Planning Committee
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
Plan
No
1
Application
No
20040893
Location
Additional Comments
Land at Laurel Farm
(Phase 2), Broadland
Business Park
Thorpe St Andrew Parish Council
Objections. The buildings are located in the wrong position in respect of
the topography of the site. The lowest part of the site should be utilised
for the tallest building and the lowest buildings should be constructed on
the highest part of the site to limit the visual impact. It is requested that
the Planning Committee visit the site to consider the topography.
Page
Nos
26-55
Mr J Towns, 46 Dalbier Close, Thorpe St Andrew
Unconvinced that the noise levels will be held down to the levels stated.
There is no proposal for acoustic screening to the western boundary,
only planting which will provide a visual screen. Re-emphasises
concerns regarding damage to local residents’ health. It is not
acceptable to site a factory this size within 80 metres of established
housing.
Mr J Steel, 9 Independent Way, Thorpe St Andrew
1. The complete lack of sensitivity in dealing with the existing levels and
the visibility of this massive building from the adjacent residential
area is beyond belief. The proposed height of the building adjacent
the boundary will be approximately 14m – 3m (cut) = 11m which is
equivalent to a 4 storey house, hardly sensitive to the domestic scale
of the residential area. The ground rises adjacent to the Edgehill
with the railway line slightly elevated, as you walk down Independent
Way this proposed development will tower above the existing houses
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
giving a backdrop of unsightly industrial buildings instead of the
rolling countryside currently enjoyed.
The original plans and the local plan indicated a tree belt to railway
boundary approximately 20m deep, the new proposals indicate a
10m tree belt. This no doubt will be formed with saplings that will
take many years to become established.
Noise is already an issue around this area with the southern bypass
clearly audible at night, due presumably to the local topography and
prevailing winds. Apart from the 153 cars coming and going twice a
day the delivery lorries serving 6 loading bays (particularly reversing)
and fork lift trucks will generate an unacceptable level of noise 24
hours a day, apart from the noise from the printing presses. We
already have ECN printing press further along the boundary which if
you stand on the boundary path on the opposite side of the railway
line is quite intrusive although it is screened by mature trees.
Light pollution is already a problem in this area due to the insensitive
external lighting used by Macro giving a hideous ultraviolet glow to
the night sky. Were the proposed buildings operating 24 hours per
day this will only increase the misery we currently endure.
With the proposed use as a print works, what safeguards are in place
for the storage of toxic and flammable materials? We have this time
and time again, processes of this nature should be carried out in
areas where if things go wrong the fumes from a fire/spillage are not
going to jeopardise the health of those living nearby.
The Highways Agency has objected to the development as the local
infrastructure is not adequate and the scheme, therefore how can it
still be recommended for approval?
There seems to be a complete lack of comprehension for the overall
planning of this area. In the middle of the Business Park we have
offices which would be far more suitable for development adjacent a
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
large residential development with industrial processes kept to the
centre or abutting the agricultural land.
Mr J Adams, Thatched Cottage, Middle Road, Great Plumstead
All the comments I made in the previous application still apply, except
where the revised application has specifically addressed the matter. I
am extremely concerned about the revised proposals for the Northern
Distributor Road in this area as I consider the revised road layout
environmentally very damaging, very expensive to build and dangerous
to traffic on the A47 (as I consider the extra junction is unnecessary and
dangerously close to the existing Postwick junction). I do regard this
application as premature until the route for the Northern distributor road
is finalised. I believe the best route for the NDR is along the existing line
of Green Lane South to the junction of Low Road, and this application
will restrict the options for the NDR too much.
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority)
Wishes to make the following points in response to the committee
report:
Para 8.9 The Highway Authority has not said “In terms of highway
capacity it is acknowledged that the local road network can
accommodate the traffic which would be generated by the
development”. I would interpret highway capacity as encompassing all
aspects of capacity not just traffic numbers. The local network does not
have the highway capacity to accommodate the traffic due to
shortcomings in width, alignment and construction which is why we
asked for the package of improvement works that would address these
issues in the interests of highway safety.
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
Para 8.10 I do not accept the balance/weight you place on this matter.
The works are required for highway safety reasons. Their need is not
negated by the traffic signal scheme. The fact that the land is not under
the applicant’s control is not material at this time. Your Council can still
impose a negative condition and if required use its CPO powers to
assemble the necessary land to deliver this important proposal.
Highway safety must not be prejudiced when in planning terms sufficient
controls exist to prevent deterioration of highway safety.
Para 8.12 Improvements to the bus service need to be conditioned
separately to the Travel Plan to make sure that improvements can be
enforced. The Travel Plan process has no teeth.
Para 8.13 I have yet to see the evidence that a safe and commodious
access point onto Green Lane North can be formed to accommodate
cyclists and pedestrians.
Officer response:
Paragraph 8.9 The Highway Authority comments are reproduced in full
(with the exception of conditions and reasons) in paragraph 2.5. They
interpret highway capacity as encompassing all aspects of capacity not
just traffic numbers. It is not considered that traffic numbers in isolation
are so significant or detrimental, particularly taking into account
proposed shift patterns. Para 8.9 acknowledges the aim of achieving
beneficial development with good accessibility.
Paragraph 8.10 Condition no. 9 requires the details to be submitted and
approved in consultation with the Highway Authority prior to
commencement of development.
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
Paragraph 8.11 Further discussions are being held with the applicant
and Members will be updated. In the meantime, however, the balance /
weight applied to this still stands.
