Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Annison & Freeman.

Councillor Annison attended as Ward Councillor for item number four only.

Councillors Capewell & Martin declared a personal interest in items number 4 & 5. Councillor Capewell is a Ward Councillor for Bradwell South & Hopton and lives in the application area. Councillor Martin is not a Ward Councillor but lives in the application area too.

Councillor Galer declared a personal interest in item number 6 as he is a Ward Councillor for Hemsby. The applicant is  not known to him on a personal basis.

Councillor Williamson declared a personal interest in item number 8 as he is a Ward Councillor for Claydon Ward.

However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, they were allowed to both speak and vote on the items concerned.

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2024 were confirmed with the following amendments:-

(i) On page 8, the third paragraph from the bottom, the word advise to be replaced with advice.

(ii) On page 11, the third paragraph from the top, Councillor Murray-Smith reported that officers are incorrect and not officers maybe incorrect.

The Committee received and considered the agenda report and addendum report from the Principal Planner.

The Principal Planner reported that the application is a major application and the site lies to the east of Kings Drive and is roughly rectangular in shape. It is mostly surrounded by recent residential development and is part of the wider Beacon Park urban extension. An allotment is located adjacent the north-west corner of the site. The site is roughly 0.95ha in area and has some boundary screening from mature vegetation and is bounded by a close boarded fence. The land is currently undeveloped. Vehicular access will be taken off Kings Drive with a footpath and cycle link to Marjoram Road.

The Principal Planner reported that the application seeks to erect 29 dwellings arranged predominantly along the access road from Kings Drive, running east into a T-junction towards the east boundary of the site. Some visitor car parking will be arranged around the access and spur roads with a footpath and cycle path proposed to run north into Marjoram Road and the adjoining housing estate. Each property has assigned parking drives and there are additional shared visitor parking bays.

The Principal Planner reported that garages are proposed for the 4-bed housing and for two of the 3-bed plots (plots 8 and 29). Existing boundary treatments and hedging are to be retained with significant planting added to the north boundary, and with additional tree planting around the access road and central and western parts of the site. Tree planting is also identified along the boundaries of the site. There are 3 plots identified to provide affordable housing, these being plots 2, 3 and 4, all of which are proposed as affordable rent tenure. Revised plans were submitted in response to consultation responses from the Local Highway Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Council’s Strategic Planning Officer.

The Principal Planner reported that the original applicant, Wellington Construction Ltd, has, since the application was submitted, entered administration. This has consequently led to an updated application form being provided, with Aldreds shown as the new applicant, acting on behalf of the landowner. The certificate of ownership was updated at the same time to correct a factual error, and public consultation was undertaken accordingly. Further revised plans were submitted in June 2024 which also addressed the change of ownership, the site location plan (including access ownership and adjacent land in the same ownership), site layout plan, soft landscaping plan, detailed house type plans, and other consequential amendments.

The Principal Planner reported that a further layout plan and house type plan changes were proposed and re-consulted in August 2024 following neighbour comments received. The consultation ended on 6th September 2024. Any further comments received will be reported to the Committee by Addendum Report. For the avoidance of doubt, the latest Site Layout Plan on which this assessment is based, is shown on drawing 5843-16 Revision N, dated August 2024, provided at Appendix 2. An extension of time to determine the planning application was agreed for the 6th December 2024 to allow sufficient time for a Section 106 to be completed, should the application be approved.

The Principal Planner reported the salient areas of the application as follows:-

• The application has been subject to various revisions and amended plans
• The Applicant details were updated following Wellington Construction Ltd entering administration
• The red line area was amended to include access points
• Layout changes
• House type changes
• Landscaping changes

Principle of development –

Established as part of allocation Policy CS18 for 1,000 houses (along with Persimmon development)

Within development limits

• Vehicular access will be via Kings Drive
• A pedestrian & cycle connection has also been established north at Marjoram Road
• No objections from Highway Authority subject to amended plans (tracking, foot & cycle link north)
• 3 Affordable houses – plots 2, 3, 4
• All affordable rent
• 1x 2 bed semi-detached
• 2x 1 bed flats
• Support from Housing Officer

The site area is somewhat limited, with the developable are constrained, density approx. 31dph justified in this instance given the limited availability to provide 35dph as per Policy H3

Overall dwelling mix is acceptable –

2 x 1bed

13x 2bed

7x 3bed

7x 4bed

Mix of two storey detached & semi-detached 5 bungalows

In terms of materials a mix of brick and render

• Design improvements to demonstrate broad compliance with Design Code SPD
• Overheating
• Garden sizes
• Parking arrangements

There is a need to secure by condition – M4(2) – developer confirmed compliance

Water efficiency – developer confirmed compliance Positioning of meter/utility boxes

Public Representations are summarised within the report. Objections included

Over-development

• Highway concerns, cumulative impacts Kings Drive & Beccles Rd, general safety
• Construction disturbance
• Infrastructure

Specific amenity: –

No. 35 Marjoram Rd – adjacent house type changed to bungalow

An update has been received from the Parish Council raising concerns concern at   storey properties at plots 1 & 2 (impact north)

Officers view – that No. 37 Marjoram Rd is located further back (as indicated by the red line, which identified 13.5m) than plot 5 to No. 35, the planting along the       northern boundary will further reduce impacts

No. 16 Sorrel Rd – Plot 14 impacts

Concern at lighting. Shadowing, overlooking

Changed 2 storey to hipped roof to reduce impact

Changed to bungalow (approx. 4.5m) & offset reduced as property moved back to better align with No. 16 Sorrel Rd

Addendum Report – concern remained as bungalow is sat forward and will still impact upon light & outlook

Committee report considered the impacts in detail and officers conclude that this will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts

No. 9 Sorrel Rd

Concern at lighting. Shadowing, overlooking

Changed 2 storey to hipped roof to reduce impact

Changed to bungalow (approx. 4.5m)

Committee report considered the impacts in detail and officers conclude that this will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts

PC objection

Lack of facilities

Concern at road width, increased movements & emergency access

Need to consider bins & lack of greenspace

Cumulative amount of development in village

Updated comments received today – Pleased to see some bungalow revisions Concern still at highway impacts and safety Lack of infrastructure

In terms of environmental considerations –

• Efforts have been made to improve planting throughout side, south facing, boundary treatments
• Shadow HRA & GIRAMS mitigation secured through S106
• LLFA – Updated rainfall data Appropriate drainage strategy obligations, note Table 2 on page 48 of agenda pack
• Secure affordable housing
• Open space cannot be provided on-site, off-site contribution in lieu Update report – requested the use of undetermined application (06/23/0056/F,74 dwelling under same applicant) open space to meet play space requirements. In the Committee report, officers clear that this cannot be accommodated.
• No functional connection to site
• Burnet Road play area is closer than other site
• Not appropriate to consider this alternative site for play space
• Education
• Libraires
• GIRAMS
• Monitoring (NCC & GYBC)
• There were some obligations that that were not appropriate, failed to meet obligation tests – Health (NHS), Police.

Other updates

• the applicant noted that they had originally submitted a desk top study This appears not to have been picked up by Environmental Health and will require a minor amendment to Condition 7 to address this.

The recommendation from officers to the Committee was as follows:-

That the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to: -

Negotiation with the Local Highway Authority and applicant to include bollards or other suitable measures in the development layout to prevent vehicle access between King’s Drive and Marjoram Road;

Negotiation with the applicant to provide a hipped roof to the front gable of Plot 14, and where possible to achieve design consistency, also to Plots 15 and 16;

Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Table 2 of the Committee Report and Appendix 3 attached to the Committee Report;

Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary);

Amendment to Condition 2 as per the Addendum Report (change to referenced approved plans);

Liaison with Environmental Health Officers to confirm if the applicant’s most recent Desktop Contamination Report would address the requirements for a Phase I contamination assessment, and update proposed Condition 7 as necessary;

Additional condition(s) to remove Permitted Development rights for new roof lights, windows, roof extensions and dormer windows in any part of Plots 14 and 15 (2 separate conditions might be better).

And,

If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked for confirmation of the shared space road surface i.e. driveways which is defined in government advice published for the Eastern counties in 2018 in regard to those with recognised disabilities and visual impairments.

Councillor Murray-Smith highlighted the developer contributions and questioned that the amount of £1600 requested by Norfolk Police seemed rather low as the additional houses would have an impact and potentially increase their workload in the Bradwell area. This would further stretch an already overstretched service. The contribution to the NHS was also similarly low and there was already a shortage of Doctors and nurses and additional capacity was required in the borough.

