Docstoc

Item 2 - Waveney District Council

Document Sample
Item 2 - Waveney District Council Powered By Docstoc
					                                        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011


Minutes of a Meeting held at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Lowestoft
on Tuesday 15 February 2011 at 6.00pm                                                        2
Members present:
J Groom (Chairman), S Allen, P Ashdown, P Byatt, M Cherry, G Elliott, P Flegg, I Graham,
S Keller, D Ritchie and S Woods

Officers present:
R Amor (Principal Planning Officer), K Hilson (Principal Planning Officer), P Perkin (Principal
Planning Officer), B Reid (Principal Service Manager, Planning and Building Control), P Ridley
(Head of Planning Services), N Sultan (Principal Service Manager, Legal Services) and
N Wotton (Senior Committee Officer)



1      APOLOGIES / SUBSTITUTES

       Apologies for absence were received from Councillor N Dack.

       Councillor G Elliott had sent apologies for lateness.


2      MINUTES

              RESOLVED

              Subject to Councillor P Flegg being removed from the list of Members declaring a
              personal interest in Item 8 – DC/10/1006/FUL – The Hollies, London Road,
              Kessingland, that the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2011 be
              confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


3      DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

       Councillor P Ashdown declared a personal interest in Item 15 - DC/10/1596/EXT –
       Proposed Development of Henham Hall, Henham Park Estate, Henham – as he was a
       member of the Management Advisory Group for Tourism and the applicant was also a
       member of the group, representing business and tourism.

       Councillor G Elliott declared a personal interest in Item 15 DC/10/1596/EXT – Proposed
       Development of Henham Hall, Henham Park Estate, Henham – as he was in negotiations
       with the applicant to hold an event on the Estate.


4      DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING

       All Members of the Committee had been sent correspondence by email in relation to Item
       12 - DC/10/1251/FUL – 23-24 Lyndhurst Road, Lowestoft, although it was acknowledged
       that not all Members had checked their email accounts before the meeting.

       Councillor G Elliott declared that he had received correspondence in relation to Item 10 –
       DC/08/1328/ROC – Asda Stores Ltd, Belvedere Road, Lowestoft – from members of the
       local cycling group.

       Although they had been lobbied, the Members all felt that they could bring an open mind
       to the consideration of the applications.


                                                1
                                     DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011


5   APPEAL DECISIONS REPORT

    The report of the Head of Planning informed Members that there were four appeal
    decisions made in January 2011, three were dismissed and one was allowed
    conditionally.

           RESOLVED

           That the report concerning the appeal decisions during January 2011 be received.

6   DELEGATED CHIEF OFFICER DECISIONS

    The report of the Head of Planning informed Members of all the Chief Officer delegated
    decisions made during January 2011.

           RESOLVED

           That the report concerning the Chief Officer delegated decisions made during
           January 2011 be received.

7   OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASES

    The report of the Head of Planning provided Members with a summary of all outstanding
    enforcement cases sanctioned under delegated powers or by the Committee up until 1
    February 2011. The present number of cases was 12.

    An update was provided in relation to the following cases and it was reported that:-

    177 London Road South, Lowestoft – The date by which compliance was expected was
    due to be changed and further information would be brought to the next meeting.

    Barn Owl Barn, London Road, Weston, Beccles – The date of the appeal hearing was
    due shortly and a site visit would also take place.

    Bleach Farm Barn, Wissett – An appeal had been received and further information would
    be provided in due course.

           RESOLVED

           That the report concerning the Outstanding Enforcement matters up to 1 February
           2011 be received.

