Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lawn.

There were no declarations of interest declared at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 17 June 2020 were confirmed subject to the addition of Councillor B Wright to those present at the meeting.

The Committee received and considered the Planning Officer's report which presented a proposed change of use to convert an existing touring and camping site to form additional 50 static caravans and ten safari tents (existing), relocation of an existing touring site to provide 75 pitches, new touring services building on part of an existing golf course, and change of use of part of the existing Belton common for a new golf course.

Members received a comprehensive presentation from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer advised that the application was in three parts and all three parts of the application were outside the residential envelope for the village of Belton.

Members were advised that the site in question was a long long-established holiday site. There is little record of substantial expansion of the site or other intensification of use for the last 15 years. In 2001 some layout changes within the site were authorised and there is record of several instances of improvements to the communal facilities available for
the clientele, within the existing core of the overall caravan site.

The Planning Officer advised that Belton and Browston Parish Council had objected to the application and that these objections had mirrored those raised by other correspondents with the addition of the concerns around traffic generation and the impact to the village, harm to wildlife and overburdening of local services and utilities.

The Parish Council for Fritton and St Olaves had also objected to the application as they felt the application was outside development limits, capacity issues with the local highway and overburdening of the drainage systems.

It was advised that a number of local neighbours and residents had submitted their objections to the application, and it was noted that there had also been several letters of support for the application.

Members were advised of the External consultations that had been received and were advised that the external consul tees had recommended a number of suggestions relating to the application.

A number of site photographs were shown to Members which had looked at a number of different views of the site and proposed accesses.

Members were advised of the key points of the application which highlighted the current policy which showed the Wild Duck as bring a "Tourism accommodation site" and the whole of the Caldecott Hall site as a "Tourism facility" under current policy and current policy is not specifically against tourism accommodation being placed on tourism facility sites, although it was noted that the emergent plan and associated proposals map did not identify "tourism facilities" only highlighting tourism accommodation. 

Economic Matters:- it was advised that the application had not provided information as to whether new jobs would be created if the application was to be approved, Members were advised that there would be some safeguarding of existing jobs due to increase in the number of static caravans and this would bring an increase int he tourism factor to the Borough. 

Landscape Character and Impact on Broads Area - It was noted that the site was characterised as being a Sandling Common Landscape and would remain of such character if the application was to be approved,  and there would be a small single story amenities block to be added to the touring caravan part of the application site.

Habitat loss and Compensation for loss :- A "Grampian" condition was recommended to ensure the remediation of at least a hectare of land to offset the clearing of trees and ground cover from the fairway and putting green area from the county wildlife site.

Impact on Neighbours -   It was confirmed that there are no neighbours close to the application site. Members were advised that the existing Wild Duck caravan park site already has entertainment facilities within the existing site with no proposals to introduce any new entertainment.

Prospective Public Rights of Way over parts of the County Wildlife site - Members were advised that this would not be material in consideration for the application as this claim had not yet been examined by the County Council's Legal Team and therefore no public rights of way existed at the current time.

The Officer advised that the application was recommended for approval, subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring conclusion before the release of a planning consent, for Recreational Activity Mitigation, and to deal with the handover offered by the applicant of un developed parts of the County Wildlife site to the Parish Council.  The officer commented that this offer was not however considered significant in determining the recommendation for approval as it was the condition suggested ensuring compensating management of an equivalent area off site that would determine whether the loss of the wildlife site in part for golfing was acceptable.

The Planning Officer advised of a number of conditions which should be considered as part of the approval along with a condition to limit static caravan numbers to 50.

Councillor T Wright asked with regard to the conditions limiting the application to holiday use only in light of caravan owners wanting to use the site all year round. The Planning Officer advised that the recommendation had not suggested a closed period as there was no current planning condition limiting park occupancy periods.

Councillor T Wright asked what was being put in place at the touring site by way of toileting facilities. The Planning Officer advised that these details were recommended as to be provided by condition but the applicant had stated they would be single-story.

Councillor Williamson asked with regard to paragraph 5.11 within the report which referred to the Norfolk wildlife trust and  the 1 hectare of additional land space and he commented that he could not see anywhere within the report where this land had been identified. The Planning Officer advised that this would be subject to the Grampian condition he earlier referred to and would be discussed between the applicant, other landowners and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust.

Councillor Myers asked with regard to the access for the new touring site and the impact on increase in traffic. The Planning Officer advised that the access would be from the existing Wild Duck caravan site and he advised that County Highways had not objected to the application in view of traffic levels increasing.

Councillor Mogford asked with regard to lighting and the potential of using a dark sky policy.

Councillor Botwright addressed the Committee in objection to the application, he referred to the increase in traffic and felt that this would cause significant issue due to cars already parking and making the roads one lane only. Councillor Botwright referred to Marsh Lane and the public footpath and the lawful authority needed for the caravans to pass over the right of way. He advised that he felt further damage would be caused by the application including that of the expected damage to the wildlife area. He referred to the number of footpaths that could be found at the site and referred to a significant amount of knotweed on the site. Councillor Botwright also referred to potential fire hazards at the site.

Councillor Williamson asked Mr Botwright if the owner of the footpath had objected to the application. He advised that the owners of the land had not been approached by Bourne Leisure and therefore would not have authority to use Marsh Lane Private Right of Way without this.

Councillor T Wright asked Mr Botwright whether the Parish Council would be looking to accept the gift of land from Bourne Leisure if the application was to approved. Mr Botwright advised that the applicant had approached the Parish Council but had advised the Parish Council that they would be responsible for fencing and maintaining the area but would be at significant cost to the Parish Council of which they could not afford.

Councillor Myers as Ward Councillor raised some concern with regard to the application in light of the access at Station Road and this being on a sharp bend and the increase in traffic. Councillor Myers also referred to the loss of wildlife habitat remained a concern.

Members hereby entered into a general debate with regard to the application.

In debating the application the following concerns were raised :-

• Loss of wildlife habitat 
• Footpath / right of way 
• Land Swap
• 1 Hectare of Land 
• Increase in traffic
• Highways issues

Following the debate it was :-

RESOLVED :

That application 06/20/0143/F be approved to subject to a 106 agreement for the recreational Activity Mitigation and conditions:  covering holiday use and restrictions to occupancy type and period, preventing vehicular use of Angles way to access the site and agree further details of the crossover point, archaeological investigation, lighting design, fencing, protection of trees and other ecological mitigation, provision of electric vehicle charging points and bicycle storage and further details of the package sewerage treatment plant with particular reference to grease and oil interception. A further condition shall be added to limit the maximum number of caravans to that stated.

Members considered the Planning Officer's report which presented a re-development of a former golf driving range area, a part of the short 18 hole golf course for 157 static holiday caravans, including associated landscaping, formal and informal areas of open space, access and internal foot paths.

Members received a comprehensive presentation from the Planning Officer.

It was reported that the application sought full planning consent for the placement of 157 static caravans for holiday purposes on land, and it was advised that the the details of layout would be subject to a caravan site licence.

Members were advised that the proposal sought to make use of the land as a static holiday  caravan site with access paths and open areas towards the centre and west end of the site and under the power lines where covenants would prevent development.

It was reported that the access would either be tarmacked or hard-cored and Members were advised that the applicant had stated a willingness to work with the County Council to create a suitable surface for vehicular increases access whilst respecting the unclassified highway context.

The Planning Officer advised that The applicant's agent had explained that the model for this site in terms of tenure would be the onward sale of caravans to members of the public on an individual basis for their use as a holiday home and somewhere they can then let out to
other holidaymakers on an individual basis, it was noted that this is the model used by this developer on other sites that it owns. Owners pay an annual charge towards shared maintenance costs within the caravan park.

A number of visual images were shown to Members of the application site and the proposed development.

Members were advised that both Fritton St Olaves and Belton and Bradwell Parish Council had objected to the application and it was noted these objections mirrored those that had been raised by other correspondents with the addition of the Occupancy of the caravans being close to the power lines, the impact on the doctor's surgery and the cumulative impacts of caravan parks generally in the area in conjunction with the application by the Wild Duck for expansion.

It was reported that there had been a number of objections raised by the Neighbours and residents of the village and these were summarised within the Planning Officer's report.

External consultations were included within the Planning Officer's report and Members were advised of the conditions which had been requested as part of the application.

Members were advised of the key points to be considered for the application which included the following :-

Current and Emergent policy -  current tourism policies are relatively supportive of the application as within tourism facility enclosure although it was noted that the emerging policy no longer designated the tourism facility.

Earlier Hotel permission - Members were advised that there had been an earlier hotel permission for a 100 bed hotel back in 1997.

Traffic generation and County Highways support - It was noted that highways were in support of the application.

Angles Way, character. Crossover point surface - Character of this will be affected due to the development and therefore there was a need to look at how this is surfaced to avoid this being broken up 

Broads Area relationship - raised concern around the cumulative impact of the large number of tourism facilities within the area. 

landscape impact - very low landscape impacts due to tree belt around the proposed development.

It was advised that the application was recommended for approval subject to a 106 agreement for the recreational Activity Mitigation and a number of conditions.

Councillor Williamson asked if Caldecott Hall had indicated if they were going to replace the driving range and the lost 5 holes elsewhere on site, the Planning Officer advised that this was not to be replaced.

Councillor Myers asked with regard to the access to the bar area and whether this would be membership only along with the swim and gym facility.

Councillor Wainwright asked with regard to the facilities on site that were now operated by Sentinel Leisure Trust which was operated on a membership basis, he noted that the swimming pool facility was a small facility.

Margaret Shelley, agent for the applicant summarised the main points of the application to Members on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor T Wright asked with regard to the facilities on site and whether these would be open to Members of the public and holiday users, Margaret advised that this was open to the public and also those that have a membership.

Councillor Bird asked with regard to the units and whether these can be brought or if they were leased, Margaret advised that these could be brought from Tingdene themselves and then put on a plot which would then be leased from Tingdene or owner caravans could be moved onto the site and then the plot leased from Tingdene.

Councillor Myers as Ward Councillor raised some concern with regard to the onsite facility and dealing with increased capacity.

Members hereby entered into a general debate.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/20/0143/F be approved to subject to a 106 agreement for the recreational Activity Mitigation and a number of conditions.

Members received and considered the Planning Officer's report which presented an application for a terrace of three two-bedroomed dwellings.

Members received a comprehensive overview presentation from the Planning Officer which detailed contents within the report.

The Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the report the expiry date for the application had been extended to the 17 July and Section 5 within the report on page 48 reference to the policies within the draft local plan had now been superseded by the Final Local Plan draft policy therefore now irrelevant. He also advised that 9.25 on page 57 within the report the land housing supply should read 3.42. 

The Planning Officer reported that the application site was located in the side garden of Ivy House, a detached red brick two storey dwelling. The proposed development properties would be located opposite the Fritton Village sign which is within a triangular grassed area between the Beccles Road (A143) and Church Lane.

It was reported that the application site was located partially outside the village development limits of Fritton, which according to the Draft Local Plan Part 2, the south west of the
settlement Development Limits had been brought in to reduce further backland development from occurring. The site measured 30 metres across at the frontage with Church Lane, with a narrow strip of 6 metres being located within the Development Limits and 24 metres of the frontage being located outside the village development limits.

Members were advised that objections had been received from the the local Parish Council together with four letters of objections from neighbours as part of the public consultation period, concerns were summarised to Members.

Members were advised that a number of objections were relating to the layby which did not form part of the application to be considered.

The Planning Officer summarised the comments that had been received from the External Consultees together with conditions that had been suggested as part of the application.

Members were shown a number of visual images relating to the application site.

The Planning Officer advised that whilst the development does extend out of the village development limits, it was not considered that the proposal represented an unwanted intrusion into the countryside beyond the obvious visual limits of the settlement, with there being development to the northern side of Church Lane. It was recommended to condition a planting schedule to ensure that appropriate hedging is provided on the eastern and
southern boundaries of the plot. Members were advised that it was considered that the proposal represented an appropriate addition to the dwellings at the outer edge of the settlement.

The Planning Officer advised that there had been no objections raised on the grounds of ecology, although a nesting bird informative had been recommended with conditions to mitigate for the loss of habitat nesting on site.

The Planning Officer advised that the proposed development provided two parking spaces per dwelling which was compliant with the parking standards, set out by County Highways, for a two bedroom dwelling.

Members were advised that from objections that had been received from neighbours with regard to overlooking and overshadowing onto Angle cottages . The proposed dwellings would be situated 9.5 metres from the highway with an additional 40 metres (to the north
east) to the western elevation of Angle Cottages. This was considered that a sufficient distance so that the levels overlooking, and overshadowing would not have a significant adverse impact on residents.

The Planning Officer advised that the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions raised within the report.

Councillor Myers sought clarification of the rear of proposed property number 3 and the how close that was to be situated from the boundary. This was confirmed as 1.5 at the front of the plot narrowing to 1.3 at the back of the house. Councillor Myers also asked with regard to the proposed car parking at the front of the properties and whether there was turning facilities, it was advised that cars would have to move and use the turning in front of properties 1 and 2.

Councillor T Wright asked with relation to the construction and the access to the site for construction works and whether there were any proposals for closures of roads. The Planning Officer advised of an alternative route residents to access if there were any obstructions.

Councillor Hammond asked with regard to possible guest parking at the side of property 3 and whether this had been discussed this with the applicant. It was advised that this would have to be discussed with Highways in the first instance.

Mr Jerry Stone, agent provided Members with a summary of the application on behalf of the application he advised that it was intended to be an off site construction with Panels being delivered to the site and erection is quick in order to ensure minimal disruption.

Councillor Williamson asked with regard to the external finish of the building, Mr Stone confirmed these would remain as brick.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/20/0106/F be approved subject to conditions as detailed within the Planning Officer's report.

The Committee received and noted the delegated decisions cleared between the 1 June and 30 June 2020.

There was no other business to be discussed.