The Principal Planner informed Committee that the shared drives and road surfaces were planned within the constraints of the site layout which had been carefully designed. The design incorporated the drainage strategy as there were concerns in regard to flood risk. The application did not meet the obligation tests and Norfolk Police did not respond to the questions in regard to their infrastructure needs.

The Principal Planner referred Committee to paragraph 9.1 on page 47 of the agenda report which explained the list of questions and evidence required but planning did not receive a response from HA.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked what measures planning had put in place to ensure all planning applications adhered to the Equalities Act.

The Head of Planning reported that in the issue of shared surfaces, the advice was not clear. Councillor Murray-Smith asked if there was any mitigation apart from the limited number of road users who would access the new development.

The Head of Planning explained that there was scope to secure funds via a s106 obligation but this had to be balanced against the availability of capital based requests for a development. The requests received from Norfolk Police were generally revenue based requests. Requests for educational funding were always clearer to understand. Contributions could be pooled from a number of developments to provide a specific piece of infrastructure.

The Development Manager reported that this issue was a problem for all local authorities across Norfolk. Norfolk Police recognised a weakness in their system and were working to address this issue. For any growth above 20 properties, they had to       do the work before we are able to accept their requests.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked for confirmation that if s106 contributions were between £15k to £17,847 then the developer could proceed with the development.

Mr Duffield, applicant's agent, addressed the Committee and highlighted the salient areas of the application which included the delivery of 3 affordable homes and asked the Committee to approve the application. He informed the Committee that there would become a point where the application would not be a deliverable package if the s106 obligations were increased.

The Development Manager reported that all contributions has to meet the CIL tests and methodology and as a LPA we were unable to ask for any more.

Ms Cushing, objector, addressed the Committee and outlined the stress which the application was causing her over fears of loss of light, overlooking, privacy and shadow which was detrimental to her health and well-being. She specifically referred to the BRE guidelines in reference to plot number 14.

The Chair asked for clarification in regard to BRE guidelines. The Principal Planner reported that the BRE guidelines were not adopted as Local Plan policy and there was no specific test for BRE but the Open Space Supplementary Planning Document was available to the planners to utilise.

The Development Manager gave examples of light acceptability to the Committee and reiterated that they were satisfied that this had been addressed in the application. The Right to Light was a civil matter and measured against Local Plan policies and BRE guidance was used a tool for consideration under Policy A1.

Councillor Pilkington reported that it was unlikely that plot 14 would be able to look directly into Ms Cushing's living space as a hedgerow was located in- between both properties which would negate this.

Ms Cushing reported that she was concerned in regard to overlooking from plot 14 if they extended upward into the roof space and installed a dormer window. The Development Manager reported that a dormer window would be unacceptable in a 4.5m high bungalow in the front elevation looking east. If a dormer was installed in the northern elevation this would result in an acute angle which would not result in overlooking of the neighbouring property in conjunction with the new hedging with plot 14 being pulled back slightly. The front gable could be made a hip like the rear gable. This had not been considered as we were looking for a consistent design approach. However, Members could ask for an additional condition, to remover permitted development rights for Plots 14 & 15 in respect of dormer windows in the roof.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked Ms Cushing that if the Committee added a PDR condition that no dormer windows to be put in the roof of the plots 14 & 15 that this would alleviate her concerns. Ms Cushing agreed that this one concern would be answered.

Councillor Annison, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee. Councillor Annison reported that he disagreed with the NCC Highways comments in regard to traffic flow along Beccles Road. However, we were where we were with the application which was within the development limits. The density was 31 dwellings per hectare when Local Plan policy was 35 dwellings per hectare which was not over-development of the site. Plots 5 & 6 had been changed to bungalows following his intervention as were plots 14, 15 & 16 too. As there was a new government in power, residents needed to be aware that if new planning legislation was introduced that flats could be potentially built on this land so they needed to be careful as to what they objected to in planning terms. Councillor Annison reported that he agreed with the suggested additional condition in regard to PDR, that no dormer windows to be allowed in the roofs of plots 14 & 15. He also asked for a condition that 2 bollards be installed at the cycle way at Marjoram Road to prevent delivery drivers from accessing the development from Marjoram Road.

During the debate, Councillor Murray-Smith reiterated his concerns in respect of the relevant tests being undertaken by officers in respect of developer contributions and asked for an assurance that officers had pursued every avenue available to them and nothing more could be done.

The Chair reported that this was an issue faced by all Norfolk LA's and that nothing more could be done unless Norfolk Police came forward with a plan as requested. The Development Manager reported that neither Norfolk Police or the NHS had provided explanations to meet the three required developer contribution tests. He reminded the Committee that the application might not be a viable scheme if the s106 exceeded £15k plus the 3 affordable homes. In effect, this was circa £700 per dwelling, If the £15k cap was exceeded, this would be possible but would delay the determination of the application as viability would need to be re-examined.

The Head of Planning confirmed that if the cap for development contributions was challenged by the Committee under delegated authority to the head of Planning, there would be no other option than to bring it back to Committee. The Committee must make timely decisions and this application had taken a long time to get to this point and was it fair that it be held up if the required responses had not been received from Norfolk Police and the NHS.

Councillor Martin reported that she agreed with Councillor Annison in respect of the additional condition in respect of the installation of two bollards at Marjoram Road and that she reported that removal of PDR rights for dormer windows in the roofs of plots 14 & 15, and to change the roof at plot 16 from hip to gable at the front elevation to match the rear elevation.

The Principal Planner reported that NCC Highways would need to be approached to give delegated authority for the installation of the two bollards at Marjoram Road.

The Development Manager reported that in regard to the additional condition of the change from a gable to a hip roof at plot 16, that this should be delegated to the Head of Planning, and that this was as far as the Committee could go in the way of requested design changes to the application.

Councillor Williamson reminded the Committee that health funding was calculated per head of population and that more funding would come into the borough for the Police and NHS when the properties were occupied.

Councillor Williamson moved the recommendation with the additional conditions agreed at the meeting, the removal of PDR at plots 14 & 15, the change of roof from a gable to a hip at plot 16, and the installations of two bollards at Marjoram Road, and those outlined in the agenda and addendum reports. Councillor Mogford seconded the proposal.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/23/0669/F, that the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

1. Negotiation with the Local Highway Authority and applicant to include bollards or other suitable measures in the development layout to prevent vehicle access between King’s Drive and Marjoram Road;

    

2. Negotiation with the applicant to provide a hipped roof to the front gable of Plot 14, and where possible to achieve design consistency, also to Plots 15 and 16;

    

3. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Table 2 of the Committee Report and Appendix 3 attached to the Committee Report;

    

4. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary);

    

5. Amendment to Condition 2 as per the Addendum Report (change to referenced approved plans);

    

6. Liaison with Environmental Health Officers to confirm if the applicant’s most recent Desktop Contamination Report would address the requirements for a Phase I contamination assessment, and update proposed Condition 7 as necessary;

    

7. Additional condition(s) to remove Permitted Development rights for new roof lights, windows, roof extensions and dormer windows in any part of Plots 14 and 15 (2 separate conditions might be better).

    

8. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Development Manager reported that this application seeks retrospective permission for the alteration of an existing boundary fence at the north west corner of the plot. Although on the rear elevation, the corner is prominent on the Bellamy Road street frontage.  The dwelling was originally built with its rear curtilage fence in line with the front elevation of 14-20 Bellamy Drive. The unauthorised fence has been built further southwest by approximately 3m, to extend the private curtilage and enlarge the garden by approximately 12sqm.

The Development Manager reported that the proposed fence consists of grey close boarded fencing with concrete posts and gravel board, which is of a similar appearance to the existing fencing. A small gate is in place to access the existing drive. However, the new fence has not been provided in accordance with the details of the planning permission granted, and those approved details were expected to be provided and retained thereafter. This development therefore represents a breach of a planning condition imposed on the original reserved matters approval for this phase of the wider estate development.

The Development Manager reported that the planning history at the site is an important consideration. No.1 Mace Road was approved as Plot 519 within Phase 4 of the wider Bluebell Meadows outline permission 06/13/0652/O. Reserved Matters approval ref. 06/20/0002/D for Phase 4 approved the layout of the plots and their boundaries, and that permission contained a condition (7) which required boundary treatment details to be agreed, which was subsequently agreed under condition discharge ref 06/20/0528/CD.

The Development Manager reported that the reserved matters stage, the approved layout plan “Planning & Landscaping Layout BP4- PL01 Revision G” indicated boundary treatment to be provided between the dwelling and garage. Condition 2 of the reserved matters approval required Phase 4 to be undertaken in accordance with drawing BP4-PL01 rev G (amongst others), in terms of the position of the fencing. Condition 7 of the reserved matters required the precise details of the appearance and materials of the boundary treatments to be agreed as part of the wider approval of hard and soft landscaping details. Condition 11 of the reserved matters required the boundary treatments to be built in accordance with the agreed boundary treatment plan and requires them to be retained as such thereafter.

The Development Manager reported that Condition 11 of 06/20/0002/D states:

The fences and walls shown on the approved plan shall be erected prior to the dwelling to which they relate is first being occupied and shall be retained in the approved form thereafter.

The reason for the condition is:-

To provide a properly planned development.

The Development Manager reported that as the retrospective proposal has altered the siting and appearance of this fencing, the proposal is seeking permission to remedy the breach of this condition. This application proposes to vary the aforementioned Conditions 2, 7 and 11 of the reserved matters approval, to amend the siting and appearance of the fencing in relation to 1 Mace Road only.

The Development Manager reported that the application was recommended for approval under delegated authority to Officers with the conditions as set out in the Committee report.

Councillor Murray-Smith was concerned that private residents were taking areas of green land into their residential curtilage. He questioned whether if every resident took this stance, would the Council approve every application.

The Development Manager reported that each application would be considered on a case to case basis.

Councillor Martin drew the Committees attention to the typo on page 75 of the agenda report where the incorrect names of the ward members was given. She reported that no comments were submitted by the Nelson Ward Councillors.

The Development Manager reported that the management of green, open spaces in this development was undertaken by a Management Company as set out in the s106 agreement.

Councillor Pilkington asked if the new fencing in the new fence line was in keeping with the other fences in the development. The Development Manager reported that it was close boarded fencing and was in keeping with the street scene.

Mr Jenson, applicant, asked that the Committee approve the application. The additional land was used as a kitchen garden and was an important outside asset for the family. Mr Jenson reported that when he had purchased his property, he had not been made aware that he was not allowed to move his fence line to incorporate the additional green space without applying for planning permission in the first instance.

Councillor Martin reported that it was disappointing that Persimmon had not spoken to Mr Jenson in regard to this matter when he purchased the property from them and he was not given the right advice. Councillor Pilkington suggested that the Council should contact Persimmon and advise them in regard to this issue to ensure that it did not happen in the future.

Mr Matthew, a neighbour, spoke in support of his neighbour and his application.

Councillor Capewell proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Boyd.

RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number 06/24/0045/VCF, that approval be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:-

(i) There being no prior ‘call in’ by the Secretary of State by 04th October 2024, on the basis of the application being a subsequent application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended); and

(ii) the LPA issuing notice of its eventual decision to the Secretary of State, consultees and the public.

The Committee received and considered the report and the addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Development Manager reported that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted for development by an employee of the Borough Council.

The Development Manager reported that the application seeks the construction of two outbuildings within the rear curtilage of New Farm Bungalow for use as catteries. In total, 23 cat pens are proposed. The supporting information submitted with the application outlines how the pens would be constructed in a phased approach which would involve the construction of the larger cattery building first.

The proposed cattery buildings are single storey structures with a single pitched roof with a maximum height of 2.3 metres. The larger building would run parallel to the rear (north) boundary and would measure 21.6 metres in length and be 4.4 metres in depth and would contain 17 pens. The smaller building would be parallel to the east boundary and measure 7.8 metres in length and 4.4 metres in depth and would contain 6 pens.

The Development Manager reported that the pens themselves would contain a sleeping area and an exercise area. A secure corridor would add an extra layer of security for the cats and would prevent their escape. The pen buildings would be clad in timber with green insulated roof panels.

The Development Manager reported that in terms of how the catteries would operate, the applicant has provided some clarity. The cattery would be open 5 days a week between 9am-4pm for people to drop off/pick up their cats. Cat drop-offs and collections will be by appointment-only during these times. The applicants also propose to have a cat collection service where the operators will transport the cat in-between their home and the cattery for the owner (for example if the cat owner is visiting hospital and cannot transport the cat themselves). Each cat would stay for a minimum of 3 days.

The Development Manager reported that 19 of the 23 pens will be able to accommodate up to 2 cats from the same household and the remaining 4 pens will be able to accommodate up to 4 cats from the same household, so there is theoretical capacity for the maximum use to be 54 cats being hosted at any one time from up to 23 households. The applicant has confirmed that they consider that it is most likely that each pen would house single cats most of the time.

The Development Manager reported that the owners would operate the cat business without additional staffing. The workload would include spot cleaning each occupied pen each morning and evening. Checking and removing any waste from litter trays twice a day, feeding and proving fresh water twice a day. Pens would be deep cleaned each time a pen became vacant and visual checks on the cats would take place between 7am to 10am at a minimum of every 4 hours.

The Development Manager reported that the cattery business will produce waste of mainly soiled cat litter, plastic cat food and litter bags and cat food pouches. A commercial waste company will take this waste away weekly. Refuse storage is proposed (albeit not indicated on the plan) to be located to the left (west) side of the driveway, outside of public view on an existing concrete pad. Refuse collection is proposed to take place roadside from the existing drive.

The Development Manager reported that the Committee is asked to delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published committee report.

Councillor Capewell asked if there were approved standards for catteries which the application would need to meet. The Development Manager reported that this would be a matter for Licensing and was not a planning issue.

Councillor Mogford asked for an assurance that the lighting would not be obtrusive as this was a "Dark Skies" area. The Development Manager reported that the security lighting would be downward facing to protect the amenity and dark skies.

Councillor Boyd proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number 06/24/0136/F, that authority be delegated to officers to approve the application and grant planning permission, subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee and Addendum Report.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site is located on the land east of Lowestoft Road. The site is approximately 9.3 hectares in area, and the land was previously used for agricultural purposes. In 2018 permission was granted under outline application 06/17/0339/O, which proposed “residential development (up to 200 dwellings) and open space/associated works including allotments”. Approval of remaining reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale was granted under application 06/19/0697/D in 2020. The residential development is underway and is known as the ‘Bowler’s Green’ housing estate.

The Planning Officer reported that this application proposes a minor material amendment to the development by varying Condition 2 of Reserved Matters approval 06/19/0697/D which is pursuant to outline planning permission 06/17/0339/O which together granted permission for the construction of 200 dwellings and associated works.

The Planning Officer reported that the minor material amendment seeks to amend the approved plans and introduce Air Source Heat Pumps and photovoltaic panels on Plots 1-31, 36-39, 42-46 and 187-196. Those plots are sited either side of the proposed ‘Goshawk Drive’ and both limbs of the proposed ‘Kestrel Close’; the specific plots are shown at Appendix 2 of this report.

The Planning Officer reported that the air source heat pumps will measure 765mm in height, 1100mm in width and 449mm in depth. The air source heat pumps are located within the rear garden of each property and are shown on the layout plan to sit close to the main dwelling as they are located against a wall of the dwelling house or up against the boundary fence enclosing the garden. A number of the air source heat pumps which sit against a boundary fence are back to back with air source heat pumps within the rear garden of the neighbouring plot. The layout of the photovoltaic panels for each house type is demonstrated on a collection of individually submitted plans.

The Planning Officer reported an amendment to proposed Condition 11, as given on the verbal update presentation at Committee, to include a requirement to change the location of air source heat pump units, if required, to meet the maximum noise level criteria of 42dB set out in the MCS 020 assessment.  A further amendment to the proposed amendment to Condition 11 presented in the verbal update, to include a requirement for noise impact assessments to include the cumulative impacts from back-to-back air source heat pumps.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval and officers to issue the Reserved Matters approval subject to the following:-

(i) The conditions listed in the Committee Report; and,

(ii) The amendment to proposed Condition 11 as shown on the Verbal Update presentation, to include a requirement to change the location of air source heat pump units if required to meet the maximum noise level criteria of 42dB set out in the MCS 020 assessment; and,

(iii) A further amendment to the proposed amendment to Condition 11 presented in the verbal update, to include a requirement for noise impact assessments to include the cumulative impacts from back-to-back air source heat pumps.

Councillor Mogford was concerned in regard to the ASHP's being sited back to back as if the heat pumps got out of phase with each other, the noise emanating from them would be horrendously loud and disturbing to the home owners. Councillor Mogford reported that he thought that it would be better for all concerned if the ASHP's were installed on an outside wall.

The Development Manager reported that the back to back heat pumps would be separated by a fence. A noise assessment would be undertaken and mitigation measures such as sound insulation would be enforced if the noise levels exceeding the permitted as set out in the MCS 020 assessment.

At 20:21, the Chair moved paragraph 26.11.2, of the Council's Constitution, to extend the meeting by a further 30 minutes.

Following an unanimous vote, Members resolved to extend the meeting by a further 30 minutes.

Councillor Galer reported that he agreed with Councillor Mogford in regard to the siting of two ASHP's in such close proximity as this could result in an irritating beating noise between the two heat pumps. However, he was please that the developer was installing them in the new properties.

Councillor Capewell reported that the noise from the traffic travelling along the A47 at night time in conjunction with the ASHP could lead to extra noise concerns for the residents of plot numbers 2, 195 & 196. However, he was pleased that ASHP's were being installed and it was disappointing that this had not been undertaken for the whole development.

The Development Manager reported that plot 196 which fronted the Lowestoft Road side had a higher standard of windows and cavity walls to give extra noise protection.

Councillor Galer reported that gas combi-boilers and oil-fired boilers made more noise than an ASHP. If an ASHP was mounted correctly and levelly and the bearings did not wear as a result, they required very little maintenance. Councillor Galer informed the Committee that 42Db was less noise than a freezer emitted.

Councillor Pilkington proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number  06/24/0462/VCO, the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and issue the Reserved Matters approval subject to:-

(i) The conditions listed in the Committee Report; 

(ii) The amendment to proposed Condition 11 as shown on the Verbal Update presentation, to include a requirement to change the location of air source heat pump units if required to meet the maximum noise level criteria of 42dB set out in the MCS 020 assessment; and,

(iii) A further amendment to the proposed amendment to Condition 11 presented in the verbal update, to include a requirement for noise impact assessments to include the cumulative impacts from back-to-back air source heat pumps.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted for development on land owned by the Borough Council for determination by the Borough Council as Local Planning Authority.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes to create a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing over the public footpath on Suffolk Road to provide vehicle parking in the garden, on the northern section of the garden. This would involve removing the 3.30m length of the wall on the north side of the pedestrian gate, and building a hardstanding area for parking in the garden, comprising 150mm permeable gravel with 50mm decorative gravel topper. The existing path, garden on the south side of the front garden, and the southern length of boundary wall with gate will be retained. The front wall’s existing pier to the north, on the boundary with the neighbouring property to the north (no. 61 Suffolk Road), will be retained. The piers either side of the metal gate and the 1.4m length of wall south of the gate will be retained.

The Planning Officer reported that the the Committee was asked to delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

Councillor Williamson proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Boyd seconded the motion to approve.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number 06/24/0337/HH, that the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Development Manager reported that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as a connected application submitted for development on land owned by a Council employee. The Development manager informed the Committee that changes were being proposed to the Council's Constitution so these applications would not need to come to the Committee for determination in the future.

The Development Manager reported that the proposal includes extending the existing detached garage in front of the dwelling to twice its existing width, as a 5-m long extension from the front of the house to replace the existing front porch. The bigger garage is then converted into double bedroom with ensuite, and with hallway link from the main dwelling to connect the two. This space provides a new front door entrance and will be used for a hallway leading to the new bedroom and ensuite which will be used as part of the existing dwelling.

The Development Manager reported that the proposed extension would measure 5 metres out from the front elevation of the existing dwelling, flush with the front wall of the existing dwelling. The extension would have a pitched roof which continues the ridge height, slope and eaves level of the existing garage. The proposal removes the existing garage door and includes two windows to the wider front elevation. The proposed extension is to be constructed using the same external materials as the existing dwelling and garage.

The Development Manager reported the Committee was asked to delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

Councillor Boyd proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Williamson seconded the motion for approval.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number 06/24/0155/HH, the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

The Development Manager reported that there was a possible need for a second Development Management Committee in October -  on the 23 October 2024. This to be confirmed to Members.