8   CHANGE IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

    With the agreement of the Committee, the Chairman changed the order of business to
    enable the following items to be considered further up the agenda:

          Revocation of Certificates of Lawful Use
          DC/08/1328/ROC – ASDA Stores Ltd, Belvedere Road, Lowestoft
          DC/10/1615/EXT – Briar Clyffe, 8 Gunton Cliff, Lowestoft
          DC/10/1251/FUL – 23-24 Lyndhurst Road, Lowestoft
          DC/10/1596/EXT – Proposed Development of Henham Hall, Henham Park
           Estate, Henham




                                             2
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

9    REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF LAWFUL USE – HIGH PATH, KESSINGLAND

     The Principal Service Manager for Building and Planning Control advised the Committee
     that three certificates of lawful use had been granted between 2008 and 2009, in respect
     of a sub-divided strip of land adjacent to High Path in Kessingland. Certificates of lawful
     use differ from planning applications and are used to regularise a situation where no
     planning permission exists but a use can be proven to have been ongoing for four or ten
     years, depending on the application. It is up to the applicant to provide evidence of use
     rather than to show how such use complied with any planning policies.

     The Principal Service Manager for Legal Services reported that a complaint had been
     made by a local resident, supported by others who live near the land in question, and
     new evidence had become available which cast doubt over whether the certificates of
     lawful use should have been granted. The Council’s legal team had investigated the
     complaints and confirmed that two of the three certificates of lawful use should be
     revoked. Members were given the opportunity to view photographs of the area and it
     was noted that advice had been sought from Counsel, which was supportive of the
     proposed revocation.

     Questions

     A Member queried what options were open to the applicants, should the certificates of
     use be revoked. It was reported that the applicant could choose to make an application
     for a change of use, which would then be considered by the planning department.

     In respect of the false statements which had been made regarding the use of the land, it
     was noted that there was provision for prosecutions to take place in future, however that
     decision was not for the Committee at this time.

     (At this stage of the proceedings, Councillor G Elliott joined the meeting.)

     The Head of Planning summarised the situation, which was extremely rare and Members
     noted that the decision could not be made by officers under delegated powers. It was
     noted that if revocation of the certificates was approved, the applicants would still have
     the opportunity to submit further information to support their statements and the matter
     could be reconsidered. Alternatively, planning applications could be submitted for
     consideration.

     After discussion it was

            RESOLVED

            That the two certificates of lawful use issued under application numbers
            DC/08/1352/CLE and DC/09/1029/CLE for land at High Path, Kessingland be
            revoked.

     (Mrs Sultan, Principal Service Manager for Legal Services, left the meeting at this point.)


10   DC/08/1328/ROC – ASDA STORES LTD, BELVEDERE ROAD, LOWESTOFT

     The Committee considered the application for a variation of conditions 10 and 13 of
     application W17336/1 to allow the reconfiguration and reuse of the existing factory outlet
     building (amended application). This would change the original conditions which
     restricted retailing to a factory outlet centre, in order to allow the building to be used for
     the sale of fabric, furniture, soft and hard furnishings and household goods. The
     application also included proposals for amended car parking and service yard


                                               3
                                  DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

arrangements to facilitate the use of the unit. The appearance of the building would be
altered, however any alterations would be subject to a separate application.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the existing factory outlet building was
located adjacent to Asda’s car park and was built at the same time as the supermarket.
The building comprised of five individual shop units all of which had remained vacant
since they were completed in 2006, despite a continued marketing campaign. The
building was located on a prominent position off the Belvedere Road and Horn Hill
roundabout and next to the Asda access road. The locality was generally commercial in
character, which included car sales and petrol filling stations, although there was a
terrace of residential properties along Horn Hill. Land to the east of the site and
extending up to Pier Terrace was largely vacant. There was also vacant land
immediately to the north of the building extending up to the quay and heading along Lake
Lothing.

Due to the length of time that the building had been unoccupied, the planning department
were keen for the building to be brought into use. The Principal Planning Officer reported
that the benefits of seeing the building occupied outweighed any potential impact on town
centre retail units. Any resulting reconfiguration of the building would be subject to further
planning applications. The Principal Planning Officer reported that a representation had
been received on behalf of Lowestoft Community Church, who had expressed an interest
in part of the building.

