Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 1)

To receive apologies for absence.





Minutes (Agenda Item 2) pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2011.


The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



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.


  • Schedule Item 5 (Old Buckenham) all Members had received direct representation from the Agent and Councillor S Rogers had had a telephone conversation with the applicant.
  • Schedule Item 6 (Stanfield) the Chairman confirmed that the applicant was not a relation of hers.  Councillor N Wilkin and Councillor W Richmond had both held discussions with the applicant and Councillor S Rogers had also met the applicant.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


The Chairman welcomed the new Members to the Committee and hoped they had all noted the Planning Policy note on the agenda.


For the benefit of new Members, the Solicitor explained the voting convention which meant that if the Officers’ recommendation or initial proposal was not supported, it did not automatically mean that the opposite applied (ie if a recommendation of approval was not supported it did not mean the application was refused).  A new proposition, supported by reasons for that proposal, would be taken and voted on.



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.





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.


Following a proposal from the Chairman it was RESOLVED to


RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that the name of the Committee be changed to the Planning Committee.



Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Planning Manager informed Members that the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document and Proposals Map, including revisions, was formally submitted to the Secretary of State on 20th April 2011.  The Examination in Public was expected to take place in the week commencing 4 July 2011 and it was hoped that the document could be adopted by Council by the end of the year.


He also mentioned the need to provide training for Members of the Development Control Committee.



Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 39 KB

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


Shipdham : Residential Development At Land off Parklands Avenue for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1096/O pdf icon PDF 53 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:


This outline application for 15 dwellings had been considered in January and approved, subject to a legal agreement.  Since then there had been further discussions about the terms of the legal agreement which was why the matter had been brought back to the Committee.


Members were reminded that the approval had been subject to the provision of affordable housing, on-site open space and a financial contribution for recreation.


A variation in the terms was sought to amend the third clause to provide land for a cemetery extension in place of the recreation contribution.  The proposed piece of land for the extension would require planning permission which would be subject to ground investigations to ensure it was suitable for that use.  If not, the recreation contribution would be provided.

There was a lot of local support for the proposed variation however, the law on S106 requirements was clear in that anything offered had to be relevant to the application and this proposal did not meet that requirement.  The legal position gave no room for flexibility and therefore Officers could not support the change.


The Solicitor reinforced this information by advising Members that the offered land could not be a material consideration.  There was no guarantee that the cemetery extension would ever be carried out.


Mr Chubbock, from the Parish Council, said that Shipdham had a shortage of cemetery space.  As the applicant owned the land adjacent to the cemetery he had been asked to provide it for the extension.  The extension was needed and he hoped the Committee could look at the spirit of the law.


Mr Hewett, also from the Parish Council, said that Circulars gave guidance for Section 106 agreements to provide benefits to local communities.  The village was growing and the provision of the land would meet an evidenced need for the village in an entrepreneurial way.  He urged the Committee to accept the contribution in kind with no requirement for cash.


Mr Irvine, Agent, understood the Committee’s dilemma.  If the cemetery did not go ahead, the financial contribution could be lost.  To address that concern the applicant solicitor had written an open letter which he read to Members.  It said that the applicant would transfer the land following the grant of planning permission and that if the Parish Council did not require the land within twelve months, the financial contribution would be paid instead.


The Planning Manager accepted that the proposal would be of benefit to the local community but said that that benefit had to be commensurate with the size of the application and 15 dwellings would not require such a large extension to the cemetery.


The Solicitor reiterated that there was no guarantee that the cemetery extension would occur and the inducement was outside the parameters of the new statutory limits.


Members discussed various ways of trying to overcome the legal objections to the variation.  After much debate it was suggested that the time limit for the payment of the financial contribution could be extended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95a


Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 89 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Postmill Developments Ltd

Swanton Morley



Mrs L Scales




Mr & Mrs Canham




Mr R Clarke

Blo’ Norton



Mr & Mrs Greenacre & Mr & Mrs Foulge

Old Buckenham



Mr & Mrs A Gould





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: Swanton Morley: Land west of Teutoburge, Harker’s Lane: Erection of a detached bungalow for Postmill Developments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/1334/F


This full application for a bungalow was on land adjoining an Engineering Works which was also owned by the applicant.  The main issue was the effect on amenity of the adjacent works.  The applicant was willing to enter into a legal agreement limiting the works’ opening hours.


Mr Smith, agent said the site was within the Settlement Boundary and that all of the issues raised by the Parish Council had been addressed. 


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.


(b)       Item 2: Dereham: Land adjacent Peartree Cottage, Neatherd Moor: Development of 4 new homes with improved access for Mrs L Scales: Reference: 3PL/2011/0177/O


            This was the resubmission of a previous application for 10 dwellings, as Members had indicated that they might favour a reduced scheme.


A number of concerns had been raised about the potential impact on Neatherd Moor, a significant amenity for the town, and on proposals for the access road.


Mr Needham, Town Clerk, was in attendance to answer questions.  He pointed out that the land to the north of the site known as Abbot’s Field was not common land.


Mr Ryder, objector, said that the proposed alterations to the access (a Registered Public Footpath) were very contentious and would substantially change its appearance.  Tree roots would need to be protected as would the old Victorian wall to his property.  The proposal to lay a storm drain across 300m of Abbots Field and the Neatherd would have a great impact and would drain into the Dereham Stream which was not well maintained.  There was a pond with great crested newts to the north of the site and bats and barn owls used the area.  The properties would be out of scale with those in Union Drift and would be intrusive.  There was a lack of information in the Outline application and he asked Members to impose stringent conditions to protect trees, etc if they approved it.


Mr Bird, Agent, said that Members had been concerned about the traffic impact of the previous application.  The scale of development now proposed would not cause problems and the layout avoided overlooking and no objections had been received from residents of Union Drift.  More trees had been retained.  The surface water would be retained on site by soak-aways and would not cross the Neatherd.  The access would be resurfaced but not changed, except at the junction with Norwich Road where it was required to be widened so that two cars could pass.  Five weeks pre-consultation had been carried out and they had done all they could to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.


Mr Richmond, speaking as Ward Representative, said there were genuine issues of sustainability.  Dereham had been allocated 2000 homes in the Local Development Framework documents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.


Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 53 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.



The Chairman explained the terminology for the new Members.


The item was noted.



Enforcement Items (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 63 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.


Members were advised that if they had any questions about Enforcement Items they should contact the Officers to give them time to get the necessary information to provide an answer at the meeting.




Members were reminded that there would be a training session following the meeting.