Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Postmill Developments Ltd

Swanton Morley



Mrs L Scales




Mr & Mrs Canham




Mr R Clarke

Blo’ Norton



Mr & Mrs Greenacre & Mr & Mrs Foulge

Old Buckenham



Mr & Mrs A Gould





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: Swanton Morley: Land west of Teutoburge, Harker’s Lane: Erection of a detached bungalow for Postmill Developments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/1334/F


This full application for a bungalow was on land adjoining an Engineering Works which was also owned by the applicant.  The main issue was the effect on amenity of the adjacent works.  The applicant was willing to enter into a legal agreement limiting the works’ opening hours.


Mr Smith, agent said the site was within the Settlement Boundary and that all of the issues raised by the Parish Council had been addressed. 


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.


(b)       Item 2: Dereham: Land adjacent Peartree Cottage, Neatherd Moor: Development of 4 new homes with improved access for Mrs L Scales: Reference: 3PL/2011/0177/O


            This was the resubmission of a previous application for 10 dwellings, as Members had indicated that they might favour a reduced scheme.


A number of concerns had been raised about the potential impact on Neatherd Moor, a significant amenity for the town, and on proposals for the access road.


Mr Needham, Town Clerk, was in attendance to answer questions.  He pointed out that the land to the north of the site known as Abbot’s Field was not common land.


Mr Ryder, objector, said that the proposed alterations to the access (a Registered Public Footpath) were very contentious and would substantially change its appearance.  Tree roots would need to be protected as would the old Victorian wall to his property.  The proposal to lay a storm drain across 300m of Abbots Field and the Neatherd would have a great impact and would drain into the Dereham Stream which was not well maintained.  There was a pond with great crested newts to the north of the site and bats and barn owls used the area.  The properties would be out of scale with those in Union Drift and would be intrusive.  There was a lack of information in the Outline application and he asked Members to impose stringent conditions to protect trees, etc if they approved it.


Mr Bird, Agent, said that Members had been concerned about the traffic impact of the previous application.  The scale of development now proposed would not cause problems and the layout avoided overlooking and no objections had been received from residents of Union Drift.  More trees had been retained.  The surface water would be retained on site by soak-aways and would not cross the Neatherd.  The access would be resurfaced but not changed, except at the junction with Norwich Road where it was required to be widened so that two cars could pass.  Five weeks pre-consultation had been carried out and they had done all they could to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.


Mr Richmond, speaking as Ward Representative, said there were genuine issues of sustainability.  Dereham had been allocated 2000 homes in the Local Development Framework documents and that number had already been exceeded with existing planning permissions.  He questioned the need for four more houses, especially on a tranquil site near the Neatherd.


The Chairman asked if the access was a Registered Footpath and the Town Clerk advised that it did not appear on the Definitive Map.  She also asked who would look after the green spaces proposed within the development and the Agent suggested that they could be passed to a Management Company or the Town Council with a commuted sum for maintenance.


After discussion Members were minded to approve the application, but specified that they wanted the reserved matters application to come to Committee.<1>


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant outline approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.


(c)        Item 3: Thetford: 15 The Meadows, Thetford: Erection of first floor side extension over garage and new single storey rear extension for Mr & Mrs Canham: Reference: 3PL/2011/0224/F


            This application was before the Committee as the applicant was a member of staff.  There were no neighbour or policy objections and no impact on the Special Protection Area as the property was surrounded by other development.


            Approved, as recommended.


(d)       Item 4: Blo’Norton: Broadway House, Land adjacent Oak House, The Street: Minor material amendment to pp 3PL/2010/0061/F in respect of position of house/change size of patio doors to south elevation: Reference: 3PL/2011/0262/F


This application sought approval for the repositioning of the house and a change to windows in the southern elevation to overcome objections from neighbours. 


Members were shown the approved plans with the actual built position of the house marked in red.  The change in siting had occurred as a result of a setting-out error.  Officers did not consider that the change was significant enough to warrant refusal.  It was also noted that although the proposal was to reduce the window in the southern elevation from three to two casements, the applicant had indicated that she was willing to remove the window altogether.


Mr Barnett-Lamb from the Parish Council explained that the originally approved position of the house meant that the windows only overlooked the neighbour’s garage but would now look into the bedroom and dining room.  He was concerned that the application contained inaccuracies and asked where the line was drawn concerning amendments


Mrs Hosier, objector, lived in the neighbouring property.  She had contacted the Council when she noticed the property was being set out incorrectly but no action had been taken.  The new position meant that her property was overlooked.  She suggested that a compromise was to remove the window altogether and to provide screening.


Mrs Clarke, applicant, said they had never meant any offence.  She had arranged for a re-design of the interior of her kitchen to facilitate the blocking up of the window, which she was ready to do.  She intended to install a taller hedge to screen the view and protect the privacy of both her property and the neighbour’s.  She thought the house was an attractive addition to the village and asked Members to approve the amendment.


