Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 117 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2013.


Councillor Richmond pointed out that the second line at the top of page 6 should read Wraggs Lane (not Braggs) and that the last line of page 12 should read fees (not fess).


Subject to those two amendments the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies were received from Councillor Lamb.



Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received (Agenda Item 3)

Members are no longer required to declare personal of prejudicial interests but are to declare any new Disclosable Pecuniary Interests that are not currently included in the Register of Interests. Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 


In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.


Councillor Bambridge wished to note, for clarity, that he had a previously declared interest in Agenda Item 8b (Thetford) and that he had attended the Parish Council meeting and had spoken to both applicants for Schedule Items 5 and 6 (Foxley) of Agenda Item 9.


Councillor North noted, for clarity, that she was a fellow Branch Member of the applicant at Schedule Item 4 (Attleborough) of Agenda Item 9.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


The Chairman informed Members that three more people had come forward for Summer School and he was waiting to find out if all could attend.



Requests to Defer Applications included in this Agenda (Agenda Item 5)

To consider any requests from Ward Members, officers or applicants to defer an application included in this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public attending for such applications.


The application at Schedule Item 7 (Mileham) (Agenda Item 9) had been withdrawn.



Local Development Framework (Standing Item) (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Director of Planning & Business Manager advised Members that the Local Development scheme timetable had been agreed with set milestones.  The first Issues Consultation would take place in April/May 2014 with the full draft Local Plan Consultation being carried out in June and July 2015.


Cabinet had agreed the first consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the preliminary draft charging schedule would begin consultation on 15 April 2013 for six weeks.  There would be a briefing on the CIL for Members following Council on 11 April 2013.


The Attleborough Transport Studies report would be presented at the end of May.  Part of the delay had been caused by the need for the construction of a transport model for the town.


The Stone Curlew research was under preparation and that report was also expected to be ready by the end of May.



Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 39 KB

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.


South Lopham: Memories, Pansthorne Farm: Creation of Separate Dwelling With Existing Commercial Property: Applicant: Mr & Mrs G Horan: Reference: 3PL/2007/0112/F pdf icon PDF 52 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report which referred to an application for change of use of an outbuilding to a dwelling which had originally been approved in 2007, subject to a legal agreement.  Since then the property had changed hands and the legal agreement had never been signed.


The legal agreement had been intended to link the new dwelling to the existing commercial uses adjacent.   Without that agreement it was considered that the dwelling could be affected by noise and disturbance and therefore the application was recommended for refusal on amenity grounds.


RESOLVED that the application be refused on amenity grounds.



Thetford: Redevelopment of Site with Mixed Use Scheme Consisting of Cinema, Hotel and 5 Units Consisting of Retail/Restaurant/Café Uses at the Former Anchor Hotel, Bridge Street, Thetford: Applicant: Breckland District Council: Reference: 3PL/2012/0790/F pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


This application for a mixed use scheme in the centre of Thetford had been deferred at the 1 October 2012 meeting for design issues to be addressed.  The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) gave a recap on the proposals and advised Members that the Anchor Hotel had now been demolished and the site cleared.


Members were shown elevations with the changes highlighted.  Fenestration and materials had been amended and the brickwork had been stepped back to overcome concerns raised previously.  Coloured street scene views were shown and were generally considered to be an improvement.  It was an important site and key to the future development of the Town Centre.


English Heritage had maintained their concerns about the scale of the building but acknowledged that the changes to design had improved its appearance.


Ms Glossop (Thetford Town Council) was pleased that their comments had been noted.  They still had concerns about the ‘shiny tin roof’ which they would prefer to be matt.  She asked for the path to the Dad’s Army statue to be maintained and the proposed wall near it to be removed.  She also raised concerns about car parking and the Bridge Street façade.


Mr Kitchen (Agent) asked Members to look at a 3D model which was passed round.  It demonstrated the changes and showed the appearance and materials of the elevations which had been amended to address the Committee’s primary concerns.  No single form was too dominant.  Grey brick would replace buff and the brickwork had been increased and timber panelling introduced to be akin to a riverside mill.  The building was now more harmonious with the existing character of the area.


Councillor Sharpe asked about the shiny tin roof and Mr Kitchen confirmed that a matt finish could be achieved and that all materials would be subject to conditions.  The metal cladding would provide a contrast to the brick texture, giving a layering effect to the building.


Councillor Armes asked for assurance that there would not be a wall around the Dad’s Army statue and suggested that the Dad’s Army Committee and the Thetford Society should be consulted on any proposals regarding the statue.  She asked if rain would be noisy on the tin roof and was assured that it would not.  A tiled roof would have increased the height of the building.


Finally Councillor Armes sought assurance that any street furniture and lighting would be heritage type and in the town colours of black and gold.  The Agent confirmed that such details would be subject to condition.  Although a lot of seating was being provided, much of it was in the form of low walls within the landscaping.


It was usual for the discharge of conditions to be delegated to officers for approval but in this case if there were any major changes from the details given to the Committee the matter would be referred back to the Committee.


RESOLVED to approve the application subject to conditions.



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 140 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Breckland Council




Mr S Jay & Ms S Falquero








Mr & Mrs Stasiak




Mr & Mrs N Whybrow




Mr & Mrs I Powley




Mr S Knowles





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: GRESSENHALL: Rougholme Close: Erection of two storey detached dwelling and external hardstanding for parking: Applicant: Breckland Council: Reference: 3PL/2012/0556/O


This outline application for a single dwelling was accessed by an existing track between two dwellings.  Concerns had been raised about amenity, traffic and parking.


A revised indicative layout plan showed the dwelling located centrally on the plot providing room for parking on site, which addressed concerns about additional on-street parking.


Approved, as recommended.


(b)       Item 2: MATTISHALL: Summer Meadows, Site off Mill Road: Change of Use from agricultural to residential, erect one static caravan and retention of one touring caravan: Applicant: Mr S Jay and Ms S Falquero: Reference: 3PL/2012/1004/F


This application from members of the traveller community was on a site outside the village in an area of sporadic development, near a number of other caravan sites.  It was part retrospective. 


National and Local Policies for traveller sites did not preclude applications outside the Settlement Boundary and as the Council did not have enough traveller sites available it was required to look favourably on applications that met certain criteria. 


The site was close to the village, which was a Local Service Centre with a good range of services.  It did not impact on the countryside as it was well screened by hedging. 


A late representation had been received advising that part of the access road was in separate ownership and that the correct notice had not been served.  Concerns had also been raised about the cumulative effect of caravans in the area.


The Human Rights of the family would need to be taken into account if Members were minded to refuse the application.


Mr Rockcliff (Parish Council) asked the Committee to defer their decision until a coherent policy for the site as a whole had been set.  The Parish Council had requested a Planning Officer to attend their meeting but that request had been declined.


Mr Pratt (Objector) was concerned about the cumulative effect of the site as a whole.  He could see four caravans from his living room and was disturbed by noise from dogs and the lighting on the site.  There had also been a noticeable increase in traffic on the narrow road which raised concerns about potential accidents.


Mr Thomas (Objector) was the original owner of the site and still owned a ransom strip either side of the access road.  He was concerned that notice had not been served on him and that the application did not show any blue land.


The Solicitor noted that it was a requirement when making a planning application to serve notice on any owners of the land to enable them to make representations on the application.  If it was clear that the owners knew about the application, that requirement could be waived.


Mr Mason (Agent) said the report was clear and dealt with the issues of the applicants being travellers.  There was an acknowledged need and no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.


Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 80 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning


Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.





Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information)(Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 30 KB





Appeal Decisions (For Information)(Agenda Item 12)

APP/F2605/A/12/2183024: Attleborough: 135 Besthorpe Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for demolition of existing dwelling and residential development comprising 3 No, 3 bed and 2 No, 2 bed dwellings by K C Edwards: Reference: 3PL/2011/1388/F

Decision: Appeal Allowed


APP/F2605/A/12/2186157:  Old Buckenham:  56 Fen Street:  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the conversion of the existing dwelling into a pair of semi-detached cottages by Mr Richardson: Reference: 3PL/2012/0691/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/C/12/2186179: Thetford:  Part of the ground floor of Ashley House, Stephenson Way: Appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the use of the land as a charity shop by Mr Mark Antony Byford (Crack On Foundation):  Reference: ENF/2012/0236/CAS

Decision: Appeal Dismissed and Enforcement Notice Upheld with corrections


APP/F2705/C/12/2179720:  Dereham: Penhill, Etling Green: Appeal against an Enforcement Notice for breach of planning control by Mr Jamie George Eglen: Reference: ENF/2012/0055/CAS

Decision:  Enforcement Notice Quashed


APP/F2605/A/12/2180862:  Attleborough: Land at London Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of 375 dwellings with associated parking, garages & landscaping (Full) & Outline for Employment Development by Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2011/0528/H

Appeal Withdrawn