Objector – Mr P Eyres

Mr Eyres stated that he had been surprised by the proposed traffic arrangements for the
site, as they would cause difficulty for anyone wishing to travel southwards, as traffic
leaving the site would be forced Northwards towards the bascule bridge. He reported
that the toucan crossing, pedestrian path and cycle track, which were all very well used,
would also be lost due to the development.

He also disagreed with the proposals for amended car parking and service yard
arrangements, which had been requested to facilitate the use of the building. He was
also concerned about the appearance of the building from the harbour and quay, as he
felt that this area should be made more attractive and appealing in general.

He then reported that Lowestoft Community Church had been in ongoing discussions and
were willing to use the entire building, which would benefit the whole community, whilst
bringing the building into use.

Applicant – Ms Cuthbert, Agent

Ms Cuthbert reported that outline permission for the development had been given in 2004
and the conditions had been imposed to protect the trade in the town centre from any
negative impacts. Since construction in 2006, the factory outlet building had remained
vacant, despite extensive marketing.

Recently, a national retailer had expressed an interest in the building, however the
conditions in place prevented the building being used.  It was noted that Asda Stores
Ltd had successfully accommodated a cycle route to the store when the onsite petrol
station had been developed and would be happy to include another cycle route as
appropriate. The development would bring significant investment to the area, additional
car parking and 20 permanent jobs.

Debate

A Member raised concerns regarding the loss of the well used cycle track and pedestrian
path, which currently cut across vacant land, following the ‘desire line’ (most direct route)

                                          4
                                        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

     towards Asda, when travelling from Lowestoft Town Centre. During discussions, it was
     noted that pedestrians would always take the most direct route and would be unlikely to
     use a path around the boundary of the site.

     Although Members were keen for the building to come into use, they were not minded to
     endorse an application which would see the loss of the important and well used cycle and
     pedestrian route.

     After detailed consideration it was

            RESOLVED

            That the application to vary conditions for the existing factory outlet building be
            approved, subject to conditions specified by the Highway Authority and the
            involvement of Councillor G Elliott in the development of a high quality, well
            designed pedestrian and cycle path.

     (Councillor S Allen left the meeting at this point.)

11   DC/10/1615/EXT – BRIAR CLYFFE, 8 GUNTON CLIFF, LOWESTOFT

     The Committee considered the application for an extension of time for a further 3 years,
     for planning approval for the conversion and creation of new residential use, to create 17
     flats and 1 house. The site was the former home of the Hollingsworth family which had
     long been in use as the Briar Cliff private school and the building, its grounds and
     outbuildings were all within the North Lowestoft Conservation Area.

     The Principal Planning Officer clarified that permission had previously been granted in
     February 2008 and that the application was for an extension of time only. The
     Committee then viewed a range of photographs of the area and the designs for the
     development.

     Objector – Mr P Eyres

     Mr Eyres stated that the design of the development was not in keeping with the other
     houses in the local area, which were generally large, spacious houses with large
     grounds. The development would cause significant overcrowding on the site and was a
     massive over-development. The neighbours on Corton Road to the rear of the
     development would also be overlooked and lack privacy.

     He felt that there were too many flats within the development, which were too small and
     there was little outside space. Mr Eyres stated that he had grave concerns regarding
     parking, as there would be very few available spaces on the site, which would force
     residents to park along the road, causing congestion.

     He felt that the building had been sold too cheaply and many of its unique assets, such
     as wood panelling, had been removed or destroyed. The house was by far the largest on
     the street and should be developed and restored sympathetically and was of historical
     value.

     Questions

     The Principal Planning Officer then took the opportunity to provide clarity regarding the
     design and style of the development, which had been approved in 2008.

     Members noted that the building had been vacant for some time, was boarded up and
     had received some damage/vandalism, although it was noted that the building was not
     listed. In response to a query, it was reported that due to the current economic climate

                                                5
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

     there was the possibility that the building would not be developed, however no
     development would be possible unless permission to extend the length of the application
     was granted.

     The Principal Planner advised that part of the grounds had been used for other structures
     and development in the past, which was visible on old plans and via an aerial view. It
     was noted that the flats were not an age related development, therefore there were no
     restrictions in this respect.

     A Member queried whether there would be any secure, covered cycle storage provision
     on the site and the Committee was advised that there was not, although a condition could
     be added in this respect.

     Debate

     Members were concerned that there had been significant changes in policy since the
     original application had been approved in 2007 and that the development was not the
     most appropriate option for the site. Although there had been no material changes in
     circumstances, Members felt that they were unable to make a decision at this time and it
     was

              RESOLVED

              That the application be deferred until a Members Site Visit could take place.

12   DC/10/1251/FUL - 23-24 LYNDHURST ROAD, LOWESTOFT

     The Committee considered the application to extend an existing high dependency
     nursing home and create a three storey rear extension to provide 10 additional
     bedrooms. It was reported that a Members site visit had taken place in December 2010
     and correspondence had been received from Mrs Bannister, an Objector, regarding
     difficulties in accessing the drawings and plans on the Waveney District Council website,
     which had been due to a technical problem (now resolved).

     The Principal Planning Officer advised that amended plans had been received on 31
     January 2011 and confirmed that the rear gable window had been included in error and
     would not be included within the development.

     Members noted the details of the rear extension which would contain the additional
     bedrooms and the ‘link’ to the main house, which would be used as a dining room and
     office. The Committee was shown the site and proposed development from many angles
     and view points. It was noted that skylights had been used within the rear extension to
     avoid looking into neighbouring gardens and the roof of the extension had been lowered.

     Objector, Mrs Bannister

     Mrs Bannister reported that the application contradicted Waveney District Councils’ Local
     Planning Policy Guidance, as it did not enhance the local environment or the relationship
     between building and space.

     There were no other extensions of a similar size within the local area and it would be
     visible from public space. The materials used for the extension were new bricks,
     concrete tiles and UPVC windows which were not in keeping, the overall design of the
     building was bland and would not contribute to layering or the enhancement of the local
     area.

     Neighbouring residents would be overwhelmed by the development, and there would be
     privacy issues. The nursing home residents would not have any views from the

                                               6
                                 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

extension at the back of the house or benefit from the vibrancy of the local area. Mrs
Bannister acknowledged the demand for high dependency nursing care and suggested
that other locations may be more suitable for such provision. She felt that the proposed
extension would not preserve or enhance the area and should therefore be refused.

Questions

In response to a query, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a photo-montage
had been requested by Members at the site visit in December 2010 and that it was still
awaited at this time.

Members queried the size of the rear extension and it was reported that approximately 2
or 3 metres length at the rear of the site would be left undeveloped, which was similar in
size to the access road at the rear of the property.

A Member queried the parking arrangements on site. It was reported that the garage
would be removed and 4 parking spaces would be available for cars to park in tandem,
which would provide adequate staff parking. A service area had also been designed to
house the refuse.

Members were concerned that the development was within a flat saturation zone, as the
extension was a substantial development using the majority of 2 back gardens. The
Committee was advised that the nursing home was an established business, which was
looking to expand and the additional accommodation was needed. A nursing home was
a different class of use compared to a flat and the application should be considered on its
merits.

A Member queried the use of the dining room and it was reported that it could be used for
other purposes such as a sitting room and for activities.       It was stated that the
development had been well designed and would be functional and flexible. A Member
then commented that the extension would block the sea view of some neighbours and
the Committee was reminded that the loss of a view was not a planning issue.

Debate

Members queried the lack of amenities and views of residents living in the rear extension,
as they would only have sky lights. It was reported that many of the residents would be
bed bound, therefore a poor view and lack of amenities were not a consideration.

Members were concerned regarding the design and scale of the development and feared
that it would be a blight to neighbours. The design was also out of keeping with the local
area and may lead to loss of general light for neighbouring properties.