Paragraph 8.12 Improvements to bus services cannot be specifically
conditioned. The Travel Plan makes reference to announced plans for a
northern orbital route bus service. These plans are at an early stage,
however it is anticipated that it will include the Business Park. As
indicated in paragraph 8.12, the existing BBP owners/applicant are
exploring bus service improvements in conjunction with current and
anticipated BBP occupiers. These can be included in the Travel Plan
and a commitment to ongoing review with this. This is a wider issue for
the Business Park in general and not considered reasonable to impose
on the current proposal. The Local Planning Authority is currently
considering a proposal to extend the period for submission of the
Reserved Matters and Commencement of Development by 5 years on
the existing Business Park (outline planning permission ref. 950052).
This will require a newly negotiated Section 106 legal agreement to
include improved bus services and this is considered the appropriate
means to deal with this matter.
Paragraph 8.13 Condition no. 3 requires the details to be submitted and
approved in consultation with the Highway Authority prior to
commencement of development.
Michelle Steel, 9 Independent Way
(copy of letter sent to Ian Gibson MP)
Further to my correspondence in August of this year, we have now been
notified by Broadland Council, (who have given disgracefully little notice)
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
that they intend to consent to a large printing works operational 24 hours
to go hard on the boundary onto Dussindale, 150 metres from our home,
which will severely affect our quality of life, noise, light (if it is like
Macro's warehouse) and air pollution. Because of the differing levels it
will tower over us, blocking out light.
Please help us.
This has to be stopped, they have built offices by the bypass where
noise is not an issue but by residential homes they intend to build
industrial pollutants. When we moved here the land was green belt.
Does the 'little person' have no say in these matters? one feels so
helpless, few in Dussindale want this, surely that matters, there are lots
of alternative sites that would not severely affect peoples lives, we do
not want to have to move. Broadland Council appears to have no
problem in blocking residential extensions and small porches but do not
consider the impact of big developments but welcome
them with open arms no matter what the cost!
Because of the lay of the land noise pollution is already high, with the
Southern bypass, ECN print works, Sheringham train line at the bottom
of the road, we can also hear Brundall trains, miles away. We invite you
to spend a day with us so you can experience the noise from the
bypass.
We need your help to stop this, we do not object to offices etc being built
but not industrial. Why allow 24 hour works near residential, do we live
in the dark ages? We did not choose to live near industrial units, we are
being forced to do so. Surely if they do allow this, then it will affect
house prices on our road, will we be compensated? will they pay for ear
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
muffs to drown out the 24 hour hum, beeps from heavy vehicles 24
hours of the day or will they pay for double glazing?
There is a hearing on the 1st December, 9.30, please help us, would
you allow this to happen at the end of your garden, affecting your family,
your sense of well being, sanity, what happened to investors in people?
We have read the detailed plans but disagree that the noise, light
pollution would not affect us, it can hardly not do so. How is waste
material going to be stored? Will it be dangerous? We do not want to
be forced out of our home we love very much, but will be forced to go as
the constant hum, beeping from heavy goods vehicles and overall
package would be too much.
Please help, it really does mean a great deal to this community.
2
20041509
60 Cucumber Lane,
Brundall
This application was discussed at a meeting of the Planning Committee
of Brundall Parish Council on Saturday 20th November 2004. The
Committee had NO COMMENT on this matter.
4
20041418
Old Station Yard, Cawston
Amended plans received, 23 Nov’04, reducing overall height of units by
74-84
500mm. Finished height of proposed new units is now to be 6.0m, the
same as the existing units immediately adjacent. The Parish Council and
previous objectors have been informed. Any further comments received
will be reported to the meeting.
8
20041177
30 Brick Kiln Road,
Hevingham
Further letter received from Mr Harden reiterating previous comments
about traffic and noise levels on Chapel Street.
An amended plan has been submitted by the agent, which amends the
access arrangement to the proposed dwelling. The revised access
56-63
112-121
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
utilises the existing vehicular access to 30 Brick Kiln Road and forms a
new driveway across the front of the existing dwelling.
The Highway Authority has been consulted on the revised plan, but no
response has been received.
9
20041677
Rose Cottage, 17 The
Turn, Hevingham
The agent has submitted an amended plan which removes the three
rooflights from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling. This
accords with paragraph 8.5 of the report to the Planning Committee and
the revision represents an improvement to the external appearance of
the dwelling.
122-128
Consequently, the following condition is added to the recommendation
to Members:
13
20041531
Land at Fengate Farm,
Marsham
‘The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise
than in accordance with the amended plan received 19 November 2004,
which removed the three rooflights from the front elevation of the
proposed dwelling’. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure
that the permission relates to the application, as amended.
Mr G Payne, Lamberts Farm, Marsham:
Supports Mr Crane's application.
152-165
Stuart Taylor, Little London Farms, High Street, Marsham:
Support. The development will be good for the village and bring extra
revenue for local businesses as well as more job opportunities.
Mrs G Simpson, 64 High Street, Marsham:
Provided that all services are adequate and the access onto the A140 is
1 December 2004
Planning Committee
adequate, the proposal is given Mrs Simpson's full support. In view of
the urgent need for affordable houses, this is an area that would be ideal
for all the thousands of new houses needed. Marsham would benefit
from a larger population which would hopefully support the local
communities and businesses, which would be a great asset to the vitality
and survival of the village.
Further information has been submitted by the agent in support of the
application. This information is summarised as follows:
 It is the agent's understanding that the site is beyond any fluvial
or tidal flooding.
 A supplementary business plan has been submitted with the
agent's letter. The business plan summarises the recent history of
the business and its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats. The supplementary business plan concludes that the
redevelopment of the existing empty piggery in Marsham will
unlock capital and help recapitalise the business. With the
financial pressure reduced the business will go forward profitably
even in today's market.
1 December 2004