Mr Nunn, Ward Representative, said that all planning applications were approved ‘in accordance with the plans’.  If the matter had been picked up earlier it would not have had to come back to Committee.  This needed to be looked into.  However, on the basis that the applicant was willing to remove the south facing window he had no further argument.


Members discussed the issues and were concerned that distress had been caused to all parties.  They questioned why the position change had not been noticed by the Building Control surveyor and the Planning Manager explained that at that stage, the boundaries of the property were not clear.


The Solicitor pointed out that the Enforcement Section of the Council dealt with a large number of matters and had to act proportionately.  Plans not being adhered to was not necessarily a reason for refusal, the intrinsic value had to be looked at.


Some Members felt that the removal of the window would leave a large expanse of brick wall which would not be attractive.  The Chairman proposed that the window should be reduced to two panels and retained.  However the applicant said that to maintain goodwill and to ensure privacy she would suggest that the window should be removed.  A counter proposition was made and it was


Agreed that:


§         the amended application (including the siting and the windows in the southern elevation being bricked up) be approved; and

§         an additional condition be applied, that no further openings be made in the end elevation.


(e)       Item 5: Old Buckenham: Harlingwood Lane: Two detached cottage style dwellings for Mr & Mrs Greenacre and Mr & Mrs Foulger: Reference: 3PL/2011/0267/O


All Members had received direct representation from the agent on this application and Mr Rogers had had a telephone conversation with the applicant.


This was the re-submission of an application previously refused on various grounds including being outside the Settlement Boundary, contrary to policy and lacking justification.


Members were shown details of the previous and current applications.  It was noted that both applicants were unwell and needed purpose built accommodation. 


Mrs Marshall, supporter, said that there were 11 properties in Harlingwood Lane and only three were inside the Settlement Boundary.  She said each application should be considered individually and if the land was not used for residential development it could become an eyesore.


Mrs Foulger, applicant, said they had a lot of local support and she asked Members to reconsider policy as there were many properties outside the Settlement Boundary.  With regard to the Highways objection she said that Norfolk Constabulary had confirmed that there had only been one minor accident at the junction in the last 10 years.  Her husband ran a business in the area and due to health problems he might lose his driving licence.  He would be able to continue working if they lived nearer.


Mr Joel, Ward Representative, was concerned that the site was getting untidy.  He did not think that additional traffic from the dwellings would cause highway problems.  The Committee had previously suggested that a pair of cottages would be more suitable for the site and he asked Members to consider the issues.


A Member asked what would happen to the ‘blue’ land (also in the applicant’s ownership) and it was thought that it would be used as additional garden land.  It was explained that the financial contribution was worked out on the size of the application site and that if the blue land had been included a larger contribution would have been required.


After some discussion the Solicitor clarified that personal circumstances were only relevant where other issues were finely balanced.


Refused, as recommended.


(f)         Item 6: Stanfield: Land off Reed Lane, Mileham Road: Erection of detached two storey dwelling for Mr & Mrs A Gould: Reference: 3PL/2011/0347/F


It was noted that the Chairman was not related to the applicants.  Councillors Richmond, Rogers and Wilkin had held discussions with the applicant.


This was a re-submission of an application previously refused on grounds of being contrary to policy, outside the Settlement Boundary and with no supporting justification.


A photograph had been provided by the applicant showing a property on the site in the 1970s.  This building had been demolished long ago and it was considered that the application would have a significant impact on the landscape.


Mr Cordy, Parish Council, said there was significant support from residents to the application.  The plot would be an infill site between the property opposite and two dwellings to the south.  The community and the Parish Council supported the application to put the land back to how it used to be in the 1970s which would enhance the area.


Mr Labouchere, supporter, said that the previous application had been lost by one vote only.  The applicant had lived in the area for 26 years and wanted to build on his own land.  The proposal would replace the cottage previously on the site and would enhance and improve the character of the area.


Mr Burton, Agent, said the previous application had been outline only.  This application provided full details.  The design reflected what had previously been on the site.  The applicant was willing to enter into a legal agreement tying the property to his family.  Although the land was open, the Stanfield Quarries were to the east and he did not feel that the dwelling would interrupt the views.


Members discussed the issues and were sympathetic to the applicant.  However it was pointed out by the Planning Manager that there would need to be sound grounds to overturn the previous decision.


Refused, as recommended.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No



Mr Smith - Agent


Mr Needham – Town Council

Mr Ryder – Objector

Mr Bird - Agent


Mr Nunn – Ward Representative

Mr Barnet-Lamb – Parish Council

Mrs Hosier – Objector

Mrs Clarke – Applicant

Mr Skipper - Agent


Mr Joel – Ward Representative

Mr Medler – for Agent

Mrs Foulger – Applicant

Mrs Marshal - Supporter


Mr Cordy – Parish Council

Mr Labouchere – Supporter

Mr Burton - Agent

Agenda Item 8a

Mr Chubbock – Parish Council

Mr Hewett – Parish Council

Mr Weet – Objector

Mr Irvine - Agent


Written Representations taken into account


Reference No.

No. of Representations










Supporting documents: