Rocklands, Norfolk The Villages of Rockland All Saints and Rockland St Peter

Present.

Councillors: P. Smith (Vice Chairman),
S. Colenutt,
M. Gibbon
C. Jones,
R. Steel
W.Smith(District Councillor)

Clerk: L. Defew

Twelve members of the public were present.

1. Apologies for absence

P.Cotes (Chairman) N.Southgate

.2. To consider the following planning application:

Planning ref no. 3PL/2010/0124/F
Name of Applicant: RDB Construction (UK) Ltd
Location of proposal: Land at 50 The Street
Description of proposal: Proposed erection of two (two bedroom) dwellings with shared new site access

Councillor Smith gave a brief outline of the planning process and outlined the main points arising from the discussion about the application at the previous Parish Council meeting.
District Councillor Smith conveyed the response from the Head of Legal Services at Breckland Council in relation to the extent which developers are legally bound to adhere to the specifications listed in planning applications.

Suspension of meeting for public participation
David Witt raised the concern about the amount of mud on the road arising from the current development work taking place on the site. The Clerk was requested to write to the developers to request that this problem is rectified.
Mary Smith explained that the plans had omitted their conservatory on the South side of their house (48 The Street) and that the light to this will be severely restricted by the dwelling on Plot 2.
Elaine Johnson explained how the new development would affect their privacy at 52 The Street (Post Office/ Stores) as the rear upstairs window of the house on Plot 1 overlooks their garden. She stated that their privacy had already been reduced by the development of No 50 The Street. Mrs Dekker also re-iterated her concerns in regards to their property being overlooked.
A further query was raised about the existence, positioning and noise level associated with the exterior heat pumps and discussion ensued in relation to this.
Mr Dekker raised the issue of the flooding along The Street and stressed his concern that this development could worsen the situation. Whilst it was understood that rainwater harvesting and its re-use is proposed, the lack of information in regards to the size of the tanks increased concerns that the tanks will be unable to store all the water coming from the properties during bad weather resulting in a deterioration of the flooding situation along The Street. David Witt suggested the necessity of another rainwater harvesting tank in the roof of the dwellings in addition to the one in the ground but queried the logistics of this.

The meeting re-opened
Councillor Smith listed the various considerations which had been raised. He also explained how it was the policy of the Parish Council to support some development in the village, particularly of lower cost housing. This was supported in the village appraisal and more recently in a public meeting.

Suspension of meeting for public participation
The discussion was re-opened to the public and Alan Johnson raised the possibility of reducing the size of the dwellings or altering the plans to build a bungalow instead. He also repeated the general feeling that the development would result in deterioration to the aesthetics of the village and that the proliferation of drives and parked vehicles would increase the traffic problems in the village.

The meeting re-opened
Councillors Colenutt and Gibbon voiced their agreement with the public concerns in relation to the potential of an increase in congestion and the associated danger to residents.
Councillor Steel stressed the importance of members of the public objecting personally about the application for maximum impact.
District Councillor Smith explained that he had put forward a request to the Development Control Committee for the application to be called-in and explained the process in relation to this. He also explained the legislation relating to a Section 106 agreement and suggested that this could be considered as a solution to certain issues such as the retention of the hedge at the front of the site. He also outlined the processes followed by Breckland Council in relation to a number of the issues raised by the public.

A vote was taken, resulting in the decision of a unanimous objection.

Councillor Smith outlined the main points arising from the meeting and explained that a response would be sent from the Parish Council to Breckland Council.

Meeting closed at 8:25 p.m