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 679 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2010.


Councillor Stasiak made a statement concerning remarks he had made at the previous meeting, as Ward Representative, on an application for residential development in Attleborough by Mr Foulger and others (3PL/2010/0427/O).


At that meeting he had stated that the applicant had committed to provide Open Space with a previous application and should not renege on that undertaking.  He now understood that was not the case and he had been wrong to suggest that they would renege on any agreement.  He apologised and wished to put the record straight.


Other Members confirmed that they had also been under the same impression.


Mr Stasiak then left the meeting.


The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


There were no apologies or substitutions.



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.


Councillor Bowes and Mrs Spencer noted that they had visited the site of Schedule Item 6 (Cranworth).


Agenda Items 10 and 11 (Schedule Items 1 and 2) Necton:


  • Mr Labouchere declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing some of the objectors present in the room
  • Mr Kiddle-Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of the site landowner being a close friend.  He exercised his right to speak on the application before leaving the room
  • Mr Wilkin advised that he had attended presentations by both the action group and the applicants
  • All Members of the Committee had received direct representation on this application.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


The Chairman made her usual announcements regarding the fire exits, mobile phones, etc.  She then advised everyone that there would be a display, in the Norfolk Room, open to the public from 11am -12.30pm regarding the Necton applications (Agenda Items 10 and 11).  At 12.30pm the room would be closed to the public to allow the Members of the Committee to view the display during their lunch break.



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.


Schedule Item 3 (Swaffham) had been withdrawn by the applicant.



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.


There was none.



Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


Nothing to report.



Breckland Water Cycle Study: Phase II (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report and explained the background and reasons for the Study which formed part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework documents.


The detailed study had looked at Flood Risk Management, Water Supply, Drainage, Waste Water, Ecology and Sustainable Infrastructure and had been prepared by the Council working in partnership with NCC, Anglian Water, Natural England and the Environment Agency.


The five market towns had been assessed as they were the key areas identified for growth in the LDF Core Strategy.  With the exception of Thetford, the towns were located in dry areas with limited waste water discharge provision.


The key findings for each town were discussed briefly in terms of their ability to cope with future growth.


Thetford had:

-          licensed water capacity for expected growth

-          sufficient mains water to supply development areas

-          no need for Waste Water Treatment Works upgrade

-          capacity to accommodate town centre waste water from new development, but would need a new strategic sewer to serve development to the north of the town


Attleborough had:

-          licensed water capacity up to 2018

-          a requirement for new ground water resources from 2015 (a new bore hole at Carbrooke was proposed)

-          a large enough water supply for new development

-          requirement for new Waste Water Treatment Works (a new discharge pipeline was proposed)

-          capacity for a further 1500 homes before mains sewer upgrade was required


An Attleborough Member asked why they had previously been told by Anglian Water that there was no capacity in the existing sewer system. 


It was explained that the Study was based on a site-by-site analysis. Anglian Water had identified some localised pinch points.  Overall there was capacity in the system but not at the Waste Water Treatment Works.


A Thetford Member was concerned at the low levels in the Little Thet.  She understood that the Waste Water Treatment Works were not due for improvement and feared that this would have a huge impact on the river.


Another Thetford Member was surprised that the general assumption was that there was plenty of water as he did not believe that was the case.


The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the assumption was based on future, lower usage of water and that to meet commercial and residential requirements would be difficult if usage was not reduced.


Dereham had:

-          licensed capacity up to 2022 when a new bore hole at Bradenham was proposed

-          adequate mains supply to serve all proposed development sites

-          sewage treatment capacity issues

-          need for a main sewer trunk upgrade


A Member asked if the Norfolk Rivers Board had been consulted as the River Wensum already had problems accepting water from the Dereham Stream and if another bore was added it would cause problems.  He asked how surface water and the lack of treatment plant capacity would be dealt with.


The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that, in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.


Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 34 KB

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





Colkirk/Horningtoft/Whissonsett/Stanfield/Mileham/Beeston/Great Dunham/Kempstone/Little Dunham/Necton: Proposed Underground Electricity Cable System for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited: Reference: 3PL/2009/1189/F (Agenda Item 10)

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Additional documents:


Agenda Items 10 and 11 were discussed together (after all other business had been completed) following the lunch break when Members had been given the opportunity to view displays by both the applicants and the action group. 


Mr Rogers and Mr Francis were no longer present.


The Chairman explained that the format would be slightly different to the usual process, due to the size of the applications and the amount of public interest.  Instead of the usual three minutes allowed for public speaking, the Applicants, the Objectors and the Parish Councils would each receive 15 minutes to put forward their views.


The Chairman asked the audience not to wave their banners, heckle, cheer or boo during the discussion, so that Members would have the opportunity to hear all the information presented.


Mr Kiddle Morris – present as Ward Representative, declared a personal and prejudicial interest and exercised his right to remain in the room and present his views before leaving.


Mr Labouchere declared a personal interest.


All Members had received direct representation on this matter.


Mr Wilkin advised that he had attended presentations by both the applicants and the action group.  He was also a Ward Member of one of the parishes affected by these applications.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) gave a brief overview of the two planning applications, describing the elements involved, before the other parties spoke. 


Members were shown a map with the cable route from the off-shore windfarm to the sub-station at Little Dunham clearly marked.  The proposed site had an existing overhead cable running through it, which would provide the link to the National Grid.


