Planning committees evaluate development applications through a structured process involving officer recommendations, public and councilor debate, and voting decisions. Key considerations include policy compliance, environmental impact, community amenity, and strategic development goals. Applications may be approved, refused, or deferred for further consideration based on whether they meet planning policies and address identified concerns.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
Planning Committee - 1st June 2026本站添加:
Thank you chair. I can confirm you're live on YouTube.
>> Right. Thank you. Right members, I'm now going to open today's meeting please and also to thank members and officers for attending today's meeting of the planning committee and I would respectfully ask that you turn your phones all of you including uh people wishing to speak on silent please.
Housekeeping. Please note there are no scheduled fire drills today. So if the alarm sounds, please leave the building via the nearest fire exit which is there and there that way. Uh please Kathy, can I have a roll um roll call to check councilors who are present today please?
>> Thank you chair. Councelor not >> present.
>> Councelor Bone >> present.
>> Councelor B >> present.
>> Councelor Debie Parley present.
Councelor Everett, >> present.
>> Councelor Fry, >> present.
>> Councelor Linton, >> present.
>> Councelor Rose, >> present.
>> Councelor Spikings, >> Dory, >> present.
>> Present.
>> Present.
>> Right. Thank you. I'd like to remind members that this meeting is being recorded and streamed live via YouTube and that it will be still be recording during breaks because of the acoustics in the town hall. Please only turn your microphone on when it is your turn to speak and off when you finished. It is very important that you do use your microphone, otherwise people listening on YouTube cannot hear you. Also, when speaking, please speak clearly into the microphone and avoid side conversations.
And members, please note, do not leave the meeting during an item. Otherwise, you'll not be able to take part in the debate or vote because you haven't heard all of the debate. So now I'm going to move on to item one which is apologies please Kathy.
>> We have no apologies if you chair.
>> Thank you. Item two minutes on page 6 to 13. Can I confirm there a true and accurate me uh record of the meeting held on the 11th of May 2026.
Right. Item three declarations of interest. Councelor Bone.
>> Thank you chair. I would like to declare an interest in the last application in Northton. The applicant is my cousin's son. So I'll be standing. I won't be taking part over voting on the item.
Thank you.
>> Right. Anyone else got any declarations?
No. Right. Then urgent business understanding order seven. I do not have any. Item five, members attending understanding order 34. I have councelor Parish from page 48, which is heatchum, not 26 as it reads. Um also councelor Joyce we're reading out a letter for him on page 65 and also um councelor ring and councelor coats are speaking on the warton's on page 79.
Do I have your agreement to receive the late correspondence please members?
Please.
>> Item eight, we note the index and nine, we go on to the decisions on a applications which is on sorry on page um 16 it is for Kingslin. It is an application for the phase development comprising the change of use of the land to an active travel hub alongside the construction of a singlestory hub building, surface car park, pedestrian infrastructure, access, landscaping and auxiliary works. There is a speaker and lake correspondence. It's a major development. There is a correction to condition two and the recommendation is approved.
and Julie's gonna speak for us. Welcome Julie. I don't have we had you here before.
>> Thank you chair. No, this is my first Very much planning committee.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning members. Yes, this is an application for an active travel hub on the uh Kingslin Enterprise Park. I'm sure you're all familiar with the the site. This is the application site in front of you uh with a wider land holding in blue of land that's currently owned and controlled by the local authority.
You can see the application site in red includes the spur road towards the land to the north which will facilitate access to uh a further area of the Enterprise Park where it's anticipated that future development will come forward at some point. You've got the layout of the uh site there, including an area of car parking up to 236 spaces, an active trouble pod building, which is uh cycle storage, shower changing facilities, toilet facilities, etc. Pockets of landscaping around the site and pathways onto the Noo's Way where two additional bus stops will be delivered to serve the site. I would just like to make the the point this is not a park and ride scheme. It's an active trouble travel hub, but it will enable uh users to park at the site and then get the bus into town should they so wish.
Development is going to come forward in phases. So you can see here the area in purple is the first delivery. That's phase one of the active travel hub building. It will include um 43 car parking spaces including a number of disabled spaces and it will include the footpath onto the Naru's way to access those bus stops and also that spur road that I mentioned that's delivered early on in the scheme. The remainder of the site in yellow will be delivered as part of a later phase.
This is the active travel hub building.
Um it's taken its design cue from the click building. Again, I'm sure you're all familiar with that um with the the sloping roof. So, it graduates up to allow room for the cycle storage. Uh the roof has an overhang so that there will be an area of shelter around the building. It's approximately 30 m long.
At its highest point, it's 4.6 mters. At its lowest point, 2.9 m on that roof.
To give you an idea of what the internal space will comprise, you can see you've got the internal cycle store with uh a series of two-tier cycle racks as well as accessible hoops. There's some seating uh lockers and then shower and changing facilities as well as uh disabled uh WC um and a baby change WC as well there. Externally, there's also a number of uh street pods to um provide cycle parking externally.
Again, I'm sure you're all familiar with the site, but just to give you the context, um I've started the application site. Um you've got the click building to the the south. You've got the newly developed health hub on the opposite side of Noo's Way together with other light industrial development that's come forward. And then you can see the um footpath that runs alongside the river Nar. And you can see the uh recent residential development to the west.
This is where um the site will be accessed from. Um so there's obviously a new roundabout in place and then there's a spur already been started. So this is where access will be taken into the site off of the existing roundabout there.
And then this is a view um across the site with the the click building in the the distance. So this will be the pocket of landscaping in the foreground and then you'll have the active trouble of building and then you'll move on to the car parking areas beyond and just a view of the site from the the west. um currently boarded up. Again, you can see the the click building and just to give you an example of the connectivity um along the west there, there's obviously an existing foot footway cycle way um that leads into the residential areas.
And in case you weren't familiar, the uh the click building just so that you can see the context of the um the design ethos that's been applied to the active travel hub building.
So in terms of the application itself um we have engaged extensively uh with the applicant with the statutory consultes there's been a great deal of work undertaken with the highway authority and in particular the lead uh local flood authority we're now in a position whereby we have no objections to the scheme from statutory consultes as you'll see from the the report the applicants in a position to move forward quickly with phase one I set out within the report that the The funding is available for that phase one delivery and as you'll have seen there's considerable policy support for an active travel hub on the Kingsling Enterprise Park. It's referenced within the the Kingsland transport strategy and the local walking and cycling infrastructure plan as well. So you'll see that there's a recommendation of approval subject to a number of conditions which are set about on pages 39 to 45 of the report. Thank you, Jack.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. We have one speaker for this application, James Grant. You've got five minutes.
>> Yeah. Uh good morning, chair, members of planner committee and officers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this application this morning. You'll be thankful to hear. I do not intend to focus heavily on the policy support for this proposal. I've read the officer's report and thought it was excellent as has the plan officer's engagement been throughout the application process. I want to thank them for that. Instead, I'd like to focus on the long-term strategic value of this infrastructure with a specific focus on the active travel hub. Even though, as you know, the application includes for wider infrastructure on the enterprise zone.
The specific application aims to balance the flexibility needed to adapt to future needs whilst giving members and consort sufficient information to confidently consider the proposal.
Whilst we fully acknowledge that the design requires further refinement as any design does during the next stage of designs, we are absolutely committed to getting this delivery correct. The active travel hub bridges the gap between the council's high level environmental goals and day-to-day community realities. We are engaging in ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders including Norfolk County Council who support the application. We're also collaborating closely with Kale Bug Group who've directly and we've directly addressed some of their very helpful feedback already and will want to work with them as we move forward.
As members of committee will have seen our proposals, our delivery um are carefully phased as the officers just detailed. This ensures that the site grows alongside local need and we can scale up our infrastructure over time.
What the facility truly offers as the council is unmatched strategic flexibility and the agility to solve complex transport and parking challenges efficiently ensuring we deliver the best possible outcomes for our residents, businesses and visitors. It allows us to meet immediate active travel needs while ensuring the site itself remains as an adaptable asset that can seamlessly evolve alongside prevailing future demand and emerging transport technology. Crucially, this hub is perfectly positioned right where some of our teens towns key strategic growth areas meet. It provides essential infrastructure needed to support both the enterprise zone and integrate with local residential communities both on the edge of town and to the south and west. It will support the future potential development or improvements to the Southgate area um and the housing growth that I've previously mentioned.
This is a direct opportunity to put a council facility on the um forefront of active travel by working proactively with the county council on an integrated bus connection and collaborative work collaboratively working with other key partners. We are actively shaping our transport network ahead of time. As a local authority, we must be equipped to troubleshoot issues rapidly and adapt dynamically as traffic pattern patterns and wider transport systems change. By establishing this node in a strategic location now, we give ourselves a permanent sustainable baseline to work from, one that secures a vital connection to the town center and serves our growing communities.
Central government and partners clearly recognize the strategic importance backing our vision through active and clean connectivity program and major investments secured through the Kingsland Town deal and north of business rates pool. I look forward to hearing your debate and I hope feeding your comments into an approved scheme that benefits Kingsland weather. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you for coming. Oh, have you got anything further to add?
>> Nothing further.
>> Right. I'll open it for debate. I have Sue Linton first.
>> Thank you, chair. Um I've got a couple of queries. First of all, um scooter parking is scooter collassed as motorbikes, moped type scooter or um or the uh yeah, those ones. Uh so that's one um question. Um on page 33, it actually calls this an informal park and ride. And as we've just heard from the speaker, um it's to solve complex parking problems. So I wonder if there is provision in the future even for um a coach space or not and if that's appropriate. Um but my main question is about the two-tier stands, cycle stands. Um we had another parking um application a few months ago and there were queries about the usability of the two-tier cycle stands and we and I don't remember what the outcome was um but there was a different type of two-tier uh stand that we were going to look at. So I just wonder if if that is the stand that's being used so that it's easier to get the cycles onto the second tier. Thank you.
>> Jane, do you want to answer that one please? Or is it >> Julie?
>> Julie, sorry.
>> Of course. Yeah. So in terms of scooter parking, there was originally e scooter um parking provision within the scheme, but that has actually been removed now.
Sort of a moped type um vehicle would go with the motorcycles. Um but you would be able to secure um sort of a small um scooter, electric scooter if you wanted to to the to the cycle stands. Um in terms of coach space, um I know the team had been looking at whether it was feasible or not to to have bus access into the site. Um I can't say for certain whether that will be delivered in the future. It's not post parking is not currently part of the scheme. You've got the two new bus stops on Naru's way.
um because in certainly in terms of bus services, they want the convenience of being able to stop on Nar's Way and keep going rather than having to come into um a site. But that's that's something that the the council could look at in in the future. In terms of the two-tier stands, um so you're quite right um that there have been issues elsewhere in the town with these um and that's been acknowledged. So this scheme has been designed to ensure that there is sufficient space to get your bike up onto the the upper level and these are sort of there are mechanisms they're gas powered so um they there is assistance to allow the bike to be put onto the the top tier rack um and they're fully compliant with what we call LTN2020 which is the government's publication on on walking and cycling infrastructure.
