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 115 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015.


Members were advised that Councillor Jolly and an objector had requested some amendments to Minute No 9/15(d) (Bridgham).  Their comments had been considered and Officers were proposing to include the word ‘unacceptable’ in the final sentence on page 7 of the agenda.  However, Members were content with the Minutes as presented, therefore no amendment was made.


The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2014 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Canham.



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

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.


All Members had received direct representation on the following items:  Schedule Items 2 Attleborough; 5 Banham; 7 Caston; 8 Lyng; 16 Thompson.

Councillor North noted that she was Ward Representative for Schedule Item 2 – Attleborough.

Councillor Claussen noted that he was Ward Representative for Schedule Item 4 – Hockering, and that he lived on the same road as the application site.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


Due to the length of the Agenda the Schedule had been split into two parts; applications which would be heard in the morning and those that would be heard in the afternoon.  Public speakers had been advised, but the Chairman read out the lists to avoid any misunderstandings.



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.





Urgent Business (Agenda Item 6)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.





Local Plan Update (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Director of Planning & Business Manager gave a short update.


Changes to the legislation on Neighbourhood Plans had been brought in on 9 February and were intended to speed up the designation process of plan areas where they were not contentious and followed parish boundaries. The consultation period for such plan areas has been reduced from six to four weeks and Councils now had only eight weeks to determine them. There was a continued increase in queries regarding neighbourhood plans and the most recent updates were:


  • Mattishall parish had now formally applied to have the plan area designated. A four week public consultation was currently underway and would close on 11 March. The neighbourhood plan area would be considered by Cabinet on 24 March


  • Kenninghall neighbourhood plan area was approved by Cabinet on 13 January, as the first stage in preparing a neighbourhood plan


Breckland Council was hosting and participating in a Norfolk Association of Local Councils’ (NALC) Seminar on Neighbourhood Planning in the Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House on 27 March between 10:00 – 16:00 hrs. Amongst others there would be a speaker from the Department of Communities and Local Government. Attendance would be limited and by invitation.


The issues and options consultation for the new Local Plan had closed on 9 January and the team had been busy analysing the results.  Initial findings in regard to housing numbers, the spatial strategy; including distribution and the approach to local service centre villages, would be considered by the Local Plan Working Group towards the end of March.


Councillor Claussen asked who had been invited to the NALC Seminar but that information was not available.  Space was limited.  If Members wanted to attend they should contact the Planning Policy Team.



Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 48 KB

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


Attleborough: Old Hall Farm Barn: Erection Of Two Bedroom Agricultural Dwelling: Applicant: Mrs J Syrett: Reference: 3PL/2014/0009/O pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.

Additional documents:


This application had been previously considered by the Committee and recommended for refusal but Members had deferred the application to allow the applicant time to provide additional supporting information.  In the meantime an additional representation had been received from a local resident objecting to the proposal.


No additional information had been received to prove an essential need for the dwelling.


Mr Phelan (Objector) had submitted a letter detailing reasons for refusing the application.  There was insufficient justification and no evidential proof that another dwelling was needed.  He had lived nearby for 25 years and it was a safe and crime free environment.  If security was an issue he suggested erecting fencing and gates.


Mr Hickman Smith (Agent) apologised for the delay in submitting additional information.  The original consultant had been unable to do the work.  A replacement had provided a report which corroborated their arguments.  It was not possible to build an annex and all existing buildings were already in use for the business.  There was a public right of way through the farm.  The horses were expensive and security was needed.  The applicant was away a lot and it was important to have someone on site.  The development would improve the health of the business and also improve the traffic situation.


Councillor Martin (Ward Representative) said that the reasons for refusal had been failure to demonstrate functional need and the lack of an Open Space contribution.  That contribution had now been agreed.


Councillor Carter asked why Members had not seen the supporting statement. He was advised that it had been assessed by Officers and found to be lacking in substance.  A summary of the report was contained in the Officer’s assessment notes.


Councillor Claussen thought it was a great shame.  The Committee had wanted to support Suffolk Punches and had sent a strong message that they needed persuading that the development was essential.  Not enough evidence had been provided.


The route of the public right of way was clarified and it was pointed out that it passed through fields where the horses grazed and between the buildings of the farm.


Councillor Chapman-Allen asked about the financial contribution and was advised that due to the change in legislation, no contribution would be required.  She disagreed that the applicant had failed to demonstrate essential need and said that the Suffolk Punch was a protected breed.


RESOLVED to refuse the application due to the failure to demonstrate an essential need, as required by Policy.


Watton: Red Hill Park, Redhill Lane: Extension To Mobile Home Site: Applicant: Lifestyle Living Group: Reference: 3PL/2014/0672/F pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.

Additional documents:


Members had been advised that Highways objections had been the only reason for the previous refusal on the site and that was not the case.  All the reasons were set out on page 20 of the Agenda and the report set out the Officers’ views on how those objections had been overcome. 


