Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Minstergate Motors


28 - 32


Dawe Estates


33 – 37


Mr Mark Chapman


38 – 43


Charbon Properties Limited


44 – 51


Mr Rouf Homes Ltd


52 – 59


Mr Andrew Jackson


60 – 76


Mr Paul Gardner

Little Dunham

77 – 83


Ms Melanie Stephan

Holme Hale

84 – 90


S. P. K Engineering


91 – 101


Mr S Andrews & Ms L Harding


102 – 106


Burmeister & Wain Scandinavian Contractor


107 - 112


Clayland Homes (Ashill) Limited





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)       Item 1: THETFORD: Shi Kon Budokan, Staniforth Road: Demolish building and erect 6 dwellings with associated parking/amenities: Applicant: Minstergate Motors: Reference: 3PL/2015/0953/F


The building on the site had been removed.  The dense development was in-keeping with the surroundings.


Councillor Jermy knew the site well and could not believe that six dwellings would fit on there.  Three bedroom properties were for families and the gardens were very small.


Councillor Newton agreed.  He thought it was over-development and it did not match the surroundings and would not look good.


The Chairman noted that there were two parking spaces for each dwelling.  If that was reduced it might increase the amount of garden area. 


The Principal Planning Officer advised that some households did not want large gardens.  The proposal provided a small but useable amenity area and there was some open space immediately to the west of the site. 


Approved, as recommended.


b)       Item 2: CARBROOKE: Manor Farm, Willow Corner: New Farm Workshop: Applicant: Dawe Estates: Reference: 3PL/2016/0206/F


The recommended conditions for this full application were included on the Supplement to the Agenda.  The existing access to the farm was through the village.  The proposal would provide a new access onto Shipdham Road.


Councillor Jermy asked about the comments from the Parish Council about the hedge and was informed that a small section would be removed to provide the necessary visibility splays.  An additional condition re frontage landscaping would be added.


Approved as recommended.


c)       Item 3: SHROPHAM: Land Adjacent Red Lodge, Hargham Road: Two dwellings: Applicant: Mr Mark Chapman: Reference: 3PL/2016/0252/O


This outline application was on an infill plot which would maintain the built-up fringe of the village.  Officers considered that the benefits outweighed any harm.  It was agreed that the development should be limited to single storey to reflect the properties on either side.


Approved, as recommended.


d)       Item 4: BEESTON: Land off Herne Lane: Proposed residential dwelling: Applicant: Charbon Properties Limited: Reference: 3PL/2016/0269/O


11 dwellings were proposed in an area of scattered development.  The indicative layout included four affordable dwellings.  A footpath would give pedestrians access closer to the village.  The Parish Council had been re-consulted; any approval would be subject to no new concerns being raised.


Mr Moulton (Agent) had consulted the Parish Council and Officers before re-submitting the application.  The housing would support existing services in the village and the footway link would give safer access.  A management company would manage the footpath.


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


e)       Item 5: THETFORD: Land off Kimms Belt/London Road: Erect 29 dwellings with landscaping, car parking, waste/recycling and cycle storage: Applicant: Mr Rouf Homes Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2016/0379/F


This full application for residential units was in a built-up area of mixed use.  The adjacent site had approval for apartments.  The development reflected the scale, mass and form of the industrial buildings nearby.


Mr Walker (Agent) said the proposal provided high quality dwellings including 11 affordable homes and it would reinforce the built frontage of London Road.


Councillor Newton asked about waste bin provision.  He was advised that there would be a communal bin store on site which included a recycling facility.  It was not considered suitable to provide individual numbered bins.


Councillor Jermy (Ward Representative) noted that the area had originally been all industrial.  He was not happy with the bland appearance in such a prominent location.

The Chairman thought the development was trying to blend in with the industrial units.

Councillor Bowes asked why it had to reflect the industrial area.  Thetford had a lot of history and that could be reflected in the design.

Councillor Wilkinson asked if the design could be amended to overcome the concerns of the crime reduction and architectural liaison officer.


Councillor Sharpe noted that there were only 29 parking spaces for 29 dwellings and wondered where other cars would park.  He thought that the provision for bicycle parking was excessive and had concerns about the under-croft which would be a place for youths to congregate.

The Interim Business Manager advised that the under-croft was likely to be self-policed by residents.  He agreed that lighting could be conditioned and windows could be included to overlook the area.


Approved, as recommended, subject to additional conditions regarding the under-croft and cycle parking.


f)        Item 6: ASHILL: Site at the Willows, Hale Road: Proposed residential development: Applicant: Mr Andrew Jackson: Reference: 3PL/2016/0427/O


It was noted that there were two applications on the Agenda for Ashill and both sites (one on either side of Hale Road) were highlighted on the map.  It was the view of Officers that there was a specific pattern of development in Ashill with the majority of development, including estate style development, on one side of the road, and ribbon style development on the other side.


The indicative layout showed 22 dwellings (although no numbers were specified in the application), with a single point of access.  The site was not the preferred site for development in the emerging Local Plan but was considered to meet sustainability requirements.


Mr Parsons (Agent) said it was a small, high quality scheme which would provide 40% affordable housing; financial contributions to school capacity and play equipment; a speed awareness sign, road widening and a footpath link.  It would have a sustainable surface water drainage scheme and provide bat lofts and trial trenching for archaeological interest.


Mr Stowell (Objector) said that the infrastructure could not take the additional development.  The sewage and road systems were inadequate.  The school was full.  Infrastructure was needed before more houses.  There might be Japanese Knotweed on the site.


Mr Ketteringham (Vice-Chairman Ashill Parish Council) said the village had been classed as a rural area but was now suggested for upgrade to a Local Service Centre (LSC) with potential growth of 90 dwellings over 20 years.  The two applications on the agenda together with other recently approved applications would take the village over that number.  The site was on good agricultural land.  The access was close to a bend and there had been a fatal accident there.  The village already had a speed sign and the bus stop was new and did not need upgrading or moving.  It was too much development.

Councillor Sharpe (Ward Representative) said residents were overwhelmed by the amount of development and did not want the village to be a LSC.  He understood their concerns but acknowledged that houses were needed.


Councillor Duigan asked about the speed sign. It was clarified that the developers had been asked to make a financial contribution to purchase a speed sign which was mobile and could be moved round the village.


Councillor Claussen asked if there was room to extend the primary school and that was confirmed.  If approved the Reserved Matters application should come back to Committee to ensure layout control and contribution provision.

Councillor Martin asked if residents were happy with the preferred development site proposed in the emerging plan and Councillor Sharpe advised him that they were not.


The Chairman confirmed that the application would come back to Committee at Reserved Matters stage, if approved.


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


Councillor Sharpe abstained from voting.


g)       Item 7: LITTLE DUNHAM: Land adjacent to Chestnut Cottage, Necton Road: Erection of dwelling, detached garage and cart lodge: Applicant: Mr Paul Gardner: Reference: 3PL/2016/0431/F


It was pointed out that this was a full application, not outline as mentioned in the report.


Mr Gardner (Applicant) explained that the planning permission for his home, Chestnut House and the neighbouring dwelling, Holly House, had included a third dwelling between them.  This application would complete the original consent.  He had agreed the sale of additional garden area so that all three houses would have the same size plots.


Councillor Joel asked that care be taken to avoid overlooking and it was confirmed that the only windows on the side at first floor were bathroom windows and a ‘no additional windows’ condition was included.


Approved, as recommended.


h)       Item 8: HOLME HALE: Mayfield House, 9 Lower Road: 2 replacement dwellings: Applicant: Ms Melanie Stephen: Reference: 3PL/2016/0440/F


This application proposed the replacement of a fire damaged building with two dwellings.  In planning terms there was no evidence that there had ever been two dwellings on the site. 


Ms Stephan (Applicant) had supplied photographs to support the fact that there had originally been two dwellings which had been occupied by sisters and an internal door had been created to link the two.  It was an extensive two acre plot and it was illogical to put less than two dwellings back.  A passing place would be provided which would be of benefit to all.


The Chairman (Ward Representative) and Councillor Sharpe (previous Ward Representative) had called in the application to Committee.  They agreed that there had originally been two dwellings on the site.


Councillor Martin noted that each application should be considered on its own merits and due to the size of the plot he supported the proposal.


The recommendation for refusal was not supported.


Approved subject to conditions.  Members felt that the site was not in the open countryside as it formed part of an established group of dwellings.  Two dwellings could be accommodated comfortably and would make a small contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply.


i)        Item 9: MILEHAM: SPK Engineering, The Old Sawmill, Back Lane: Erection of 10 dwellings: Applicant: SPK Engineering: Reference: 3PL/2016/0534/O


This outline application was on a brownfield site.  Officers considered the proposal would enhance the appearance of the area.


Mr Moulton (Agent) explained that a previous approval had been granted with an 18 month time limit which had expired before the site could be sold.  A buyer had now been found and the sale would proceed if planning permission was given.  The main change from the previous application was no affordable housing contribution was required this time.


It was confirmed that the permission was limited to ten dwellings and would have an 18 month time limit again.


Approved as recommended.


j)        Item 10: ELSING: Land adjacent to Bay Cottage, Mill Street: Erection of dwelling: Applicant: Mr S Andrews & Ms L Harding: Reference: 3PL/2016/0557/F


A previous approval had been partially implemented on the site.  The games room would have a ‘green’ roof and it would be conditioned that it could not be used as outdoor space.


Approved, as recommended.


k)       Item 11: SNETTERTON: Snetterton REB Station, Off Chalk Lane, Snetterton Heath: Variation of conditions 1,2,3,4,6,11,13 and 15 of planning permission 3PL/2015/0651/F: Applicant: Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contract: Reference: 3PL/2016/0610/VAR


Members were shown elevations and were advised that there were a lot of small changes.  Additional information was included in the Supplement to the Agenda.  The condition requested by the Historic Environment Officer would be checked and added if required.


Approved, as recommended.


l)        Item 12: ASHILL: Land adjacent the Community Centre, Hale Road: Residential development consisting of 46 new homes: Applicant: Clayland Homes (Ashill) Limited: Reference: 3PL/2016/0363/F


This application was on the opposite side of the road to most of the development in Ashill.  Part of the site (fronting Hale Road) formed the preferred option site in the emerging Local Plan.


An amended reason for refusal was displayed on screen and read out in full by the Interim Business Manager.  If Members were minded to approve the application, a more detailed ecological study would be required.


Mr Ketteringham (Vice-Chairman Ashill Parish Council) reiterated that there were too many houses proposed for the village which already had sewage problems.  The Parish Council objected to the five new accesses and was concerned that the proposal would cause problems to the Community Centre.


Ms Oxborough (Community Centre Manager) said the Community Centre had been funded by residents and fundraising just covered its upkeep costs.  The new development could lead to complaints about noise and there was no money to pay for improvements such as air conditioning.


It was confirmed that the proposed financial contributions did not include any money for the Community Centre although a contribution was proposed to improve recreation/play facilities in the area.  The Environmental Health Officer had not raised any issues.


Mr Tilley (Agent) said the Applicant was a local builder.  They had built a highly commended scheme in Saham Toney and this development would be the same.  The affordable homes would look like the open market homes.  The improved housing stock would attract professional people.  Local resources would be used and eight new apprenticeships would be provided.


Councillor Sharpe (Ward Representative) noted that although part of the site was identified as the preferred site for Ashill, it was being challenged.  He liked the design of the houses but he did not like the location and thought it would be over-development.


Councillor Claussen noted that the preferred site was trying to encourage the same linear development as existing.


The Chairman agreed but pointed out that if smaller development took place there would be no affordable housing provision and there was always a need for more affordable housing.


Councillor Bowes asked that the Historic Buildings’ Officer’s request be adhered to if permission was granted.


Refused, as recommended.


Supporting documents: