Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Stevens and Ivor McLatchy.

Any Member who is substituting for another Member should so indicate together with the name of the relevant absent Member.

No substitutes were declared at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 7 September 2017 (as amended), 21 September 2017 and 5 October 2017 (copies attached).

The Chairman drew attention to the three sets of minutes attached to the agenda for Members’ consideration:

7 September 2017

The Lawyer clarified that the minutes had come back to the Committee for consideration because they had been amended to list a condition that had been omitted from the minutes of the same meeting that had been approved on 5 October 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2017 were then confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

21 September 2017

Councillor David Nettleton referred to the last sentence in paragraph (e) on page 13 of the minutes and requested that in order to accurately reflect the comment he made in the meeting, it be amended to read ‘..therefore, ensuring that the decision was made locally rather than being determined by the Planning Inspectorate’.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017 were then confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

5 October 2017

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.  

Report No: DEV/SE/17/042

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - 1no. dwelling and detached garage

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) – 1no. dwelling and detached garage.

(Councillor Robert Everitt declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was known to the applicant but remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item).

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration of the Delegation Panel at the request of the local Ward Member and because the Officer recommendation for refusal was contrary to that of the Parish Council’s for approval.

Outline planning permission was sought for the erection of a single dwelling with a detached garage. The means of access was to be considered and it was proposed that it would be created by cutting through the existing hedgerow. All other matters were reserved, and any other information that was submitted would be indicative only and would not be capable of being taken into account at that stage, except to indicate how it would be possible to develop the site.

The Case Officer spoke on the history of the site and related planning applications.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor Clive Pollington spoke as Ward Member for                                   Wickhambrook in support of the application

                   Mrs Parker (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Members queried the current use for the land and potential conditions that could be imposed to prevent the applicant from potentially over-developing the site if planning permission was granted. The Case Officer responded and clarified that the land was currently classified in planning terms as countryside outside the Housing Settlement Boundary and the current use was that of a garden/ paddock.

Councillor Alaric Pugh was of the opinion that whilst consideration should be given to similar applications that had been dismissed on appeal, this application was to be judged on its own merit and that it was in keeping with the spirit of policy DM27, which related to building housing in the countryside.  He recognised that Wickhambrook had a specific set of characteristics comprising several hamlets and therefore was not setting a precedent for future decision making on similar applications of this kind.  The site was located in a sustainable location and would be infilling a small undeveloped plot by one dwelling that would be of a similar scale and character to that of existing dwellings and therefore he would be minded to approve the application. The Service Manager (Planning Development) responded to Councillor Pugh’s comments and explained that taking the characteristics of the settlements that comprised Wickhambrook into account, the benefits of the proposal could be adequate enough to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan. She explained that policy DM27 was a relatively new policy that was open to interpretation and considered that the spirit of this policy could be applied in this case, and the addition of one dwelling in a sustainable location to the Borough’s housing stock and five year land supply could justify approval of the application in this specific case.

The majority of Members supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report No: DEV/SE/17/043

Householder Planning Application - conversion of bungalow to two storey dwelling including single storey rear extension and part two storey / part single storey front extension

Householder Planning Application – conversion of bungalow to two storey dwelling including single storey rear extension and part two storey / part single storey front extension.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration of the Delegation Panel at the request of the local Ward Member and because the Parish Council objected to the application which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval.

Planning permission was sought for the conversion of a bungalow to a two storey dwelling which included a single storey rear extension and a part two storey / part single storey front extension. The proposal would create three first floor bedrooms, a bathroom and a study / bedroom four. The rear section of the existing integral garage would be converted into living accommodation with a new attached garage created in the front extension.

The application which, as originally submitted, proposed a larger first floor extension with both a two storey rear extension and a two storey front extension however this had been amended to set the first floor back in line with the existing rear wall which would therefore reduce the first floor bulk. This would have enabled the ridge height to be lowered from 7.595 metres to 6.990 metres. The applicant had also amended the original plan to set back the first floor over the garage which would improve the aesthetics of the front elevation and reduce the first floor bulk.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. Representations had been received from neighbouring properties within the cul-de-sac citing objections as listed in paragraph 9 of the report.

Speakers:    Councillor Carol Bull spoke on the application as                                           Ward Member for Barningham.

During discussion some Members stated that they would be apprehensive to approve an application that would reduce the number of bungalows in the Borough as there was already a shortage of that type of housing, however they did acknowledge that this was not a material planning consideration and therefore was not a reason to refuse the application.

Members commended the applicant for working cooperatively with the Planning department, particularly in relation to making improvements to the basic design. In addition, Members considered the concerns of the neighbouring residents and concluded that any potential overshadowing was insignificant; the amended design had mitigated against the development from potentially being overbearing; and the character of the area and street scene was felt to be enhanced as a result of the conversion.

Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote with 9 voting for the motion and 3 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of permission

2.   The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report No: DEV/SE/17/044

Householder Planning Application - Single storey rear extension and two storey side extension

Householder Planning Application – Single storey rear extension and two storey side extension.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the authorities’ constitution as the applicant was an employee.

Planning permission was sought for a single storey rear extension and two storey side extension. The single storey rear extension would have a footprint of 3.9 metres x 3.6 metres with a height to the eaves of 2.5 metres and 4.2 metres to the highest point comprised of a roof lantern. The two storey side extension would have a footprint of 7.6 metres x 2.3 metres with a height to the eaves of 4.9 metres and 8 metres to the ridgeline of the pitched roof.

Representations had been received from two neighbouring properties citing objections as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report.

Speakers:    Councillor Susan Glossop spoke on the application as                                   Ward Member for Risby.

Members’ queried why a condition had been listed that required the applicant to install obscure glazed and fixed shut windows on the proposed first storey of the two storey rear elevation when the proposal was not considered to encroach upon neighbouring properties to the rear. The Planning Officer explained that the applicant had originally submitted plans for a blank gable end and the obscure glazed fixed shut windows had been added for architectural design purposes only. The Service Manager (Planning Development) clarified that the distance between the rear of the proposed extension and shared boundary line of the site and neighbouring properties would be considered acceptable in relation to causing no harm to the amenity of residents and therefore obscure glazed and fixed shut windows would not normally be required.

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, which was duly seconded by Councillor Alaric Pugh. Councillor David Nettleton then moved an amendment to remove proposed condition 4 of the recommendation, which required the applicant to install obscure glazed and fixed shut windows as this was not considered necessary. This was duly seconded by Councillor Alaric Pugh. Councillor John Burns, as the proposer of the original substantive motion accepted this amendment.

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion, none against and 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions summarised below:

1.   01A Time Limit Detailed

2.   14FP Approved Plans

3.   NS Materials Detailed on Application Form

Report No: DEV/SE/17/045

Householder Planning Application - Detached outbuilding on concrete base

Householder Planning Application – Detached outbuilding on concrete base.

(Councillor Terry Clements declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he was a close acquaintance of the applicant. He left the meeting for the duration of the item and did not return).

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the applicant was an Elected Member of the Borough Council.

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached outbuilding on a concrete base. The proposed outbuilding would be of a wooden log style construction with a tiled asphalt roof and would measure 6 metres wide, 6 metres deep, 1.96 metres to the eaves and 2.7 metres to the ridge.

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than three years from the date of permission.

2.   The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.