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 105 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2009.


The minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Mr W Borrett, Mr M Kiddle-Morris, Mr R Kemp, Mr T Lamb and Mr M Spencer.



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

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.


Members and Officers were asked to declare any interest at the time the applications were introduced.


Members noted that they had received direct representation for Schedule Item 9 (Griston).


Mr N Wilkin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Schedule Item 2 (Necton) by virtue of a) owning the land under consideration and b) the applicant being his son.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


The Chairman made her standard announcements regarding fire exits, mobile phones and public speaking procedure.



Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised Members that following receipt of the positive comments from the Inspector, the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies would be presented to Full Council on Thursday with a recommendation for adoption.


The Principal Planning Policy Officer clarified the work being carried out by the LDF Task and Finish Group (LDF T&FG) which was preparing an initial document for consultation, on the review of rural settlement boundaries, which would take place from end of March to May 2010.  The views of the Group would be passed to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission (O&SC) which would make comments and recommendations to Cabinet prior to the commencement of that consultation.


At this stage, informal views were invited from Town and Parish Councils with regard to the proposals being discussed at meetings held around the District.  During the six week public consultation from late March 2010, Town and Parish Councils would have an opportunity to submit their formal views on the proposals.


All comments received from the consultation would be reported back to the LDF T&FG, O&SC and Cabinet before the submission of the document for approval by Council; there would then be a further opportunity for comments to be made.  There would be a final opportunity to make representation during the Examination in Public of the Site Specifics document.


The next meeting of the LDF T&FG would be on 19 January 2010 at the Ecotech Centre in Swaffham when boundaries in the north-west quadrant of the district would be discussed.  The clerks of the parishes in that quadrant would be sent letters, in the near future, inviting them to attend.



Thetford: Erection Of 52 Dwellings, Land Off Brandon Road for Kier Homes: Reference: 3PL/2009/0872/D (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) introduced this report which sought reserved matters approval for 52 dwellings; ranging from one and two bed flats through to five bedroom detached houses.  A new residential estate road was also proposed, off Maine Road. 


A number of changes had been made to external materials to address concerns raised by the Town Council and some flintwork had been introduced to buildings and boundary walls.  


The Open Space provided was on land across Maine Road from the site and a crossing point would be provided.  This area adjoined existing Open Space and was well treed.  The houses opposite would overlook the play equipment to be installed, providing security.


Mr Chambers, Town Council, objected to the proposal.  The Town Council wanted a reduction in the number of houses and incorporation of the play area into the development.  They did not want to have to take on the management of an ill conceived scheme.


Mr Raper, for Applicant, had 20 years experience as an architect. He said that the location of the Open Space had been agreed in the S106 agreement attached to the Outline approval.  The houses opposite would provide surveillance but were also far enough away not to be bothered by noise from the play area.  The development had been designed to provide a strong sense of place with all houses having a view of trees to be retained on site.  The central green spine was aligned with the centre of Thetford and nearby schools.


A local Member supported the Town Councils concerns re the play area and said that Maine Road was busy and it was not a good idea for children to have to cross a road to play.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) said that the Open Space had been agreed at Outline stage and therefore could not be relocated but he assured Members that the Town Council would be consulted about the details of the play equipment proposed.


RESOLVED that reserved matters approval be granted, subject to conditions relating to external materials, levels, access/parking and mitigation measures during construction.



Dereham: Erection Of 15 Dwellings, Land Off Waples Way: Reference: 3PL/2009/0858/F and Dereham: Erection Of 5 Dwellings, Land Off Waples Way: Reference: 3PL/2009/0859/F for Broadland Housing Association (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 74 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) introduced this report concerning two planning applications for housing development on a long, rectangular site which was part of a former railway line.  Development would comprise a mixture of units including eleven two bedroom houses, eight two bedroom flats and a two bedroom bungalow.  An area of open space would be provided and an existing road would be extended into the site.


Following an amendment to the position of the access road the Tree and Countryside Officer had withdrawn his objection.


The comments of the Ward Representative, Mr Goreham, were read out.  He had three objections on grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and overburdening of traffic on the surrounding road network.  He also had concern re the open space provision and urged the committee to refuse the applications.


Mr Savage, Applicant, said that the proposal adhered to planning policy.  The density met policy standards and the framework of the build would be to sustainability code 3 and would last forever.  The mix of properties had been chosen to match an identified need and all would be for affordable rent.


A local Member said that the Town Council had unanimously voted that this was over-development.  He said that the site was narrow and unsuitable for development.


The Principal Housing Officer (Strategy and Enabling) confirmed that there were 916 people on the housing register of whom 316 were from Dereham.  There was a considerable unmet need in the parish.


Another local Member was concerned that the photographs shown of the surrounding roads had been misleading, as he knew there were problems with access due to on-street parking.


RESOLVED that both applications be deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.



Carbrooke/Griston: Residential/Employment Development, Former RAF Watton Technical Site: References: 3PL/2005/0476/F & 3PL/2005/0477/O (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) explained that this report concerned proposals to vary the terms of section 106 agreements relating to residential/employment development.  Further information had been provided in a supplementary report.


