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 104 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2010.





The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2010 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 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.


  • The Chairman declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda item 9 (North Elmham) as one of her relatives owned land adjacent to this site.  


  • Mr J. Labouchere also declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda item 9 (North Elmham) by virtue of knowing the owner. 



Requests to Defer Applications included in this Agenda (Agenda Item 5)

To consider any requests from Ward Members, officers or applicants to defer an application included in this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public attending for such applications.


A request had been received from Councillor Candy Sheridan (North Norfolk District Council) to defer Schedule Item 1 (Attleborough).   As Chairman of the Gypsy Council, she had asked the Committee to defer this application to enable further consultation with the Highways Authority about road access to this site. 


A local Member confirmed that access was likely to be a significant problem for the site.  However Members agreed that they would nonetheless like to consider the application that day. 


AGREED to hear this application at the meeting.






Urgent Business (Agenda Item 6)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.





Local Development Framework (Standing Item) (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Development Services Manager said that with regard to Site Specifics, a final meeting had been held on 25 February.   This had decided the settlement boundaries for Dereham, Swaffham and Watton.  It had also agreed the sites for cemeteries and open spaces. 


He added that there were currently discussions underway to decide the best way of reporting all this information to Cabinet – not least in terms of how many meetings would be required to pull the appropriate information together.


He also drew attention to:


  • The Attleborough Town Forum, and the Town and Parish Forum held at EcoTech in Swaffham, both of which had taken place recently; and


  • The Thetford Area Action Plan Officers would be holding further consultation meetings with key representatives during May, to discuss a large area to the North East of the town.  “Urban Delivery” were dealing with the town’s “Vision” document on behalf of the Council. 





North Elmham: Land Adjacent 7 Station Road: Residential Development by Land and New Homes Limited: Reference: 3PL/2007/1688/O (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


The Chairman declared a prejudicial interest in this case since one of her relatives owned land adjacent to this site.  


Mr J. Labouchere also declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of knowing the owner. 


Both Members then left the room and Mr N. Wilkin took the Chair for this item only. 


The Principal Planning Officer explained that this planning application had originally been submitted in 2007.  It had been granted approval, subject to a S.106 Agreement.  It had come back to the Committee because the S.106 Agreement was still outstanding.  The recommendation from the Planning Officers was therefore that, in the absence of a signed S.106 agreement, this application should be refused. 


The applicant, Mr Thompson, explained that there was no unwillingness to sign the S.106.   He had put a considerable amount of time and money into this proposed development.   The difficulty had been because of protracted negotiations with various other key signatories.


However he added that he had recently bought out three of the other parties, and had also ascertained that the Railway authorities no longer needed to be a signatory to the S.106 Agreement.   He was now ready to progress things further, and asked the Committee to give him a period of nine months’ grace to enable him to find a buyer.


As a comment, the Solicitor and Standards Consultant, said that there was no room for further specific negotiations at this stage: if it was felt that the S.106 was unlikely to be completed, then there was little point in any deferral.  


He asked the applicant to confirm if the amendments involved had actually been agreed, and Mr Thompson said that in principle he agreed the terms of the S.106 Agreement: it had just been a matter of getting others on board.


A Member asked if the original planning application was still valid, and it was explained that the clock did not start to run until formal permission was granted – i.e. after signature of the S.106. 


The Development Services Manager explained that in the event that Members refused this application, Mr Thompson could make a further application but that would have to reflect any policy changes which had come into force since 2007. 


It was acknowledged that this was an unusual situation and whilst some Members felt that this was an ideal site for Elmham, others remained concerned about the delay.   


Deferred for a maximum period of nine months to enable the S.106 Agreement to be signed. 


It was also resolved that in the event that the S.106 Agreement remained unsigned at the end of this period, then Officers would have delegated authority to refuse this application. 



Thetford: Sweyn Close/Fulmerston Road/Ulfkell Road: Proposed Residential Development by Peddars Way Housing Association: References: 3PL/2010/0013/F (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 73 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The Principal Planning Officer presented this application, explaining that it concerned proposals to redevelop land on the Barnham Cross Estate.  34 of the existing (sub-standard) dwellings would be demolished to enable a total of 66 dwellings on the site, together with associated open space, roads, parking and landscaping.    The proposed dwellings would comprise a mixture of units, including bungalows and apartment blocks, with a mix of affordable and open market housing. 


The site was located within an established residential area, bounded to the north by open land, including a play area and some allotments.   He confirmed that the line of pine trees at the back of the current development was protected by TPOs and would therefore be retained. 


Finally, he confirmed that the proposed development fell generally in line, and was consistent with, the Council’s Planning Policy.   The affordable housing proposed actually exceeded requirements.   The open space provision fell slightly short of these.  However, it had been proposed that there would be a financial contribution of £15,000. 


It was acknowledged that the footpath would see heavier usage, but it was not felt that this would have a significant impact on neighbours.  The Police Authorities had made no objections to the proposals on public safety grounds. 


The Principal Planning Officer concluded by saying that that there were currently some outstanding queries from the Environment Agency.  Any resolution for approval would need to be subject to these objections being withdrawn.  


Mr Brand, speaking as an objector, raised concerns about the location of the footpath which was only about 1.2 m from his dining room.  He felt that the increased traffic along the path would certainly have a detrimental impact on his property and he proposed a couple of alternative routes. 


