Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 74 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2010.


The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Apologies & Substitutes

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence had been received from Mr P S Francis.


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.


Councillor M Fanthorpe declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 13 (Dereham) by virtue of being  a member of Dereham Town Council.


Chairman's Announcements


The Chairman made her usual announcements regarding the fire exits and mobile phones etc.


There would be English Heritage Training for Members and Officers all day on 8 February 2011 and the second part of the CABE Training (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) would take place all day on 18 February.  Members had previously been advised that it would be beneficial for them to attend, even if they had not attended the first part.


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.


There were none.


Urgent Business

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 (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


There was nothing new to report.


Deferred Applications pdf icon PDF 32 KB

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




Attleborough : Land off Honeysuckle Way : Proposed Residential Development : Applicant : Norfolk Homes Ltd : Reference 3PL/2010/1041/F pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The application was for residential development on land to the north of Honeysuckle Way, Attleborough, and would comprise of 66 dwellings, a new access road and provision of two areas of public open space.  A range of house types were proposed and would be either 1½ or 2 storeys, with 26 provided as affordable.


In the late 1990s, the site had been proposed for allocation but was deleted due to general housing over supply.


Anglian Water had stipulated that no dwelling be occupied prior to March 2012, and the Applicant had stated that that would fit in with their timeframe.


The two areas of public open space amounted to 81% of the total open space provision required by Core Strategy Policy DC11.  In order to compensate for the shortfall and in lieu of the provision of children’s play equipment, a financial contribution of £28,880 was proposed.  The Applicant had indicated that they would be happy for the terms of the legal agreement to be broadened to include general green infrastructure provision. 


Breckland’s view was that the development had been designed to minimise the affect on local properties, although some local residents had raised concern. Traffic would be spread equally between two arms of access roads and a 20 mph zone would be extended. The proposed development met PPS3 despite being outside the settlement boundary.


Mr Harper, for the Applicant said Norfolk Homes wanted to create family homes and that the site was part of the surrounding estate and was deliverable. The 40% affordable housing would meet Code Level 3 with the rest of the housing being 15% above building regulations, they would be air tight and as well insulated as possible. Many changes had been made in response to concerns raised and they wanted to maintain and enhance biodiversity.  10% renewal energy would be met.


Mr Stasiask, Ward Representative stated that the 66 dwellings outside the settlement boundary conflicted with the Core Strategy and that there was a huge shortfall not just in Attleborough but every town in Breckland, and whilst the Town Council would be grateful for the money, they were opposed to the application.   He believed the application came through ‘on the back of’ not having a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land in Breckland. 


He advised that the Attleborough Task Force was in the middle of a consultation period seeking views of NR17 and NR16 and they wanted residents to decide where growth would be.  He stated there were horrendous traffic problems in Attleborough and that the application did nothing to help those. £¼ million funding had been secured and it was necessary to make sure all residents were consulted.  Whilst he acknowledged there was a shortage of open space in Breckland, he felt to try and get away with a 1/5th less than was required was unsatisfactory, and he believed that whilst in the fullness of time it might be acceptable, it was not at the moment and hoped that Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.


Harling : Cloverfields, Lopham Road : Proposed Residential Development of 17 no. Houses Including a Mix of 2, 3 and 4 Bedroom Houses : Applicant Mr Burton : Reference : 3PL/2010/1079/F pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive


The application was for a residential development on the edge of Harling and would comprise of 17 dwellings.  The site was already partly developed. Affordable housing fell slightly short of 40%.  The Applicant was not a developer but there were no obstacles to development known.


The proposal would significantly exceed the planned level of growth for Harling and would conflict with the spatial vision for the area with regard to existing housing commitments in the village.  The development would compound over supply and take units over 50.  It was important to recognise that the 50 unit allocation was not a ceiling but did give a clear view of the overall spatial vision and concern was that this application tipped the balance.


Density was relatively low, with the tree belt being retained.  The proposal did have a number of merits as outlined in the report and it would make a contribution towards housing land supply (land with planning permission was included in the 5 year land supply).


Mr Belton, Agent said that for clarity, the 50 dwellings were not a constraining number with regard to spatial vision.  He stated a Planning Inspector had stated that this allocation would not conflict with Breckland’s core strategy and that paragraphs 69 and 71 of PPS3 were a general guidance and not an absolute requirement.  He added that 11 of the 17 dwellings  were outside of the Settlement Boundary, and the proposal would help the Authority meet its housing contribution.  It had considerable merit and would meet the core strategies and he felt it would be unreasonable to refuse.


Concern was raised by a Councillor that the Committee had reluctantly agreed in the past to go up to 65 which was above the 50 house guideline for Harling, and with the current application the Committee had been asked for a 60% increase on the 50 houses.  The residents did not want an excess of houses built in their parish and he believed the increase to 82 houses would not be sustainable for the parish.


Councillors were concerned that Highways had not raised an objection despite there being one access road shared with an industrial estate.  The Principal Planning Officer clarified the history of the previous development and that Highways’ concern was about restricted visibility but since that time, they had raised no objections.  A Councillor stated the whole estate had been engineered around retaining access and he felt aggrieved for the previous developer of the original 25 dwellings.


East Harling was a service centre and only a very short distance from a train station and fire station, it was very well serviced.


Having been through site specific panel meetings Members had been mindful to listen to Parish Councils and once again, Harling Parish Council had made it quite plain that they did not wish any more development.  The road was very difficult to negotiate, the nursery school was full to capacity and if the objections of Harling Parish Council were overridden, it would be contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.


Shipdham : Land to the East of Pound Green Lane : Residential Development : Applicant : Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1095/0 pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive


The application was for outline planning permission for 35 dwellings on the edge of Shipdham.  The site was situated to the south of Market Street rear gardens.  The dwellings consisted of 1-4 bedrooms.


Existing access would be upgraded and the Applicant had indicated that screen planting would be added, the majority of trees on site and on boundaries would be retained with some enhancement, the pond would be enclosed by concrete posts and wire fencing. 


The Parish Council had objected and 16 letters of objection had been received along with some letters of support.  No objections had been received from any of the external consultees.  Norfolk Landscape Archaeology required a condition to be attached requiring further investigative work to be carried out, as the initial investigation had uncovered evidence of Medieval metal workings and artefacts. There would be a requirement for a contribution to open space and it was for Members to determine if they required a full requirement of open space provision or take a contribution in lieu.


The development would be outside of the defined Settlement Boundary, it represented encroachment into the countryside and was of concern as to how it related to the surrounding development in terms of density.


Mr Irvine, Agent advised that the site had been part of a submission that formed part of a much larger site, but it had been reduced down to 35 with the aim to deal through Planning and not the LDF process.  If approved it would come forward 12 months in advance of an LDF site.  It had the advantage of helping the Council’s 5 year supply and with regard to the Government’s New Home Bonus, the Council would receive extra money.


He referred to the ‘over cooking of the site’ and stated that whilst it was thought to be a very well located and screened site, it had been a difficult balancing act, so the density had been looked at and it had been realised that they had ‘got it wrong’.  However he felt it would be helpful for Members to make comments with regard to the changes at the eastern end of the site and whether or not bigger plots would be favoured with less housing, as opposed to withdrawing the application.


Mr Hewett, Ward Representative said it was not a development that had strategy in mind, it encroached into the countryside and was a ‘back fill’, it was outside the settlement boundary, contravened policies, and most of all the access was simply inadequate, and he could not believe that Highways had not objected.  With regard to the Housing Enabling and Projects Officer’s comment within the report, he said Shipdham had more than 70 properties with planning permission.


Councillors had concern over access, it being back land, crowded and of bad design.


RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds of it being detrimental to the character and appearance of that part of Shipdham and outside the village Settlement Boundary.






Shipdham : Land off Parklands Avenue : Residential Development : Applicant : Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1096/0 pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive


The application sought outline planning permission for residential development consisting of 15 dwellings. However, the Applicant had agreed to withdraw the layout, so the Committee were required to consider access and scale only at the meeting.  The site was outside the settlement boundary but was one of the preferred sites.  It provided 40% affordable housing, but no designs were shown at the meeting and layout was not looked at in depth.


Existing trees would be retained and enhanced.  A £5000 payment towards a pedestrian crossing would be required.


17 letters of support and 2 letters of objection had been received along with a petition containing 33 signatures of objection.  A good level of consultation had been undertaken consisting of site notices, press advert and all neighbours notified.


Mrs Jordan, Objector said the development would be at the bottom of gardens, and most of the affected residents were elderly and unable to attend the meeting or send emails.  She advised that most of the objections were with regard to sewerage, access (huge volume of traffic already), village infrastructure, increased noise and disturbance.  She queried whether the consultation had been made available to all residents, and asked whether a heritage statement would now be required.  She had attended all previous Parish Council meetings and was aware that the development had been formally known as SH3 which had been rejected by Shipdham Parish Council.