The full application for the cable route would provide a 40m corridor for installation.  The corridor would cross two ‘B’ roads and one County Wildlife Site within Breckland.


The substation application was in outline form with all matters reserved.  A good deal of indicative information had been provided.  The site was currently an agricultural field with an existing pylon which would be relocated and linked to the substation.  The site would be terraced and landscaped with earth mounding and planting.  The plans included proposals for either an AC or DC layout with the ‘worst case/biggest’ development being considered.


Photographs of the various components of the substation were shown.  These included converter buildings, switch gear yards, transformers and cooling apparatus, all of which would be matters for future applications.


A few minor corrections to the report were pointed out including an amendment to the renewable energy targets referred to, which should be 15% by 2020 (not 2015). 


Additional information was also provided:


Objections had been received from the CPRE and the Iceni Partnership on grounds of harm to character and appearance. 


A letter of support had been received from Shaping Norfolk’s Future on the grounds of the economic benefits and providing renewable energy.


A local resident had provided correspondence from the Crown Estate clarifying that the applicants had originally been awarded a 300MW project which had since been extended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.


Necton: Land Off Necton Road, Little Dunham: Proposed Electricity Substation for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited: Reference: 3PL/2009/1188/O (Agenda Item 11)

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Additional documents:


This application was considered concurrently with application reference 3PL/2009/1189/F (underground cable).  The Members did not consider that the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient to overcome the landscape objections.


RESOLVED to refuse the application on grounds of detrimental impact on the landscape, contrary to Policy DC15 and CP11.


See Minute 185/10 above.



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 85 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited




Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited




Mr T Walker




Mr & Mrs Kennaugh




Childerhouse Lodge Farm




Morways Developments




Wellesley Capital Investment Ltd




Wellesley Capital Investment Ltd





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)         Item 1: Necton: Land south of Little Dunham bordering and to the west of Dunham Road: Construction and operation of a new electricity substation for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited: Reference: 3PL/2009/1188/O


Refused, see Minutes No 185 and 186/10 above.


b)         Item 2: Necton: Route between Colkirk and Necton: 45km buried cable system, between landfall at Weybourne Hope (North Norfolk) and Necton (Breckland) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited: Reference: 3PL/2009/1189/F


Approved, see Minute No 185/10 above.


c)         Item 3: Swaffham: OS 0830, Lynn Road: Residential development for Mr T Walker: Reference: 3PL/2010/0263/O


Application Withdrawn.


d)         Item 4: Ovington: The Old Mill House, Carbrooke Road: Conversion of stable block/barn to new environmentally friendly dwelling incorporating extension and access for Mr & Mrs Kennaugh: Reference: 3PL/2010/0403/F


This application proposed the conversion and extension of a stable block to create a dwelling.  The existing lean-to would be demolished and a boundary wall would be erected to divide the site.


The Ward Representative had sent a letter of support saying that the application would release the existing house for a larger family to use and allow the applicant to remain on site for business reasons.


Supporting information submitted by the applicant said that he needed to live close to continue operating his haulage business.


Mr Took, Agent, explained that the new dwelling was required as the existing house, originally bought by the applicant’s parents, was now too big.  The applicant had strong local ties and did not want to move from the vicinity and living on site would provide security for his business.  Eco-friendly features would be incorporated bringing the build to Code Level 3.


A Member asked if a reduction in scale had been suggested to the applicant and was advised that, due to time constraints when considering applications, negotiations could only take place before proposals were submitted.


Refused, as recommended.


e)         Item 5: Weeting: Field Barn: Residential conversion of barn including rebuilding of bedroom annexe and a new stable/garage block for Childerhouse Lodge Farms: Reference: 3PL/2010/0805/F


This application by a Breckland Member was for the conversion of an existing barn with the addition of two wings, one for bedroom accommodation and the other for stable and garage in place of two agricultural sheds.


The site was accessed by an unmade track which passed through a farmyard.  The access was also used by other dwellings.


The site was within the Stone Curlew buffer zone.


Officers did not consider that the proposal performed well against policy criterion.


Mr Mathews, Agent, said there had been no objection from the Parish Council or neighbours and Norfolk Landscape Archaeology wanted the barn retained.  He felt the Historic Building Officers objection to the proposal was personal and subjective.  The site was sustainable, being approximately two kilometres from the centre of Weeting which was designated as a Local Service Centre.  Sustainability should be defined in Breckland local terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.


Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (Agenda Item 13) pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.






Enforcement Items (Agenda Item 14) pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.





Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 15)

APP/F2605/A/10/2121924: Croxton: The Old Vicarage, The Street: Appeal against a refusal to grant outline planning permission for residential development (7 houses) with associated access, parking and turning areas by Mr G Riddle: Application Reference: 3PL/2009/0502/O

Decision:  Appeal Dismissed


Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/F2605/A/10/2121924: Croxton: The Old Vicarage, The Street: The application is made by Mr G Riddle for a full award of costs against Norfolk County Council. (For reasons explained in the decision, I have dealt with the application as an application for an award against Breckland Council).

Decision:  Refused







Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (Agenda Item 16)

3CM/2010/0011/F: Dereham: Toftwood Infants School: Erection of childrens centre with associated car parking, landscaping, lighting and fencingfor Director of Children’s Services.

Decision: Conditional Approval