Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cutting, Hanton & Hammond. 

Councillors Annison & Flaxman-Taylor declared a Personal Interest in Item 5 and Councillor Thirtle declared a Personal Interest in Items 4 & 6. However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, they were allowed to both speak and vote on the matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2018 were confirmed.

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

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposal was an outline application for the erection of three detached houses detailing access and layout of the development. The submitted plan detailed an extension of the existing private drive across the frontage of 4 York Villa Close which was owned by the applicant. The drive would run along the western boundary of the site with a turning area at the southern end.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposed houses would have parking & turning areas at the front with gardens at the rear where there is a tree belt running along the rear boundaries of the dwellings on Thrigby Road,(to the east). This would prevent any overlooking or loss of privacy to nearby dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that some trees were protected by a TPO in the front garden of number 4, to the north of the existing drive but the extension of the driveway would not result in the loss of any trees.

The Senior Planning officer reported that the site was outside the Village Development Limit but adjoined it along the northern boundary and the IHLSP stated that as the Council could only demonstrate a 4.13 year supply of housing land as of 01/04/2017 this should be a material consideration for members when determining this application.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highways Officer had not objected to the application but had reservations regarding visibility and had requested conditions if the application was approved. The Planning Statement stated that the houses would be for himself, his son & his daughter to allow his family to remain in the village they grew up in.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had objected to the application & 12 letters of objection had been received citing that the application would be contrary to covenants in the deeds of the existing dwellings on York Villa Close, increased traffic movements, impact on residential amenity and outside the village development limit. A letter had been received from a solicitor representing the owners of 3 York Villa Close stating that the right of way could not be extended to serve adjoining land and York Villa Close could not be used as the access for the development. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that if there is a legal dispute regarding access, this is not a planning matter and would need to be resolved separately between the parties concerned.

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

A Member asked for confirmation that no mature protected trees would be lost if the application was approved. Another Member reported that he hoped that another quality development, similar to other developments already built in the village would result from this application.

Ms Dejean, daughter of the applicant, addressed the Committee and asked them to approve it to allow her and her brother to be able to get onto the housing ladder in the village where they were born. She reported that if permission was granted that her father would talk to the neighbours regarding access to the site to see if they could reach an amicable agreement.

Mr Howard, objector, outlined his main objections to the development and asked the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of access,noise nuisance during construction and highway safety in regard to the proximity of the site to the local primary school.

Mr Flack, nplaw, stated that although resolution of any legal dispute as to access rights was a matter for the relevant parties, it was appropriate for the Council, as planning authority, to secure that the development could not go ahead unless a satisfactory access was secured otherwise the site would be land-locked. He suggested that, to deal with this, a condition could be imposed to ensure that satisfactory access be provided prior to the commencement of the building of the properties or their occupation.

Councillor Thirtle, Ward Councillor, reported that he could not support the application due to the access concerns to the proposed site.

RESOLVED:

That application number 06/17/0771/O) be approved, as the proposal complied with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan:Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy.

The Committee received & considered the report from the Planning Manager.

The Planning Officer reported that the application had been amended after discussions with the Conservation Officer to include a mansard style roof to reduce the height, bulk and impact of the extension and to provide 12 en-suite bedrooms, making a total of 49. There are 33 parking spaces in the main car park and 8 in the smaller parking area to the north.

The Planning Officer reported that 10 letters of objection had been received from local residents citing lack of parking, additional traffic, noise nuisance and adverse effect on light & outlook. The Highways Officer was concerned about the number of car parking spaces available but was minded that traffic management measures were in place in the area so had raised no objection to the scheme.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval with conditions requested as it complied with policies CS8 & CS10 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan:Core Strategy and saved policies BNV18 & TR11 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Local Plan.

Mr Ferguson, the applicant's agent, reported the rationale behind the application and urged the Committee to approve the application to secure local employment and enhance the holiday offer in the area. He informed the Committee that alternative car parking was being investigated.

Mr Marsden, an objector, reported the difficulties of parking, noise nuisance and highway safety for local residents and visitors in the surrounding area and asked the Committee to refuse the application. He asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that a condition be added that delivery vehicles to the hotel must use the car park and not park on the road.

The Ward Councillor reported that they did not wish to speak on this application.

A motion for approval was proposed and seconded but was lost at the vote. Members were concerned about the parking provision at the proposed site and highway safety in the local vicinity.

The Chairman proposed that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to discuss additional parking provision with Planning Officers. This motion was seconded and a vote was taken.

RESOLVED:

That application 06/17/0722/F be deferred.

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

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was for the sub-division of an existing garden and the erection of 2 houses, one three-bedroom & one four-bedroom, with the existing dwelling, White Gates, to remain. There were currently two accesses to the existing dwelling which would remain.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that there were no objection from the Highways Officer but conditions had been requested. Two objections had been received from residents at The Village but none from adjacent residents. Following the appeal dismissal from the Inspector, that previous applications for 4 or 5 dwellings on the site would harm the character and appearance of the area, the current application had reduced numbers and was in accordance with the character and density of the area,thereby significantly mitigating this harm.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Ward Councillor reported that he had no objections to the application.

RESOLVED;

That application number 06/17/0625/F be approved with conditions requiring the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans, removal of permitted development rights for the new dwellings for openings in the roofs and all conditions as requested by Norfolk County Highways.

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

The Planning Officer reported that the application site was positioned on West Road, West Caister where the road bends to the south. The site, Corner Farm, contained a large agricultural style barn building currently in equine use and the application was for outline permission for a bungalow on the footprint of the existing barn. The application was for all matters reserved meaning the access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping would be dealt with by a detailed application.

The Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council, Highways Officer, Environmental Health or local residents had not objected to the application and it was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions, as it accorded with Policies CS2 & CS3 of the adopted Core Strategy and Policies HOU10 & HOU17 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Local Plan.

The applicant, Mrs Farnese, was present at Committee but declined to speak as the Planning Officer had covered all the salient areas of her application.

RESOLVED:

That application number 06/17/0778/O be approved, subject to all conditions ensuring a suitable development,including all reserved matters. Subject to Highway conditions, treatment of boundaries and Environmental Health conditions. In accordance with the submitted application form, a condition ensuring the development was single storey was included.

The Committee received, considered and noted the planning decisions made by officers and Committee between 1 - 28 February 2018.

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