It was therefore

         RESOLVED

         That the application be refused because the form, scale, design, materials and
         massing of the proposed three-storey rear extension would be incongruous and
         harmful to the appearance and character of the designated conservation area.
         Furthermore, the proposal comprises an un-neighbourly development. As such,
         the proposed development is in conflict with policy DM02 (Design) of the Adopted
         Development Management Development Plan Document, where development
         should be in keeping with the overall scale, character and layout of existing
         buildings. The proposal also conflicts with policy DM30 (Protecting and enhancing
         the Historic Environment) of the Adopted DM DPD where the proposal is harmful
         to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a result of an
         adverse impact upon the Gunton Cliff vista to the rear of this site.

                                         7
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011




13   DC/10/1611/COU – THE CHERRY TREE INN, SOUTHWOLD ROAD, STOVEN

     The Committee considered the application for change of use from a public house to
     residential. The Cherry Tree Inn was a grade 2 listed public house, which had recently
     closed in September 2010.

     The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with photographs of the site and
     Members noted the parking area at the front of the building and the modern single storey
     extension at the side and rear of the main building. Members were advised that the
     application had been accompanied by a statement detailing the experiences of the
     various tenants/managers of the pub since 2001 and the attempts to market the property.
     It was also accompanied by a questionnaire that formed part of a ‘Public House Viability
     Test’ produced by CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale).

     Members were advised that 24 letters and emails had been received which objected to
     the application, due to the loss of amenity.

     Questions

     A Member queried the valuations for the property and it was reported that the owner had
     originally tried to sell the property as a public house with all the fittings for £325,000 and
     over time the price had been reduced to £250,000. No offers had been received.

     In response to a query, it was noted that accommodation was an issue as there was not
     sufficient room to provide staff with accommodation within the public house.

     With regards to viability, the Head of Planning clarified that the property had been
     marketed for some time, the details of the accounts had been provided and the business
     was not deemed to be viable. It was noted that Stoven was a small village with
     approximately 450 residents and the potential for passing trade was limited. In the
     current economic climate, it would be unlikely for a potential purchaser to be able to
     secure a mortgage for such a business. It was regrettable to lose a rural pub however
     there was no other viable use for the property.

     Debate

     A Member suggested the possibility of the ‘Big Society’ approach whereby volunteers
     would work together to manage the business, although it was noted that volunteers would
     be unable to secure enough funds to purchase the property outright. Following
     discussions, it was therefore

              RESOLVED

              That the change of use from public house to residential be granted.

14   DC/10/1607/EXT – THE CHERRY TREE INN, SOUTHWOLD ROAD, STOVEN

     The Committee considered the application for an extension of time for a further three
     years for planning permission for the construction of 6 holiday cottages and an enclosed
     swimming pool.

     The Principal Planning Officer reported that planning permission was granted in January
     2008 for the construction of 6 holiday cottages and an enclosed swimming pool at the
     rear of a listed public house. The permission had not been implemented and the
     application was to extend the permission for a further 3 years. It was noted that the

                                               8
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

     development was contrary to current planning policies but had been permitted previously
     to support the viability of the public house.

     Debate

     Members discussed the application and noted that due to the previous application on the
     agenda which had changed the use of the building from public house to residential, an
     extension of time was no longer required. It was therefore

              RESOLVED

              That the application for an extension of time for a further three years for planning
              permission for the construction of 6 holiday cottages and an enclosed swimming
              pool be refused.

15   DC/10/1596/EXT – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF HENHAM HALL, HENHAM PARK
     ESTATE, HENHAM

     (At this point in the proceedings, Councillor G Elliott declared a personal interest, as he
     was currently in negotiations with the applicant to hold an event on the Estate).

     Members considered the application for an extension of time for planning permission for
     the construction of a new hall for use as an apartment and hotel complex with associated
     facilities.

     The Principal Planning Officer stated that outline planning permission was granted in
     2007 for the construction of a hotel. The development had not been commenced and the
     permission had expired. The previous application had been acknowledged to be a
     departure from policy but had been approved because of the particular circumstances of
     the site and the proposal.

