Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 98 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011.


The Chairman had been incorrectly omitted from the list of those present in the printed Minutes to Members; the published Minutes had been corrected on the website.


Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Apologies & Substitutes

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Lamb and Rogers, and Keith Eccles, the Building Control & Development Services Manager (Capita Symonds for Breckland Council).


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 Nunn, in speaking as Ward Representative, declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 11 (Kenninghall), by virtue of being a distant relative of the applicant.


Cllr Bowes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 17 (ii) (Watton), by virtue of a legal issue with one of the developers.


Cllr Wilkin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 (Necton) by virtue of owning land near to the development site.





Chairman's Announcements


The Chairman introduced Paul Jackson, who would be in post as the new Planning Manager for Breckland and South Holland as from 1 April 2011.


Mr Jackson stated he looked forward to working with Breckland.


Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


The Principal Planning Officer advised that the SHAAP consultation closed at 12 noon on Monday, 21 March 2011.  230 letters of comment had been received.  Comments would be included in the report to go to Council on 24 April 2011 and passed to the PI Inspector.  The EIP would take place in July.  The timetable for the Inspection Report should be October 2011 with adoption of the site specifics in December 2011.


Deferred Applications 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.


Weeting : Application to Vary S106 agreement to allow vehicles owned/operated by applicant to use A1065 through Brandon on PP 3PL/2005/0326/F : Location : David Watson Transport Ltd, Mundford Road, for David Watson Transport Ltd Reference : 3OB/2010/0001/OB pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


At the Development Control meeting on 5 January 2011 Members discussed a variation of the terms of the S106 signed by Milbank Floors Ltd which related to a routing agreement prohibiting HGV traffic movements through Brandon and Weeting.


Members had agreed with the request by David Watson Transport relating to part of the site to allow up to 15 movements per day through the town in order to support the local business and reduce its overall transport costs.


Whilst all local concerns were relayed verbally to Members, the application was returned to the Committee in order to allow members of the public and the Town Council the opportunity to make direct representations to Members.


Weeting Parish Council had raised no objection previously to the proposal, but Brandon Town Council, Forest Heath District Council and Suffolk County Council had.


Suffolk County Council would be involved in developing and implementing an air quality action plan if DEFRA declared the need for one.  Nitrogen dioxide monitoring levels were shown for the period 2006-2009, and Suffolk County Council said at higher levels, they could be quite influential for vulnerable people.  15 traffic movements could have an impact on nitrogen dioxide levels and maintained their objection. 


Members could not support the recommendation for refusal. The applicant did not use Brandon currently so he was not part of the emission details provided.  Many HGVs came from Suffolk, so it was difficult to understand the Suffolk CC objection.   Members had every sympathy for the Town Council. 


One Member felt the applicant went into the site with ‘his eyes open’ and knew of the restriction and would recommend refusal.


Councillor Childerhouse (Ward Representative) had reiterated his objection that if the proposal was allowed, congestion would be increased and David Watson Transport Ltd was aware of the S106 before the lease for the site was signed.


Mr Hughes, Brandon Town Council, had main concerns of congestion and pollution. The remainder of the site could be available to others and it would set a precedent if the S106 was removed.  The railway crossing was to be upgraded and would add to the congestion and delay.


Mr. Lukaniuk, Objector, was also concerned about congestion.


Cllr Bishop, Objector, said Brandon had tried for 19 years to obtain a by-pass.  Traffic filled the High Street, and in an area of two miles there were four pedestrian crossings and 2 sets of traffic lights.  Extra traffic would create more problems and would be detrimental to health.


Mr Watson, Applicant, advised that compliance with the S106 agreement  cost him an additional 37,000 litres of diesel.  The direct route to Barton Mills was 10 miles, and the route to avoid Brandon was 21.9 miles, more than double.  It cost £43,500 for fuel which had increased by £4,000 since January and  cost £23,600 in extra driver time, totalling £67,000 which was a crippling cost.  He felt the rule was unfair for him, as every other company could travel through the area.  The Highways Development Officer and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.


Necton : Proposed Residential Development, Land off Mill Street for Hopkins Homes Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2010/1345/F pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Members had received written correspondence about the item.


Cllr Wilkin declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of owning land near the development site.  He left the meeting after addressing the Committee.


The application was for full planning permission for residential development on land to the north of Mill Street, Necton, for the erection of 30 dwellings and the construction of a new access road. 


The development would trigger an open space requirement, but the applicant had amended plans to remove a small area of open space and proposed a financial contribution instead.


There was concern with the centre of the scheme where the road geometry dominated the street scene, and there was no clear relationship between the road and houses.  It was felt that it could be improved, although the applicants would prefer to leave the scheme as in the application.  The Principal Planning Officer welcomed views of Members, and showed sketches of different road arrangements and surfaces.


Local residents were concerned about flooding.  A Flood Risk Assessment had been provided.  The developer of their own volition had undertaken works in the area to improve the existing system.


Another issue of concern was traffic and highway safety.  Mill Street only had a footpath along part of it, but it was proposed that an additional footway would link up with the existing one.  Minor works were proposed to the junction of Mill Street with hard landscaping to keep visibility splays clear.


If the application was approved, the legal agreement would not require a contribution to education.


Mr Woodward, Necton Parish Council, said they did not object.  Photos of Mill Street and Chantry Lane were shown after heavy rain.  The culvert should be made wider. The Parish Council would like to be involved with the contribution with regard to the S106. 


Mr Smith, Applicant, advised that over a year of pre-application consultations had taken place.  A half day exhibition at been held at Necton Village Hall. Following concerns, improvements to the existing surface drainage system had been made and additional amendments to the detailed layout.  Additional works along Mill Street would be undertaken.  There would be a financial contribution in excess of £40k.


Mr Plumtree and Mr Tanner, Objectors, suggested that as the culvert could not cope with the storm flow the developer should contribute to work on that, rather than the money used on recreation.  The development access onto Mill Street was inadequate, and access onto the A47 was dangerous. 


Cllr Wilkin stated the site had always been ripe for development and the design and mix of house types was quite acceptable, but he was concerned  the pond would be in a garden, and he did not think that the hard landscaping NCC proposed at the top of Mill Street would be enough, as the corner was very sharp.  Instead, he would like to see a raised table or a different surface on that section.  The village desperately needed a round-about.  With regard to the commuted sum, contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.


Kenninghall : Proposed Biogas Renewable Energy Plant, Land off Garboldisham Road, for Greenshoots Energy Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2010/1372/F pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Cllr Sharpe and other Members advised that they had received written communication on behalf of Kenninghall residents.


Cllr Wilkin stated that he had attended a function with the applicant, but that it was not relevant to the application.


The Chairman said that she had visited an Anaerobic Digestion Plant in Taverham where the applicant and members of the public had also been invited to visit.


Cllr Labouchere had attended the Anaerobic Digestion Plant, and had since been approached by an objector to the application by telephone.


Mr Nunn, Ward Representative declared a personal interest by virtue of being a distant relative of the applicant.


The application was for revised proposals for a renewable energy.  Key differences between the current proposal and the previously refused application were the siting of the proposed plant and the level of technical supporting information.  A new access was proposed off Garboldisham Road.


In excess of 80 letters of objection had been received, the majority of which had been local, along with a petition containing around 200 signatures.


There was concern about how the plant would sit within the landscape.  With the existing landscape features and the proposed additional planting the view was that harm to the landscape would be short term only and would improve the situation long term. 


The main source of noise would be from the operation of the CHP engine, and machinery during the day.  A Noise Assessment had been submitted which made clear that if no attenuation measures were put in place, there could be some disturbance. 


An Odour Assessment Report had been submitted with the application which provided a detailed analysis of likely odour emissions from the various elements of the development and the affect on properties, and proposed measures to mitigate the affects.  


Other comments received were increased traffic and the affect on the surrounding road network.  The level of traffic was not considered to be significant.  A condition was recommended for a construction traffic management plan in line with The Highway Authority’s recommendation.


The applicant had provided background information with regard to potential explosion risk and samples of health and safety issues that would need to be addressed by other legislation outside of planning.


