Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1)

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2010.

Additional documents:


Subject to an amendment of Minute No. 53/10 (Declarations) with reference to the Declaration of Interest made by Mr Francis, that the interest he declared was personal, rather than prejudicial, the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 March were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


An apology for absence was received from Mr F Sharpe.



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 an interest at the time the applications were introduced.


·        Cllr Bowes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10(1) due to involvement with a company associated with the proposed application.



Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Development Services Manager reported that the Core Strategy was currently being produced and would be available shortly. The Site Specific details would be presented to the Cabinet on 26 April and, if accepted, a consultation period of 6 weeks would follow.



Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 36 KB

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

Additional documents:


Attleborough: Land at Docking Wood, Leys Lane: Change of Use to include Standing Caravans for Mr A Gaskin: Reference: 3PL/2009/0604/F


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) (PPO MP) presented the report and explained the policies relating to sites for travellers. The proposal was compliant with the policy and was ideal in terms of its position and urban fringe location. However, there was an issue relating to the adequacy of the access road along Leys Lane which was mainly single track although there were gateways providing an opportunity for vehicles to pass each other.


The application had been deferred to allow negotiations to take place with the Highway Authority regarding highway improvements /passing bays.


Since then a transport consultant had been commissioned by the applicant and the report indicated that the increase in traffic as a result of the proposal would be modest and that road improvements were not considered necessary. However, the applicant was prepared to fund the resurfacing of one or more of the informal passing places or provide a new passing place.


Norfolk County Council, as Highway Authority disagreed that the road network was adequate and considered there would be a noticeable increase in traffic as a result of the proposal.


The applicant had recently put in an appeal against non-determination of the application within the statutory period.  This meant that the decision would be made by the Planning Inspectorate.  However, Members were asked to give an indication of what their decision would have been, to assist the appeal process.  Officers considered that there was a finely balanced view of the traffic implications and that it was difficult to predict traffic levels with the extended family groups that might live on the site.


Mrs Gaskin, speaking on behalf of the applicant supported the traffic consultants report and the provision of passing places.  She assured the Committee that the groundworks would be to a very high standard without causing disruption.  In reply to a Member’s question, Mrs Gaskin said that there was no restriction on who could use the site and they would certainly consider whether to make the site available to the wider gypsy community.


A local Member had discussed the proposal with the Ward Representative: they were in agreement that there was a substantial amount of work required on the road improvements and agreed with the Highways Authority that the road was not suitable for the potential additional traffic.


Several other Members expressed support for the use of the site for caravans but were also concerned that the access route was adequate.  One Member wondered how this application differed from a recent application where traffic generated along a narrow country lane had been no impediment to approval.


At the request of the Chairman Members were provided with an extract from the traffic survey, of peak flow movements along the access road. 


Members concluded that, subject to the provision of additional properly constructed passing bay(s) on the lane, they would have been minded to approve the application.



Attleborough: Slough Lane: Proposed Residential Development for Bennett Plc: Reference: 3PL/2010/0033/F (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


Members were informed that the officer recommendation had changed to approval since the applicants had made further revision to the plans in relation to the positioning of the pumping station, which addressed the concerns about tree damage.


The issues concerning the proposal were outlined. Although outside the Settlement Boundary for Attleborough the site met the criteria for housing proposals under the 5 year land supply consideration (PPS 3).  The site was a semi-derelict brown field site.  The proposal included a mix of units which met local need, with six of the dwellings to be built as affordable housing, two of which would have wheelchair access.  In terms of sustainable construction the properties would be fitted with air source heat pumps exceeding the requirement of Policy DC15 on Energy Efficiency.


A small open space was provided under the plan, which would meet, in part, the policy requirement but a further contribution for open space (DC 11) would be required by the developer under a section 106 agreement.  Although density levels fell below the recommended limit of PPS 3, this was considered acceptable as the proposal would improve the appearance of the local area. The visual impact to the neighbouring properties would be reduced by the positioning of single storey properties in critical locations.


Extensive discussions had taken place regarding the trees surrounding the site, eight of which were the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.  Although it was not intended to remove these trees, the proximity of the proposed development and underground infrastructure would put pressure on the trees and consideration needed to be given to overshadowing.  Since the plans had been revised to reduce any impact on the trees, the Tree & Countryside Officer had withdrawn his concerns.