     The Committee viewed various maps and photographs of the area and noted that the
     application was for an extension of outline planning permission only. As well as the hotel
     and apartment complex a number of ancillary facilities were proposed and included:
     associated cafes and restaurants, business and conference facilities, beauty spa and
     fitness centre, function room for weddings and lectures, auditorium for provision of
     theatre, music and cinema and sporting facilities including a pool, tennis courts and
     equestrian. Further detailed applications would need to be considered on an individual
     basis as they arose.

     Members noted that the application site consisted of a rectangular area of parkland
     extending to 2.3 hectares in the centre of the Henham estate, approximately 1 mile from
     Wangford village. The site was in the vicinity of the site of the former Hall, some
     remnants of which survive in the form of a loggia, walled garden and stables. The
     surrounding parkland was characterised by open grazing meadows, mature forest and
     specimen trees.

     It was reported that the Suffolk Preservation Society had been involved extensively in the
     pre-application discussions and that they were supportive in principle.

     The Applicant, Mr Rous

     Mr Rous reported that he had met with a representative from the Suffolk Preservation
     Society earlier that day and stated that they were supportive of the application. It was
     noted that in the current economic climate and financial uncertainty he didn’t want to rush
     the development and took the opportunity to reassure the Committee that he was
     committed to the development of the estate. An extension of five years would provide the
     freedom necessary to ensure the final design would be of the highest standard.

                                               9
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011


     Questions

     A Member stated that the Henham Estate was served by roads and queried whether the
     estate would consider developing a Green Travel Plan to encourage other more
     sustainable forms of travel, such as buses or cycling. Mr Rouse reported that there was
     a significant demand for green options and he would consider the development of a
     Green Travel Plan.

     A Member queried whether the Henham Estate would be opened up for cyclists to use in
     the future. Mr Rous reported that the estate currently opened for limited periods for
     walkers and this could also be considered in the future.

     Members sought assurance that the development of Henham Hall would not lead to
     fewer events being held on site. Mr Rous stated that the development of Henham Hall
     and the events held on the Estate were mutually beneficial and there would be no
     reduction in the number of events taking place.

     Debate

     Members considered the development and it was

              RESOLVED

              That the application for an extension of time for the construction of a new hall for
              use as an apartment and hotel complex with associated facilities be granted for
              five years, subject to the condition of the development of a Green Travel Plan.

     (Councillor M Cherry left the meeting at this point.)

16   CONTINUATION OF MEETING

     In accordance with Paragraph 9 of Part 3 of the Constitution and as the meeting had
     been in session for almost three hours, the Chairman asked the Committee if they wished
     to continue or adjourn the meeting. It was proposed, seconded and unanimously

              RESOLVED

              That the meeting continue over three hours in duration.

17   DC/10/1664/FUL – ADNAMS DISTRIBUTION CENTRE, HALESWORTH ROAD,
     REYDON

     The Committee considered the application for the installation of photovoltaic panels at an
     anaerobic digestion facility. It was noted that in November 2009, planning permission
     was granted for an anaerobic digestion plant on land at the rear of the Adnams
     distribution centre at Reydon. Adnams wished to extend the range of renewable energy
     generation at their site by installing photovoltaic panels on land immediately surrounding
     the anaerobic digestion plant. It was noted that the site was well screened by both
     landform and vegetation.

     The Principal Planning Officer reported that the proposal was to install some 962
     photovoltaic panels, which would be ground mounted on a metal support structure. The
     panels would have a matt black finish. The whole photovoltaic system would cover an
     area of approximately 3900 square metres, on both sides and at the rear of the anaerobic
     digestion facility. Each of the panels would have a generating capacity of 235 Watts,
     giving a total generating capacity of 226.01kW at peak.


                                               10
                                       DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

     The Committee viewed a map and photographs of the area and noted that no objections
     had been received.

     Debate

     Members discussed the application and it was

              RESOLVED

              That the application for the installation of photovoltaic panels at the Adnams
              anaerobic digestion facility be approved subject to the condition that the panels be
              removed from the site when they become redundant.

18   D/10/1605/FUL – DEVELOPMENT SITE, CLIFTON ROAD, LOWESTOFT

     The Committee considered the application for the construction of a Health Campus to
     house 2 GP surgeries and Community Services. The application proposed the re-
     development of a vacant brown field site, formerly a factory, to provide a health centre
     and GP surgery. The site was within an established residential area and close to existing
     shops and services along London Road South and had been identified by NHS Great
     Yarmouth and Waveney as a strategic location for the provision of health services in
     Lowestoft. The site was sustainably located and the proposal could be accommodated
     satisfactorily within the site. Such redevelopment for health and community uses was in
     accordance with the Lowestoft and Lake Lothing Area Action Plan.

     The Principal Planning Officer reported that the building would be both 1 and 2 storeys
     high, with the single storey closest to the residential housing along Clifton Road. The
     floor height would be raised in some areas to mitigate any flood risks. It was proposed
     that there would be 2 entrances, with limited parking on site and Members noted that the
     site was next to an established pay and display carpark. A landscaped area would also
     be created, along with secure cycle storage for 30 cycles.

     Questions

     At this point, Mr Perry, Project Manager for the Great Yarmouth and Waveney Primary
     Care Trust (PCT), informed the Chairman that he was willing to assist with any questions
     that Members may have about the proposal.

     Members raised concerns that many patients would use their cars, particularly if they felt
     unwell, to travel to the surgery and suggested that having to use a pay and display
     carpark would lead to an increase in on street parking. Mr Perry reported that the PCT
     was currently looking at options with regards to parking and the reimbursement of parking
     tickets for patients.

     A Member queried whether there would be a pharmacy included within the development.
     It was reported that the PCT was not involved with pharmacy issues, however the owner
     of the site had retained some land and may develop a pharmacy in future.

     Mr Perry informed Members that the new surgery would have excellent facilities and be
     able to undertake minor surgery and some services would be relocated there from
     Lowestoft Hospital. The GP surgeries also had the potential to offer additional extended
     services in the future.

     A Member queried why there would be 2 entrances for vehicles on to the site, which
     could lead to congestion and suggested that the front entrance and limited parking area
     be restricted to staff and pedestrians, with vehicular passengers arriving via Economy
     Road only. Members were advised that the space at the front and rear of the proposed
     building was required in order to provide sufficient clearance from the site boundaries. A

                                               11
                                        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15/02/2011

      separate entrance would also be provided for children and vulnerable adults, for clinical
      reasons. The Committee noted that cycle parking provision would be included, however
      Members were advised that further details were still to be finalised.

      A Member commented on the size of the roof for the development. Members were
      advised that the building was very wide and as such required a deep roof with a particular
      pitch. The building would accommodate 2 consulting rooms with a corridor running down
      the middle of the building. The roof would also accommodate the natural ventilation for
      the building.

      The Head of Planning provided clarity that the building design would comply with all
      current regulations and would encourage the use of renewable energy wherever
      possible, to create a highly sustainable building.

      Debate

      After thorough consideration it was

               RESOLVED

               That the application to build a Health Campus be approved, subject to a S106
               Agreement to change waiting restrictions and conditions dealing with external
               materials, landscaping, boundary fencing, highways, drainage, wildlife mitigation,
               archaeology, contaminated land, travel plan, energy efficiency, construction
               method statement and hours of operation.

19    PERFORMANCE AND IMPROVEMENT

      The Head of Planning Services reported on planning performance during January 2011
      against three National indicators covering Major, Minor and other applications and local
      indicator relating to Appeals.

               RESOLVED

               That the Planning Departments’ performance for January 2011 be received.



The meeting concluded at 9.30 pm




Chairman




                                               12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:10/30/2013
language:English
pages:12