Two permissions for over 600 houses, employment land, a local centre and open space were extant.  One had been granted by the Committee and the other had been refused by Committee and then allowed on appeal.  Both permissions were subject to legal agreements containing a range of planning obligations and requiring financial contributions toward public transport, education and library services.


The Company that had originally been granted planning permission (Cofton) had sold the land to a variety of developers but retained responsibility for infrastructure and section 106 contributions.  Cofton had since gone into administration leaving some of the contributions outstanding.


The developers were proposing a variation of the legal agreements to allow continued development.  The main outstanding issue was the construction of a roundabout at the second access to the site.  Money was available in separate accounts to meet future contribution requirements.  It was suggested that some of this money be released to fund the roundabout works.


The District Valuer had confirmed that due to the drop in prices caused by market conditions the development would not be able to fund the roundabout works.  Government guidance did encourage Councils to be sympathetic in reviewing the terms of legal agreements where it would allow development to continue, although this should not be done unless there was justification.


In this case it was considered that the provision of the roundabout did justify varying the terms as it would:


  1. allow for the delivery of housing, including affordable housing (when the Council did not have the required five year housing land supply and did have a shortage of affordable housing);
  2. directly affect the viability of the service centre and provide access to the employment land adding to the sustainability of the scheme; and
  3. improve highway safety.


Following extensive negotiations between officers, Norfolk County Council and the developers, two areas had been identified where contributions could be adjusted with minimal impact: i) a Breckland Council scheme for play equipment and open space and ii) public transport.


The contribution revisions were subject to claw-back if market conditions improved and to the timing of the completion of the roundabout.


Mr Bloomfield, Agent, explained that the cost of the roundabout had increased substantially.  It was currently partially completed and Norfolk County Council were incurring costs ensuring it functioned in that state.


A local Member was sympathetic to the developers but also concerned about reducing contributions to transport as a Sunday bus service had only recently been secured, enabling young people to travel in to Norwich for work and leisure.


Another Member suggested that the roundabout provision could be scaled down, or replaced by cross-roads, but it was pointed out that works had gone too far and changes would only increase the costs.


A Member asked about the amount of open space available  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.


Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 670 KB

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.


Removal of a Hedgerow at Hoe without Prior Submission of a Hedgerow Removal Notice (Agenda Item 13) pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


The Council’s Tree and Countryside Officer advised Members that hedgerow adjacent to the B1146 had been removed without the prior submission of a Hedgerow Removal Notice.  This was a statutory requirement in itself.


The hedgerow had been there since at least 1945.  Members were shown maps of the site and photographs of the evidence of the hedge’s removal. 


The Committee’s views were sought on whether to proceed with a prosecution and/or Replanting Notice.


A Member said that, subject to legal advice, the Council should take the most severe action in response to this act.




1)                 direct officers to pursue prosecution proceedings subject to the satisfaction of their legal advisors; and

2)                 authorise the issue of a Hedgerow Replacement Notice to secure the replanting of the hedgerow in the same place as the one removed.





Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (Agenda Item 14)

Report of the Development Services Manager.


The report was tabled at the meeting.


This item was noted.




Enforcement Items (Agenda Item 15) pdf icon PDF 60 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


This item was noted.



Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (Agenda Item 16)

3CM/2009/0023/F: Dereham: Dereham Fire Station, Norwich Road: Extension to existing Fire Station to provide urban search and rescue facilities for Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service.

Decision: Conditional Approval


3CM/2007/0019/F: Longham: Land at Bittering Quarry, Longham Quarry and Spreadoak: Continuation and extension of mineral working; retention of existing plant site; construction of silt lagoons; restoration of site to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation uses for Tarmac Southern Ltd.

Decision: Conditional Approval


This item was noted.



Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 17)

APP/F2605/A/09/2107273: Narborough: 5 Eastfields: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a detached garage and road entrance, by Mr C Stewart: Application Reference: 3PL/2008/1619/F.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed.


APP/F2605/C/09/2099661: Bylaugh: Land at Bylaugh Hall: Appeal against an enforcement notice for failure to comply with condition no 19 of planning permission 3PL/2004/0093/F (requiring no development before a detailed scheme of off-site highway improvements had been approved), by Christian Horwood: Enforcement Reference: ENF/2006/0306/CAS.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed and corrected Enforcement Notice upheld.  (Planning permission refused).


APP/F2605/A/09/2110593: Gressenhall: Land adjacent to Hall Farm Cottages: Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for a single detached dwelling for a farm manager, by Gorgate Ltd: Application Reference: 3PL/2009/0384/O.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed.


APP/F2605/A/09/2103987:  Kenninghall: Gills Farm, East Church Street: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of a new dwelling in walled garden, in curtilage of listed building and in conservation area, by Dr J M Keene: Application Reference: 3PL/2008/0868/F.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed.


APP/F2605/A/09/2104597: Narborough: Site behind 1 and 1A Meadow Close: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a bungalow by Mr P Sands: Application Reference: 3PL/2008/1554/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed.


This item was noted.