Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Reynolds and Wright.

Councillor Bensly declared a Personal Interest in item 7 in his capacity as Ward Councillor but in line with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on this matter.

Councillor Thirtle declared a Personal Interest in Item 6 in his capacity as Ward Councillor but in line with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on this matter.

Councillor Annison declared a Personal Interest in Item 5 in his capacity as Ward Councillor but in line with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on this matter.

Councillor Hanton declared a Personal Interest in item 7 in his capacity as County Councillor but in line with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on this matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 18 October 2017 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Senior Planning Officer.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that this was an outline application for the erection of 18 single storey dwellings, open space and associated works. The site comprised approximately 0.97 hectares of land which was formally in agricultural use, and was currently unused. To the north and east of the site is open space, to the south of the site is a recently constructed residential development and to the west is the A47, formally the A12.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council did not object to the application but had requested a number of conditions. One neighbour consultation response had been received objecting to the application.

The site was assessed as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and was found to be deliverable and developable in part, planning permission was granted for part of the site that was considered appropriate for development which had subsequently been removed  from the SHLAA. Comments from the Strategic Planning Team stated that the Borough Council were in the process of drafting the Local Plan Part II, which would include detailed Policies and Site Allocations and would be considering the location of draft housing allocations. In June 2017, these draft allocations were presented to the Local Plan Working Party and at this meeting, the site in question was not recommended for draft allocation. The Strategic Planning Team consider the proposal to be contrary to Policy CS9.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highways Authority had not objected to the application following the submission of revised details but had requested conditions upon any grant of planning permission. She advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had objected to the application, however, additional information had been provided by the applicant which sought to address the objection, however, no formal consultation response had been received at time of the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Environmental Health, following the submission of additional information, had objected to the application, due to the proposed acoustic scheme not being sufficient to reasonably protect the residential amenities, nor the health of potential occupiers.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that an ecology report had been submitted by the applicant which detailed additional information that is recommended to be provided prior to commencement of the development. She advised that should the application be approved, that the ecological report recommendations are conditioned. 

Members were advised that the site contained one tree which was protected by a Tree Preservation Order which would require work to be carried out to it to facilitate access to the site. These works would have to be approved by the Tree and Landscape Officer should the application be approved. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for refusal, given that the height above the existing landscape, would cause an urban intrusion which could have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area, cause an unacceptable coalescence between two settlements which would be  contrary to the Core Strategy. The living conditions could not be adequately mitigated so as not to have an adverse effect on the future occupants' quality of life which is contrary to Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy, as the current application did not accord with the Core Strategy, once the consultation response from the Lead Local Flood Authority is received.

Councillor Andrews made reference to the comments received from Anglian Water.

Mr Amador, Applicant's Agent, reported the salient areas of the application and stated that the applicant would be making efficient use of the land and would provide new homes in a suitable location and that these would be provided promptly and would deliver much needed homes in the Borough and he asked the Committee to support the application.

A Member asked for clarification in relation to surface water and water assets and the Applicant's agent advised that work had been undertaken, although a response had not been received in time for the meeting from the Lead Local Flood Authority. A further question was raised in relation to the surface water on the site and it was advised that surface water would be drained and contained within the site.

The Ward Councillor raised his concerns in relation to the application.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/17/0438/O be refused given the height above the existing landscape, would cause an urban intrusion which could have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area, cause an unacceptable coalescence between two settlements which would be  contrary to the Core Strategy. The living conditions cannot be adequately mitigated so as not to have an adverse effect on the future occupant's quality of life which is contrary to Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and the current application does not accord with the Core Strategy.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Planning Manager.

The Senior Planning Manager reported that the application sought approval for the construction of 6 dwellings with associated access road and site works. The site is situated on the north side of Main Road, Filby, there are houses to either side and open farm land to the rear. The site had recently been cleared but was formerly occupied by a house towards the rear of the site and a small group of barns in the South West corner near to Main Road. She advised the Committee that planning permission had been granted in March 2016 for the demolition of the farmhouse and the erection of four dwellings with car parking at the rear of the site. In October 2016 permission was given for the demolition of the barns and the erection of a single dwelling. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had objected to the application mainly due to over-development, the number of extra vehicles likely to be generated and traffic generated by further dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Highways had raised no objection to the proposed construction and that Strategic Planning had considered the proposal to be broadly compliant. She advised that Environmental Health did not object to the application  but recommended a condition if permission is granted requiring a contaminated land survey is carried out prior to commencement of work.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the current application reversed the layout of the previous approval with two pairs of three bedroom semi-detached houses along the frontage with Main Road and two, six-bedroom houses at the rear. The initial application submitted showed the semi-detached houses as three storey in height, the amended proposal now showed conventional two storey houses along the road frontage of a similar height to existing dwellings to the west of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the site is outside but adjacent to the Village Development Limit which include the dwellings to either side of the site, the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy (IHLSP) allows development of land adjoining the Development Limit subject to meeting the criteria of the Policy. The site has previously been considered to comply with the IHLSP.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval as the proposal complied with Policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy and Interim Housing Land Supply.

A Member sought clarification in relation to the number of bed spaces that had been proposed on the application and those in previous applications.

Councillor Thirtle, Ward Councillor, reiterated the concerns that had been raised by the Parish Council and stated that he felt that the application proposed would see a substantial increase in bed spaces and that in his opinion the proposals showed extreme over development and out of character for the area.

The Planning Manager stated that in his opinion the application was in keeping with the character of the Main Road in Filby and that the proposal would provide a range of properties.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/17/0306/F be approved as the proposal complies with Policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy and Interim Housing Land Supply.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Senior Planning Officer.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was a full application for the demolition of an existing residential dwelling sited on 3470 square metres of land and construction of a new residential dwelling and garage.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council, Highway Authority and Environmental Health did not object to the application and that one neighbour comment had been received requesting that the window located at the eastern elevation, at first floor level, is obscure glazed. The Senior Planning Officer advised that this could be conditioned.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwelling without constituting over development.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that although the application is contrary to Policy HOU20 (c), on balance, taking into consideration the fall-back position that the dwelling could be extended in a similar fashion to a comparable size, by virtue of an existing planning permission, there are no material reasons for refusal. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval with a condition requiring the window of the first floor level of the eastern elevation of the garage to be obscure glazed and a condition recommended by Environmental Health requiring that the garage be used in a manner which is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling only and any other conditions required to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

Mr G Parrott, Applicants Agent, asked the Committee if there were any questions in relation to the application and stated that, in his opinion, the proposed application would provide a much more efficient dwelling that the existing dwelling.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/17/0615/F be approved with conditions as listed within the Senior Planning Officer's report.

The Committee noted the planning decisions made by the Development Control Committee and Officers for the period 1-31 October 2017.

The Chairman reported that there was no other business as being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.