Objections had been raised concerning the impact of the additional traffic generated by the development.  The Highway Authority had raised no objections.  The proposal included a scheme for highway improvements to be funded by the developer: a new footway, realignment of the junction, installation of a speed reduction sign and extension of the speed limit.


In response to a Member’s query it was confirmed that an agreement for a financial contribution towards transport had been agreed which would be used to improve the local bus stop.


The level of contributions made by developers to Highway improvements was discussed by Members and the Development Services Manager (Capita) informed Members that officers were working on this for future developments.


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



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Richmond Park Golf Club

Saham Toney



Bennett plc




Necton Farms Ltd




Mr H Edwards




Chapel Partners




Chapel Partners




Mr and Mrs A Bebbington





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)               Item 1: Saham Toney: Land South of Ovington Road: 22 holiday lodges and associated landscaping for Richmond Park Golf Club: Reference 3PL/2009/1172/F  


Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Cllr Bowes left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) explained that Policy DC8 allowed for tourist development where various considerations were met.  A letter from a holiday company had shown increasing demand for tourist accommodation in the area.  The site was well positioned between existing settlements and facilities which would be accessible by foot.  Sustainability was at a reasonable level and met building regulation requirements.  The surrounding landscape was open but due to land fall the views from adjacent public areas were limited so that the visual impact was not deemed harmful.


An objection from the Environment Agency in relation to flood risk had been resolved by raising the chalets above the flood risk level. The developer would be reminded of the need to promote wildlife and a condition relating to this would need to be added.


An issue of highway safety had been raised by the Highway Authority in relation to the increase in traffic resulting from this development and the inadequacy of the substandard road junctions to the east and west of the site.  The visibility at both junctions was not good; with the Saham Road/A1075 junction being the more restrictive of the two. Photographs of the junctions were shown


On balance Officers considered that the proposal met local policy on tourism and that the benefits of the development were sufficient to outweigh the highway issues, particularly as the development would not generate a great deal more traffic than at present.


Mr Bryan, speaking on behalf of the applicant, informed Members that the lodges were high quality buildings and would provide suitable family accommodation which would complement the golf club facilities. The majority of the chalets were well positioned around the lake. Public consultation meetings regarding the proposal had been extremely positive.


In response to a Member’s query, Mr Hall, agent for the applicant, described the proposed system for dealing with outfall water from the chalets through a large reed bed system.


A Member supported the proposal for its design and position and the value that it would bring to the local community in terms of additional income and employment opportunities.  It was suggested that the Highway Authority should address the issue of the junction with the A1075 by extending the speed limit to cover the junction and to improve the visibility by improving the hedgerow.


Approved as recommended. Also Highway Authority be requested to consider improvements to the junctions as suggested.


(b)               Item 2: Attleborough: Slough Lane: Erection of 22 dwellings for Bennett

Plc: 3PL/2010/0033F


            Approved, see Minute 67/10


(c)               Item 3 Necton: Nutts Barn site off Ivy Todd Road: Erection of steel

framed general purpose building for Necton Farms Ltd:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.


Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (For Information) (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 44 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.



A member informed the officers that he had been told there may be bats in one of the properties on page 31 of the list of decisions.  As bats are a protected species they would have legal protection.  The Council was not the enforcing authority and the information would be referred on.


Decisions noted.



Enforcement Items (For Information) (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 59 KB


  • Roudham: Camp Farm (2006/0115): Item 1


The Solicitor and Standards Consultant announced that the High Court hearing was due in October 2010.


  • Bylaugh: Bylaugh Hall (2006/0306): Item 2


A member expressed the hope that the compliance with the Breach of Condition Notice would be pursued at once, expiry date of 12th May.


  • Attleborough: Swangey Farm, Swangey Lane (2008/0011): Item 4


In reply to a query from a Member, the officers agreed to check whether the application submitted in December was out of time or had been refused.


  • Colkirk: North Pole Farm (2009/0072/CAS): Item 7


The Solicitor and Standards Consultant informed members that the appeal was due to be heard on 2nd June. In noting that the enforcement notice sent through the post had been returned, a Member asked whether delivery by hand could be tried, in order to ensure valid service


The report was noted.