Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Marlborough Properties




Mr P Foster

South Lopham

17 – 21


Mrs N Kemp


22 – 26


Tilia Properties


27 – 29


Gressingham Foods

Great Ellingham

30 – 32


A F Machinery Ltd


33 – 35


Norfolk County Council


38 – 38


Mr M Blyth





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows;


(a)   Item 1: Shipdham: 36 Letton Road: Proposed residential development  for Marlborough Properties: Reference: 3PL/2010/0293/O


Approved, see Minute 118/10


(b)   Item 2: South Lopham: Four Acres, Redgrave Road: Construction of first floor balcony within existing roof, new and enlarged dormers to rear for Mr P Foster: Reference: 3PL:2010:0345/F


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) gave a report of the proposal for alterations to the rear roof of the property. Obscure glass screening at either end of the balcony had been added to help protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.


Mr Webb, adjacent neighbour to the south of the site, objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would be intrusive and overlook his property causing loss of privacy. He circulated a photograph to Members of the roof view with the projected balcony and enlarged windows superimposed. He estimated the distance from the balcony to his boundary was 4 metres.


Mr Brand, agent for the applicant, said that the proposed alterations to the windows would provide more light to the bedrooms and that efforts had been made to avoid possible overlooking of the neighbouring properties helped by the provision of screening. He suggested that the balcony would only be used a few times a year.


Mr Nunn, Ward Representative, said that the main concern was the effect on the privacy of the neighbouring properties. The balcony was likely to be used in good weather at the same time as neighbours could be in their gardens and could be viewed from the balcony. There was the potential to remove the screening in the future and he considered development at the height and position was not appropriate.


Members received clarification that there was already access from the rear windows to the roof area; that the change in size of the windows was not excessive; and the screening would be 1.8 metres in height. It was suggested by one Member that the screening could be a solid barrier rather than obscure glass.


The Development Service Manager clarified that the officer recommendation included a condition relating to the level of obscurity of the glass, and that changes to the screen or any other part of the development should not be made without approval.


Approved, as recommended, subject to conditions.


(c)   Item 3: Attleborough: Windmill Way, Foundry Corner: provide new driveway access from Buckenham Rd (B1077) together with new drive & turning space for Mrs N Kemp: Reference: 3PL/2010/0396/F


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report on the proposal to provide new vehicle access at the front of the property on Buckenham Road. The current vehicle access at the rear was from Borough Lane which was of restricted width.


Concerns had been raised regarding highway safety and the possible danger of a new access on to the B1077 which was considered a busy road. The Highways Authority had not objected as long as normal requirements for parking/turning space were met and that the rear access was closed. A new footway was proposed by the County Council which would extend along the property frontage and would provide dropped kerbs as necessary.


Mrs Kemp, the applicant explained that she had become less mobile due to a health condition and that the front driveway would provide her with easier access to her property. She would like to retain the rear access to enable her to use the garage to park the car when needed.


Mr Martin, Ward Representative, expressed concerns relating to  highway safety and pointed out that the properties had been built with vehicle access from the rear due to the nature of the B1077. He also considered the visibility splay of the proposed new access could be affected by a large tree in the adjacent garden.


Members discussed the road layout and the potential dangers of cars reversing from their drives onto a chicane and considered that there was good reason that vehicle access had been restricted to the rear of the properties. There was concern that approving this application could set a precedent for others to follow increasing the potential traffic hazard.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) commented that other properties opposite the site had access onto the B1077 and some neighbouring properties had opened up front access for vehicles without consent. He reminded Members that the Highway Authority had not raised any issue regarding the visibility splay of the proposed access and that there was a 40mph speed limit in place. He advised that the application should be considered on its own merit and safety aspect.


Members agreed to grant planning permission for the new front access and that the rear access should be retained.


 Approved as recommended, subject to conditions.  


(d)   Item 4: Snetterton: Unit 3 Snetterton Business Park, Chalk Lane: Industrial storage unit for Tilia Properties Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/0398/F


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report of the proposal for a storage unit similar to existing buildings in the Business Park. Landscaping would be included to soften the visual impact. Although partly outside the General Employment Area the development could be included within the Snetterton Area Action Plan.


Mr Hovey, agent, responded to questions from Members and clarified details about the height and access to the unit.


Approved, as recommended. 


(e)   Item 5: Great Ellingham: Stallards Farm, Deopham Road: 2 No. Replacement duck buildings including increase in size for Gressingham Foods: Reference: 3PL/2010/0400/F


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report of the proposal for 2 replacement buildings for duck rearing which would increase the capacity by 6,500. The buildings would be at the rear of the site which was located in a rural location north of the village. Although the site was partly screened additional landscaping could be provided to reduce the visual impact of the larger building.


Objections had been made relating to the increased effect on local amenity e.g. smell, traffic and noise. The Environment Agency having regard to issues relating to noise and smell had raised no objections subject to a condition requiring a pest control scheme. The Highway Authority had raised no objections.


Mr Irwin, on behalf of the applicants, explained that the proposed new buildings would provide improved facilities and environment helping to make production at the site more efficient and hygienic. There should not be additional vehicle movements and landscaping would be undertaken with professional advice.


Members were satisfied with the information provided.


Approved, as recommended subject to conditions.


(f)     Item 6: Wretham: Field (Larkshall 2): Potato store extension for A F Machinery: Reference: 3PL/2010/0458/F


Deferred, see Minute 114/10.


(g)   Item 7: Watton: Wayland High School: Construction of a shared footway/cycleway facility for Norfolk County Council: Reference: 3PL/2010/0474/F


Mr P Duigan declared a personal interest as a Member of Norfolk County Council.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) gave a report on the proposed new cycleway/footway along the edge of a field from Thetford Road to the rear of Wayland School. The plan included fencing which prevented access from Churchill Road. A Toucan crossing would be included but information on this had not been provided as it would not need planning permission.


The proposal had raised a lot of interest in terms of the potential adverse affect on local amenity relating to additional noise, disturbance and possible anti-social behaviour. However, the use of the footway/cycleway would be limited to periods during the day and the hedging would provide some screening to neighbouring properties. The police had raised no objection on the grounds that it was a straight route with no hiding places.


Councillor Gilbert had sent a written comment that he was satisfied with the application since it had been agreed to install a fence along the side adjacent to Churchill Close.


Mr Philips, resident and objector, said there were over 70 letters of objection to the proposal. In 1994 a previous planning application for housing on the same land as the path had been refused on the grounds of being outside the development boundary and intrusive to neighbouring properties. He referred to an Environmental Health Officer report which had raised the possibility of anti-social behaviour occurring within the cycleway. He felt the cycleway was an uneconomical project with limited use and purpose. He criticised the County Council for producing inaccurate plans and providing unsatisfactory timescales.


Mr Rope, the agent, said that it was the intention of the school to encourage alternative means of transport to school and relieve the parking congestion around the school at peak times.


Members supported the principal of providing a safe and environmentally safe route for children to get to school. One Member expressed concern that the parking problems could be partly relieved at the school but could be displaced to other arrears along the cycle/footway causing congestion problems elsewhere. Members felt that the crossing should be provided at the same time as the construction of the footway/cycleway.


Approved, as recommended, subject to conditions and the officers be asked to request Norfolk County Council to build the crossing in conjunction with the footway/cycleway.


(h)   Item 8: Attleborough: The Old Farmhouse, Station Road: Extension of a time limit on pp 3PL/2005/0025/F – erection of 24 starter flats for Mr M Blyth: Reference: 3TL/2010/0018/TL


Refused, see Minute 119/10.


            Notes to the Schedule



Item No



Mr Took - Agent


Mr Nunn – Ward Representative

Mr Webb – Objector

Mr Brand – Agent

Mr Foster – Applicant


Mr Martin – Ward Representative

Mrs Kemp - Applicant


Mr Hovey - Agent


Mr Irwin – Applicants Representative


Mr Philips – Objector

Mr Rope - Agent



            Written Representations taken into account



Reference No.

No. of Representations








Supporting documents: