Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 85 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2010.



The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies & Substitutes

To receive apologies for absence.


An apology for absence was received from Mr F Sharpe, Mr B Rose was present at the meeting as his substitute.


Mr J Labouchere left the meeting. at 1.30pm, Mr P Duigan joined the meeting as his substitute.



Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received

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.


Mr Duigan declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 134/10 as a Member of Dereham Town Council which, had an interest in the application, and he left the meeting for the duration of this item.


Mr Fanthorpe declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 134/10 as he lived near the proposed site and he left the meeting for the duration of this item. 



Requests to Defer Applications included in this Agenda

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.


Application Reference No. 3PL/2010/0516/O at Beeston by Mr Scammell for alterations to the Ploughshare Public house, car park & erection of three terraced dwellings was deferred for consideration at a future meeting.


Application Reference No. 3PL/2010/0319/F at Lyng by Baileys of Norfolk Ltd for Lakes 1,2,3,5,6,7 change of use for recreational fishing & lake breeding & growing of fish, car parking, was withdrawn.



Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


The consultation period for the Local Development Framework closed on 31st July and over 1,700 comments had been received, which were being processed and would be available to view on the Councils website. The vast majority of comments (95%) related to proposed sites, mostly in Dereham and Shipdham. An analysis of the comments was being prepared and would be presented to the Council. The Attleborough Housing Area Action Plan was being considered by the Attleborough Task Force and would be included in the Issues and Options consultation document.



Deferred Applications pdf icon PDF 33 KB

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


Wretham: Field (Larkshall 2): Proposed Potato Store extension for A F Machinery Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/0458/F pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.


Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report on the application which had been deferred from the previous meeting to receive further advice regarding the potential effect of this development within the Special Protection Area for Stone Curlews.


Research had shown that the birds would avoid nesting near areas of development and, in accordance with both The Habitats Regulations and Council Policy CP10, any proposed development would need to show that there would be no potential adverse effect on the Stone Curlew Special Interest feature of the Special Protection Area.within a 1500 metre protection zone. Although the proposed potato store extension was relatively small compared to other nearby agricultural buildings and was screened to the south by Breckland Forest and Bridgham Heath; there was no certainty that the proposal would not affect the Stone Curlews, and therefore a recommendation of refusal was made. If Members were minded to approve the proposal a referral to the Secretary of State would be required.


Mr Yaxley, an ecology specialist speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that an assessment of the impact of the proposal had shown that there would be no adverse effect on the Stone Curlews; the proposed development would not result in an increase in human activity; the site would be shielded by woods and other buildings; and that Stone Curlews were affected more by housing rather than agricultural buildings. A consultation with Natural England had referred to the screening which was provided by the railway embankment and the forest.


Mr Cowen, Ward Representative, said that the proposal represented such a small proportional increase to the existing building and activity in the area that he did not believe it would have an adverse effect on the Stone Curlews. The birds had been seen nesting on Bridgham Heath which showed that the surrounding building had no adverse effect. He advised Members to consider the economic needs of the business and that the current system of transporting the potatoes to Boston to store and then bringing them back for grading was ridiculous. The local community fully supported the application.


Members queried the distance of the buffer zone and whether there would be potential for some form of phasing towards the boundary where the development was proposed. The Solicitor advised that the 1500 boundary was not a fixed limit and that it was a matter of judgement whether it was likely that the Stone Curlews would be affected. The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) commented that an adverse effect had been noted at 2500 metres and that the 1500 limit had been agreed as a compromise in terms of the policy.


A Member commented that as a previous identical ar application in 2009 had been refused on the grounds of its adverse effect on the SPA, and that there had been no significant changes, the recommendation for refusal should be supported.


Members discussed the significance of the proposed extension in relation to the other agricultural buildings on the site and whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.


Breckland 5 Year Supply of Housing Assessment (for information) pdf icon PDF 78 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.


Additional documents:


The Planning Policy Officer presented a report of the 5 Year Supply of Housing Update Statement 2010. Planning Policy Statement 3 required the Council to show it had a 5 year supply of deliverable sites to meet the housing need in Breckland. The Core Strategy identified that 19,100 new homes would be needed between 2001 and 2026, equating to 807 per year, including the previous shortfall. The five year housing requirement for the District is 4,035 dwellings and the District was 2,075 short of the target.


There are 3 types of sites where housing could come from; existing sites with planning permission agreed, sites identified by the LDF process and new sites where housing would be deliverable and met the criteria of availability, suitability and achievability. The LDF sites would not be included in the statistics until they had been formally adopted by the Planning Inspectorate which should be by the end of 2011. On adoption of the LDF site specifics and the Area Action plans the 5 year land supply should be met.


The Leader of the Council commented that he had met with the Secretary of State and discussed the 5 Year Plan process and the need to show local community support to make exception decisions for applications which conflict with policy. Potentially the 5 Year Plan could be used as a loophole allowing developers to circumvent the normal planning process. Community consultation would be a key process in identifying and supporting appropriate development based on local need, whether in terms of affordable housing or open market development. Where a developer could show there is considerable local support and the development offered some benefit to the community, then Breckland Council should support and reflect the local needs.


Members discussed the potential pressure the Council would be put on to approve inappropriate developments in areas which had been identified as unsuitable or unsustainable. The Leader confirmed that that argument was likely to change. Members discussed the difficulties of planning developments in rural areas where there was generally a lack of public transport and employment and where some residents’ attitudes to any new developments could be negative. Further details on the changes to planning procedures and community involvement would be expected later in the year.



Bradenham: Hale Road: Proposed Residential Development for Clayland Estates: Reference: 3PL/2010/0280/F pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.



The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report of the application for 14 new dwellings. Whilst the site was generally outside the Settlement Boundary for Bradenham, due to the shortfall of housing land in the District, PPS3 required the Council to give favourable consideration to sites like this provided the certain criteria were met. The proposed development generally performed well in terms of design, providing a traditional village street scene with mix of housing, and would exceed the policy requirement in terms of sustainability. Affordable housing targeted towards local people would be provided and financial contributions are proposed including £40,000 for community facilities.


However, the village of Bradenham had not been identified as an area for significant development in the Core Strategy, there being no day to day facilities or services in the area, and the site is outside the Settlement Boundary. The site itself although not encroaching on the countryside would present a more built up appearance to the street scene, although retention of the hedging would help. The density of the housing build was relatively low. The site was elevated and although the houses were set back from the road they would affect the visual aspect.


Objections had been received from the Parish Council and local residents relating to loss of amenity, harm to character of the area, drainage and flooding problems and highway issues relating to traffic on Hale Road. The Highway Authority had not raised any traffic issues but objected on the grounds of travel sustainability and reliance on access by car.


The developer had offered to provide pedestrian refuges with short sections of footway and a crossing point to the footpath on the other side of the road. Further traffic management measures would help improve safety. The drainage issues should be addressed by additional drainage on site and gullies across the access road. There had been foul water drainage problems in the area but Anglia Water had raised no objections.


Mr Evans, representing Bradenham Cricket Ground commented on the benefits of the financial contribution offered by the developer if it were to go towards a new pavilion, which would provide an enhanced village facility.


Ms Stephan, representing Hastoe Housing Association, who would manage the affordable housing provision, supported the proposal. She said the plans were the result of lengthy consultation, were highly sustainable and would be built with quality materials and craftsmanship by a local developer. Wide consultation had been undertaken with the local community and details of 19 households had been taken with an interest in the affordable housing. Priority would be given to local families.


One Member raised concern that that there was a growth of planning applications contrary to planning policies requiring exceptions to be made and with special interests pushing for developments.


Although Members supported the provision of affordable housing as a means of enabling local people to stay in the village, they expressed concern regarding the elevated nature of the site, the standard of the design particularly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.


Dereham:Land adjacent to Peartree Cottage, The Neatherd, Norwich Road for Mrs L Scales: Reference: 3PL/2010/0502/F pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.



Mr Duigan and Mr Fanthorpe declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting.

It was noted that Members had received written representations.


The Principal Planning officer (Major Projects) presented the report of the application for 10 dwellings and construction of a new access road and improvements to an existing access road which crossed part of Little Neatherd, a registered common.


The proposal generally accorded with national and local planning policy and met the requirement for 40% affordable housing. The low density of the proposed housing was in context with the character of existing housing in the area. It was well screened from the surrounding area with minimal impact on the street scene although additional landscaping would help mitigate the landscape view from Norwich Road. The applicant had tried to reduce the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties by ensuring they were sited at an appropriate distance from the boundaries, set at an angle and had relocated windows to avoid overlooking.


The area of particular concern was the access to the site in relation to the effect on the character of Neatherd. Extensive discussions with the applicants had taken place to avoid changing the appearance by the repair and improvement of the existing access road. Improvements to the road would be carried out on in a sympathetic way using appropriate materials. The entrance to the site would involve removal and thinning of some trees but the Tree Officer’s view was that these trees were not significant and replacements would be provided where necessary. The access at the junction of Norwich Road would need to be widened to allow for 2 vehicles to pass which should not have significant adverse effect on the existing trees.


Concern had been raised regarding traffic and the suitability of the access to Norwich Road. The Highway Authority had raised concern whether the access should be upgraded and adopted which would affect the character of the existing road. Plans were in hand by the applicant to cover the future maintenance and management of the road.


Mrs Monument, Ward Representative, spoke on behalf of the objectors. The site was a rural area used as a paddock for grazing horses and would change fundamentally. There were concerns about the effect of the additional traffic to the site damaging the character and fabric of the access route to the Neatherd and having a detrimental effect to the old brick wall which ran along part of the boundary of the site. The potential traffic hazard of the access onto Norwich Road would be significant particularly at school times when the volumes were greater. The number of houses on the site was viewed as excessive and consideration should be given to a smaller scheme which would have a lesser impact.


Mr Eaton, local resident and objector, recommended that this part of Neatherd Moor should continue to be protected against change, as it had been for the last 100 years. The access track had a shallow construction base and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.


Attleborough; Teasel Road: Proposed Residential Development for Taylor Wimpey: Reference: 3PL/2010/0518/F pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.



The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report of the application for 21 dwellings on a plot of land that had been reserved as a primary school in an area of modern housing. The designers had tried to minimise the effects of the development on neighbouring housing by the retention of boundary screening; reduction of rear window size; provision of reasonable distance from neighbouring properties; housing set at an angle to avoid overlooking and change of one dwelling from a house to a bungalow.


Objections had been received in relation to increased traffic and parking but the Highway Authority had been satisfied that the road network was adequate and 2 parking spaces per dwelling had been allowed. An area of open space had been left as a visual amenity but fears had been expressed that children playing in this area could be exposed to danger from traffic on the adjacent road junction. However, there was a large play area to the north of the site which provided public recreation. Overall the proposal was in line with planning policy and the officer recommended approval.


Mr Palmer, local resident and objector, expressed concern about the adequacy of the fence around the open space to stop children running onto the road; the effect on local amenity; and the new development overlooking existing properties. Mr Ashbee, another resident and objector, said that he had asked the developer to consider replacing a 2 storey property with a bungalow to avoid overlooking his property, to plant further hedging and to ensure the ditch was left un-piped but had had no response. He also said there were issues of ownership and access to the ditch and hedge.


Mr Chapman, Agent for the applicant, said that adjustments had been made to the proposal to address residents’ issues and that there would be positive bio-diversity benefits and a financial contribution would be made towards community facilities. He confirmed that the ownership of the ditch had been investigated and it was covered by Riparian Rights and that there were no plans to pipe the ditch.


A Member supported Mr Ashbee’s request to consider replacing the proposed 2 storey dwelling and to leave the existing hedge. Members discussed the possibility of adjusting the plans and suggested making units 7 and 8 into single storey dwellings and that the grassed area and its boundary fencing needed to be reviewed.


