Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cutting.

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

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

Councillor Flaxman-Taylor declared a Personal Interest in item 7 but in line with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on this matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 15 November 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 demolition of former commercial buildings and construction of 4 two storey dwellings as part of a car free development. The site is accessed by a narrow road which is prohibitively narrow for for vehicular access.

The land is sited in an area categorised as Flood Zone 2 and 3.

Highways raised no objections providing no works commence on the site until a traffic regulation Order prohibiting driving on Palgrave Road Back lane (U6V106) has been made and no part of the structure overhangs or encroaches highway land.

13 letters of objection were received from local residents following consultation.

Norfolk Fire and rescue asked for the compulsory addition of sprinklers.

Environmental Health had no objections subject to any remedial works being carried out following a contaminated land report being produced.

Councillor Andrews asked for clarification on the existing access - it was confirmed that vehicles would no longer be able to drive down this route once the order had been made.

Councillor Thirtle how this passed the sequential test as building on Flood Zone 3 was against the national and local policies. The Senior Planning officer stated that it passes the test as residents would have a safe haven on the upper floors and a flood risk management plan would be in place.

Councillor Walch asked how the road closure would be enforced - nplaw advised that the traffic regulation order would allow for the installation of a physical barrier.

Councillor Bird in his role as ward councillor read a statement from the objectors outlining the adverse effect the proposal would have on local parking, the potential dangers the additional traffic would have on children walking to school and that a similar plan had previously been rejected.

Members debated the proposal.

Councillor Andrews believed that this was a rush to build to meet the housing need and that the site was not suitable.

Councillor Wainwright said it would bring a derelict brownfield site back into use.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/17/0096/O be approved with the conditions as listed within the Senior Planning Officer's report with the highways request changed from promoted to made.

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 a mixed use development. The development would incorporate 23 dwellings, 1 leisure unit (Class D2) and 10 retail units (Class A1).

The site is the the former Regent Superbowl and indoor market site which has been cleared following the fire in August 2016.

Anglia Water have requested further information on the proposed drainage - no work is to start on drainage until this has been approved.

Councillor Andrews asked if the surface water was to be treated on-site - the water is to be treated on site and discharged into the existing drains with a restricted flow rate of 30 l/s.

Councillor Fairhead asked for details of the leisure complex - it will be 91 square meters but there was no specified use.

Councillor Wright asked for details regarding parking - parking was included for all the housed but not for the flats.

Councillor Walch noted that the Leisure complex was not large enough to contain the uses listed for class D2 - members were advised that if a use outside of D2 was later required, the applicant would have to submit a change of use request.

RESOLVED:

That application 06/17/0469/F be approved with conditions as listed within the Senior Planning Officers report.

It is recommended to approve the application subject to all conditions as requested by consulted parties, noted within the report and any required to secure an adequate form of development. The permission should not be issued until the signing of a s106 agreement securing policy complaint obligations as set out in the report to include payment in lieu of public open space and children's recreation, Natura 2000 contribution, affordable housing (notwithstanding information within submission affordable housing provision to be negotiated) and library contributions. In the absence of a detailed requirement, Norfolk County Council GI is not being sought.

The Committee noted the planning decisions made by the Development Control Committee and Officers for the period 1 - 30 November 2017.

Councillor Thirtle asked for the officers to send him additional information regarding 06/17/0113/F.

The Planning Manager explained the outcome of the appeal decisions:

06/17/0199/O - the inspector agreed with the Committees decision.

06/17/0313/CU - the inspector overturned the Committees decision, the decision was not consistent with policy SHP15(A). The stop notice will need to be reviewed, the applicant has the option of complaining to the Local Government Ombudsman.

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