He also had concerns about insufficient parking spaces and wondered if some of the trees on site, many of which had been severely pruned or even lost over the past decade, could perhaps be replaced with new planting, thus making room for more parking spaces.


Ms Hanford (the applicant) said that many of the existing properties on site had problems and were arguably beyond the end of their useful life.   There had been much local consultation about the proposals, both with groups and also individuals.  Peddars Way Housing Association had worked hard to ensure that any residents who needed to be moved had received suitable accommodation.   The application also proposed two car parking spaces for each dwelling, as well as an uplifting, contemporary design.   She confirmed that there had been full consultation with the Council’s Tree and Countryside officer with respect to the location of the access roads and nearby trees etc. and that bird and bat boxes would be set up.   


With reference to Mr Brand’s concerns about the footpath, she said that she had met with members of the Council’s Asset Team and was consulting about the possibility of moving this footpath slightly further way from this property. 


A Member spoke positively about the ongoing regeneration of the estate and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.


Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 88 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Mr Anthony Gaskin




Salvern Properties




Peddars Way Housing Association





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)   Item 1:  Attleborough:  Land at Leys Lane, Docking Wood:  Change of Use to include standing caravans for Mr Anthony Gaskin:  Ref:  3PL/2009/0604/F


The Principal Planning Officer explained that this application was for a change of use for the stationing of caravans for six residential gypsy pitches with utility/day room buildings and hardstanding. 


The site was located south of the town centre and the main railway line divided Leys Lane.  One end only gave pedestrian access, whilst the remaining part of the lane was extremely narrow.   The site (which was outside the Settlement Boundary) comprised an area of former woodland immediately abutting an existing gypsy site, which was currently occupied by a single gypsy family.


He felt that this was a finely balanced case.  From a local and national planning policy perspective, it was acknowledged that such accommodation was needed in the Attleborough area and the site performed well against many of the set criteria.  


Policy CP2 and Circular 1/2006 were relevant.  Care needed to be taken not to prejudice or pre-empt other sites being considered in terms of site-specific consultations as part of the LDF process.  


However, there were legitimate concerns, shared by the Highways Authority, about the road access to this site, which comprised a single track lane.  Any development would potentially lead to increased traffic and, bearing in mind existing local residents and commercial property, it was felt that problems could soon develop. 


The Development Services Manager acknowledged a fax that he and various Members had received that morning from the Ward Member, who was in favour of this application provided that the concerns about vehicular access could be satisfactorily resolved.


Mr Moore, speaking as an objector and a local resident, raised various concerns, including the amount of traffic using the road;  that planning permission had recently been refused for another house in the vicinity;  a small river/stream ran alongside the lane; that there was no mains sewage to the site; and that the site had been covered with trees.


Mrs Gaskin, speaking on behalf of the applicant (her husband), made the following comments:


·        They were keen to put down some roots and lead a more settled life.  


·        They believed that the traffic movement figures as quoted by the Highways Authority had been somewhat exaggerated.


·        There was a signed limit of 10 m.p.h. already in place.


·        Leys Lane was narrow,  but there were similar lanes in the area which were already busier.


·        Finally, she said that this application had been put through in a formal and correct manner, as opposed to just pulling trailers on to the land.  She also requested Members not to pre-judge her family or this application just because they were gypsies.


In discussion, Members were in general agreement that the key problem for this application was the road access.   On the one hand, there could be no control of the amount – or type – of vehicle which was currently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.


Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (For Information) (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Report of the Development Services Manager.


This item was noted.



Enforcement Items (For Information) (Agenda Item 13) pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Attention was drawn to the impending deadline for action at Attleborough (Mr Becker, Fine Furniture, Leys Lane).


Also that there was no change to the case at Roudham – Rackham, Camp Farm, which was still waiting for the case to be heard at the High Court. 



Appeal Decisions (For Information) (Agenda Item 14)

APP/F2605/A/09/2112629: Elsing: Rear garden to Elesa (between Elesa and The Cottage), Heath Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of a single environmental/sustainable dwelling between two existing properties on Heath Road by Mr Simon Cushion-Swales: Reference: 3PL/2009/0213/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/09/2108491: Bawdeswell: Adjacent to Bawdeswell Stores, The Street: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for subdivision of 4 bed dwelling house to three 2-bed dwellings by Mr M Thompson: Reference: 3PL/2009/0048/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/09/2108709: Dereham: Concord, South Green: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for proposed extension by Mrs Theresa Manoukian: Reference: 3PL/2009/0275/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/09/2110432: Rockland All Saints: 68 The Street: Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of four dwellings by Mrs Angela Firman: Reference: 3PL/2009/1467/O

Decision: Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/V/09/2107417 & APP/F2605/V/09/2107419: Thetford: Abbey Barns, Monksgate: Applications for listed building consent for demolitions, conversions and construction of new buildings to provide 16 residential units; and planning permission for the demolition of buildings on site and erection of 15 units, conversion of barns to 6 units and other building to 5 units by H G Developments: References: 3PL/2008/1339/LB and 3PL/2008/1340/F

Decision of the Secretary of State:  Grant of Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission


A Member took the opportunity to congratulate Officers and Members since, once again, all the Appeals listed had been dismissed.