing to speak? No, okay. I'm going to have to have two votes off you. I know that sounds odd, but there are two separate applications. One on the left and one on the right. So, for Billingford, we've got 3PL 2020 to 0272D. The officer recommendation is one of approval. Can I have a show of hands, please? That's unanimous. Okay, this item is passed. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Okay, moving swiftly on to East Tudnam. Through PL 20231211F, I've got Chris Rose of the Parrish Council. Peter Dean, or Pete Dean, who's an objector and James Platt, who's the agent. If you'd like to come sit on the right hand side, please? Ten side, please? A bit like having a band without a drummer at the moment, so I've got Chris, Pete and James, who have I miss? Sorry? Where's he gone then? Got good. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Taylor. Thank you, Councillor Taylor. It's an echo in here, isn't it? Sorry about this, guys. We'll get there in a second. Pounding. Oh. No, I didn't. You've said it there, and it's recorded at the moment as well. Okay. Oh, over to you then, please, Barbara. Thank you, Chairman. So we have here a full planning application for development of 19 dwellings, garbage, open space, access, highways, improvements, drainage, and other associated works and infrastructure, and the continued use of East Tundham recreation ground for recreational purposes. And you can see the sites identified there in the context of the village of East Tundham. Just by way of a quick update, I did receive an email from the agent yesterday, but it didn't contain any additional information which would overcome the reasons for refusal in the report. So this is the red line, and it includes, as you can see, land to the south, which is the existing recreation ground, and playground, because the application proposes to retain these in perpetuity by transferring it to the parish council, and just confirm that land is in the applicant's ownership. So the site comprises open grassland to the west, lies the recreation ground, and tennis courts with residential development. To the east and the south, you can see there's open countryside with the strong tree line forming a woodland belt along the eastern boundary. And within that, there's a public right of way, and running through the belt. To the north, there's an open tree area with all sense church within it, which is a listed building. And the site lies within the open countryside as identified within the local plan, because east Tundham does not have a settlement boundary. So I'll just take you through the development. So here you can see that the houses are confined to the eastern part of the site with the recreation ground retained to the west. And you can see they are frontage and also fronting the access road. The dwellings, which have got the little star, are the affordable housing. So there's a grip at the front and two at the rear. That's just a blown up version, so you can see it a bit better, but I'll come back to that. So just to give you a feel for the designs, three of the plots are bungalows. These are the ones to the north, plot 10, 11 and 12, plots 4 and 5. So these are, these semis are the affordables, again the affordables, the affordables. Plot 7 is to the site of the site and plot 1 is at the site frontage. So that's a double-fronted house because at face of the site, but also has an elevation to the road. That's a typical street scene, what they would look like. So the top one is facing Marshall Road, facing the road frontage. And the bottom one is facing the site, the road inside the site. So this is what the site looks like. So this is standing within the site looking at the rear boundary. So you can see the tree-lined boundary there. This is within the site looking at the eastern boundary, so that's the woodland belt. And that's the public right of way which runs within it. This is the road frontage. So you can see looking west and east. And you can see there the tree belt and the approach into the village and then the approach out of the village. And the right hand picture, you can see the mature hedge row, which I'll be referring to in my report, which fronts the site. And this again, as you come into the village, the 30 mile an hour limit as existing, which will be removed, which will be moved. And that's looking back out of the village. So if I can take you back to... So in terms of the principle of development, the main policy, the proposal needs to be considered against is policy HOU5. And the analysis is contained in my report in detail, but if I can just touch on it briefly, the policy allows for development in smaller villages and hamlets outside divine settlement boundaries. The starting point for HOU5 development is that it must be limited as in small scale. We consider this is not small scale being 19 dwellings. It does not amount to a sensitive infilling or rounding off. And it's also considered that it does not amount to a rounding off as it does not comprise the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed in such a way which will complete the local road pattern or define and complete the boundaries of the group. It would represent an outward extension of the settlement further east. So it feels to meet criteria 1 of policy HOU5 and my report sets out why it also feels to meet all the other three criteria. I'll just take you back to the picture so you can because I'm now going to talk about landscape impacts or just to help you visualize the impact. So the applicant did submit a landscape and visual impact assessment, which is considered within the officer report. However, the findings of that assessment are not accepted by officers. Views into the site are limited on approaching from the east because of the tree belt. But the site is highly visible at close range and is framed by the mature frontage hedge which makes a valuable contribution to the site's existing rural character and relationship to the wider countryside. The site is open land and does make a contribution to the transition from the surrounding countryside and the built form of the settlement. The existing settlement edge currently provides a natural and feathered edge to the settlement enabled by the unobtrusive and spacious character of existing development. This is recognized within the Breckland landscape and settlement character assessment of April 2022 which identifies agricultural villages such as East Tubnam are characterized by their relationship to the surrounding landscape. The dwellings on the site would appear dominant upon entry to the village and on leaving the village. The site is currently characterized by open verdant views of a significant tree belt. Neither does the presence of the dwellings adjoining the site to the west mean that development on the application site would be seen as a logical extension to the built form. The site as it is makes a valuable contribution to the transition of the village to the wider countryside beyond an urban estate built form of the scale proposed would appear in Congress. So by building on this site this open verdant settlement edge would be lost and in its place the new development would present a hard and urbanizing edge to the settlement. In terms of just take me back to the layout so you can visualize what I'm saying. It's considered also that the scale layout character and form proposed does not reflect high quality design and is not beautiful and does not reflect the local historic vernacular in terms of building styles as required by the landscape and character assessment. And also by the MPPF. The design approach is somewhat discordant and disjointed both in terms of the massing and relationship between buildings within the site and in relation to development outside of the site. As required by the Breckland design guide the proposed development has no regard to context and does not respond to positive aspects of local character. Therefore overall it's concluded that the development would result in significant and demonstrable harm on the landscape character of the area and the setting of the village. So it would conflict with policies in the local plan and the landscape character assessments and the Breckland design guide. For moving on to the open space provision no provision of public open space is proposed as required by our local plan policy. Because the applicant proposes that the existing recreation ground will provide public open space for future occupiers of the development. And the development would continue the use of this area for recreational purposes and the ownership transferred to the parish council. However this is considered to be an existing facility and the development would be expected to provide its own children's place be as an outdoor sport provision to comply with the policy. Not to rely on an existing provision. The parish council have also commented this effect acknowledging that this is not a new contribution and should not be included as such. The parish council have also stated that the tennis courts which are next to the site are in need of repair and improvements to the play area could include provision to cater for disabled children. The parish council have also commented that the gain and ownership of the recreation ground has no benefit to the community as it already exists. Therefore the proposal conflicts with policy ENV4 of the local plan in this regard. So looking at affordable housing a policy compliant provision of affordable housing is 25% as members know that and that equates to five dwellings. So on this site proposes to increase that to nine dwellings citing that that is a significant benefit of the proposal. However it's considered by officers that the over provision of four affordable homes in the form of three first homes is acknowledged to be a benefit which weighs in favour of the development. However it's not considered to be a significant benefit as it's not a significant over provision. Therefore we don't believe this outweighs the harm that this development will cause. So in terms of residential amenity, residential amenity in terms of gardens and relationships is generally two acceptable standards. In addition the impacts on the amenity of existing residents is considered acceptable. However there is a sewage pumping station adjacent to plot one you can see it to the north there. And that is within the 15 meter cord on sanitaire of plot one. So basically plot one's garden will be within the 15 meter cord on sanitaire where it's acknowledged that residents could experience impacts from noise odour from that facility. So therefore that's considered unacceptable. We're turning now to highways and access. So this is what we'll have to take place on the highway to accommodate the new access. So the applicant advises that the extent of the hedgerow to be removed to facilitate the feasibility supplies and the access will be 19.5 metres. With cutback being provided over the full site frontage to provide the required visibility supplies, road widening and two meter wide footpath along the site frontage to the south. This assumes that the hedgerow can grow a further 100 millimetres out from the cutback extent between the maintenance periods. Other off site highway works include the moving of the 30 miles in our speed limit sign eastwards to a position east of the new site access and works to remove the lay by which exists to the north of the corridor where it's present. And also provision of the pedestrian refuge crossing west of the site access. Following amendments by the applicant to address the highway authority concerns, the highway authority still remain concerned that the plans do not provide for pedestrian footway to the east of the site access to link up with the public right of way. And they say it's unacceptable to expect residents to cross and re-cross match your road to get to the footpath. It's also not been demonstrated that vehicles can manoeuvre out of the site without striking the proposed central refuge. Furthermore, as set out already, highways are not convinced that the off site highway works can be satisfactorily accommodated without required removal of much of the frontage hedge much more than what is stated than the 19 metres. So as it stands, the development proposed is not acceptable to the highway authority. The proposals therefore conflict with policy and are unacceptable in highway terms, highway safety terms. So moving now to flood risk and drainage, this is the drainage strategy. So the application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment, which was then amended to change the on site attenuation from a system which comprised two open attenuation basins. The surface water on site is proposed to be discharged via an existing pipe network into the water course at the eastern boundary. The drainage strategy is proposed to discharge at a restricted rate through a hydro break. The flood authority initially objected to the surface water strategy as there were several areas where suitable information was not provided. The applicant then fundamentally changed the strategy to propose a very large below ground storage crate so that plot seven has been reorientated and the garage moved. So it's at the bottom of the site you can see the blue area is the crate. So plot seven has had to be reorientated and the garage moved in order to accommodate the size of the crate required and encroaches by a large part into the garden of plot seven. So still the lead look of flood authority have objected as they wish to see an open surface water drainage system as was previously proposed. And they do not consider that below ground features are suitable, nor do they consider the evidence provided for the underground system is strong enough to beat to justify it. Therefore an acceptable surface water and fire water drainage strategy have not been submitted, so therefore that's contrary to policy. So back to the site plan. So looking at ecology, the applicant did submit a preliminary ecology appraisal. The county ecologist is satisfied that the long term management of the plantation woodland can be secured by condition. Incidentally that woodland was originally within the gardens and officers asked for it to be removed from gardens in order to safeguard its long term management. So whilst it's been demonstrated there's no harm to protected species or priority habitats on the site. There will however be harm to European sites in the forms of the recreational pressure as the GI Ram's payment mitigation has not been secured. So therefore it's contrary to policy and V2 of the local plan and also the conservation of habitats and species regulations. In terms of nutrient neutrality, the site does discharge into the natural England nutrient neutrality catchment and no mitigation has been provided, therefore an objection is raised on those grounds. In terms of trees and hedgerows, policy ENV6 of the local plan seeks to ensure that trees and hedgerows are protected from development impacts under protected throughout the duration of the development. Following initial objections, the plans were amended to remove the woodland belt from the private gardens and houses have been moved slightly further away from the woodland to prevent unacceptable levels of shading. The attenuation create has also been moved away from the tree belt. So the council's tree officer, his previous two concerns have been overcome, but he still is concerned about expansive removal of the frontage mature hedgerows and is of the view that that needs to be largely retained. And also of course the Breckland design guide also seeks to retain existing positive landscape featured on site, particularly those that support local character, existing biodiversity and protected species. Therefore this proposal is considered to be contrary to policies of the local plan and the Breckland design guide. In terms of heritage adverse impacts have been ruled out on the grade two listed assets, one of which is All Saints Church, so that's considered to be acceptable. So you'll see at the end of my report I've set out a planning balance which is quite detailed because the applicant relies on what they consider to be the benefits of the proposal which would outweigh all of these harms. So I've actually gone through each of those in turn to say why I don't feel that the benefits do outweigh the identified harms. I'll take you through them briefly because I think it's important. So the delivery of homes is a benefit, however the council has got a five year housing land supply and this is not an allocation. The revision of affordable housing above that which is policy compliant is a significant benefit, however there's no overriding reason why this development should be allowed in this unsustainable location. So that affordable homes can be provided in an unsustainable location in conflict with the plan led development system being delivered in more sustainable locations. That will consider that transfer of the recreation ground to the parish council in perpetuity is a significant benefit. However, as the recreation ground is already in existence and no further upgrades or open space is proposed, securing its availability and perpetuity is considered to be of limited benefit to outweigh the harm of unsustainable development as identified in my report. There's some economic benefit, but this is limited. The applicant considers that enhancement of the vitality of the community and connectivity improvements attract significant weight. This is also disputed as there's no improvements to connectivity for the settlement and the vitality of the community is already supported by allowing limited small scale growth of the settlement. Therefore, there's no reason why this development should be allowed to support the vitality of the community. Environmental benefits in the form of ecology and bad diversity net gain. However, I've identified environmental harm will occur and net gain is required to mitigate the impacts of any development. So this is not a reason to allow this development. It's also considered that the appreciation of the landscape feature of the woodland belt and the mature hedgerow will be lost. So in overall planning balance terms, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and supplementary planning guidance, including the Breckland design guide, and there's no material considerations which would outweigh that conflict. Thank you members. Thank you for that. We have Chris Ruse, please, of the Paris Council. Three minutes. Hi everyone. I'm here today to represent East London Paris Council. I'd like to summarize the views and thoughts of the Paris Council following numerous public meetings since the application was submitted. Including an extraordinary meeting held with village residents on Tuesday the 16th April to specifically discuss this application and the amendments. Paris Council agrees with the recommendation for refuse of this planning application. Not only does this planning application go against many local and national policy, but it will also have a distinct negative impact on the village that is not always apparent from the reports due to the local intricacies. It's these local issues that I'd like to bring to your attention today. The issue surrounding the playing field has been misrepresented in our view in the application. The playing field, the playground, has been held under the long lease for 40 years and is managed by a dedicated committee for it. It would not be appropriate for the Paris Council to own or manage the playing field, and it has been requested in the past that this has been taken out of the application. It does not represent a new immunity, it's merely a paperwork exercise. New estate development of this size, which would represent 16% growth of the village in one year, is in the Paris Council's view over development and clearly too big for the village. It's not rounding off or in fill, which would be more consistent with policy. The highways were proposed include the removal of the church parking lay by. This is a key resource used daily for parking for local footpaths as well as the nearby church, which has no parking on site. This loss of the local lay by will cause increased isolation to an already struggling church and create issues for those wishing to visit the cemetery, which has happened regularly. Also, highway improvements propose all to the rural character and feel of the village substantially. The highways' works are suitable for a town or a built barrier, but this will have a significant urbanising look as you enter and leave the village. East London is a small rural settlement with no village boundary. We don't feel it suitable for urban highway features, such as the islands proposed. On a similar note, the loss of significant portion of mature hedgeray will further exacerbate the issue and change the look, character and feel, not to mention the biodiversity impact. Finally, one of the key concerns for many residents is the overall impact on the look and feel of the landscape of our village. The proposed site is undeveloped land on the edge of the village and plays a key role in helping the village have the real feel that it does. A new estate-sized development would be very prominent on the landscape and cause significant impact to the village. The parish council in the village's hall is not against the building of new homes. Indeed, a large amount of development up over affordable homes, unaccepted to homes, as happened in recent years, without objection. East London already has 25% social housing as a mix. These developments in the past have been much more in scale, utilising old disused buildings or infill garden plots. Past developments have been natural organic growth. It's not large-scale estate development on the fringes of a small village. Thank you. Thank you. We've got PD now, please. And you have three minutes, so if you'd like to switch the other mind, I can switch yours on. Thank you. And thank you also for my first time attending this kind of thing that's been fascinating. Thank you. Last Friday, approximately quarter past nine, a gentleman died in the road traffic accident, some 200 metres from this site. That's something that we need to be really aware of, because all ready, magical road has been used as a rat run. If we keep adding more traffic, which this location would do, we're going to make more problems, particularly as this would involve younger people because of families, etc. I think it's also really key that the, that edge of the village is a very, very popular walk. And at the moment, you can actually see the birds, you can see the deer for God's sake, but you can't see too many houses, which is the nature of the household. Finally, a question for you, ladies and gentlemen, because I'm new to this, I note that this original application was deferred from March, which allowed the applicants to make some rudimentary changes to satisfy some of the objections raised in the initial thing. What reassurances can we have that has this hopefully will be rejected for the exact reasons. I think I counted 17 breaches of the Brecklin Council guide in your masterful appracement. How do we make sure that this doesn't come back in six months time, 12 months time, because I don't have that much time in my life. Thank you. OK, thank you. Two issues there, but I'll let them run. James Platt, please, who's the agent? Can I just hit as a point of time? Yes, sorry. Is the location of the public right away that has been shown to be through the woodland? That's incorrect. There is. There is the public right away. Sorry, just to be clear about this, the official line of the public right away is on the other side of the ditch. At the moment, there is a path that is walked and it trespassed on its private land, and it's not an official line. Isn't the staff has been used for 20, 30 years? I believe actually there is a public signpost next to it. It's fine with that. OK, but before we proceed then, would they want too much detail? I would ask members to exclude from their ideas that the public path actually runs through the trees. It may run beside a ditch or whatever, but there is a public path there, the exact location. I don't want you to make that part of your decision-making. Thank you. Good afternoon, members. I will focus on the reasons for fusal taking these in reverse order. Firstly, the applicant has submitted draft heads of terms and is willing to progress a 6106 to secure the necessary planning obligations. Secondly, the applicant has agreed to pay a contribution toward G.I. Rams. In regard to neutral neutrality, an assessment supports the application based upon pre-application discussions with Anglin Water, which confirm the sewage treatment work serving development discharged outside of the neutral neutrality catchment. Contradicting their previous advice, Anglin Water now states that the development discharges within the catchment. To date, no explanation has been offered by Anglin Water. The applicant remains willing to explore opportunities for mitigation to ensure the development is neutral. Thirdly, the written response provided by the applicant's drainage consultant is considered to address the matters raised by the Lee Local Flood Authority. As requested by Anglin Water, our diversion route is available to the north of plot 1 to ensure the sewer connection lies outside the boundaries of the plot. Accordingly, an acceptable scheme of surface and foul water drainage can be provided. Fourthly, the section of hedgerow to be removed to facilitate the access has been confirmed by the applicant's traffic consultant, and additional commentary regarding its retention has also been provided by the applicant's arborist. The application demonstrates that the frontage hedge will be larger retained. Fifthly, the written response provided by the applicant's traffic consultant is considered to address the matters previously raised by the High Authority. Sixthly, the application demonstrates that the development accommodates a 15-metre caught on sanitary for the sewage pumping station. Seventhly, the application proposes to transfer the recreation ground to the parish council, an alternative and appropriate community organisation. A final financial contribution for its future management maintenance is also proposed. In the adjacency of the recreation ground, the convenient access for future occupiers. The application provides adequate open space, sport and recreation to serve the needs of the development. Eighthly, the application is supported by a landscape and visual assessment that praises the visual impact to the development based upon a total of 14 viewpoints. The assessment demonstrates the visual impact to the development on the wider landscape will be negligible. Within the immediacy of the site, the visual impact that the development will be mitigated by vegetation existing development, including modern housing at Primrose Way. The highway works will have an negligible impact, being seen in the context of the existing carriageway, footway, lay by road signage and bus shelter. Regarding the built form of East Tudnam, a state-scale development situated to the west of the site at Tilney Road and Ball Close, and clearly contributes to the character of the village. The proposed dwellings themselves are comparable in styles the house is recently constructed by the applicant, the east of Hall Lane. In that instance, the council concluded that the design of the dwellings was high quality and used to pallet materials and keeping with the wider area. Ninthly, the conflict alleged in respect to policy HOU5 would not constitute a direct conflict with policy Gen O1. Equally, no explanation has been offered regarding the development's alleged conflict with the MPPF in this regard. Should conflict with policy HOU5 be identified, we consider that such policy conflict is outweighed by the significant benefits of the development, including the delivery of nine affordable dwellings and the transfer the ownership of the recreation ground. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the application. Thank you. It's open to questions from members. Anyone wishing to comment or ask a question? There's a plumber. Thank you, Mr Chairman. You are aware that I'm ward rep for this village. When it first was talked about, I was quite excited because I thought we were going to get some affordable housing. I was quite happy about that. But I've realised from residents that that's not what they want, so I can't support this application for that reason, so I'll just let you know that. Thank you. Anyone wishing to ask questions at all? Councillor Bairmbridge? Thank you, Chairman. I will declare I do live within about a mile and a half of this village, but not directly connected to the site in any way. I have a couple of questions, really. I think probably the officer in light of what we've got before us has made the right recommendation. But I'm surprised there was no consideration given to the road improvements, if we can call on that, that are happening in the area with the A-47, which will substantially alter the manner, I think, in which we view East Tud and the man indeed, other villages, the one I live in, in hockering and North Tud and so on along the road. So I think that's important, and I don't know whether we gave any consideration to that. The announcement was made last week, I think, that it is now going ahead, so therefore I think it's important, although I don't think it should affect your recommendation on this application, and it won't affect my support of that. And the other thing is, I'm quite surprised that the mitigation for surface water that's been made in the form of these cages, when you're only within a few hundred metres of a main river where that could have been dealt with much more adequately and with much less danger to affecting other properties in the area. So that was more a statement than a question, I apologise for that, Chairman, but I thought those things were bringing up. I think, yeah, the A-47 tooling can be a material planning consideration and other material planning consideration, I think important here is the policy context. So certainly the A-47 tooling and how we address that and those villages that you mentioned in the emerging local plan will certainly be relevant in the policy context, but I think the current policy context is that you need to demonstrate that it's rounding off or in fill. And the important part of that policy is what Barbara highlighted is that that develop needs to be limited and we don't consider as officers that the development proposed today is limited. Any other questions from members? No. Okay. Thank you. So in this item at East Tudnam 3PL 2023 1211 in full format, your officers recommendation is one of refusal, a couple of hands, please. Yeah, unanimous. Thank you. This item is refused. Thank you. Thanks for your time. We've got one now at Swaffam item 9D, which is 3PL 2023 0441 in full application, and I have Ian Hill, the agent. They're just outside. Oh, is he? Yeah. No, I'm not. Okay. Ian, nice to see you. Oh, no, it's not here. Oh, he's coming. I said Ian's coming and you walked in the door. Right. No, he's not. He's gone quite too far. He's just gone too far. No, he's coming in there. Ian, Ian, Ian. He's just gone too far. Oh, it's the excitement's got too much for him. Okay. Right. Talk among yourselves. Can't start without him here. Oh, you're supporting him. Take a seat. I don't want no one to applaud him as he walks in the room. No, no. He's not subject to the interference that we give members. Yeah, can we have your name, sir? That's your support. Mike Lloyd. Mike Lloyd, that's all we needed. Ian, good to see you, sir. We have been talking about you. Okay, over to you then, please, Chris. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. So, yeah, down to item nine, Dean Swaffen. So, this was, I was first kind of considered by the council getting in for seven years ago, yeah, two thousand and fifteen, sixteen times, so a bit bit longer. It's now an allocated site within the current local plan, but obviously, a number of members are new. So, I just run through the site in board context in a moment, but, yeah, just to introduce the application. It's a full application seeking consent for 150 houses with associated highways and landscaping works, so we can kind of see the broad context of the site there, so it sits on the north western, north eastern, sorry, edge of the town. The A-47 runs due north. Let me just catch up with it. So, yeah, in terms of the application and site, before you edged in red here, so the A-47 is literally just there. Again, the boot for the town due southwest. We've got allotments, immediately north of the site, just beyond the raised formal railway line, and again, open fields due southeast, residential property there, just to the east. Long fields in Orford Road sit due southwest, so long field single story, two stories at Orford Road. Sorry, just another thing to note, it catches up. One aspect to sound the report, there are a number of rights of way that run within the vicinity of the site, so there's actually links along the western boundary that link past the allotments into the residential area here, and also wider links that loop along here to the brighter way here, are restricted by the way here and run through through the edge of the town open countryside here, but also linked to an orange road which sits beyond this image here, so some good links around the site. So, I mentioned just now in terms of where the site sits within the local plan, so the allocation there, you can clearly see in purple other allocations that are on site at the moment. We have our current applications here as well, so there's the town centre, various services and amenities within that, and again you can see the A47 that runs there, junction just there to the north of the site. So, yeah, a bit more on immediate context of touch done, so again open site, I'll move on to the photos in a moment, the allotments you can clearly see there, the built form again, just to the west and southwest, just here, and there's the Orford Road Park play area, there's infant provision and junior equipment just here, I'll show you some images in a moment. So, photographs, spool road here, so the site's just on the left beyond the bridge, from a bridge here, so we're looking northeast, entrance to the Orford Road Park here, and then there's the view back towards the town, you can see the single-story properties on the left, Orford Road just sits beyond there, using the site, so that's from Spool Road, so we've got the mature trees along the western edge along the northern boundary here, all to be retained, and there's the view across the site north, Spool Road here, hedgerows and trees along here, and more trees on that northern boundary there, more piece of the hedgerow in particular along here, so I'll touch on a moment, we'll see from the port, there's a substantial section that's required to be removed, this is the section here, there's the view, as you enter the town, so from Spool Road, as you come off the A47, there's the site in here, and there's again that northern edge, the A47 running beyond there, see the mature trees along that edge there, see slight change in land levels, sloping generally downwards from the northeast to southwest, we mentioned the play equipment, so the site sits beyond these, just beyond those trees there, sets the infant equipment, we've recently completed older equipment here, and that sits just in the northern, the same area, and this site sits behind where this was taken, just context. Okay, so, yeah, in terms of the proposals before you, so you'll see from the report, there's 150 homes, so the site allocation seeks at least 130 homes. In terms of general approaches, you can see two main access points here, after the three private drives along Spool Road, just to create that continued frontage, we mentioned the requirement to lose the hedgerow, which runs on this section here, so given the alignment, the need to provide two access points for this number of units is necessary to remove that extent, but a key part of the proposals has been to provide replacement hedgerow, so we'll see from the landscape in details, hedgerow proposed along here to continue that belt of trees that's retained, that'll continue down here, along here, and continue all the way down here, so in terms of replacement, you'll see in the report that the tree officers have raised no objections. Other aspects was key is the key importance of maintaining a frontage, so you'll see from the alignment that maintains that. Central open space here, as we'll see, that creates a folk worker point in the middle of the site. Again, open space down here just to embed and improve the area around here, which is adjacent to the off-road road play area, but in terms of general principles, you'll see there's a mix one to four bed units, those are a mixture of two single story. We've got short terraces up here, generally we've also got a mix of detached semi detached across the site. You'll see there's a mixture of units in terms of one to four beds, two, three and four. We've got eleven single bed units on site, so there's an example there. I can run through the house types in more detail here, but we've got single story units, two stories as well. We've come to materials, but these images will show a variety in terms of appearance in use, so both red or in brick. We've got flint as well across the site. The red bed brick there, so it's a two bed semi, again three bed. So you exemplifies the mix of materials proposed. So there's one bed, two bed homes there. So there's a mix of materials again, two bed single story. There's a mixture of cream render flint work across the site, brick as we can see. A variety mixed within the scheme, and then four bed units there. So, yeah, and that's just to give you an idea of how that street scene works, and the one below sits along the spool road, and we've got some flint work here again, render, brick, and as we can see along here. Yeah, so in terms of other aspects you'll see we've got an over provision of four of a home, so 60 units, so 40%, so we've got an additional 22.5 units over the 25% requirement. So that's an important note there, and those are a mix of shared equity, affordable rent, ownership, shared ownership, sorry, and first homes as well, so a good mix of tenure as well as the size and type. So in terms of kind of consultation, you'll see the comments from the town council within the report, so in general support of the scheme, the applicant's croakers have worked with them during the application, and beforehand to develop a scheme not only for the site, but for the open space, which is set out in the report, so I'll touch in more detail in a moment. So you'll see the contribution has been agreed between the town council and the applicants in regard to the open space, yet the applicants have acknowledged the architectural liaison's offices comments and sought to address those were feasible, the town council also highlighted the importance of lighting in the area, and there's a in line with the name of the plan, there's a condition, number 2021, to ensure that there's a wildlife sensitive scheme secured as well, and amendments have been made through the application to the materials, et cetera, to take on board those comments about colour of fenestration. There's no objections from the local community, one in support. So just turning the space to some of the issues, you'll see the site, as mentioned, is allocated, so the principle has already been established through the local plan, but also the previous consent. Running through the principles, it's obviously a number of 20 more units within the site allocation policy, but those are at least in minimum targets, and in this regard, we've got additional affordable homes as well, and there's also a consideration. In terms of other aspects of the site allocation policy, that does seek to retain landscaping, but as mentioned, there is a requirement here to provide access, and the previous consent did require removal as well. Now, we have replacement on site, and the tree officers raised no objections in that regard. There's a number of replacement trees being planted, as we can see in the areas of open space in the middle, and the south, western edge of the site. So in that regard, I'll just show more detail here, but the proposals considered to be accord with policies of the local plan in terms of site allocation requirement and ENV-06. That's the central edge of open space, we've got the hedgerows continued along there too. See the additional trees as well. So other aspects highlight really the provision of those highways, matters, and offsite highways work. The applicants have actually brought forward a comprehensive scheme of offsite highways improvement works developed through the application. So main things, I suppose, widening of spool road here to six metres, and a carriage way with a two-metre foot, both all the way along here. There is also a three-metre enhancement of this route to three metres. To combine that with cycle use, it's a running off-and-part area down southwest towards new spool road here. And as you'll see through the report, highway's offices have raised no objections to this scheme, but did want to see this three-metre cycle way, footway continued all the way along the site frontage up here to enable a link into the route here, which runs west now. Officers, having considered that, have sought to make sure that there's a balance there. So the site does provide a cycle link, so it is linked to the town through cycle way, because there's a three-metre connection all the way down here to spool road, and that will continue to the town. Now, when you balance that with the need to provide an appropriate frontage to replace hedgerows, we considered that was a more appropriate approach, and that's been secured through that scheme there. Get to the right slide. So other aspects from a highway's point of view, just to highlight there, the 30-mile per hour speed limit would be moved all the way up here to due south of the A47 here, so the enhancement there in terms of safety for pedestrians and cyclist use along here. So in that regard, from a highway's point of view, the proposal is considered to be accepted. I'm going to meet the testing later planning at the MPPF. Touched on PRS briefly, but as you'll see from the report, there's a deficiency in terms of on-site children's play space and sport. Now, I've highlighted the proximity of the site immediately adjacent to the off-road road park play area. It is immediately adjacent, and what the applicants are doing is improving links to that, so maybe touch. We've on a slide showing the links. There we go. So they're actually proposing links through here from the site here to the infant area here and the older junior area here. So the site will be essentially served by that adjacent area, which is unbalanced, given it's immediately adjacent to a bit of an acceptable approach, but where we've got enhancements off-site. As mentioned, a scheme of off-site improvements has been agreed with the town council, and there's two areas here, Haspels Road. There's quite a significant improvement here, a number of equipment here at Haspels Road, and merry-weather park play area too. There's an enhancement there as well, so that's been agreed with the town council. You'll see from the report that might mitigate for the play provision not being provided on-site. There remains a sport aspect of it, which remains a conflict because, as I say, there is no provision there in terms of sport, but as you'll see from the report, that kind of weighs against the scheme, but in terms of other matters, that's a set out, there's a number of gains from the scheme as a whole. So in terms of where we sit within before, there remains a conflict, but as I say, I'll wrap that up in a moment in terms of the scheme as a whole. Okay, so in terms of other aspects, we touched on trees and landscaping. We've got a detailed scheme submitted that is before us in the trip, so it accepts the proposed replacement scheme and the number of trees, as we can see, spread across the site and the hedgerows on the site frontage. All these trees along the south, west and north boundary will be retained in accordance with the site allocation policy. You'll see kind of touching on amenity. It is within distance of the A47, but a noise assessment has been submitted and advises that there's no unacceptable impacts. Environment, health, there's no objections to that, to the scheme. In terms of health and amenity, the National Health Service has been consulted and requested a contribution and the applicants have agreed to make a contribution towards that and the project indicated at the minute is towards the camping land surgery in the town in terms of improvements and expansion. Other health impacts, obviously, the town is subject to an air quality management area within the town centre. Now the application has been supported by an air quality assessment. That indicates that impacts are negligible. Now, touch on some of the improvements in accordance with the objectives also. The applicants are seeking to improve a cycle and pedestrian route, so the cycle link down here, down south, west of the town centre, pedestrian enhancements have also been agreed in principle in terms of contribution just to help servicing or way finding. We've got a Breckland Council owned route here, which is used, and I'll say there's routes down here on the western side to the town centre as well. So, when you're taking to that, as a whole, the proposals are considered to actually mitigate for any air quality impacts. We are awaiting further comments from the air quality officer, so the recommendation will be subject to them raising their objections. In terms of other aspects, you'll see comments from the load authority, the applicants have met with them a number of times within the application to address their concerns and have now raised no objections. You'll see the attenuation ponds there. So, infiltration would occur from these attenuate surface water runoff before it infiltrates into ground. As I say, the lead local flood authority have requested various updates and amendments and those have been submitted. Accordingly, there have been no objections from a foul water point of view. Angling water is confirmed as available capacity in the network to deal with foul water from the site. In terms of ecology, you'll see the potential impacts on species. However, the archaeological consultants review the surveys and reports and assessments are missing and raising their objections subject to conditions to secure the precautional protective measures on site, but also mitigation enhancement works. On that basis, the proposals are considered to occur with policies and ENV-2 and ENV-3 are the local plan. The legal agreement would also secure the necessary Norfolk G-Rams contribution for the site. Talking about heritage and designated assets, archaeological, the old archaeological team at Norfolk County Council highlighted some potential for artifacts on site, so there's a condition there to secure a further scheme of investigation post approval. Given the site context, the proposals aren't considered to have an impacts on heritage assets in terms of listed buildings in the conservation area. So, wrapping up really, as I said, there is a conflict in terms of ENV-4 and sports provision, but in this regard, when we consider the over-provisioned terms of geology's play in the town, the benefits that will happen to the town. As residents, other benefits from the scheme were talked about the improvements to small road from the highway's perspective, cycle and footway improvements. As I said, going on to some of the other benefits clearly, there's the additional gains from a social-economic perspective in terms of housing, so additional homes, access to homes from the community, the economic spend from new households in the town and surrounding area. So, those along with all the other things are considered to farther that way, that conflict in terms of not achieving sport through the scheme, at the sport, through the scheme. So, in terms of recommendation, as you see, it's recommended for approval, so we're just subject to those comments coming back from the Equality Officer. As I say, there's a comprehensive suite of obligations that is being sought through the application, and those will be secured for a section of 106 agreement, subject to approval of the application here today. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chris. We've got Ian Hill, please, who's the agent. You have three minutes, sir. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm representing Crocus Homes. The report provided by your officer, as well as today's presentation, have been very comprehensive. Accordingly, I do not wish to repeat many of the points that have already been covered. However, I'd like to highlight the following. The proposal before you have been arrived at following consultation with a range of stakeholders, notably Council officers and Swafflam Town Council. The proposal seek to deliver high-quality, sustainable development on land allocated for residential development within the adopted development plan. The proposed development will deliver 150 homes on land to the northeast of Sport Road. The housing will be brought forward by Crocus Homes, who are a subsidiary of Safron Housing. The company has a proven track record of delivering high-quality development within Northken Suffolk, and are committed to bringing forward the development at the earliest available opportunity. The layout and design of the scheme has been subject to discussions with the case officer, as well as the Crime and Architectural Liaison Officer. The layout, orientation, and scale of the dwellings have been designed to mimic the existing character of the surrounding area. Feature buildings have been positioned throughout the site, including along the frontage with Sport Road, create a strong street scene, frontage, and gateway into Swafflam. Materials follow the traditional theme, provided mix, views of brick, and flintwork, white render, cream render, and some planning televations. Whilst the development of any greenfield site for housing will inevitably result in a change to the appearance of the site, a comprehensive landscaping scheme will be delivered, the planting of replacement native hedgerow along Sport Road, as well as the provision of additional trees throughout the site. The landscaping will help create an attractive environment for existing and future residents, as well as the soft edge to the town reflecting the transition from the urban to rural area. Given the site is located immediately adjacent to a playground, as we've heard, it's agreed that rather than provide formal place-based on site, it would be more beneficial for the scheme to make a financial contribution towards the enhancement of existing facilities, as well as following discussions with town council improvements we made to two existing playgrounds within Swafflam, including one that's had to close due to the poor state of the equipment. The development will provide 40% affordable housing, 15% above policy requirements. The mix of affordable units has been agreed with the council's housing enabling officer, and includes affordable rent, first homes, and shared ownership. As you will have noted, the applicant is still in discussions with Norfolk County Council in relation to the education contributions, whilst fully recognising the need to make contributions, croakers keen to understand why the education and contribution increase from approximately £200,000 in May of last year to £1.2 million in February of this year. We're currently easing with the educational authority to get clarity on that matter. Again, as we've heard, there are no objections to the proposals from technical statutory consultees, including Anglion Water, the LLFA, and Norfolk County Council in relation to highway capacity and safety. To conclude, the proposals seem to deliver a high-quality development on land-allocating the Adoptive Development Plan. They will be brought forward by croakers' homes who have a track record of delivery. In light of the above, I hope you'll feel able to endorse the recommendation of your officer and support the proposals. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, it's open to questions from members at all. Councillor Anscombe. Thank you, Chairman. Just to say that I am the Board Member for Swafford. I do support this development. I think the layout is very good. I know you've worked with various bodies within a town on this, but I'd just like some clarification on the open spaces, which is going to be off-site. The drawings that the officer put up for hospitals, road and merry weather would look very good. But when I looked at all the documents online, on the existing Orford Road play area, there was a square, a rectangle, identified that said to be enhanced. Could you tell me what that enhancement is, please? Because I've had people saying to me that we're going to get tennis courts, so could you please confirm or not confirm? [inaudible] Sorry. Yeah, no, that should have pointed that out. That was on the original site plan, so the approach was to provide an enhancement there. Now, during the application, the applicants have met with the town council and agreed those alternative schemes rather than enhancement there, actually, to provide and get to it. Rather than enhancements there, you can see those improvements that have -- that's new equipment, I understand, and enhancement. So rather than enhancing that further, actually having discussed the matter with the town council, I'll get to those drawings for those improvements, merry weather and festivals road. Yeah, they've come to admit they've developed schemes for those two separate areas rather than -- so just be clear, that they're not proposing to improve Orford Road part play area. They're proposing now to improve those two. That's paused. Yeah. Clarify. So the enhancement that was shown on the documents online isn't actually happening. I'm aware of these two sites, the merry weather and hospitals road, which are brilliant, but I believe there was 0.2 hectares that was -- is missing out of this allocation for open space play areas. Yeah, that's correct in the report. I highlight that there's a deficiency in terms of quantum of open space, and there's a particular amount that we would require within policy in v4 now. As highlighted, there's a deficiency there in conflict now. What we've done in terms of the report and assessment is actually looked at what the needs would be and where the site sits. So, officers' views are actually given the proximity to an established play area that's immediately adjacent, actually providing those connections through provider equally applicable open space play equipment next door to the site. You know, for the future households. Having regard to that and the deficiency still, though, there is a requirement to mitigate for the non-play provision itself. So, there's actually agreed and sought schemes and improvements elsewhere in the town resulting in the two before us. So, yeah, that's a consideration. As I highlighted, there remains a bit of a conflict, I'll say officers' views are those proposed, the various improvements and gains elsewhere from the scheme far outweigh that conflict. Councillor KAIBORD, please. Thank you, Chairman. Question one is flint work. Is that traditional flint work or factory made flint that's pointed on the site? Question two is, does concern me the education contribution can go from 200k to 1.2 million, sort of, on the whim of the county council, and how does that compare with similar developments that have already taken place? I'll take the education one, firstly, and then you might move on with it. Yes, the education contributions change substantially. It was a circle of a million pounds within a 12-month period of time now. What their latest calculation does, they reflect schemes, as I mentioned, there's two applications, but essentially one site that sits along the new school road that's currently in. So, the way the county council have calculated both sites in terms of the application before you now on that does, it is the same, they correlate, they've updated their requirements both from a special needs point of view. So, that's incorporated now, that's part of the additional uplift. What they've also looked at is, across the county, they've looked at their overall contributions, and that's uplifted as well as the standard people per place cost that's uplifted. Now, the main aspect that's led to this substantial increase has been to the early education. Sorry, the primary education sector. There's been, obviously, developments ongoing. There's several sites being built out and completed in Swafam. So, when they looked at that, the capacity within the existing primary sector, within the town, that has led to a deficiency when they take into account both this site, the commitments in terms of those granted permission and on site at the moment. So, it's essentially that bulk of where that capacity and additional pupils have been generated from existing development. That's led to a recalculation. And the - oh, you've got to answer about the stone. Yeah, I think I'll get the easier one of the two there. It is traditional flint. That's good to know, it's always hard to find someone who can do that. Councillor Attewell, please. I think the question has been answered in relation to the education. There seem to be some confusion whether that's being challenged by presuming that we're looking to give approval on the basis of the latest county council requirement. Yeah. Yeah, in terms of where the current application is, the applicants of the Greening Principle to address education now. Following, obviously, recommendations being subject to authority being given to officers to negotiate and secure the obligations as a number there. That's obviously one of the numbers. So, the exact figures will be part of that ongoing discussions now. Obviously, if it got to the point where actually agreement wasn't sought, i.e. for instance, an education point of view that the applicants wasn't agreement and the scheme couldn't mitigate the educational needs. Then it's officers' views that, i.e. the education authority objecting to the application would be that point that actually, well, now there's been a material change and an objection. It would have to be referred to committee on that basis that actually, well, there's a significant change in objection because the application is not securely a correct amount. So, that's the recommendation as it stands. Okay. Yeah. I think you're going to ask the same thing that we were just discussing before you speak. I think probably what you're going to say is should committee decide to grant planning permission, it will be subject to the agreement of that figure. And presumably, you're going to say, and if there isn't agreement, then bring back or refuse. I think bring back because I consider scenario coming here where we insist on the education contribution because that's what the County Council require for the education of the kids in the area that the applicant may come back then and say, well, we're not going to give you an X amount of affordable houses, we're going to lower the rate. And then I think that's another material consideration for this committee. Yeah, if we were making fundamental changes to the proportions of the section 106, then we would bring it back to planning committee 100%. What we're asking for is delegation to negotiate with the education authority on the amount that they're asking for as part of the negotiation of the section 106. If we were to change the affordable housing amount, then we would bring it back to planning committee. That wouldn't be something you're delegating to us. It's only the contribution, the amount of the education contribution, not the entire negotiation of the section 106. Yeah, sitting here as a committee member, my concern would be that County Council are asking for 1.1 million at the moment. We delegate to officers for a negotiation and somewhere along the line, the people of Swafam get an awful lot less by way of a education contribution, which clearly I think the County officials are saying they need to ensure that there is secure provision throughout the town. My concern would be that I'm not saying he would, but this committee is given a potentially permission and then you give away the store later on, and we don't end up with the full package that we were expecting when we made the decision. Does that make sense? So to be clear, I think the way the way out here should committee be minded to grant permission here would be subject to the overall agreement of Norfolk County Council on the education provision, which they might negotiate on, and if Norfolk County Council are not prepared to negotiate and there isn't subsequent agreement, it comes back to committee. No more questions? Okay, terrific. So on this item, Swafam, 3PL 2023, 0441, and this is a full application. Your officers recommendation is one of approval. All hands, please. As unanimous. Thank you very much. It was approved. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. So just to clear up our agenda for today, item 10 on your gender is applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive on 122-234. That's for your information. As you would read that, it says members, I request to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the committee. So if you do read your agendas, you could always raise if you wish, and the appeal summary is only actually there for your information only and not to be raised. Okay, thank you very much. With that, I'm going to bring me bell to close the meeting, and the meeting is --
Summary
The Breckland Council meeting covered several significant topics, including the approval of a new retail store in Dereham, the refusal of a housing development in East Tudnam, and the approval of a residential development in Swaffham.
Dereham Retail Store
The council discussed a full application for a new retail food store at 15 Yaxham Road, Dereham. The proposal included the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new store with associated parking and access improvements. Concerns were raised about traffic congestion, particularly the difficulty of turning right out of the site. The Highways Authority stated that the impact would not be severe, and the council approved the application with conditions, including the introduction of yellow hatched areas to aid traffic flow.
East Tudnam Housing Development
The council considered a full application for 19 dwellings in East Tudnam. The proposal included the transfer of an existing recreation ground to the parish council. The council refused the application, citing several reasons:
- The development was not considered small-scale or sensitive infilling.
- It would create a hard and urbanizing edge to the village.
- The proposal did not provide adequate public open space or children's play areas.
- The Highways Authority had concerns about pedestrian safety and the removal of mature hedgerows.
- The proposal did not meet the requirements for surface water drainage and nutrient neutrality.
Swaffham Residential Development
The council discussed a full application for 150 homes in Swaffham. The development included a mix of one to four-bedroom homes, with 40% affordable housing. The proposal also included off-site highway improvements and contributions to enhance existing play areas in the town. The council approved the application, subject to the agreement of the education contribution with Norfolk County Council. If an agreement is not reached, the matter will be brought back to the committee.
Other Items
- Fire Exits and Mobile Devices: The meeting started with general housekeeping, including the location of fire exits and a request to switch off mobile devices.
- Chairman's Announcements: Councillor Keith Gilbert was announced as the new chairman, with his chosen charity being Big C and Children's Hospice.
- Local Planning Update: An update was provided on the local plan, including a consultation on the Reg 18 document and upcoming events for public engagement.
The meeting concluded with the approval of the Swaffham residential development and a reminder for members to raise any questions about applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive at least two working days before the meeting.
Attendees














Meeting Documents
Agenda