Mr Irvine, Agent stated that the proposal had been changed from 20 dwellings to 15.


Mr Hewett, Ward Representative asked that the Committee should consider and listen to the voices and messages of those affected.  Parklands was a quiet area and full of elderly residents.  Should the application be approved he requested that it be subject to the very clear concerns of residents and would want the significant conditions covered of timing, access, noise and open space. 


A Councillor had concern with car parking and that it was an outline planning application.  From the layout shown he felt that the end properties had been pushed there because of garages. He felt that the end of the site should be looked at carefully to pull away from properties at the end of Watton Road, and wished that a soft boundary be retained.


Other concerns were that the development should be of low height housing or bungalows, about drainage (due to the problems reported at the south edge of Shipdham), and access to the main road.  Also, the proposal to move a bridleway would involve making a TRO, which would require Norfolk County Council’s approval which might not be received.  The Solicitor and Standards Consultant confirmed it would have to be formally diverted, but that a process had to be followed.


Breckland had a 1.7 year supply of land available and a Councillor did not understand the emphasis on continuously having a 5 year supply.  The Development Services Manager explained the process, and that LDFs had to be reviewed on a regular basis and the PPS expected the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.


Dereham : Land off Norwich Road : Proposed Residential Development Open Space & Cemetery : Applicant : Taylor Wimpey : Reference : 3PL/2010/1142/F pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive


Councillor M Fanthorpe declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Dereham Town Council.


The application was for full planning permission for residential development and green infrastructure on land at Norwich Road, Dereham which fell outside the settlement boundary. With the exception of drainage, the proposal fitted physically well and would make quite an important contribution to green infrastructure not only for the development but for Dereham too.  It had been brought forward in line with local policy and the applicant had confirmed that they would commence development in a reasonably short term if the application was agreed.  In terms of landscaping, the proposals had been well conceived.  Changes to proposals had been addressed following criticisms received with regard to parapet gables, more traditional patterned windows and flint work incorporated in more prominent locations.  Bungalows were proposed around all sensitive boundaries. 


There were some outstanding drainage issues with regard to foul drainage and water quality and it was recommended that the application be deferred until the issues had been concluded. The Dereham WwTW had limited capacity and concern had been raised by Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England with regard to foul water treatment and the ecologically sensitive areas.  It was believed sensible therefore to allow further time for foul surveys to be undertaken.  The site had good access to public transport and financial contribution negotiations were ongoing with Norfolk County Council


Feedback from Committee Members was sought to go through the application to get agreement with regard to the way forward.


Mr Hyde, Agent was happy for the application to be deferred. 


A Councillor was concerned about day to day drainage as the Norwich Road sewer was working above capacity.  The Agent said the applicant had commissioned a report to look into the issue with the outcome that foul drainage would be controlled on site, no discharge would occur, and flooding on Norwich Road would not be made any worse.


Mr Calvert, Agent said the sewer from the development would be routed to a pumping station in the corner of the development.  He was asked why a pre-treatment plant could not be used instead of a holding tank.  He explained that Anglian Water had indicated that a 50 cubic metre tank on site would be suitable and was required to meet building regulations, and that nothing else needed to be provided. The Agent advised that if on- site treatment was provided, it would take up much more land and therefore reduce the number of houses on site. 


Mr Hyde, Agent, said the primary objective should be to connect to the public sewerage system, and if that were not possible then they may well have to fall back and deliver alternative solutions.


Four wheelchair adapted bungalows would be incorporated within the development.


The Development Services Manager advised that the application would not be brought back to Committee until the drainage issues were clear.  Further detailed conversations with the applicants would take place, and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 55 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


David Watson Transport Ltd


36 to 38


Norfolk Homes Ltd




Mr P Burton




Mr I Leonard




Mr I Leonard




Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd




Mr & Mrs D Alston


44 to 46


Mr N McLeod


47 to 50



RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :


(a)       Item 1 : Weeting : David Watson Transport Ltd., Mundford Road : Vary S106 agreement to allow vehicles owned/operated by Applicant to use A1065 through Brandon on PP 3PL/2005/0326/F. 

Reference : 30B/2010/0001/OB


Members were made aware of the history of the site and the existing Section 106 Agreement.


Mr Watson, Applicant, felt that the restriction was overly restrictive and hampered his business, stating that the cost to his business was £60,000 prior to the recent fuel increase.  His business generated 12-15 movements a day through Brandon, and the vehicles would usually be empty through the High Street.