At the time the application was submitted no use for the excess heat had been identified.  However since then, the applicant had said that an opportunity had arisen to use the excess heat with Crown Milling, which would be over and above what the applicant was required to do.  It would not be a formal amendment to the application but was given as background information for Members to consider; the energy plant would be connected to Crown Milling by underground pipes.  Local residents had had little or no time to consider the use of heat by Crown Milling generated by the proposed energy plant.


Mr Hall, Objector, was a parishioner and Deputy Chair of Governors at Kenninghall School, where some parents had considered removing their children.  The site was elevated and totally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 72 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :


Item No



Page No


Acorn Building Services Norfolk




Hopkins Homes Ltd




Greenshoots Energy Ltd




Mr R Old




Mr Richard Nunn

North Lopham



Mr & Mrs S Templeman





RESOLVED that the application be determined as follows :-


(a)       Item 1 : Dereham : Former Library Site, Church Street : Erection of 13 no. one bed flats and communal area with associated parking and landscaping for Acorn Building Services Norfolk Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2010/1259/F


The revised application was for full planning permission for the development of 13 one bedroom flats, together with communal facilities on land off Church Street in the centre of Dereham on the former Library site.  The site was located within the Dereham Conservation Area and was adjoined by Listed Buildings.  Some trees were subject to TPOs.


The design of the building was very similar to the previous approved scheme but different at the rear.  The accommodation was on 3 floors.  There were concerns with the visual impact of the building proposed at the rear as it would be close to the footpath, be dominant and have a visual impact on the character of the area.  The impact of the sycamore tree on future residents was of concern.


An S106 would be required with a development agreement which had not been drafted as undertakings had not been received from the applicant.


Mr Burden, Applicant, advised that consultations had taken place and the scheme had been revised seven times which minimised damage to the tree.  Consideration would be given to the tree crown and windows had been relocated to address shade. If the proposal was refused, it could be remodelled.  The S106 had not been drafted due to payment being made out to an incorrect payee, which had since been corrected.


The gate on the street was for security. A Member of the Committee believed a revised design should be seen by Dereham Town Council.


Refused, as recommended.


(b)       Item 2 : Necton : Mill Street : Erection of 30 residential dwellings with associated new vehicular access for Hopkins Homes Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2010/1345/F


            Approved as recommended, see Minute No. 74/11.


(c)        Item 3 : Kenninghall : Garboldisham Road : Renewable energy facility for Greenshoots Energy Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2010/1372/F


            Deferred, see Minute No. 75/11.


(d)       Item 4 : Watton : 29 Merton Road : Retention of shed for Mr R Old : Reference : 3PL/2011/0004/F


The application related to the retention of a detached outbuilding to the rear of an existing bungalow, construction of which had stopped. The plans indicated a shiplap boarded finish with plain pin tiles to the roof, the exterior currently only had the insulation material on it. 


The applicant would use the shed for storage and in part as an office.  The Parish Council had objected.  A petition signed by 48 local residents had been received which called for the removal of the shed and fence due to the building being too large, out of keeping, significant impact on the street scene and  future uses of the building.


The original application was for a shed and fence, and the Applicant’s intention would be to re-submit an application for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.


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

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.





Appeal Decisions (For Information)

APP/F2605/A/10/2141224 : Thetford : Thetford Forest Camp Site, Puddledock Farm, Wretham Road, Great Hockham, Norfolk, IP24 1PA : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to leave an 8m lighting pole with 2 no. sodium lights, both of which point down to the ground illuminating a site exit barrier and storage compound gate, for safe pedestrian use during the hours of darkness.  The pole and light are a direct replacement which took place back in October 2006 due to the existing pole becoming unsafe, by Mr Rob Muggridge.

Decision : Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/10/2142183 : Thetford : 18 Well Street, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2BL Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the change of use to A5, new shop front, erection of extract duct to the rear, demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey extension by Domino Pizza Group Ltd.

Decision : Allowed


APP/F2605/A/10/2138888 : Watton : Beechwood House, 43 High Street, IP25 6AB.  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the proposed development of a residential care home (C2) with associated parking and access, retention of Beechwood House following demolition of side wing and outbuildings, by Jetspark.

Decision : Allowed


APP/F2605/A/10/2140631 : Attleborough : 5 The Green, Little Ellingham, Norfolk, NR17 1LT.  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for proposed development of a detached single dwelling and garage, by Mr Paul Dunning.

Decision : Dismissed












Enforcement Items (For Information) pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.




Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information)

3CM/2010/0029/F : Ennstone Johnstone Ltd : Variation of condition on previous permission : Located at land north of Honeypots Plantation, Shropham Quarry.

Decision : Conditional Approval




Deferred Applications


Dereham : Proposed residential development, open space & cemetery : Land off Norwich Road for Taylor Wimpey : Reference : 3PL/2010/1142/F pdf icon PDF 101 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


The report concerned an application for full planning permission for residential development and green infrastructure on land at Norwich Road, Dereham.  The Committee considered the application on 5 January 2011, when it was resolved to defer the application to enable further consideration to be given to drainage issues.  Discussions had taken place with the applicant, Anglian Water and the Environment Agency.


Dereham Sewage Treatment Works did not have capacity to accommodate foul water flows from the proposed development, so the basis of the application had been amended to include the possibility of foul water flows to be directed to Mattishall STW.  Detailed appraisal works would need to be undertaken to determine the feasibility and sustainability of the option.


Mr Needham, Town Council, advised that the site had been carefully chosen.  In future years it would be a very nice wooded area.  The existing Dereham cemetery was next door to a school.


Mr Dawson, Objector, felt the proposal would affect the character and amenity and did not protect the interests of residents.  Only a token provision on the outside of the area had be taken for planned open space where open space already existed, and would be of no extra benefit.  If building on a green site was unavoidable he asked that the design be reconsidered and consideration be given to those who had already contributed to the town.


Cllr Bowes clarified that at the Committee meeting held on 5 January 2011, she had been concerned about the peace and quiet for relatives of the deceased.


RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the officers be authorised to approve it as recommended on completion of the legal agreement.




Watton : Holiday accommodation, Richmond Park Golf Course, Saham Road for Richmond Park Golf Club : References : 3PL/2007/1310/F, 3PL/2008/1157/F and 3PL/2010/0533/F pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Cllr Bowes declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of a legal issue with one of the developers.  She left the room after giving her views.


The report concerned various proposals to make three separate amendments to the design of approved holiday units at Richmond Park Golf Club, Watton.  The report had been deferred from consideration at the last meeting in order to enable additional information to be requested from the applicant.


S106 negotiations had stalled, and given that the applications had been with the Council for some years, it was proposed that there should be a deadline set of three months to allow the agreement to be finally completed if approved.


Application 3PL/2007/1310/F - An amendment had been submitted for Plots 19-24, which followed the general format and layout of the approved scheme.  Four slabs had been constructed, but no further work had taken place.


RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers be authorised to approve it as recommended on completion of the legal agreement within three months, otherwise the application should be refused on the grounds that the required limitation to holiday use had not been secured.


Application 3PL/2008/1157/F – The new proposal had a slightly enlarged footprint on plots 11-13 so there would be less space than shown on the approved plan.  The design, general shape, size and style of the building would be maintained but it was proposed to place the living accommodation on the first floor, changed window arrangements were proposed and balcony structures would be larger than originally given.  Objections had been received over the visual impact of the building, parking, and increased overlooking due to the living accommodation on the first floor.  The proposed design layout changes were not significant and would relate to the approved scheme, although there was a slight concern with regard to meaningful landscaping.  It was suggested if approval was granted, that a revised landscaping scheme be required by condition.


RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers be authorised to approve it as recommended on completion of the legal agreement within three months, otherwise the application should be refused on the grounds that the required limitation to holiday use had not been secured.


Application 3PL/2010/0533/F - The Committee were shown the original approved drawings and revised plans for units 7-10.  The principle difference was the addition of balcony structures to the rear of the buildings, window lights in the roof space that were not there previously, and an increase in the length of the building.  During the intervening period, work had continued on the balconies, and the buildings had been substantially completed.


Slides were shown of the balconies under construction at each of the four units at first floor level, all of which would have a hot tub placed on them.  Timber handrails were currently being installed and different types of screening had been tried out when the Principal Planning Officer visited.


Objections had been raised by existing occupants of the holiday units and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79b