Public reports pack PDF 1 MB - Modern.gov - Breckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114/10 REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THISAGENDADevelopment Control Committee12 July 2010Application Reference No. 3PL/2010/0458/F at Wretham by A F MachineryLtd for a Potato Store Extension was deferred for consideration at a futuremeeting pending the receipt of additional information from consultants andadvice from Natural England with regard to the Special Protection Area.115/10 URGENT BUSINESSNone.116/10 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (STANDING ITEM)The Principal Plannning Policy Officer informed Members that the publicconsultation process for the LDF was underway and that 224 commentshad been received so far. Most of the comments made were on specificsites and not on settlement boundaries.The Government Order to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategy wasproceeding. The Communities and Local Government Department websitehad a useful Question and Answer section which stressed the importanceof planning at local level and that the Local Development Framework wouldcontinue as a planning tool. There would be financial incentives for localcommunities for local housing.117/10 DEFERRED APPLICATIONSNone.118/10 SHIPDHAM: 36 LETTON RD: PROPOSED RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT: MARLBOROUGH PROPERTIES: 3PL/2010/0293/OThe Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report on theoutline proposal for 12 new dwellings on part of a horticultural nursery site.The proposal met planning policy requirements in terms of developmentwithin the settlement boundary, character, density and layout of housing,parking, retention of trees and landscaping. A S106 agreement wouldensure the requirement for provision of affordable housing and a suitablecontribution towards improving local amenity.The Highway Authority had objected to the application on the grounds thatthere is no footpath on Letton Road linking the site with the A1075 andrequested that the applicant provided a footway of 270 metres. Such arequirement would involve the purchase of third party land and the costinvolved would undermine the viability of the proposal. Officers consideredthat this request was unreasonable and recommended that the proposalwas approved as it stood.Mr Took, agent for the applicant, told the Committee that the owner neededto consider closing the nursery and had complied with planningrequirements including the reduction in the number of dwellings on the sitewhich had affected the viability of the development. The additional cost ofconstructing the footpath requested by the Highway Authority wasestimated at £25,000 plus the cost of purchasing third party land to build iton. This would make the proposal not financially viable. A footpath wouldbe provided on the site frontage but a further requirement was not2Action By
Development Control Committee12 July 2010considered reasonable. The proposal was a small scale development to beconstructed by local builders and would meet the requirement for affordablehousing.In response to a Members query, it was clarified that a S106 agreementwas still to be drafted but needed more time. The Solicitor verified that theS106 agreement could be agreed in principle and that the detailedmechanics would be worked out subsequently. Mr Took confirmed that theapplicant was agreeable to all <strong>Breckland</strong> District <strong>Council</strong> conditions.RESOLVED, that the application be deferred and the officers be authorisedto grant approval as recommended, subject to conditions, on completion ofa S.106 agreement to affordable housing and open space contributions.It was noted by the Committee that this would take the process over the 13week decision target period.119/10 ATTLEBOROUGH: THE OLD FARMHOUSE, STATION RD:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY MILD PROFESSIONALHOMES LTD: REFERENCE: 3TL/2010/0018/TLThe Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report of theapplication to extend the time limit for the previously approved applicationfor 24 flats in a 5 storey building. Members were advised of the need toconsider the application in view of current planning policies, some of whichhad changed significantly since permission was granted in 2005 such ascontributions towards local recreation and affordable housing.However, the applicant was not agreeable to the planning requirementsparticularly to provide 40% affordable housing. A financial viability reporthad been recently received form the agent but there had not been enoughtime for this to be considered by the District Valuer. The report hadconcluded that the viability of the development was questionable with orwithout the affordable housing element due to the nature of the scheme andthe high building costs involved.Other issues were that the modern design of the proposal was not inkeeping with the locality and that there was limited parking provision for theresidents/visitors. Officers had not had a chance to discuss with theapplicants other ways of developing the site. The proposal was contrary toplanning policy and refusal was recommended.Members raised concern about the parking provision particularly as theParking Task and Finish Group had commissioned a survey which hadshown that there was a critical parking problem in Attleborough. In additionit was felt that neither the design nor the high rise nature of the building wascompatible with the local area.Members expressed disquiet that the changes to planning policy in 5 yearshad such a significant effect on such applications and considered that thecurrent economic climate made it more difficult for developers to complywith such policies and queried whether the 40% affordable housingrequirement could be reduced. The Development Service Managerresponded that developers would be aware of policy changes and wouldtake these into account. Any change to planning policy would have to bejustified by evidence and approved by the District Valuer.3Action By
Page 1 and 2: Public Document PackAGENDANOTE: In
Page 3 and 4: PART AITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLICDevel
Page 5: BRECKLAND COUNCILAgenda Item 1At a
Page 9 and 10: Development Control Committee12 Jul
Page 11 and 12: Development Control Committee12 Jul
Page 13 and 14: BRECKLAND COUNCILDEVELOPMENT CONTRO
Page 15 and 16: demonstrate a five year supply of l
Page 17 and 18: Five Year Supply of HousingAssessme
Page 19 and 20: sites, are those with ten dwellings
Page 21 and 22: TABLE 22010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013
Page 23 and 24: 5. Conclusion and Future Actions5.1
Page 25 and 26: whether any development willoccur o
Page 27 and 28: 3PL/2008/0619/FGreenLaneCottagesKil
Page 29 and 30: Appendix 2: List of all Small Sites
Page 31 and 32: 273PL/2005/0965/F3PL/2005/0991/F3PL
Page 35 and 36: 313PL/2007/1709/F Hall FarmCastonRo
Page 37 and 38: 33Pleasant e Laneform two dwellings
Page 39 and 40: 353PL/2008/1200/F3PL/2008/1207/D3PL
Page 41 and 42: 37Lophamgarage.3PL/2009/0186/FStell
Page 45 and 46: 3PL/2009/1154/F3PL/2010/0008/F3PL/2
Page 47 and 48: 5. CONSULTATIONSBradenham Parish Co
Page 49 and 50: community uses. Whilst further disc
Page 51 and 52: harvesting would be used to collect
Page 53 and 54: 5. CONSULTATIONSIt is understood th
Page 55 and 56: Residential amenityGiven that the s
Page 57 and 58:
The Highway Authority has raised no
Page 59 and 60:
7. RECOMMENDATIONThat planning perm
Page 61 and 62:
BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CON
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
BRECKLAND COUNCILDEVELOPMENT CONTRO
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
show all

Public reports pack PDF 1 MB - Modern.gov - Breckland Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?