>> Okay. Right. Uh councelor Bub.
>> Thank you. Uh good morning. Um sadly this didn't come to R&D. So a lot of the questions I've got we could have answered then and not taken up time now.
So I've got to ask the questions now.
Starting with the toilets. Free pay to enter with or without an attendant? We don't know.
>> Operation.
>> Unfortunately those questions aren't related to the planning here today. We are dealing with the um the fabric rather than the internal workings. And I quite agree it should have come to R&D for you. So you could have asked those questions but unfortunately that's not going to be part of the remit today. I know it's part of the >> with respect it reflects on the viability of the scheme if if if we don't know what's quite going on. Same with the showers are they >> free council we we haven't got that level of detail. It's covered by condition >> 15 in terms of operational management going forward. I mean that that is a matter for you know other parts of the council to decide um you know how how they're going to respond um to that.
>> Okay, we'll move on. Parking. What is the width of the parking space that you have allowed?
>> I don't have that figure off the top of my head but it will be in accordance with >> I passed your mind back to when we redid the Tuesday marketplace. I'd won the argument for wider spaces. So the current space there is 246 wide.
We also agreed at the time that any new car parks would be made to at least that standard and not the measurable standard that some of the other car parks are still saddled with. Okay. Um park and ride. Um if you're waiting for one of these buses, are we going to have a bus shelter because it's pretty exposed there?
>> There are two bus shelters proposed on the Naru's way. Um and also there would be space to shelter on the site um if you were a bit early for the bus. Yes.
>> And and it says in in in the the text that someone will be running the site, but it doesn't say who. Is it the burough that's running it or the new authority should they appear or put out to tender?
>> Again, that's not information that we currently hold. Um so there is a planning condition for an operational management plan to be submitted and whoever runs it is is not a material consideration in the granting of planning permission. So sorry, I don't really feel I can make a vote on this one without knowing more about it because at the moment, to my mind, it's rather too far from the town for anybody to get off their bike and then walk into town. They may or may not get a bus, which they may or may not have to pay for. Um, where else where are they going to come from? Cycling there is really only safe coming from the Saddleware Road area. Are they anybody's going to actively want to cycle along the A47 to get there? So at the moment I'm going to abstain on this one. Sorry.
>> That's fine. Thank you. Uh councelor Bone. Then I've got Tom Deinton, De Laali, Dewali, and Fry. There's several more. Yeah.
>> Thank you, chair. Um I quite welcome the scheme. I think it has benefit. Um what um obviously Kingsland is quite congested, London Road and it makes use of Harden's way because obviously it's got good cycle uh routes. Um the previous application uh in Bake Lane obviously didn't have that and that's why we we considered but that this one's got real merit with regards to the potential of park and ride and people can actually park on the outskirts of Lynn and not congest our busy town center which obviously will make that more favorable. I did have some operational concerns and I appreciate they are operational man uh man is the um questions and not with regards to the application um but I feel this is in the right space and uh and is is is a good uh opportunity to improve our town center. So I will be supporting this application.
>> Hang on counselors could we just not have the side conversation because it's being picked up online. Sorry about that. Uh can You said what you wish to say then councelor.
>> Right. Thank you councelor Dwinton.
You're next.
>> Thank you madam chair. Um yeah I I can understand what they're what you're trying to do here. Understand what you're trying to do. And also anything which goes to try and revitalize or or or or and get some energy into our depleted high street and activity in town can only be a good thing and parking become more of a premium as we know. I'm glad to see it's phased. Um do we have uh any idea what level of success of phase one will then get phase two into action?
>> I have asked the question of the applicant is there a timetable for phase two. Um there is no timetable as yet. Um there's there's funding available to deliver phase one. Um and and then it will be reviewed as and when the funding is available.
Thanks.
>> So if they start the phase one, the planning permission is still live for phase two just to correct that.
>> Absolutely. Yes.
>> Yes. Right. Thank you. Uh councelor De La Pali next please.
>> Thank you chair. Um so I you I would usually welcome any improvements in active triangle infrastructure.
However, I I would be grateful if we could perhaps see a map of how this links into town. the route that this hub would take into town. And like um someone previously, I am struggling to understand who would use this and why.
Are we expecting people to cycle to the hub, park their bikes, and then walk into town, or are we expecting them to I I I'm just really struggling to understand what purpose this will serve.
And to me, this feels very much like a tickbox exercise. I'm really sorry to say this. I don't think it will result in any meaningful improvement in active travel into town. it will not result in any meaningful reduction in cars into town. Yeah. I I just don't know who's going to use it. And and I'm hearing from the experts here, the um bicycle users group, that the active travel routes to this place and out of it are extremely dangerous. So, you know, we we're just not looking at this in the round. Um, I'm I'm disappointed actually and I I just wish we would put more thought and um consult a bit more and maybe just just take more care over these things. But at the moment, as it stands, I can't support it. But I'd like to see the route if possible. Just look at the map to see how this fits and how people what what what we expect people to be doing. Are they cycling into town?
Are they parking their bikes there? Why would they park their bikes there? Just a few questions. Thank you.
If if I can just respond um on that point before we sort of uh look at any maps if we need to. This essentially is is the first part of the jigsaw if you like in terms of we need to deliver infrastructure to encourage more walking and cycling. Um the purpose of the the active travel hub is it it gives people options. So you say are people going to walk? Are they going to cycle? It it gives them options. It enables them to park um and then jump on their bike.
they could leave a bike overnight and then cycle into town or they could park and they could get the bus. This does this scheme here is a standalone scheme.
It doesn't include any specific uh changes to the current routes into the town center. Those things, as I'm sure you're aware, are being looked at differently by different areas of the council with the county council. Um, and there's obviously aspirations to improve the Southgate and various routes in into town. We we can't deliver that all in in one go. As I mentioned in my report, this uh the proposal for an active travel hub on the Norah site has been in the pipeline for a number of of years is supported by the the county council. Um so as I say, this is really the first phase of of wider improvements to sustainable travel within Kingslin. Um and it's we need to start somewhere and and this is the starting point.
>> Can I just ask a question? You mentioned a new thing about the county council, but will they be reviewing their things now that there's had a change of of power in the county so we can have assurances that what we're doing now is not going to change in a few months.
>> Um, do you want me to pick up on that? I mean chair I mean obviously there was there is significant funding attached to this particular um uh proposal as part of the wider um Kingsland um transport strategy improvements which is an adopted policy of the council um you know the county council itself obviously if there is a change leader but that is a separate u matter and you know in terms of this um proposal it's it's well advanced um and again a policy of the council.
>> Thank you chair.
>> Thank you. Uh councelor Dewali next please. Sorry chair. Uh your question was answered about the routes uh that people would take. Is it possible to show that on a map or not?
>> Won't be a minute.
>> Stop sharing.
Just awesome.
to do.
We're getting there.
H Are you communicating with an officer?
Yeah.
No. I'm sorry, but I can't have that at the moment, please. Thank you. Only I've had it pointed out to me.
Thank you.
I'm going to reshare.
Okay.
So, we've got the So, that's the click building there. Hopefully you can see the cursor. So this is the application site here. This is the the NAR's way that runs up to the south gates and then users would be crossing the the south gates and coming into town along London Road there, isn't it? Yeah.
>> Um and then around the back as well.
>> Yeah. there's >> along the running along the cube.
>> Yeah, there's also the um the connection into the the the Riverside route as well from there. So, it's difficult for me to show you a precise route um on on a map sort of ad hoc. Um but essentially there's there's various cycle routes that you could take either the the main road or along the riverside if you wanted to go along the key.
>> Thank you for that. Um, so really the question is who do we see parking their bikes at this hub?
Because if you're a cyclist, you would cycle into town. Why would you leave your bike there?
My understanding is, as I say, it's it's a flexible use. So, for example, you could um some people will want to leave a bike there overnight, for example. Um it's a secure building. So they could they could drive they live further a field. So it's for example and it's not feasible for them to want to cycle from home all the way in. They could drive to the hub, park at the hub, unchain their bike. They could cycle into town um and back again in the evening uh secure their cycle um and drive home. For example, as I say, it's it's really flexible in terms of of how people will want to use this facility. And obviously Naru's uh the Kingsing Enterprise Park is not yet fully delivered. So, in the future, there's going to be um hopefully a lot more um employment uses on that site and and people um wanting to to cycle in and around that area.
>> Councelor Dewali.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um from from a a holistic perspective, I see this as a demonstrably valuable regeneration of a highly challenging brownfield site.
However, I do have some questions. So the first is that I I'd like better understanding of the flood risk assessment. I note the uh comments of the east of pulver internal drainage board and that I see um the suggestion is that there will be a greater than green field site outflow into puny drain which is in flood zone three. So the uh local lead local flood authority um are now satisfied that uh from the uh suggestion of a searchcharge outfall scenario and the exceedence flow assessment. Can you give a little bit more detail uh because that's quite technical and how these these have been satisi satisfied please and I have one further question.
>> I'm not a drainage expert. I will make that clear. um to start um there has been a lot of discussion with the lead local fund authority. We've been through four rounds of consultation with them.
The applicant has adapted and mended the scheme um at all times. So as I mentioned on in my report um obviously there is a a storage system on the site with that outflow um into the the puny drain. It is higher than you would normally expect that discharge rate.
You're absolutely right but the drainage board have agreed that obviously there is a price to pay for that. So um so there is an increased fee payable to the the drainage board. Um but essentially yeah water will be um contained um within the the storage area on the site um and then the the discharge rate can then be controlled into the the puny drain. So the fact that um the flood risk of the site has been taken into account in terms of the development of that system. We there's been a lot of work on um where the water will flow onto the site ensuring it's all contained within the site. it doesn't flow out onto footpaths onto Naru's way.
Um so there has been a lot of work done um around that. I probably can't be any more technical than that I'm afraid um in terms of the um the system but I hope that helps.
>> And your second point.
>> Thank you chair. Yes. Um so I just wanted clarification of two concerns that the um that um put forward. Um so the first the first one was they um they quote I quote it is incredible that the applicant seeks permission for a new 236 space car park but claims that it is not expected that the development will result in any net increase in vehicle movements. Um could you clarif um um could you clarify um uh our position on that or the officer's position on that um objection that also um the statement that they object to the travel hub not providing all the minimum standard facilities listed by the Norfolk travel hub strategy. Thank you.
In terms of the um no increase in vehicle movements, my understanding of that is this travel hub is going to attract people that were probably already coming into Kingslin on the the Naru's way. So, it's not necessarily going to generate additional traffic.
It's people that would ordinarily have driven along Naru's way and come and parked in the town center in our car parks, in their office car parks, etc. Um so that's my understanding of the reasoning behind that. In terms of the actual facilities themselves, they do provide um all of the the the minimum requirements uh especially with regard to the LTN120220 the government's publication. So the storage facilities, the lockers, um the showers, the changing, the toilets, um all of those facilities are available.
>> Thank you chair for those clarifications.
>> Right. Uh did you wish to come back please if I may? Um just going back to councelor Bub's point um from my recollection and dealing with the Baker Lane obviously Baker Lane um is going to be is exactly the same as the um that the Naru's um active travel hub in the fact that the burough council will be um operating that um facility. Um this has all come back to me whilst I've just been sitting here. you call um if you recall that on that site um they had been in full um consultation with Dave Morton's team in commercial services um and it's been exactly the same with this scheme um as well obviously your your other point in terms of who's going to be managing going forward into into the next administration well that will be a point for the next administration but if we are running it you know as now along with you know the balain if that comes forward again in the future then obviously it is our facility thank you chair >> thank you um councelor Fry Okay, >> thank you. Um, so in principle I agree with the bus stops and in principle I agree with the out of town parking to allow people to take the bus into town.
However, with it being phased, I think the over the overspill of people coming there, the expectation be at the park, if they are going to use it, it will impact on the other um units around in particular the Kingsland Health and also if that parking is paid for um people will naturally go and park somewhere where it's free and then take the bus in. So, I think that will also impact on the Kings Health. I know that's operational and not planning necessarily. Um and again I think I support what um councelor de power said I can't see how the cycling element will work in reality right uh council bub have you got a new point please >> yes well listening to all this there there's obviously a lot of things that we don't know can I propose that we defer this until R&D have had a a session with it and then come back for a vote I don't want to be voting for something that in five years time is boarded up as a white elephant. I'd like it to be a success, but I think we know more need to know more.
>> Right. Do you have a second then, please?
Councelor Dewinton.
Just a second. One second.
Take it to the right. I'm going to take it to the vote.
It will be recorded. And I'll start with Kathy that you've proposed a council bub. Councelor Dwinton has proposed defer um supported you in your deferral.
Right Kathy please. We are voting for deferral for or against so they are indeed can have a discussion on it.
>> Thank you. Councelor not >> four.
>> And councelor Bone >> four.
>> Councelor B >> four.
>> Councelor Debbie Py.
Councelor Everett >> against.
>> Councelor Fry >> for.
>> Councelor Linton >> against.
>> Councelor Rose >> four.
>> Councelor Spikings >> four.
>> Councelor Story >> four.
>> Councelor Dewali >> against >> and councelor Dwinton >> four.
>> Yeah. The proposal to defer was carried.
>> Right. That's carried then. that will be deferred and referred back for further discussion at R&D so everybody gets a better chance to understand counter story >> I'm sorry to interrupt chairman but is it is it the policy now that um or probably always has been mightist the fact is that if we've got something to say and our names don't speak um would it not be sensible to let the speakers hear what they have to say because a motion such as councelor above has put forward those questions could then have gone forward to whoever's making these decisions then the application could come back and all these applications went amongst many that's a full application and we should have had all the information in front of us so we can make a decision as Gordon now to another committee I gather because we haven't got the information that is not the way to run yeah >> in my opinion a proper and correct planning committee >> thank you unfortunately the decision has been to defer but there's nothing to stop you going to R&D voicing your concerns exactly the same. So on that note, I'm going to have to move on to the next application which is page 48 which is heatchum and it is for the construction of flood lit paddle tennis courts associated bar and clubhouse facilities and formation of car extension. There's late correspondents and speakers and the recommendation here is to approve members then I'll take the comfort break after this one.
Lucy. Hello, Lucy.
>> Thank you, chair.
>> And thank you, Julie. That was well done.
>> As was just mentioned, the application seeks consent for the construction of four paddle courts and associated facilities at Heat Mana. Um, as you can see here on the site plan, this is the main extent of Heat Mana. That's existing clubhouse facilities in the top left in blue or outside of the blue line here are existing holiday lets which are in third party ownership but are managed in association with each of mana. This is an existing um wellness facility and this location plan on the right shows you the existing residential properties outside alongstant road.
Each mana is grade two listed. You can see that building here hopefully. I apologize for the size of it on this plan. You can see so it's um separated from the application site itself by the existing built form either side.
The four paddle courts you can see here.
They'll be surrounded by a combination of wire mesh and glass fencing about 4 m tall. You can see also the seating areas to the south and then the nature walk in the red.
There's also the um small buildings here which provide the additional facilities and then to the bottom these are the sort of cool tubs externally.
Jesus move on.
There we go. So that shows you the internal of the buildings, the bar and the multi-use area with the toilets and the storage equipment room. And then this is the elevations of the paddle courts themselves to give you an idea of the scale of them.
And then these are the photos. So that's the internal access road which will be used to gain access to the paddle courts and to the extent car park. Her Mana is in the background there. You can see the chimneys in the back hopefully.
This is the holiday lights here.
Yeah.
And then these are more permanent um dwellings in the back facing Unstantton Road.
And again, those are the houses facing Unstanton Road. So, the nature walk will be in the back with the paddle courts closer to the camera.
And that's the southeast corner of the site. So that tree belt is outside of the red line boundary.
And again, that's just a view of showing the holiday less and then residential in the background.
And this is the area for the car park extension. To the back, you can see the grass.
The application is recommended for approval subject to numerous conditions including an operational management plan to allow us to have additional control of how it is operated given the noise impact assessment and the comments from CSN. The key issues are on page 48 and the better location plan which shows you the relationship of the site with each mana and with the houses along Stanton Road is on page 46. Thank you, chair.
>> Here's Michael Delaney. And you'll have three minutes.
Thank you, chair, members, offices.
Uh, my name is Michael Delaney. I'm at the nearest of those residential properties that were shown in the back of the photo behind the holidays. The address is to Malbury Place. I speak on not just on my behalf, but on the next five neighbors, they are numbers 72, 74, 76, 78, and 80 on Stanton Road. I met with them on Friday the 15th of May. We discussed the CSSN CSN report in considerable detail and they gave me their full support to come to the committee and express our joint concerns.
Paddle is a noisy sport. I don't think there's any dispute about that. It's you only have to Google it. The reports tell you that paddle as a sport creates noise. It's noise from the play, from the impact on the fences, from the celebration of points scored by the participants. This proposes to put four courts playing paddle in what is currently a very tranquil location. And there's the rub because what is acceptable on that site without disturbing neighbors all around um is is one thing at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Saturday, but it's something else entirely at 8:00 on a Monday evening because at 8:00 on a Monday evening, as I can tell you because I consciously listened to what I could hear. There was one car left in the car park. There was a car every 3 minutes going past on the road outside. Other than that, what I could hear were the birds. I could hear the jack doors. Um, if paddle is put in that location, it will be a continuous potential for noise across the operating hours. And and if I say that the applicant originally asked for 105 hours a week, year round, 7 in the morning till 11 at night, imagine this if it was 25 meters from any of your neighbors when a a similar application comes your way. Um, it it it won't work. And even though the hours have been cut down now to 92, that's longer than the opening hours of Hechum at little.
Um the CSN suggested as mitigation 77 hours that was obviously turned down. It's back to 92. Maybe later in this meeting you'll be offered 77 again. It still won't work. So why won't it work? In my view, the grounds for objection are remain NPPF paragraph 198 clause A, local plan07 clause 8C, local plan 21 clause 2C, the Heat neighborhood plan policy 5 clause 1. You've seen them all.
They don't demonstrate that the paddle operation on those extended hours through the quiet times of the morning through the day particularly into the evening they don't demonstrate that it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of the residents nearby.
Thank you.
>> Our next speaker I believe is online Mr. Dean Warsley.
next.
>> Okay, we'll move on to our next speaker which is uh Mr. James Wells. You will have three minutes as well.
Right.
Thank you, chair. I'm James Wells, agent for the applicant cells camping ground limited, the owner and operator of Heat and Mana Hotel and Golf Resort, um, which contains the proposal site. This application principally concerns the construction of four outdoor paddle tennis courts, highly requested facilities which will support a long-standing local tourism and leisure business and will be available for the use and enjoyment of the whole community. The scheme also includes modest clubhouse and bar facilities, a nature walk area, and a proportionate extension to the existing car park. The scheme before you today is the result of significant refinement over the last 18 months following a pre-application inquiry in January 2025.
Advice from the case officer along with the council's ecologist, conservation, and arborulture officers at that early stage um and the input of the CSN team since submission of the application has all been acted upon by the applicant to fully mitigate the issues raised. I'll briefly address two key concerns directly at light and noise. To ensure a light sensitive design, all flood lighting will be installed at a zero degree tilt which appropriately illuminates the courts while minimizing light spillage such that there has been assessed to be no impact on surrounding sensitive receptors.
In terms of noise, importantly, the scheme complies with the council's policy that new noise sources do not exceed existing background levels by more than five dibels. Furthermore, predicted maximum ball strike noise levels are 34 dibbels at the nearest dwelling facade and 36 dibels at gardens, which is characterized as very quiet and roughly equivalent to a soft whisper in a quiet library or a tickling watch. These figures are not generic assumptions. They're the result of a specific assessment by a specialist acoustic consultant using on-site measurements and data specific to the proposal site and surroundings. The report has been thoroughly reviewed by your senior CSN officer who concluded that the scheme aligns with council policy and that there no there are no grounds to object. Paddle is widely recognized as an inclusive sociable sport suitable for all ages, abilities, and fitness levels, offering clear physical and mental health benefits and helping to reduce social isolation. As such, the courts will be a valuable community asset supporting healthy lifestyles in Herman and Hunst Stanton.
The proposal has been refined through extensive engagement with officers, resulting in a well-designed scheme with no statutory objections. The development represents a positive and fully policy compliant use of the site according in particular with local plan policies LP7 and LP21 and neighborhood plan policy 5.
We hope that in light of this statement and all other information before you, the committee will be minded to approve this application in line with your office's recommendation.
Thank you.
Chancellor Parish, you'll have five minutes.
Um, sorry. Um, Georgia, are you available, please?
>> Hello.
>> Hi. Please can you um somebody check um Cathy's inbox um and email me um the um the speech for for Mr. Wley so we can read it out, please?
>> Yeah. Kathy can't can't Kathy can't do it, so it needs to be me. Thank you.
Thanks.
>> Sorry, it's my internet.
>> Yes, your turn first, please. Councelor Parish.
>> Okay. Right. Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the peace and quiet of your own gardens in this last week of sun and summer with your windows open. Anyway, panel tennis courts are a revenue raising and noisemaking phenomenon which are currently the cause of more complaints than any other sport. In this case, the original application was dire and was whittleled down by the persistent work of CSN and the case officer. I congratulate them. However, I conclude that the application is still not acceptable without further noise mitigation measures. On the 16th of April from CSN, the noise from the development would be potentially noticeable. proposed full 7-day week of 15 hours a day will have a negative impact on the community of the permanent residential dwellings. There is little opportunity for respite for respite for occupiers of these dwellings. The application now is for 7 days a week operation 8 till 9:30 and 9 till 8 on Sunday. That's 92 hours in total. The CSN contribution on the 15th of May, a different author states it is a complex matter trying to assess the noise impacts of a relatively new sport. It is noted this is a sport that creates impact noise and generates people noise from players which can be quite intrusive. Therefore, these timings are considered appropriate to allow development to take place and protect the immunity of neighboring properties.
Really, would you be happy living next door to intrusive noise for 92 hours each week? MW acoustic acoustic consultants specializing in paddle state that standard noise assessments that consider the average overall noise level may not fully capture disturbance from paddle. I doubt that the findings of the noise survey will match the reality of the impact of noise on the local residents. It will be repetitive disturbance over most of the day and evening and once the planes approved as it stands, it'll be very difficult to recover the situation. I suggest that condition 3 is amended to CSN's suggested use times made on the 16th of April, 8 to 8:00 p.m., 9 to 7 p.m., and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. These timings would help reduce adverse impacts of noise and lighting. And of course, if the courts produce very little or no nuisance, the applicant would be free to apply for an amendment to this condition. If they are convinced that their data is correct, and they should have no qualms about accepting this change to the published condition three.
Other recommendations from CSN and listed on the bottom of page 52 of the agenda for relating to tables, lighting, music, and events. Condition 4 does not adequately address these and should be rewritten to ensure compliance. The committee has choices. Approve the application as it stands, ignoring concerns of local residents who will have little red address for nuisance in the future and will suffer psychological and physical stress. Refuse the application as it stands and request other data pertaining to potential nuisance is provided. Or three, alter or add conditions to help further mitigate any potential detrimental impacts on residents, remembering that such conditions can be amended at a later date if they prove unnecessary. I do hope that common sense prevails and nearby residents consider that their mental well-being is being protected.
There's much stress made on the well-being and that paddle might bring to visitors to the courts, pain visitors to the courts. There's little made by the applicants about the stress caused by the residents who live near to those courts.
I'm the bor council representing those residents and I must insist that you think about those residents needs.
Thank you. Thank you. We're just checking our email box for the last person and if I can't in a minute I'm having to move on. So just bear with me a minute please members says online.
Sorry. Um, Georgia, can you double check, please? Um, because councelor Parish can um thinks that it's been sent to Kathy, but you're saying it's not in her emails.
>> Yeah, sorry. Just bear with me.
>> Right. Can you check Democratic services as well, please? Anyway, thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
She's checking cuz it's not Yeah, >> it would have been better if they' have sent it to the chair as Well, because at least I have it.
>> No, good.
>> Sorry, Georgia. Can you confirm or otherwise, please?
>> There is one from councelor Parish, right?
>> And is does that does that contain an email from Mr. Parish chair?
I've well in which case if there's no email from Mr. Wley Council Parish. I think we're going to have to move on.
>> Also, it would have been helpful if the chair had been copied in, which normally happens.
Right. Thank Thank you. I'm going to move on.
Anything.
>> Right.
>> Just no. Right. Officer, is um is it Lucy? Is there anything else further to add? Please, >> if I can just come back to reiterate what's really said in late representations um sorry correspondence tweet after publication of the agenda.
Um the noise impact assessment included a survey of an existing paddle facility.
So they went out and did a noise survey of an existing paddle facility plus the survey of the background noise on site here. So they have done a thorough assessment um which CSN do agree with and the operating hours have also been agreed. Um so we have no grounds to object is what CSN said is what we agree with in terms of condition four. That is the operational management plan which sets out um additional measures to control the impacts on neighboring residents the closest I'm just going to read those bullet points.
So specifically to protect residential amenity including noise and lighting, the use of external areas, deliveries and refues and any music or tanway usage as well as a process to manage complaints and to review that going forwards. Um so that would allow the comments from CSN on page >> 50 55 >> 52 and as addressed in my report in 56 to be controlled. So in terms of time t time in the lighting so that turns off when the paddle courts aren't in use um and the order of usage um meaning that the paddle courts furthest away are being used primarily versus the ones closer to the residential use which is part of what CSN originally asked for.
Um we do feel that that's sufficient to control the noise impacts and to comply with the policies of the local plan and a neighbor plan. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Right members, those wishing to speak, please. Uh, councelor DeWali and De La Pali.
>> Yep.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I've I am currently caring for um a relative and being able to sleep during the day. One can't sleep at night is absolutely valuable. So, it's not just a matter of um uh considering people working on night shifts. There there are other reasons that are perfectly valid for why people need particularly peace during the day. Um I have uh we mentioned at a previous uh planning committee um I believe um uh the Baty power station. Well, there's an indoor paddle tennis court next to a recreation uh ground and it's an indoor being an indoor one. It is still very noisy. So I do have my concerns about the noise coming from an out from four outdoor courts. So my question is um can can I have um uh you say that a thorough assessment has been done. Is that based on real world data for existing outdoor courts or is it a desktop exercise please? Thank you.
So as I said the noise impact assessment was based on surveys of an existing paddle facility. There's um assessment there of what was going on at the time of the noise surveys whether there were matches going on. So they have done quite a thorough um impact assessment based on real world examples plus the background noise levels of each manner and its surroundings.
>> Did you wish to come back on that comment or are you happy with what you've said? So these were outdoor courts not indoor courts.
>> Yeah. Yes. Quite a similar setup which they've CSN have agreed with that approach.
>> Right. Councelor De La Pali.
>> Thank you chair. I'm going to carry on talking about the noise. Um so in in principle it's nice to have good sporting facilities. So this is a welcome proposal. But I do feel for the neighbors. And uh I just done a cool Google search and it says here that average sound levels on a paddle cord range from 85 to 91 dB. Um and the noise has been likened to a rifle crack. A highly distinctive repetitive and impulsive sound profile often linked likened to a rifle fire crack. So, I'm just a little bit skeptical about the um the the report which says um it says the noise impact would be between minus4 and plus4 dB at the nearest residential receptors. I'm sorry, but I find that really really hard to believe.
And further to that, is there no way that we can condition it so that there is an acoustic wall or is there not something that will sort of stop the sound traveling?
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, in regards to like mitigation measures, the noise impact assessment hasn't set out a need for one. Um, so that hasn't been proposed and it's not something we can unilaterally impose without having to consider the impacts on on the landscape on the Peter Manner as a listed building. Um, so it's not something that we have suggested as there's no need in terms of noise impact assessment and it's not something that's been proposed.
I'd like to make a proposal then that we have an acoustic wall um to to protect the neighbors from the sound. Please, anyone want a second?
So can I'm really really sorry but can you just repeat that again >> you're proposing an acoustic wall are you can ci Linton seconded it is that how I have it >> let me just write that down >> just to clarify are you talking about a fence >> I I don't know the ins and outs of acoustic walls but I'd like the best acoustic wall to protect um noise traveling and affecting the neighbors, please.
>> Right.
I'll take the vote on that in a minute.
>> Right. Uh councelor Bub, I've got you down now to speak. I'm going to carry on and then I'll go back to you in case of some more coming out.
>> Yes, it's going to be an appallingly noisy thing for the neighbors. It is to the west of most of the housing and the prevailing wind will bring the noise across the housing. Uh we we have the bypass around Dersingham which is over half a mile from us. We can hear every car that goes past when the wind isn't in anything like the right direction. We were concerned at Massingham about the disturbance of doors closing on the pub car park which we were extending. And that's quite quiet compared with continuous bang bang bang for these people. And it's not even a necessary noise. If it was somebody having a a rock crashing machine or something, we'd be up in arms about that. And it was a business. This is not a this is purely for pleasure. People's pleasure is being disturbed by other people banging these things around. So, I'm afraid even an acoustic wall is probably not going to keep the noise down and contained. If it's in a solid soundproof building, okay, but it's not at the moment. Uh and and and so I feel for the poor neighbors that are going to be disturbed for most of the day that they may want to be sitting outside or even working outside.
>> Thank you. Uh Cator Winton and story.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, man.
uh representing a coastal ward. You know, tourism is our business. It's fact of life and he manner is what it is and it's I've been there a number of times.
I'm well familiar with the layout and what goes on there. um either you know paddle uh we know it's yes it is a it's a well well-known uh sport on particularly in Europe and in this uh on the continent uh so there's plenty of data around to show about noise and what goes on and maybe some of the more some of the countries which are more exuberant in their celebration of ports points one uh then generally you are reserved Brit it just goes well done good shot things like that um is uh you know it it there is there is the data out there regarding the noise and and sound management so I don't think there's anything new on that I think the thing is either we are serious about encouraging activity along our coast and trying to keep the our economy going on the coast particularly or we're not I think u I think you say the fact is say uh peach manner exists whether adding some paddle tennis courts which may or may not be totally used.
You know, we're looking at four. Uh I suspect they'll probably build two starters and then see how it goes.
That's what I would do if I was running a business though. And they may or may not be successful. So I think the assumption that we are literally inviting almost the equivalent of an all day rock concert going on for 365 days of the year, I think it's probably a bit a bit bit beyond belief. But I think you know either we are serious as a burough council to encourage business and tourism along our coast which this is one of the factors or we're not and I think uh the data is there to actually show what happens in real time not just in the UK but in other countries as well. So uh I'm I must I am not against this application.
>> Cancer story.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And to be quite honest and fair, that that all on this application and probably many others, I suppose it all depends where you live.
If you're living right next to something, you've got to have probably more to say about it than you would somebody who's living 10 miles away, especially if you're talking about noise. So, one can understand completely the concerns of the neighbors um who live in and around that particular site.
Obviously what counter to winter said is is obviously completely right. We are supporting um tourism and the likes for this area and that's a fact but obviously of course like most things it has to be in the right place. Um all I would like to say is chairman at the end of the day if I had um put an application in for something which is probably going to be contentious to those who live around it. I would try and get my agent or applicant to meet with the neighbors or parish council or whatever the concerns are in that area to try and thrash things out before they reach this stage. So hopefully you know that can come forward as one whole recommendation either support or against or whatever it may be. So I can quite understand that the people um which are um making words against this um application that as I say chairman that the crust of the issue is that all depends where you live and the fact is I can as I've said I can understand if I live there I might be saying the same thing and with all due respect to council the wininton if he lived there would he be making the same comments? I thought no and that's up to him. But all I'm saying if I lived there, I would try and make sure that the agent or applicant would ask me first if they was putting an application, what do I think of it? And if this noise business was going to be s such a concern, what can they do about it to alleviate the situation? Because I'm sure we'd all like to see it there just in case it will work for everyone.
>> Uh, right. Thank you, Council Linton.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, councelor Dwinton is absolutely right. We do want to encourage tourism. It is the bread and butter of the coast, but this is about compromise and trying to find the best solution for the business and the residents. And that's why um I am supporting uh and seconding councelor Devil Pali's um proposal for an acoustic wall as some mitigation towards making it bearable and livable for the residents.
>> That's it. Is it right? Thank you um councelor Bow and then I've got Everett.
>> Thank you chair. I'm I'm kind of recker um council Linton's uh thing. So I keep it um I do a good compromise would be if I find find an acoustic solution.
Obviously we mentioned an acoustic wall but wouldn't a bundle or something like that work as well as an acoustic measure which would help tie in with the actual uh historic uh nature of the building and be a a nice supplement to the natural walk. So I'm I'm not uh too fussed which acoustic treatments it it is but providing it does does the job of u shielding the neighbors from the potential noise.
>> Thank you Cath.
Can I ask can I ask how far is going to be from the um applicant site to the nearest neighbor in meters if we've got that >> where the neighbor is neighbor um I can't see glasses can you just share >> these this is the nature walk area here I do apologize it's quite small hopey You can see my cursor. So then it's that distance there. Um, >> and the neighbors are away to the one.
>> Yeah. So that's the rear garden. I'll show you the photos.
>> Did you wish to make any >> How about a Google Earth?
>> Google Earth.
>> It's coming.
The reason I asked that is because in the in the applicant's um noise assessment uh noise impact assessment they actually have quoted a few things on here saying that um if a residential property is within uh a certain meage of the paddle court then it is likely that sound attenuation mitigation will be required. Um, so has CSN taken that into account or has it just kind of um, what's the word taken a big overview on that report?
There's also other factors in here that I'm just reading on here that is actually saying that that 50 dibels causes moderate annoyance. Well, I don't know what the difference between serious, moderate, and non annoyance is cuz it's still annoying. Um, so essentially, I'm also in agreement with getting some kind of mitigation put up for those residents cuz ultimately the residents got to live there. People playing the paddle courts probably only been there for an hour or two hours and then they're going back to where they come from. So, Right.
I've listened very carefully to all what you've said as always. Wait a minute.
Counter story. You've had your say. Wait a minute.
It we definitely need business to come and thrive in West Norol. You know, I've always been pro business. This is another business case put forward because obviously if it doesn't come to here it will go to somewhere else and places have to have offerings and people want to play this sport. It's you know high on the list of let's do however there's one thing I do know is when it says it finishes at 9:30 the game is it the game or they shut because sometimes games go on you're at a crucial point who's going to win. So my view is I think I'm going to make the proposal is that we finish at 8. I think 9:30 is far too late for people. There's children about or could be grandchildren. I think there's a compromise here. I quite agree with the acoustic fence. But to have them just say it's 9:30, we stop.
There's people about. There's laughing, chatting, how did we do or didn't and you made a rotten point. That's life.
So, let's see if we could propo I'm proposing that we actually finish it at 8. That gives everybody a chance. Those that want to go to bed early, not my husband does because he's at work the next morning at 5 or something. Well, then there's compromise in life. I want to see it succeed, but I do think 9:30 is too late. That's just my view.
>> The proposal. So, any comment there, Hannah? I'm going to take these next two to the vote because we've now got two on the table.
>> Um, okay. I think we're we're moving away from, you know, what is being proposed. Um no now the the the applicant has has gone through a series of negotiations with um CSN who have assessed the overall scheme have assessed what's proposed in terms of their timings um and have come to the conclusion that you know finishing at 2130 is acceptable from a noise immunity point of view understand that I can see um in terms of there >> in terms in terms of the um in terms of the fence obviously the fence raises or wall raises other issues as well. It's not just about the noise, it's about the impact on the listed building as well.
Um, now it it seems it seems to me that there's some further negotiation needs to happen with the with the applicant with regard to this in terms of, you know, if you were to propose a fence, what would the extent of that fence be?
Where would it be in the location? You know, would it be all the way around the facility which could have impact with regard to the um the listed building?
Would it be only part? There are various different questions here that have been raised that I think we need answers to before you make a decision.
>> I still need to hear from councelor story on his last point because he's going to kill me if not.
>> Okay, I understand that position. But but my recommend notwithstanding the fact you've got conditions on the table.
This may impact on the proposal of the applicant which we haven't had time to consider or talk to them about. So my advice would be on this application to defer it to allow for further um consideration with with the applicant.
>> Right. Cather, I'd like you to I'm you're summoned up now and then I'm gonna take it to the vote to defer.
You're the last one.
>> Thank you, Chair. The uh the point that Hannah's just made is obviously I would assume correct to to get a full view of this application and try and um involve the neighbors um a little bit more. And also obviously a crucial point to know is this acoustic fence or something like that. We need to know exactly what good does corn want to do and how that's going to cut the noise down by what >> and so that and I also chairman um agree with your point of view chairman I think 8:00 probably is about >> right then I'm now going to vote for deferral do I have a second please gleone we defer uh Kathy do you want to show a hands or do you want a vote hands defer that's carried it's a unanimous right then members it's now nearly quarter to to 52 111 rather. back here for a Right members, we are now on page Can we have hush, please?
Page 67, Kingsland. It's a retrospective use of former store building as one-bedroom dwelling. It's a full application and the recommendation here is refused. And I have a letter from councelor Joyce to read out.
Good morning. So this is application reference 2600382F.
It's a retrospective application for change of use of former store building to one-bedroom dwelling and this is at 12 Kitchener Street in Kingslin.
So, as I said, the application seeks retrospective consent for conversion to a modest one-bedroom dwelling. The application site lies within the development boundary for Kingslin. It's in the area known as South Lin, but the site is also within flood zones two and three and with is within the tidal breach hazard zone. So the key issues are detailed um within the report and the main points here are flood risk and neighbor and residential immunity. The recommendation is to refuse and um there's no late representations. So I'll just run through the presentation.
So um >> okay sorry. Um so the application site is this in red. just this triangular area on the end and the um it includes the amenity space to the rear of 14. So this is a shared kind of backyard area for um the new unit which is number 12A and number the existing unit which is number 14.
And this this is the set of plans.
So you can see upstairs there is a bedroom within the roof space and a ground floor sitting room with a kitchen to the rear and then a small bathroom area.
This is a photograph of the um the unit itself. So you can see number 14 the twostory existing and they've called the new unit number 12 and you can see the roof light there. You can see it. Um so there's the side gate access the rear yard area. You can see how it's positioned within Kitchener Street and that's the kind of side access to the shared rear yard rear yard.
These are photographs what was online to show um the internal um space and that's everything. So as I said the recommendation is to refuse and that's on two grounds. one that there's insufficient um living space for the occupant and the second is that um as the dwelling is within flood zones two and three and the tidal breach hazard zone fortunately the application does not meet the um flood risk policy which is LP25.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Claire. That's very good.
Cathy, are you going to read out councelor Joyce's comments? Yeah, please.
There are two ways of looking at the application. First, it is retrospective which could have been seen as disrespectful. Around two years ago, an application was approved for a storage unit which could be seen as disingenuous. I understand there is to be no representation from the applicant to highlight good points in this application. Members must make of that what they will. The officer's report is sound. It notes objections from the environment agency who suggest that were a catastrophic event to happen, the property would face being damaged. Also, the property is below national standards for living space. All reasonable grounds for refusal. She could have included it fails to comply with manual for streets which is the basis for Northolk County Council's parking policy and there is no secure covered place identified for a cycle.
On the other hand, Norfolk Highways raise no objection and the property is within comfortable walking distance of a bus stop. The environment agency accept it is a matter for the emergency planner to consider safety if a flood were to happen and there is no objection from the emergency planner. The issue the issue of damage to property would be present with all properties wherever the living accommodation were to be in the event of a cat catastrophic event happening. There was discussion around living space during development of the local plan. The present cabinet member for planning opposed the introduction of any minimal limits. The property is within the development boundary and with government requiring higher numbers of property than what may be seen as realistic. This property can be classified as a windfall. I hope this explains why I called in this application to the committee. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Do you got anything to add to hearing those comments? Right.
Then I'll take it to members for discussion. Councelor Bone.
>> Thank you, chair. Um I feel that the act officer's recommendation is correct. We cannot ignore the view uh that this isn't a flood zone and it's um and it's quite dangerous. Miss Lee, all the other houses safe probably at the same level.
But I do need to remind members that FreeBridge put forward uh uh an office in North Flynn which wouldn't fall fall um into the the same category and we refuse that based based on the risks of flooding. Um there probably could have been a way to overcome this is actually to have an annex so it actually connected to the the neighboring property which would gave safe refuge in the event of a flood. So I strongly feel that the office's recommendation on this to refuse is the correct uh recommendation.
>> Councor Everett, >> can I ask the officers how this came to be retrospective? Was it as a result of enforcement action or >> Yes, >> I've got a nod. Thank you.
>> Yes, it was. Yeah, it was enforcement.
Um >> so once again, we've got yet another retrospective coming to the comm.
Obviously, I know that's not um planning consideration um but say just puts a mockery to our planning system where people can just do what they want and then oh, we'll just apply for it later. But I'm in agreement with the officer's report as it is sound. Um it's too cramped. Um and I'll be voting against this. I'll be voting with the officer's recommendation.
>> Councelor Bab, >> thank you. Um, yes, I can see why this is being recommended for refusal. Can I ask a question?
We we at home have a VUX window which is designed for escape which is bigger than this one we can see in the picture. Um, if this was fitted, would we then be still asked to refuse this?
Yes, we would because um the environment agency um has made clear and in line with our policy if if um the flood depth if the risk of flooding with the depth is beyond 2 meters we just say no habitable accommodation at ground floor and so this does provide proposed provide a kitchen and um lounge area ground floor. So in flood risk it still would um and also it would still be below um the minimum space standard. So we'd still be recommending a refusal.
>> Right. Anyone else wishing to speak? If not I'm going to take it to the vote.
Council Story.
>> Yeah. Sorry chairman that um obviously you know I'm not going to waste too much time but this one probably hasn't got too much going for it with respect to of plan and policies and and what have you.
I just I just feel this may be a case to to try and highlight um within the general public and developers or whatever about this word retrospective um crops up on a regular basis. um whether we put that in any newsletters information regards planning and whatever it may be goes out to the general public that um you would assume that this committee is not uh in favor of any respected plan and applications come forward with all due respect and um chairman I just feel that um that really is a difficult situation um for us as ward members and others when retrospect is come forward and they're granted um and then we have one here comes forward And it's not I just feel that we should be consistent in many in many circumstances going forward chairman um with that in mind and I just feel that when people have these preapps and if that is a retrospective do you make a headline that retrospective is not favorable in planning terms to either yourselves or the committee going forward.
>> Thank thank you councelor Story. Um I mean I think obviously we we talk about retros retrospective applications quite a lot here at committee. Um the problem is that you know there is provision in law for retrospective applications and uh you know at the end of the day if you know notwithstanding whether something is retrospective or not if it's policy compliant and there's no impact then you know we we would treat it as a as an approval. you know people take a risk you know um if it's not acceptable in in policy terms or there is harm then we would refuse it obviously people have the right to appeal etc etc but you know I I can't you know go out to members of the public to say you know retrospective applications aren't favored because you know Nikki will say here that you know what whilst um you know uh there's provision in law for for those applications to be submitted we we need to deal with them um you know sometimes they're okay sometimes they're Not okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you on merit. Right. Um the recommendation then is refuse. I'm now going to take it to the vote. Please Kathy.
>> Thank you councelor not.
>> Councelor Bone.
>> Four.
>> Councelor B.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Debbie Polly.
>> Councelor Everett.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Fry. Councelor Linton.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Rose.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Spiking.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Story.
>> Four. Councley >> and Council >> that was carried unanimously.
>> Right, that refusal is carried. We uh we now move and thank you very much, Claire. Um councelor Bone has declared an interest is now removed from the room. Um we're on page 81, which is North Wooden and there are speakers on this and late correspondents. It is a householder application for a single story side extension and new porch full application and the recommendation is approved and it's another cl another cl. Hello.
Okay.
>> Good morning.
As just stated by the the chair, the current application is at number five Gregory Close. Um and it's for a single story side extension and porch because of the sound. So, thank you.
>> Can everybody hear me?
>> Yeah.
>> Great.
Okay. So, I'm going to start. Do seem to have a popup. Let me just deal with that.
Oh, now I've just killed you. Sorry.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, you're not seeing you're not seeing the other slide. Okay. Apologies.
I think we're set to go.
So, I'm going to start with the existing um elevation plans and elevations. As you can see, we've got looking at a single um story semi- detached property with a detached garage. I would like to draw members attention to the fact that in the officer report, the garage is described as being adjacent to the boundary. This is not correct. It is actually set on average approximately 5.6 mters away from the boundary. As you can see the boundary line is indicated and in a dotted line there which is the boundary with number nine Julian Road.
>> Sorry, technical problems. Bear with us.
chair. I'm sorry, but this this seems to have crashed. Oh, hang on. Moved. There we go.
Sure.
>> Thank you. And just before I move off the existing plans, I just want to draw attention to the fact that there is a conservatory as you can see on the plan there existing that would come down as part of the proposal.
Now moving on to the proposed scheme.
Um, as you can see the the the extension um is on the eastern side with a drop bridge and a smaller flat roofed element to provide a utility space.
Just pause a moment so members can make sure they've seen the plans thoroughly.
This next plan has been provided by the applicant's agent. Um, as you can see, there's a hatched area in gray which has been superimposed onto the um the proposed extension. And what this shows is what could be built under permitted development rights as a detached building.
I'm now going to take you through some photographs. So, this first photograph is looking eastward. You've got number six in the foreground and then number five beyond. And this just illustrates the position of the uh the property which is a little beyond the head of the culdeac. Um access through a private um driveway.
This is the front of number five Gregory Close.
And again a closer view showing the position of the detached garage. You can see the boundary with the um properties along uh Julian Road.
Another angle. This is just to show that there would be sufficient place uh for additional car parking spaces. Um and three additional bays are shown or three bays are shown as part of the proposal um to make up for the loss of the garage and the driveway.
This is at the rear of number five. This is the existing conservatory and the relationship with number six.
This is the back of the the garage um of number five.
This is looking northwards towards number four Gregory Close uh which is as I say to the north. You can see there's an um a secondary side window to a living space just visible and a rear conservatory.
This is again from within the rear garden of number five and looking towards the eastern boundary with Julian Road.
Um another angle showing the garage there on the right hand side.
This is just a view looking back down.
So you've got um number five and six behind you just to give you an idea of other properties nearby that there is some variety.
This is a view from the open space to the south. Um so you can see the pair u numbers five and six on the left hand side. um and just see the top of the garage just to the left hand side of the the tree.
This photograph has been taken from number four Gregory Close um from a seating seating area and patio area within that garden um looking towards the application site. You can see the ridge line of the existing building uh or the main part of the house and then the garage adjacent and obviously you can see where the where the conservatory lies and the relationship there between the two properties.
This is another view this time a little closer.
A view from within the conservatory area I've done before.
This uh photograph is taken from number nine Julian Road which is the uh property immediately adjacent to the east.
Um and you can see there in the center of the photograph that the the gable end of number five and the garage.
A closer view this time showing the pergola that's in the northwest corner of uh number nine Julian Road.
This is a a photograph that was provided to me by the uh the owners of number nine. They wanted to me to to show this um which is a view from their seating area at a particular time of day uh late afternoon and that ends the presentation.
>> Right. Finished.
>> Yes. The principal um issues are listed on page 79 of the report.
The recommendation is to approve. Um and obviously I can take any questions that you might have. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh could I have Martin Rosson, please?
You have three minutes and I believe the switch is on the right. Thank you. Thank I just need yours there. Thank you. Um Michael, can you just check that there please? Thank you very much. We live at Fort Gregory Close directly to the rear of the proposal. Objections are scale as amended. The proposal remains excessively large. It would result in a dwelling approach approaching three times the size of the original bungalow which is clearly disproportionate and not subordinate. This represents a substantial redevelopment rather than a modern modest extension. Character of area. Gregory close defined by modest bungalows set within spacious plots with clear gaps between properties. These gaps are key characteristics of the area. The proposal by reason of its width and massing would erode this spacing and harm the established pattern of development.
Impact of residential immenunity. The development would introduce a long and dominant flank close to shared boundaries significantly affecting four neighboring gardens and rear elevations.
This would result in loss of outlook, increased enclosure, and an overbearing impact, creating a more oppressive environment for neighbors. Permitted development fallback. Members should give careful consideration to the officer's report's reliance on permitted development fallback. In this case, the comparison is not correct and should carry little weight. The fallback referred to relates to outbuildings under class E which are materially different in planning terms. Such structures must rem remain incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and cannot be used as principal living accommodation nor can they form part of the main dwelling. In contrast, proposable for you is for a substantial side and rear extension forming integral primary living accommodation fundamentally increasing the scale and function of the house. Therefore, this is not a like forlike comparison and risks detracting from the proper assessment of the proposal on its own merit. Accordingly, given the li limited relevance of the fallback comparison and the already significant scale of the development, it is essential that any further enlargement the dwelling is controlled. If members are minded to grant permission, we strongly request that a condition is imposed to remove all households of permitted development rights, including extensions, roof alterations, porches, and outuildings.
Without such control, there is a real risk of further incremental enlargement and intensification of the site which would exacerbate the harm identified.
Members should note no condition is recommended to remove permitted development rights given the already significant level of the bill form proposed. This is an important admission. Finally, earlier office concerns identified the proposal as too large and too close to the boundaries and time flies. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Sorry if you'd like to take your seat, please.
Thank you. Uh councelor ring next, please.
You have five minutes. Cancel ring.
five.
Yeah, >> I don't know yet. Here we go. Thank you.
>> Morning members. I want to begin by saying that I fully understand why officers have recommended this for approval and I concur with the comments made by uh Mrs. Rosson regarding the permitted development rights. I think it's a distraction from this application.
However, we are required to determine applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That is start the starting point set out in paragraph 2 of the MPPF. My concern is not with the principle of the extension but with the scale massing and relationship of this particular extension to neighboring properties and to the established character of Gregory Close. The report itself reminds us that LP18 requires development to respond to the context and character of places ensuring that scale, density, and layout enhance the quality of the environment.
It also requires protection of local distinctiveness. LP21 require requires the scale, height, and massing of development to respond sensitively to local setting, including the spaces between buildings. The North Warton neighborhood plan is a particularly important point here. Policy three states that development should be of a density that respects local character and should protect and enhance landscape and green infrastructure features to preserve the natural character of the village. It also emphasizes that North Wharton is characterized by a lowcale low density pattern of development with houses arranged in clusters and pockets of green spaces. One of Gregory Close's defining characteristics is the sense of openness between buildings. Even the officer report acknowledges that properties are arranged so that views between plots are apparent.
My difficulty is that the proposal would introduce a very substantial singlestory extension more than doubling the size of the dwelling. While the ridge height has been reduced through negotiation, the overall footprint and the closeness of build form to neighboring boundaries remain significant.
Paragraph 135 of the MPPF states that planning decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and establish or maintain a strong sense of place. Good design is not simply about appearance. It is about how development relates to its surroundings and neighbors. For me, the question is whether the scale of ex of the extension preserves the spacious lowdensity character that both the local plan and neighbor plan seek to protect and whe the resulting relationship with neighboring gardens is genuinely acceptable.
Having taken everything into account and considering the lack of two-bedroom bungalows we have in the area, I'm not persuaded that those concerns have been sufficiently overcome.
Therefore, whilst I respect the professional judgment of the offices, I cannot support the recommendation and I invite members to refuse the application on the grounds that scale and massing of the extension would be harmful to the character of the area which would result in an unacceptable impact on neighbor neighboring amenity contrary to policies LP18 and LP21 policy 3 of Northwood neighborhood plan and the design objections objectives of the MPP. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Canceler coats next please. You have five minutes too. Councelor Coats.
Can I have your mic on, please?
Yes, you have five minutes. Thank you, Michael.
>> Not many of you will actually have been down Gregory Close in North Wooden. So, I want to pass on some local knowledge about this part of the Woodens. If you look at page 80 of the agenda that um you'll see that part of the estate was designed with a much lower density. This part of the estate was designed with a much lower density of housing than the housing to the south of Gregory Close uh and its neighbor Julian Road. They consist of small bungalows um well spaced out and designed for retired people. Uh that was 40 years ago, but this largely still holds good today with retired people downsizing to them and releasing larger houses to younger families. Developers just don't build them like that these days. And what few we've got um uh made bigger will will be permanently lost to our housing stock.
to the south and particularly to the east if you're looking at that. Um there are twostory houses designed for families with no roads to cross to reach the Wooden Park and the Northwood School. When planning when this planning application was originally made, it took out the garage and the parking area to the front of it and made no provision for any parking whatsoever. I could see that this could lead to on street parking or driveway parking in front of the next door bun bungalow number six Greg very close. So I objected to that planning application. For other reasons the application generated considerable local opposition and for the sake of local democracy I decided to call the application in. At that time, the planning officer emailed the agent um that she was of the opinion that the extension as currently proposed is too large. She mentioned some other things and concluded at the present time the current application would be refused.
We've got yes slide 36. If we can keep that displayed please. Um you'll see the plans have now been amended. Um and and the ones that you have um are before you are the ones that we're considering.
Comparing the old plan with the new plan, you can see that the extension has been reduced but only by a nominal half a meter from what was over 14 m long originally. The roof line has been changed and the agent points out that the permitted development would allow a large detached building to be erected if planning permission were refused. At the top of page 86 of your report, the planning officer says that the proposed utility would be set back 4.4 m from the front of the main side extension element. This coupled with some of the things seen with this context, the overall size of the extension and its relationship with the boundary is considered on balance to be acceptable.
If you look at slide 36 though, the one that was got displayed there, the proposed utility is set back 3900 mm.
That's 3.9 m. The 4.4 m measurement that is now considered on balance to be acceptable. This is the same measurement that on the original plan uh which the planning officer said was too large and would be refused but it's now acceptable. Staying on slide 36, look at the overall plan. You can see that the extension is about twice the size of the original property. We talk about an extension being subservient to the original property, but this extension is anything but subservient. I think this application should be refused. Clearly from a planning point of view, your planning officer has indicated that passing these plans is a matter of opinion. She's changed her opinion on the smallest of matters. But I invite you to consider your opinion as to who is as to what is right and in this case not be intimidated by the hypothetical threat of some large detached building.
If you do grant permission, please consider the WC window overlooking the neighbors on the eastern boundary and the windows in the boot room door. Can we condition obscure glass? Can we even move that WC window to overlook the back garden instead of the neighbors?
>> Done.
>> Thank you. But >> would you like to come back please?
>> Yes. Thank you. A number of issues raised there. Can I just um >> light it?
>> Yeah, a number of points. I mean, I I would like to address the committee the thinking behind um the point raised about it not being acceptable. Then obviously we're now at a a planning committee with the recommendation of approval. Um I undertook the site visit uh initially very early on in the process and I viewed the application simply from within the site five. Um my impression was at that point that it was quite a dominant form. Um and that from street scene perspective at the very least it needed to be addressed. Um I spoke with the applicant's agent. We discussed various options potentially bringing the um the extension away from the boundary um dropping the roof height and reprofily the roof form and obviously what the applicant uh has felt able to do is is before you um I then we then reconsulted um on the amended drawings and I received um quite a number of uh further objections um and I then made arrangements to go and view the proposal from a joining property which I then did. Um and it was from having made those site visits both to number four and to number four Gregory Close and number nine Julian Road um that my assessment was that the application was acceptable. Um if I can move on to the points about permitted development because I think this is important and that members are really clear on what can and can't be built. Um and I am going to move on to the slide that shows what the applicants this has been put forward by the applicant's agent. Um and you know in theory yes a building of that size could be constructed on the site. Um it would have to be for uses that were incidental to the um the existing dwelling house. Um it could not contained a fully self-contained annex living accommodation that would require planning consent. Um there are a few more point couple more points I want to make on that. in terms of the utility element which is proposed um is approximately three meters high is proposed um that's sitting within a meter of the boundary with nine Julian road I think the the the fallback then is that yes a detached building a shed another garage could be built within a meter of the boundary of number nine Julian Road up to a height of 2 and 1/2 mters so that is accurate This this is shown accurately the weight to which committee members would want to give you know how realistic is this likely to be in terms of a building coming forward as a detached building. Um in terms of an attached building i.e. an extension the fallback is different. The maximum height would be 4 meters in height which is the height that's shown there on the elevation. Um, but the maximum width would be no more than half the width of the existing dwelling house. And that's really where the difference lies between what you see here, which is showing the fallback of a detached building and the fallback of an attached building, which is actually would would result in a much narrower scheme. I hope that provides some clarification. I was going to say, can I just jump in as well just for members attention as well in terms of the extension at the back um here um you could have an extension up to 3 m deep for the full width um of the the dwelling as well. So when we say extensive permitted development rights, they are that you know permitted development rights haven't been removed across this estate. Um so yes, they could extend no more than half the width of the dwelling house um off to the side and off to the rear without those two extensions joining it up. Otherwise, that would require plan permission. You can have up to 3 meters off the back um as as well as what CLA describes in terms of um out buildings.
>> Thank you. Um would you just like to address the point with regard to the dimension because I think there's been some confusion here between 3.9 and 4.4 in the fact that the the dimension is taken um here. It's it's taken from the front of the extension. You're you're talking about the front of the um the house, aren't you? In terms of 4.4.
>> Yes.
Yes, I'm sorry I can't remember the point that was made.
>> The point the point was councelor cokes made a point with regard to on slide 30.
Sorry, I'm not on councelor coats made a point with regard to slide 36 in terms of the the dimension of setback of the utility room from the front um elevation. Now it says 3.9 on the plan but it's actually um you mentioned 4.4 in your report.
>> The dimension that's taken from the front elevation, isn't it? which is can you just point out the front the front elevation?
>> Yeah. So the the dimension the 4.4 >> you can't say you you got to use >> yeah the 4.4 dimension is from the front here.
>> No that's 3.9.
>> That's sorry 3.9 there. Sorry. Yes.
Pardon. This is a three. This is 3.9 here and then the 4.4 is taken from the front of the existing house. So that that would explain that.
>> And isn't there a porch proposed as part of this application as well? Yes, there is a port proposed which is here.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Members, those wishing to speak please. Councelor Dewali. Thank you chair. Forgive me. I just wanted a clarification. Um so there is nothing against us if we chose to um to remove um polit permitted development rights if we were to approve. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. Um it is open for members to remove um development rights both part E in practice if the application were to be approved I believe part A would be elements.
>> Yeah I don't in terms of a class A I mean obviously they can only go off the back up to three meters and off the site to no more than half the width the dwelling has without planning permission being granted. So if if members um approve this application um today um you could probably build something in here off the rear but uh but not off the side because obviously that would um already um have an application on permitted.
>> So if I'm main chair um I'm also meaningable to I mean who wouldn't want to obscure the glass for the um WC window but that doesn't seem to be in the conditions. Uh so I would propose that if this were to be um granted that we removed the permitted development rights and um and condition that the WC window is obscured glass.
>> Can can we just clarify the point on the WC window? Cla can you show the photograph of where that would be because um that window goes into a fence >> and it's only a very small window.
>> Bear with me. I think it's towards the end.
Uh yeah.
So this shows the relationship as currently uh exists with the number nine Julian road toilet window.
>> So So where would the >> So would it be facing this fence? Yes.
It would be looking onto the fence.
>> What the toilet window does?
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. But it would be surely frosted anyway, wouldn't it?
>> It's something that could be it could something that could be conditioned quite readily.
>> Yep.
>> And frosted glass to the toilet window downstairs.
>> Yeah.
I'll second that.
So just for clarity, that would result in two separate conditions. is one with regard to permitted development right removing um A and E and the other with regard to um frosting that um that WC window.
>> I'll second both. Right. Anyone else?
Councelor Bub.
>> Thank you. Um I would agree with the two council that have spoken that it is rather too large for the for the for the area is out of keeping with the character of the other development in the area. And also if you've got this larger building, you've got the potential to uh increase the number of callers at this building or people that live there which are going to um affect the people who are in the other half of the semi- detached bungalow because the approach is basically across their drive. Um, so so it's not going to be terribly acceptable for them whether or not they've >> I they've raised an objection but it basically it's it's too big for the area uh and out of keeping.
>> Yes. Yes. Uh so thank you councelor Bub and if I just may come back obviously size scale massing are are relevant planning considerations. I mean this is an existing family home where um people are already traveling in that direction to to to the access to the front. Um so I'm not sure that we could sustain a refusal of reasons on the number of people visiting. It's still a family home, right? Uh council fry. No story. Sorry, Bob. I >> think that's unusual. You come in early.
Oh, that's what maddled me.
>> First of all, may I say that um the presentation we've had from members of the public and um the counselors was excellent. I thought that was stuck to plan and policy. I thought that was all well put on that position. I may say so.
Chairman, um just to say we had a bit of conflict though. We had I think the member of the public suggested it was three times the size of what was already there and the council suggested that was twice as large as what's already there at the moment in time. That would be helpful if we could probably have an overview because we can see on pages 79 and 80. But that's one thing looking at that situation against one thing of a photograph of the estate. Have we got an overview of the form and character of what that estate actually presents itself to be? Have we got a Google Earth?
>> Google Earth.
>> Have we got What have we got in >> share?
Yep.
down and then you're just going to have to move your um you just put Gregory Place in at the top. Yeah, >> it'll it'll get you a red dot and then you need to move.
>> Oh, and the screen's gone off. Just one.
Oh, >> now coming.
>> Now coming.
Did you search? Yeah. Okay. So, zoom out. Then you'll see a red dot somewhere up here in Kings.
blow up bit more quite sensitive sites there isn't down there Okay, just bear with me. I'm just going to make that a little larger.
Does does that help?
>> No, not one bit.
>> You put it.
>> Thank you very much for trying, but I'll I'll carry on, chair, but is that's the head of the bottom.
into the side.
>> It's not the clearest.
>> Anything else to add? Council >> then I'll pay council fry.
>> Thank you for trying anyway. That's no help at all. Um the fact is that whether that's twice or three times as large as what's already there that would seem by um the words used um massing and scale is extremely large compared with most applications we seem to see though we judge everyone on its own merit of course and looking at this plot itself and to put something on there twice the size or just over what was already there chairman um just seems to me to be a little bit excessive to to be fair even on that site I must say and um generally you know you'll get an application coming people have put us stick a bit on the side of the house or something and that's that as an exchange and this to me as nearly a new build well it was a new build but obviously to a scale which I find extremely difficult to uh apprehend on that site to be honest I think most other points have been made chairman so I think I'll stop there >> right councelor Fry thank you just to follow up on councelor Bub's point the um the traffic. You're fundamentally changing a semi- detached two bed bungalow to a three bed family home, which will by nature increase the traffic. The overall um the overall area and the feel for this estate is peaceful retirement bungalows, not family properties. So I would also like to point out the overdevelopment of the plot does not allow any access as far as I can see from the rear of the property to the front of the property which naturally means rubbish bins would all be cluttering the parking spaces and looking unsightly.
Stop sharing yet. That's it. Just come back.
Yeah.
I That's it.
Yeah, there we go.
No.
>> So, the point was, sorry, the point was with regard to car parking, what you're effectively you're saying is Yeah.
Is it three or four? Is it three or four?
I mean, in in terms of parking space, three bays are shown at the front. Um, which would be what would be required actually for a new fourbedroom house. So there would be sufficient parking space.
Can I just step in? Can I just step in?
Um yeah. Um I mean back to Mallerie is this is quite a large site. So parking can be accommodated within the site to satisfy parking standards which are currently set by um you know North County Council. Um I mean the the the parking situation is is a little bit of a red herring here in the fact that you know notwithstanding you know obviously members have a view I can see members have a view on the scale of the development but the as in in so far as the parking elements sufficient space within that site to accommodate parking for for that number of bedrooms. Thank you chair.
>> Thank you. Well at the moment I have got um two conditions to be added. One of them is to from council wall and I is to remove PDR rights. Correct. Are we happy to do that members? Agreed.
And secondly, frosted glass to the toilet window downstairs. Are we happy for that one?
>> Can I just clarify that that it is to the utility WC? We have to be specific about things like that.
>> Thank you. Okay.
>> And at the moment, although we've agreed those conditions, I do not have anything on the on the table apart from approve.
Are there any other recommendations or you're happy to go for the approval?
Members, council story Mike on please m >> with the greatest respect chairman the um the massing scale and form and character of that particular um site would change um considerably if the development of this scale was to go ahead in my opinion um which um doesn't sit >> on that site to me to be um you know acceptable so yes chairman um I would remove would approve and would put forward proposal if possible.
>> Remove sorry. Yes. And that is LP21 and LP18 the policy number which of course you knew.
>> Oh, just like that.
>> And I have councelor Linton who's prepared to second it.
>> Okay. Can I can I just repeat it back to you then please? What I've heard today.
Okay. So um what I've heard from members is you are concerned um about the scale uh and massing of the um of the extensions uh and the relationship with neighbors um and also impact on form and character um of of the locality um and you've you've cited policies LP8 and LP21 for which they were this development would be contrary to would you refuse?
>> And would it also include the neighborhood plans?
>> Uh yes it would. Yeah. Is a >> so just for clarity um it's a design uh it would be um policy three >> design of the uh north neighborhood plan >> right okay so then Kathy will now take a vote which is to refuse answer >> a not abstain Councelor Bone. Oh no, he's not.
>> No, he's not here.
>> Councelor B.
>> Four.
>> Councelor Debie Pley.
>> Four. Councelor Everett, >> four.
>> Councelor Fry, four.
>> Councelor Linton, >> four.
>> Councelor Rose, >> four.
>> Councelor Spiking, >> four.
>> Councelor Story, >> four.
>> Councelor Dewali, >> four.
>> The refusal was carried. Yeah, that's carried. Okay, thank you everybody. And now we move on to the next little bit which is page 90 to note applications determined under delegated powers to note the report. Are we happy to note the report? Then last but not least on page 91 we have an update on tree matters by Brian Ogden >> and Brian's in the room. So, if you'd like some forward drawing, we'll have a go at seeing what we can do there. Thank you.
Yeah. Councelor Bones, return to the room. Gaffy, please.
Okay.
Yeah. Okay. Right. Off we go.
>> Thank you, chair. Thank you, members. Um yeah, this is the uh regular six monthly update on um work done on tree preservation orders and protection of trees within the burough. Um you'll note during the uh six month reporting period um I've dealt with 110 new planning application consultations um dealt with 33 35 pre-application inquiries and 46 applications discharge tree and landscape conditions.
Um during this time period three new tree preservation orders have been made.
of these. Two of these have been confirmed without any objections and we have uh one further one that remains pending at the moment. Um that's all done under delegated powers. You may remember in February that I brought one tree preservation order to committee um where there had been an objection that we weren't able to resolve at my level and that was confirmed by committee that the it looks odd when you look at the report and the numbers. That's because that order was made last September.
Um I mean generally speaking we continue to see a very high number of tree works applications in addition to planning applications. Um during the period about 106 new conservation area notices to carry out works to trees in conservation areas.
um of these two of which um we found we had to refuse and we made new tree preservation orders and again during the six week period of the notice I try to negotiate as best as possible with the applicants so we don't have to make new tree preservation orders we had um two cases where we felt it was necessary to make tree preservation orders to protect the trees um tree preservation order applications there were 39 applications received during the period did um six of which were refused for inappropriate works and two were partially refused where the extent of the work was reduced so it would not be harmful to the trees. Um we currently have one appeal in process for tree preservation order application um but we had um no appeal decisions during the reporting period.
I mean overall I think figures demonstrate consistently you know high level of uh tree related case work across all areas of my work. Um you know planning applications strictly tree protection also general public inquiries. Um one other thing of note is we received four uh requests for new tree preservation orders and this is using the online form. We've seen a steady increase in requests for new tree preservation orders for the public. Um, and I prioritize these depending on the urgency.
Um, so members just invite you to note the comments of the report and do you have any questions?
>> It's not a question uh Brian, it's a thank you because I think our policies are working. What we're seeing here is proactive work rather than reactive. And that is what we want to see in our burough. The trees that we have, we want to keep. We certainly don't want to see them hacked down at a whim, even ones with TPOS on which you do read about in other uh counties etc. And I think it's, you know, a lot of hard work's gone in.
We've got a higher profile and we do support what we're doing here on the burough. So well done, Brian.
>> Uh councelor Bone. Thank you. I'll echo councelor Spiken's um comments on the good work that you're doing. I've just got an inquiry. A resident of mine raised concerns with some tree work what might need doing on uh some five sycamore trees. Uh it's the safegate park and land is a alleyway sort of public way which goes behind Vancouver and Windsor Street. Um and he just um I was just making inquiries. Is there any progress or something I can report back to him?
>> Yeah, it doesn't sound like a planning matter, but I'll try and answer. Um I have a colleague Ed Johnson who's the officer in public open space who's the other cultural officer for the council.
Um if it's not um council owned land then the other option is to um either through myself or through Ed or yourself you can contact the county council um the county council have their own tree officers um who regularly um work on behalf of the local highways area office. So if the trees are dangerous or they need some work they can serve a notice under the highways act onto the land owner. They tend not to serve a notice straight away. They wrote a sort of friendly letter and serve a notice you if it if the work isn't carried out.
Thank you.
>> Right. Count of de la Pali then Linton then story then B.
>> Thank you. I'll take it round the room in that order.
>> I just want to echo your comments. Thank you so much for all the work you do.
It's really good to see this because I think without trees we'd just be so much poorer. Uh could you just elaborate on the ones that were refused? Six applications were refused, two partially refused. What were the reasons? Thank you.
>> Well, thank you for the question and thank you for the comments. Um I'd have to go back and look at them individually. Um I don't know if now's the appropriate time to look at each one individually, but um I can send you Yeah. All the information reports. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> All the information is available on our public access system. my full officer reports and the reasons for refusals will all be laid out there.
>> Right. Councelor Linton, >> thank you. Um yes, I look so uh endorse what everybody else has said. It's it's great. Um I will say that um several of my parish councils that I attend are using the interactive website. So that's a really useful tool and um well done >> Jackie. No comment. Martin chairman.
Yeah. Um, a major thing seems to be across most areas I would assume in the country these trees which TPOS are put on obviously a pawn because they seem to be special um trees to be honest. They wouldn't have that one would assume put on in the first place. I would suggest I don't know the percentage but the ones around my area would be the high of 67%.
Most of them have got ivy growing on them. And I'm just wondering I mean I took an action as well at a parish council meet some years ago off a tree which in the center of a parish which ivy had climbed nearly to the top. And as I was driving to the parish meeting and I mentioned to the parish council meeting, wouldn't it be best to remove just to kill the ivy, a gap in the ivy, leave it on the tree, let it die naturally so the tree gets the moisture and everything and that tree lasts forever in a day and they went and done it through probably yourself or whatever means but there's numerous trees out there with ivy nearly to the top and I'm just wondering what action you take because you put a TPO on a tree or seemingly request of by a member public or whatever and And only to see in a few years time I mean I was just rife across everywhere especially my garden but the the the and I'm just saying Brian with great respect and you do a wonderful job. I'm not saying that you know I just feel that you know looking after the tree and that especially Ivy as a major point how I see it.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I completely agree Ivy.
I always think there's three things um about ivy. Um I mean it's obviously great for wildlife, but it can if you're looking at a tree, it can hide tree problems. Um it can compete certainly with broadleaf trees if it gets up in the canopy, out compete the canopy and cause physiological stress to the tree.
And obviously it increases hugely the wind loading on the canopy of the tree way more quite often. So the most sensible option is to sever the ivy around the base and then it slowly gradually dies off so it doesn't disturb um the wildlife. Um practically there tree preservation orders they don't allow us to actually go out and make people carry out works to trees unfortunately um all it means is that people have to apply to us. So during that time period if if I can during the application tried to be proactive and if I feel there's some work that would be beneficial I'll suggest that to an applicant and allow them to modify the application and that seems to work quite well but I'm relying on people to make those applications in the first case >> right councelor not to know councelor bub >> thank you um does an application for a tpo afford to treat any protection uh uh prior to a determination.
>> Uh I'm sorry I don't completely understand the question. So once the tree preservation order is made, then the tree is protected. Um but when an application's made um it's very similar to a planning application, we can uh refuse work or um we can add conditions.
Whereas the difference between that and trees in a conservation areas, we can't refuse it. We can only make a tree preservation order and we can't add conditions such as a replacement planting.
>> No, I meant between between a TPO being asked for and you determining it, if the owner comes along and or someone else drops it down, is there any action that can be taken? It's not protected or it is protected.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question completely.
>> No, until the order is made. If the tree is not in a conservation area, then it's not protected.
Right. You have your answer. Anyway, members, I'd like to thank you all today. I think we're done. And thank you everyone. Alphosis.
相关推荐
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