Members were given a brief recap of the application.  At the meeting in December Members had asked for clarification of off-site highway works and the details were set out in the Agenda.  Mr Shaw (NCC) Highways Officer was in attendance to answer any questions.


There were two additional updates.  1) The affordable housing contribution would be £60,000; the £40,000 contribution referred to Open Space and 2) the Time Limit for commencement would be two years.  In conclusion it was considered that subject to a legal agreement the development would be acceptable. 


Mr Lincoln (Objector) had lived on Town Green Road for 30 years and used it six to eight times a day.  His main concern was the congestion at either end of the road.  He showed photographs of parked vehicles which caused problems, and of the blind corner by the Church.  The lane was regularly used by pedestrians. The road was not good enough to support additional traffic.  The density of the proposal was also a concern as the development appeared cluttered.


Mr Laister and Mr Stacey (Agents) had provided additional information about the improvements which would all be on Highway land and would make the road safer for all users and provide a footpath for almost the whole length of the lane with five passing places.  The lane would be widened where possible. 


Councillor Gilbert (Ward Representative) noted that the objectors had a good understanding of the road conditions.  There would still be no footpath for part of the lane and the corner by the Church would still be a problem as two cars could not pass there.  The site was currently tidy and attractive but the proposal would be over-development.  There was an issue with land ownership; one passing bay appeared to be in the entrance to the cemetery which was land owned by the Town Council.  Even if the width of the road could be doubled there would be problems at each end.


Councillor Wassell (Ward Representative) listed reasons that Members could refuse the application including: unsustainable development; lack of a satisfactory contribution to affordable housing; and inadequate roads.  The applicants maintained that the proposal was for caravans or mobile homes – not dwellings.  They were using that as a reason for not providing a meaningful contribution to affordable housing, yet the legal definition of a dwelling included mobile homes.   The issue of land ownership had not been addressed and a clearer map of the road improvements had not been provided.  He urged Members to refuse the application.


Councillor Sharpe noted that the Highways objection had been removed based on information submitted by the applicants.  He asked if that information had been verified.


Mr Shaw  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21b


Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 212 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No






City & West End Property Investment




Gladedale Estates




MG Property Developments




Greatbrisk Ltd




S & J Developments




Mr Eagle




Godfrey & Hicks Ltd




Mr Jonathon Powley




Mr Tony Rowe




Bennett Homes




Mr P Grange

Gt Dunham



Bennett Homes




Mr Graham Lond-Caulk




Lark Energy Ltd




Mr & Mrs J Hackett




Miss S Kelly




Black Swan International Ltd




Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)         Item 1: DEREHAM: Crane Fruehauf Site, South Green: Demolition of existing factory buildings, residential redevelopment with access roads & landscaping: Applicant: City & West End Property Investments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2009/0385/O


This application had originally been approved in 2009 subject to a legal agreement which had not been signed.  The site had been cleared and was suitable for residential development.  The TPO tree would be retained.  Drainage issues on site were being addressed.


The District Valuer had advised that the site could support £91,000 towards affordable housing.  Some Open Space would be provided on site and there would also be a financial contribution to off-site provision.  Approval was recommended subject to the prompt signing of the legal agreement and authority was requested to refuse the application if that did not happen.


Councillor Duigan was glad the site had come forward as the Town Council wanted the area to be developed.  He did not think that the recreation area on site was in the right place and hoped that could be addressed at Reserved Matters stage.


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.  Authority was delegated to officers to refuse the application if the section 106 agreement was not signed promptly.


b)         Item 2: ATTLEBOROUGH: Residential development up to 350 dwellings, associated access, footpaths, cycle path, open space and landscaping: Applicant: Gladedale Estates: Reference: 3PL/2013/1161/O


All Members had received direct representation.  Councillor North noted that she was a Ward Representative for this area.


This site fell between existing development and the A11.  An access to Attleborough Hall Farm crossed the site and an existing garage enterprise would be surrounded on three sides by development.  An indicative layout plan showed allotments, a cemetery extension, an extension to the school playing field, pitches for school and public use, open space and parcels of development laid out to include existing trees which would be retained.


A two year time limit would be imposed and an additional condition requiring 10% on-site renewable energy was proposed.  Highway improvement works would be provided in advance of, and would work side by side with those required from the Taylor Wimpey permission. 20% affordable housing would be required and a claw-back clause would be included.


Mr Morgan (Objector) said he was not actually an objector.  He had been trading in Attleborough for 30 years and asked for Members’ support to continue.  His garage would effectively be operating in the middle of a housing estate and he had asked to meet with the developers to discuss possible solutions such as screening to protect his business which should be provided in advance of the main development.


Mr Armstrong (Agent) apologised for not responding to Mr Morgan’s request and said that he would be happy to accept a condition to provide security fencing and planting before development started.  They were in discussion with the Town Council and the Neighbourhood Forum regarding the transfer and future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.


Applications determined by the Executive Director of Place (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 41 KB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.


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




Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 56 KB