Resolved, to defer the application, and ask the applicant to reconsider the design and layout of the development taking account of the above comments.



Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 123 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Clayland Estates




Baileys of Norfolk


58 – 60


Mrs Linsay Scales




Mr R Scammell


62 – 65


Taylor Wimpey




Mr G Middleton


67 – 70


Mr G Middleton


71 – 74


J A Askew and Partners

Old Buckenham

75 – 77


Mr R Childerhouse

Stow Bedon/Breckles

78 – 80


Hardingham Farms


81 – 83


Mr D Sayer


84 – 86


Fairways Partnership


87 - 90



RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows;


(a)   Item 1: Bradenham: Hale Road; Proposed residential development for Clayland Estates: Reference: 3PL/2010/0280/F


Refused, see Minute 132/10.


(b)   Item 2: Lyng: Baileys Lake Complex, Easthaugh Road, Wensum Valley: Lakes 1,2,3,5,6,7 change of use for recreational fishing & lake 4 breeding & growing of fish and car parking for Baileys of Norfolk Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/0319/F




(c)   Item 3: Dereham: Land adjoining Peartree Cottage, The Neatherd, Norwich Road: Erection of 10 dwellings with associated garages and access for Mrs L Scales; Reference: 3PL/2010/0502/F


Refused, see Minute 133/10.


(d)   Item 4: Beeston: Ploughshare, The Street: Alterations to Ploughshare Public House, car park and erection of three terraced dwellings for Mr R Scammell: Reference 3PL/2010/0516


Deferred, see Minute 128/10.


(e)   Item 5: Attleborough: Teasel Road: 21 dwellings and associated infrastructure for Taylor Wimpey: Reference: 3PL/2010/0518/F


Deferred, see Minute 134/10


(f)     Item 6: Stanfield; Wagtail Farm, Back Lane: Proposed change of use of land for the stationing of a mobile home to supervise the agriculture business for Mr G Middleton: Reference: 3PL/2010/0565/F


This application and Item 7 were considered at the same time.


The Principal Planning Officer presented the report of the applications for the siting of a mobile home and a piggery building. The applicant had been raising pigs and pullets on the site and had plans to increase production of pigs and raise pheasants and cob chickens. He had shown he had firm intention and the ability to develop the enterprise and that there was a need to check the stock during the night.


The mobile home was well screened from residential properties by existing hedging and was not considered visually intrusive. It was recommended that this was approved for 3 years. The piggery was of modest proportion, consisting of 6 internal pens and was shown to be necessary for the welfare of the sows and piglets during farrowing.


Objections had been received from local residents in relation to increase in noise, flies, smell, traffic, inadequate drainage/waste entering the watercourse. The Parish Council had not objected but asked for a review of the viability of the business. Environmental Health and the Environment Agency had no objections subject to conditions relating to foul/contaminated drainage and the removal of waste.


Mr Middleton, the applicant, explained that he needed to check stock and equipment 3 times a night which involved excessive travel and time. The lack of suitable indoor facility for the pigs had resulted in loss of stock during the previous winter. He used a slurry container for waste and welfare barrels for disposal of fallen stock. There would be no increase in traffic to the site and dirty water would go in a slurry container. He confirmed he had an agricultural holding number.


Members were satisfied with the information provided


            Approved as recommended, subject to conditions.


(g)   Item 7: Stanfield: Wagtail Farm, Back Lane: Proposed piggery building for Mr G Middleton: Reference: 3PL/2010/0566/F


Approved as recommended, subject to conditions. (See  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.


Applications determined by the Interim Chief Executive (For Information) pdf icon PDF 67 KB

Report of the Interim Chief Executive.






Applications determined by Norfolk County Council (for Information) pdf icon PDF 31 KB





Appeal Decision (for Information)

APP/F2605/A/09/2117270: Yaxham: High House, Mattishall Rd, Clint Green: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the replacement of Hill House and its outbuilding with 2 semi-detached houses with parking and a detached garage to the rear for Mr & Mrs T Partridge: Ref: 3PL/2009/0291/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed