Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cunniffe, Reynolds and Robinson-Payne. 

 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 16 July 2013 were confirmed. 

 

 

The Group Manager (Planning) reminded Members that a planning application for a terrace of three two bedroom houses on this site was considered at the last meeting, and Members had deferred consideration of the application as it was considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the amenities of the dwellings to the north of the site. The proposal, as amended, is to build a pair of semi-detached, two bedroom houses on the area of amenity land with nine parking spaces to the front and the provision of two new parking spaces on a triangular area of land to the south west of the existing car park.

The applicant’s agent Mr J Green reported that the application had been significantly amended to provide two properties and the application was supported by a car parking survey carried out which had shown that the car parking area was under utilised. The proposed amendments would provide 11 car parking spaces of which two would be reserved for residents.  The proposal would retain the existing trees and Mr Green reported that the properties would be used for the Borough Council’s Housing Allocation pool.  He also reported that the revised proposal would reduce the impact on adjoining properties and would provide affordable housing in this area.  

Mr Harvey (objector) reported that he objected to the revised application on the grounds of over development of the site and on the loss of car parking spaces and loss of open space. Mr Harvey stated that in his opinion this was an extremely busy road and that children played in this area for a significant part of the day.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that on balance it was considered that the scheme, as revised, will not have a significant adverse affect on light and outlook to the dwellings immediately to the north of the site. The new houses may have some affect on the outlook to the new windows to number 146 but this will be unlikely to be significant enough to justify refusal of the application. The reduction in the number of houses and the retention of most of the mature trees and hedgerow on the site will also help to reduce any overlooking and adverse impact on the dwellings to the rear.  

RESOLVED:
That application number 06/13/0292/F be approved subject to conditions requested by Highways, removal of permitted development rights for extensions and to the retention of trees and hedging.

The Committee undertook a site visit to this site prior to consideration of the application.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that that application proposes single storey extensions to the front and side of the property and a one and a half storey extension to the rear.  In addition it is proposed to alter the shape and form of the roof to the main body of the dwelling to put accommodation in the roof space by introducing a pitched roof, gables and dormer windows. Since the submission of the application, amendments to the original drawings have taken place in order to reduce the impact upon the neighbouring properties and address the neighbours concerns whilst maintaining the accommodation needs of the applicant. The amendments included the removal of two dormer windows to the rear replacing them with roof lights thus reducing the bulk of the roof. To the front lowering the roof and removing the accommodation in the roof space and dormer window which again reduces the overall bulk of the extension. The front single storey extension is lengthened and incorporates a garage and store in addition to a proposed kitchen.

The applicant’s builder, Mr R Smith, reported that his clients were disabled residents who required the proposed extensions. He stated that there would be little or no impact to adjoining neighbours and that the proposed development was on a very large plot so that it could not be deemed as over development of the site.  

Mrs Daglish (objector) reported that she objected to the proposal as the proposed extensions would be less than 1 metre from her property and stretches for at least 30 metres. She also stated that there would be loss of light to her property but stated that she would welcome a more reasonable development. Mrs Daglish also referred to Policy HOU18 in the Borough-Wide Local Plan which seeks to protect adjoining neighbours from overlooking, over development etc.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that in consideration of the application in the context of Policy HOU18 in real terms beyond the immediate neighbours the proposal has limited impact outside the site having minimal impact upon the street scene and the areas of nature conservation to the rear of the site. The size of the site makes it difficult to frame a case that the proposal represents over development of the site or that it would adversely impact upon the character of the area.

RESOLVED:
That application number 06/13/0151/F be approved subject to a controlling condition prohibiting further windows being inserted into the building above ground floor or in the roof.

The Committee undertook a site visit to this property prior to determining the application.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that 14 Beach Road, Scratby is a detached chalet bungalow on the east side of Beach Road near to the junction with Scratby Road.  The property has a large curtilage which extends around the corner which is surrounded by high hedging. The proposed building plot is to the south of the existing dwelling and will not be close to any neighbouring dwellings. The site is also outside the village development limit for Scratby as defined on the East Flegg Proposals Map. The Group Manager reported that one letter of objection had received on the basis that the house is too large and high and that it is outside the village boundary and there was also concern with regard to traffic.

The applicant’s agent, Mr M Duffield, reported that the proposal would provide a “statement” house and would improve access to Scratby village. He stated that the proposal should not be regarded as an extension into the urban area. Mr Duffield also questioned the current validity of the policies contained in the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan as the Council had yet to adopt its new local plan. Mr Duffield stated that this would be a sustainable proposal and the applicant would be prepared to reduce the level of the hedge around the site.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that it was considered that the height and bulk of the dwelling will result in a building that is over prominent and will detract from the character of the area and that, in this instance, there is no justification for allowing a dwelling outside the village development limit.

RESOLVED:
That application number 06/13/0304/F be refused as the application is contrary to Policies NNV3, NNV5 and HOU10 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan.  

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that the submitted application seeks approval for the change of use of a little used former garden area at the southern western corner of the site to create car parking and the erection of 2.9 metre high fence to screen the car park from adjacent residences and the Hotel Victoria. The Group Manager also reported on issues relating to surface water drainage and the potential and noise and light disturbance to the residents of the adjacent hotel. Members were advised that an objection had been received from the Hotel Victoria relating to disturbance, increase in night time noise, disposal of surface water and the potential adverse impact on their hotel business.

The applicant’s agent Mr Murdock, reported that the proposal was to provide 12 additional car parking spaces.  He stated that the surface water drainage could be dealt with by the imposition of a condition. He also reported that his clients would erect signage requesting respect from users of the Casino to minimise the impact to local neighbours. He also reaffirmed that a close boarded fence would be provided to also minimise any problems. 

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that the proposed Car Park was considered acceptable as it will not have a significant or adverse impact on assessing of the listed building, would utilise an existing little used garden area and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjacent residents by virtue of noise and disturbance.

RESOLVED:
That application number 06/13/0330/F be approved subject to a condition with regard to surface water drainage.

The Committee undertook a site visit to the above site prior to determination of the application.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that the application proposed to provide residential development of the site to provide two bungalows and two chalet style bungalows. The land subject to this application, although previously developed with hard standing and agricultural buildings is not classed as a brown-field site due to its agricultural use. The land is also outside but immediately adjacent to the village development limits as defined in the Borough-Wide Local Plan.

The Group Manager (Planning) reported that overall it was considered that the scheme is well thought out and will enhance the visual amenities of the area by removing an old agricultural building and will complete the built form of the village by utilising previously developed but un-used agricultural land and the design will complement existing dwellings and surrounding area. 

RESOLVED:
That application number 06/13/0226/F be approved.

 

The Committee received the Group Manager’s (Planning) Schedule in respect of applications cleared during July 2013 under Delegated Powers.

The Committee received the Group Manager’s (Planning) Schedule in respect of applications cleared by the Development Control Committee under Delegated Powers.

(a) The Committee noted the following Appeal Decisions:-

· Application Number 06/12/0169/F – Terrace of four three bedroom houses at former Waterworks Storage and Pipe Yard, St Peters Plain, Great Yarmouth – Appeal dismissed.

· Application Number 06/12/0238/CC – Demolition of commercial building and erection of a terrace of four three bedroom houses at former Waterworks Storage and Pipe Yard, St Peters Plain, Great Yarmouth – Appeal dismissed.

Both applications were Officer delegated refusals.

(b) Ombudsman Decision

No issues to consider.

There was no other business.