Strong objections had been received in respect of any additional movement through Brandon.  The Ward Representative had sent an email supporting the recommendation of refusal on the grounds of the impact on local congestion and that the applicant had been well aware of the situation when he took on the tenancy of the building.


The Applicant advised that the direct route to Barton Mills was 10 miles, and the route to avoid Brandon was 22 miles, more than double, which added 37,000 litres of diesel, £40,000 costs and additional driver time, totalling £63,000.  One quarter to one third of the trucks were away from site all day, 4-6 rigid vehicles left before the rush hour and returned after it.  The extra 37,000 litres of diesel was a waste and the £63,000 costs was crippling to his business.  There was one year left on the current lease and he would consider the viability of the depot if the variation was refused.


Whilst the Chairman understood why the restriction had been included in the legal agreement, she believed it unreasonable when the costs of £63,000 were considered against those to the environment.


It was felt by one Councillor that although he was aware of the traffic situation in Brandon, 10-12 movements was marginal, and should not handicap a particular business.


There was a need for a by-pass.


Approved contrary to recommendation on the grounds :-


(1)       of an acknowledged need to support a local business and local economy and that,


(2)       the additional movement through Brandon would be only a marginal increase.



(b)       Item 2 : Attleborough : Land to North of Honeysuckle Way : Residential development (66 dwellings & amend 2 no. prev approved dwellings, assoc garages, roads footways etc for Norfolk Homes Ltd

Reference : 3PL/2010/1041/F


Approved, as recommended, see Minute No. 09/11


(c)        Item 3 : Harling : Cloverfield, Lopham Road : Proposed residential development of 17 no. houses including a mix of 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses for Mr P Burton : Reference : 3PL/2010/1079/F


Refused , as recommended, see Minute No. 010/11


(d)       Item 4 : Shipdham : Land to east of Pound Green Lane : Erection of 35 dwellings with associated open space, access and infrastructure for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1095/0


Refused, as recommended, see Minute No. 011/11


(e)       Item 5 : Shipdham : Land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.


Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (For Information) pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.



This item was noted.


Enforcement Items (For Information) pdf icon PDF 63 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive


In response to questions submitted by a Member, the Development Services Manager said with regard to :-


Billingford :  the Enforcement Officer at been out to Billingford and the site enforcement was not affected.  Discussions were ongoing with the Solicitor with regards to additional work.


Colkirk :  the applicants had until 22 March 2011 to comply.


Appeal Decisions (For Information)

APP/F2605/D/10/2137574 : Thetford : 43 Arlington Way, Brettenham, Norfolk IP24 2DZ : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of raised decking, pergola and summerhouse by Mr & Mrs W MacDonald : Application Reference 3PL/2010/0660/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/D/10/2139780 : Thetford : 2 Pound Green Lane, Shipdham, Norfolk IP25 7LF : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to remove a conifer hedge along the northern boundary of the property and replace it with a fence of wooden panels and concrete posts and concrete gravel boards, height of fence 1.75 metres – length of fence 18.5 metres by Mrs Jacqueline England : Application Reference 3PL/2010/0850/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/10/2134646 : Dereham : Langthorne, Swanton Close, Norfolk NR19 2HL : Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for a residential development of 1 no bungalow by Mrs J M Attwood : Application Reference 3PL/2010/0425/O

Decision : Appeal Dismissed








With regard to The Bull, Litcham, Planning Permission had been granted but Listed Building Conditions had not been approved.


Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information)

3CM/2010/0016/F : Lyng : CE VC Primary School : 1 56.04m2 roof brick built extension to provide a Resource Room and disabled EC, and provision of a canopy to enable dry, level access to the rear classbases for Director of Childrens Services.

Decision : Conditional Approval


3CM/2010/0026/F : St Peter & St Paul : Primary School : 2 classbase extension to existing school for NCC Childrens Services.

Decision : Conditional Approval


3CM/2010/0033F : Necton : VA Primary School : Erection of 3.6m high canopy in the south west courtyard of the main school building for Necton V A Primary School.

Decision : Conditional Approval


This item was noted.


Sporle : Variation of Section 106 Agreement : Proposed Residential Development Hill Farm : Applicant Mrs E Gent REFERENCE : 3PL/2007/1303/0 & 3PL/2007/1305/0 pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The application was to request a variation of the terms of the Section 106 agreement with regard to 3 plots in the southern part of the site.


RESOLVED, approved as recommended