Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 12)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Next Generation Limited




Mr Roy Wilkin




Broadland Housing Association




Broadland Housing Association




Mr W R B Edwards




Kier Homes




Mr Shaun Fryett




Mr Patrick Taylor




Mr S Currie




Mr J Ogilvy




Mr R & Mrs S Walker




Breckland District Council





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: Bradenham: Land at Wood Farm, Church Lane: Installation of a 70m meteorological monitoring mast for a temporary period of two years for Next Generation Limited: Reference: 3PL/2009/0459/F


This application had been approved for a temporary one year period by the Committee on 3 August 2009, subject to further consultation with Natural England and the RSPB.  No further comments from those consultees had been received.  However, it had transpired that certain technical issues in the application had been incorrect and these had since been addressed.  The application was therefore brought back to the Committee for reconsideration.  


It was noted that the mast had actually been erected recently and so the application was now retrospective, but this was not a material consideration in its determination.


Mrs Hewett, Ward Representative for Bradenham, was surprised that this was not a material consideration.  She found the report confusing and could not understand why the application could not be refused on the grounds of it being related to a future wind turbine application, but that it could be used as a reason to support its approval.


Dr Hoare, objector, said that the mast was only being used to remedy the noise defects in previous turbine applications and that the applicant would not provide detailed information on its purpose.  She questioned its legitimacy saying that:


a)         there was insufficient environmental and technical data to determine if the mast was ‘fit for purpose’;

b)         there was no policy covering masts for noise assessment;

c)         the site of the mast would not be a suitable site for a turbine;

d)         the guy wires were a wildlife hazard; and

e)         the mast failed to provide proper bird deterrents.


Mr Muir, for Applicant, explained that at the last turbine inquiry, it had been suggested that alternative locations should be investigated and this application was doing that.  He also confirmed that bird deflectors would be fitted to the mast.


Mr Hewett, Ward Representative for Shipdham, thought that there were still technical issues with the application: in particular the site history information and whether the mast was to assess wind or noise.  He also questioned the fact that the application could not be refused because it might help a future turbine application, but could be approved for that reason.  He quoted from the Policy Note in the Agenda saying that the planning process was set up to protect the public from unacceptable development.  The fact that the application was retrospective was not irrelevant to residents and Members should refuse the application.


The Council’s Solicitor asked Members if they required any further details of the site history and it was clarified that this was the same application, in the same position as had previously been approved by the Committee on 3 August 2009.  That permission had never been issued, due to the technical issues in the application.


Mr Muir, Agent, confirmed that the mast would monitor wind speed at various heights, not noise.  Noise monitoring equipment would be placed in the vicinity.  He explained that their previous turbine application had been refused at appeal on noise issues alone, due to defects in their noise assessment and this application would help remedy that.


Members voted against the recommendation to approve the mast and then discussed reasons for refusal.  It was proposed that the application be refused due to detriment to the environment, but the Head of Legal Services was in attendance and advised that there was no evidence to support a refusal on those grounds.


The Chairman advised Members that this application was likely to go to appeal and they must give the officers good grounds to work with.


Further discussion followed in which the points raised by the objector Dr Hoare, were addressed.   The Head of Legal Services gave advice on each.


The original proposal was voted on again.


Approved, subject to an extra condition ensuring sufficient bird deflectors were attached to the mast.


Mr Labouchere, who was one of three Members who voted against the proposal, asked for his vote to be recorded.


(b)       Item 2: Necton: 19 Mill Street: Demolition of existing store and erection of 3 bedroom dwelling and detached garage for Mr Roy Wilkin: Reference: 3PL/2009/0846/F


Mr Wilkin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item.  He stayed for the presentation, gave a three minute speech and then left the room whilst it was discussed.


This application sought full planning permission for the demolition of a storage building and the erection of a dwelling.  There was a highway objection due to inadequate visibility at the access which already served a commercial business and three other residential properties.


Mr Worsfold, NCC Highways, said that the site currently generated little traffic.  The visibility splays fell well short of the required standard and approval would lead to more movements and an intensification of the use of the access.


Mr Wilkin, said that the dwelling was for his son and daughter-in-law who were expecting their first child and were currently living in rented accommodation.  The daughter-in-law worked at the business on site.  The entrance had been widened some years ago and there had been no accidents or near misses.


Mr Wilkin then left the room.


A Member asked if there were any flooding issues in this area and it was confirmed that there were not.  Another Member supported the application saying that there were hundreds of similar accesses in Norfolk.


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


(c)        Item 3: Dereham: Waples Way: Development of 5 No affordable dwellings with associated landscaping and access for Broadland Housing Association: Reference: 3PL/2009/0858/F


Approved, subject to completion of legal agreement.  See Minute No 197/09.


(d)       Item 4: Dereham: Waples Way: Development of 15 No affordable dwellings with associated landscaping and access for Broadland Housing Association: Reference: 3PL/2009/0859/F


Approved, subject to completion of legal agreement.  See Minute No 197/09.


(e)       Item 5: Hardingham: Adjoining 10 Hackford Road: Erection of dwelling for Mr W R B Edwards: Reference: 3PL/2009/0866/F


This application sought full planning permission for a two storey detached dwelling within garden land between two existing properties.  The proposed access was outside the district boundary and would be determined by South Norfolk District Council.  There were Highways and Policy objections.


Mr Worsfold, NCC Highways, said that the site did not satisfy sustainable transport policies in the East of England Plan as it was not near to schools, shops and services.


Mr Edwards, applicant, said there was a high demand for rented property in the village since the new hospital had been built.  He owned the properties either side of the site and both were rented out.  One had had 25 applicants and the other 35 when they were advertised.  The proposed house had been designed to fit in with local properties and would meet sustainability requirements.  Special justification was that the development was infill on brownfield land and would meet strong local demand.  If approved the house should be ready to be occupied by summer 2010.


Mr Jordan, Ward Representative, said that the village was spread over a huge area and could accommodate additional houses here and there.  The Parish Council supported this application.  There was a need for this type of housing in the village to meet high demand.  The site was in a good location, only 3 miles from Wymondham railway station.


It was clarified that if approval was given it would be subject to approval of the access by South Norfolk.


Approved as acceptable infill development on a brownfield site, contrary to the recommendation, subject to conditions re Code Level 3 build requirement and access approval by South Norfolk.


(f)         Item 6: Thetford: Land off Brandon Road: Erection of 52 houses and flats, garages and associated infrastructure for Kier Homes: Reference: 3PL/2009/0872/D


Approved, see Minute No 196/09.


(g)       Item 7: Scarning: Foresters Lodge, Bradenham Lane: Change of use of ancillary accommodation to self contained annexe (retrospective) for Mr Shaun Fryett: Reference: 3PL/2009/0930/CU


This application sought change of use of a garage to self-contained annexe accommodation.  The permission would be personal to the applicant and he would be asked to enter into a section 106 agreement retaining the annex as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling.


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


(h)        Item 8: Shropham: Land at Bradcar Road: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of dwelling and garage for Mr Patrick Taylor: Reference: 3PL/2009/0961/O


This outline application sought permission for the erection of a single detached dwelling with attached garage.  Only access, layout and scale were to be considered.  Further information had been supplied by the applicant.  The dwelling would be built to Code Level 3 standard and would be in keeping with the area.  There was a policy objection to this proposal as it was outside the settlement boundary and no strong justification to support it.


Mr Worsfold, NCC Highways, said that the current site was a vacant field with no previous consents.  There was concern about the surrounding road network and remote location, together with the restricted width and lack of passing provision on Bradcar Road.  Visibility was also poor at the Bradcar / Hargham Road junction and development would lead to highway danger and inconvenience and was contrary to policy.


Mr Napier, Parish Council, supported the applicant who worked locally and currently lived with his parents in an agricultural worker’s tied cottage.  There was an existing permission for an operator’s licence in the vicinity and there had been no objections or problems and no accidents at the junction.


Mr Took, Agent, said that the Planning Act allowed for exceptions to policy and he hoped that the family circumstances would be sufficient in this case.  The Taylor family had lived and worked in the area all their life.  They would have to vacate the tied dwelling on the father’s retirement.  The applicant had been left land by his grandfather to provide a family home.  Agricultural workers could not afford high house prices.  The applicant was happy to agree to a section 106 agreement if necessary.  With regard to sustainability, if the applicant did have to move away he would need to travel back to the village for his work.  As a key worker he needed to be in the area.


Mr Cowen, Ward Representative, said there was a significant shortfall in available housing land and this applicant had land which could help to address that.  There were no opportunities for development in Shropham and this site was only just outside the Settlement Boundary.    He urged the Committee to support the application. 


The Council’s Principal Housing Officer (Strategy and Enabling) confirmed that occupants of tied accommodation received priority on the housing register when they approached retirement.  She said that there were policies allowing exception sites but they needed to be controlled in perpetuity.


A Member said that there were currently proposals to tighten the settlement boundary around Shropham but he felt that people should be encouraged to stay in the villages.  He pointed out that there was a fishing club adjacent the site and they did not seem to have problems with the road.  He supported the application.


Another local Member agreed that although the road was narrow and the junction was not good there had been no accidents that he knew of.  There was also a large processing plant in the vicinity with 100 employees, many of whom used the junction.


The Council’s Solicitor advised Members to be consistent.  They must decide if the personal circumstances outweighed the strong policy objections.


Following further discussion it was confirmed that the site would not meet exception site policy tests.  It was also pointed out that if approval was granted a recreation contribution would be required.


Deferred, contrary to recommendation, and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of a section 106 agreement for a recreational contribution, the reason for approval being exceptional personal circumstances.


(i)         Item 9: Griston: The Waggon & Horses PH, Caston Road: New cottage style dwelling for Mr S Currie: Reference: 3PL/2009/0968/O


This application sought outline permission for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling within part of the beer garden and car park of the Waggon & Horses PH.  Only access and scale were to be considered.  The site was outside the settlement boundary and was therefore contrary to policy.


The Ward Representative had written asking Members to support the proposal which would allow the applicant to expand the business by providing tourist accommodation in the existing living accommodation in the pub.  Many pubs were closing and this was an opportunity to help to keep one open.


Mr Ulyrich, Parish Council, said that many pubs in the area were struggling but this one was thriving and the landlord was trying to improve it.  The site was only just outside the settlement boundary.  The only way to expand the business was to use the existing accommodation.  The Parish Council fully supported the application as long as the new dwelling was tied to the pub by a legal agreement.


Mr Currie, applicant, had been landlord of the pub for three and a half years.  He had worked hard to build a successful business and wanted to continue to expand.  There was a lot of letting potential in the area.  The site was currently unused land and would provide his family with some privacy and a place for the children away from the pub whilst enabling him, as landlord, to maintain 24 hour security and management of the pub and bed and breakfast business.


Some Members wanted to support this popular local pub but others were concerned that permission would not necessarily ensure that the pub stayed open and could lead to the site being split up in the future.


The recommendation for refusal was tied and so the proposal failed.


Members discussed the potential for the applicant to extend, but he explained that they had explored that option, but with three young children he felt it necessary to give them some privacy and provide them with a garden. 


The vote for refusal was retaken and lost and a new proposal was put to approve the application for reasons relating to the personal circumstances, acceptability for the continued viability of the pub and that the site was not unsustainable.


Deferred, contrary to recommendation, and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of a section 106 agreement to tie the dwelling to the pub.


(k)   Item 10: Beeston: Valley Farm, Watery Lane: Change of use of land for siting of mobile home to supervise business (retrospective) by Mr J Ogilvy: Reference: 3PL/2009/0984/F


This application sought the change of use of land for the stationing of a mobile home in connection with an agricultural enterprise.  Policy required functional and financial tests to be satisfied.  A previous application had been refused and dismissed at appeal.  The Inspector had considered that the functional test had been satisfied, but that insufficient financial information had been provided to meet the requirements.


The current proposal provided two year’s accounts and projected figures for the next three years, which indicated that the business was viable and capable of supporting a full time agricultural worker.


Mrs Fowler, from the Parish Council, said that the applicant had been living on the site for about three years; despite two previous refusals, two dismissed appeals and an enforcement notice.  She said it made a nonsense of the planning process and that approval would set a precedent.


Mr Hammond, for the applicant, said that if the audited accounts had been available for the appeal there would have been no need for this application.  It was important for the applicant to be on site 24/7 for animal welfare.  He was willing to re-site the mobile home to a less prominent position if desired.


Mr Kiddle-Morris, Ward Representative, said he did not like to go against rural enterprise, but this was in the wrong place.  He supported the Parish Council and explained that there were no objections from residents because they had all been passed to the Parish Council for representation.  Finally he said that he doubted the man hours quoted in support of the applicant’s need to be on-site all the time.


The Chairman said that several people had approached her, as Ward Representative of Beeston, with concerns about the position of the development in previously open countryside which drained into the Nar Valley, a sensitive site.


Members sought clarification of the following points:


1.      The applicant had bought the land from a local famer and moved onto it immediately.  He had no family or property in the village;

2.      any temporary permission granted would run from the date of the approval, not from the date the applicant moved in;

3.      the nature of the enterprise was such that stock levels were low at certain times of the year and much higher at others, but the Inspector had accepted the functional case.


Refused, contrary to recommendation due to failure to enhance and an unsatisfactory financial case.


(k)        Item 11: Garvestone: Roseville, Town Lane: two storey side and rear extension (partly over existing rear single storey section) and single storey rear and side extension by Mr R & Mrs S Walker: Reference: 3PL/2009/0989/F


This application proposed an extension which would be subservient to the existing cottage and provide additional living accommodation.


Approved, as recommended.


(l)      Item 12: Dereham: Breckland Business Centre, St Withburga Lane: Replace existing unauthorised lean-to to rear of Breckland Business Centre with a timber constructed lean-to by Breckland District Council: Reference: 3PL/2009/1064/F


This application sought the replacement of a UPVC glazed lean-to with a new timber and glass structure to provide access to the basement of the offices.


Approved, as recommended.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No



Mrs Hewett – Ward Representative

Mr Hewett – Ward Representative

Dr Hoare – Objector

Mr Muir – Applicant

Mr Horn – Breckland Council


Mr Worsfold – NCC Highways


(Agenda Item 10)

Mr Savage – Applicant

Mr Mumford Smith – Applicant


Mr Jordan – Ward Representative

Mr Edwards – Applicant

Mr Worsfold – NCC Highways


(Agenda Item 9)

Mr Chambers – Town Council

Mr Raper - Applicant


Mr Cowen – Ward Representative

Mr Napier – Parish Council

Mr Worsfold – NCC Highways

Mrs Smith – Breckland Council

Mr Took - Agent


Mr Ulrych – Parish Council

Mr Currie - Applicant


Mr Kiddle-Morris – Ward Representative

Mrs Fowler – Parish Council

Mr Hammond – for Applicant

Agenda Item 11

Mr Bloomfield - Agent


Written Representations taken into account


Reference No

No of Representations
















Supporting documents: