Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 107 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2011.


With regard to minute number 164/11 (i) Item 9, page 6, in the paragraph prior to the deferred outcome, the word bio should read ‘by’.


Subject to the above amendments, the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 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 Cllr C Clark, Cllr T Jermy was in attendance as his substitute.


Cllr Rogers could not attend the start of the meeting, so Cllr P Duigan was in attendance as his substitute until his arrival.


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.




With regard to Agenda Item 12, Schedule of Planning Applications, the following declarations were made :


Cllr Sharpe declared a prejudicial interest in Item 5 Mileham, by virtue of being an Executive Support Member for Asset Management.


Cllr Bowes declared a prejudicial interest in Item 7 (Watton) as her family owned land adjacent to the site, and a prejudicial interest with regard to Item 10 (Watton) as the applicant owned a strip of land in front of her property.


Cllr Martin, declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of living in Edenside Drive with regard to Item 9 Attleborough.



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.


Scheduled Item No. 3, Dereham, of Agenda Item No. 12, Schedule of Planning Applications, had been withdrawn.


Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


Site Specifics – The Council was currently carrying out consultation requested by the Inspector examining the soundness of the Site Specifics DPD in relation to his proposed changes to the allocations for Shipdham.  These changes included a reduction in the size of site of the allocation at SH.1 and the reapportionment of the balance onto a second site at Old Post Office Street (SH.2).  The consultation period closes on 5 December and subject to responses, it was envisaged that the Inspectors Report would be received by the end of the year.  This would hopefully enable the Site Specifics to be adopted in February 2012.


Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) – The Council had now submitted the TAAP for Examination in Public.  The Planning Inspectorate had appointed Mr Ian Broyd as Examining Inspector who will hold hearings into the soundness of the document.  The hearings are expected to be held in Spring 2012.


Attleborough and Snetterton Heath AAP – Further evidence gathering was taking place with a view to further consultation later in 2012.


EPR Thetford Liaison Group

To discuss the proposal that Thetford Town Council take over the administration of the Group.


Deferred - The item would be discussed on 29 November by the Thetford Town Council; therefore the item would come back to the Planning Committee on 19 December 2011.


Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs)

To consider including the IDBs as statutory consultees in the planning process.


RESOLVED to include the IDBs as consultees in the planning process, by providing them with a copy of the weekly Planning Lists.


Deferred Applications pdf icon PDF 40 KB

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


Roudham/Larling & Bridgham : Change of use of agricultural buildings for commercial storage at buildings 1, 3, 8 and 15 Camp Farm, Roudham Road : Applicant : Paul Rackham Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2011/0851/CU pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


Members had received various documents and correspondence with regard to the item.


Paul Jackson, Planning Manager had returned the application to the Planning Committee in the interests of transparency of process and explained his reasons why.


The Minutes were an entirely accurate record of the meeting he attended on 31 October 2011.  He was not aware of the source of the inaccurate allegations made with regard to the time between the writing of the report and the Committee meeting,  all of which were without exception, without foundation.


The resolution reached following a lengthy debate, was arrived at by Members entirely properly and was soundly based.


He welcomed openness and transparency.  The Camp Farm file had been open and available for public inspection and it still was, with documents also available on the Council website, despite no requirement in law for Councils to publish their planning records online.  Members of the public along with Parish Councils were well consulted with, and the entire process had been transparent and robust.


The Planning Inspector’s earlier decision and the details contained within the report prepared by Reading Agricultural Consultants Ltd set out why the buildings had become “redundant”.  Taking into account all the salient facts, Officers advised Members on 31 October 2011 that the first of the two reasons for refusal (failure to demonstrate that the use could not be on an allocated site) was in their view considered to be incapable of substantiation.  He was not of the view that any of the information was not in the public domain.  Statutory requirements were met and were exceeded.  Additional representations received raised no new planning issues not previously considered in either the report itself or during the debate.


He concluded by inviting Members to consider if the process or the resolution was unusual or flawed and to endorse their earlier resolution.


The Head of Legal Services explained the process that would then be followed.


Comments from Members were that the Planning Manager’s report was succinct and completely accurate and that the process carried out on 31 October 2011 was a normal planning one.


Lady Fisher, Ward Representative, stated that a letter from Knights Solicitors had been sent to the Principal Planning Officer on 28 October 2011 which had not been made available in the public domain until 31 October and questioned whether the Chairman had seen the letter prior to the Committee meeting held on 31 October 2011.  The two reasons put forward by Officers for refusal had not been expanded on and were scanty in the extreme.  She questioned how Members had familiarised themselves with the site as it was not visible from the country lane.


The Chairman clarified that the letter had been clearly referred to by the Principal Planning Officer during his presentation of the application on Monday, 31 October 2011 and a frank discussion followed. The Planning Manager added that the letter which was in the public domain on Friday, 28 October 2011 did not add anything to the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177a


Lyng: Change of Use of Land to Stand Touring Caravans at The Mallards, Farman Close by Mr Mark Woods: 3PL/2011/0953/CU pdf icon PDF 40 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


The Parish Council no longer objected to the proposal and wished that the whole site could benefit from a March–December season.  2 further letters of support had been received and one of objection with regard to a 3m gap required between the bungalows and the site before any standing of caravans was allowed.


Mr Lambley, Lyng Parish Council, advised that whilst they had not objected, there was a history of caravans on site and were keen to ensure a series of conditions.  Quarry Lane was already under a great deal of pressure due to the Lakeside development, and should only be used for emergency use.  A gate was felt to be better than a sign with regards to providing a clearer marker.  They felt if the season of use was the same for the proposed piece of land as it was for the existing caravan park, it would be more enforceable.  The site was adjacent to a County Wildlife Site and he brought attention to the Tree & Countryside Officer’s comments in the report.


Mr Butcher, supporter, had owned a shop in Lyng for the last six years and the caravan park generated a lot of his turnover and if the site closed a significant amount of his trade would be lost.  It was important for Lyng to remain a community and support businesses within them.


Mr Sneesby, Objector, stated that if planning permission was granted, it would allow the applicant to have more caravans, as the site licence had been ignored for many years.  The village sustained a shop and garage for decades before the caravan park opened.  It was a nature conservation area.


Mr Bude, Objector, who had lived next door to the site for 5 years stated that two objections had been submitted last week.  One of the reasons the 2006 planning application was rejected was due to its close proximity, noise and disturbance.  Extending the season by two months would increase activity.  The tranquil atmosphere would not remain until 2023.  The narrow piece of land at the back of 2 Farman Close had been regularly used for 2 or 3 caravans without a 3m space.  A buffer zone would serve both parties best.


Ms Jarvis, Applicant, stated she had run the site for 26 years as a tranquil retreat mostly for those suffering illness and who had mobility difficulties. Caravans had been positioned on the site concerned for 20 years.  She was very keen to regularise the situation with regard to planning permission, and the proposal would allow more space between the caravans and ensure her business remained running.  It was very important to her to make the site disabled friendly.  The Drift would  not be used, noise would not increase and the gate was not intended to be used significantly more than it was at present, unless for emergencies.  There was no legal requirement for an emergency exit but she wanted to provide one as a precautionary measure.


Mr Bambridge, Ward Representative informed Members that whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177b


Variation of Section 106 Agreement : Residential Development : Land off The Lammas/Malsters Close, Mundford : Reference : 3PL/2007/0356/F : Applicant : Bennett Homes pdf icon PDF 39 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.


Cllr Jermy supported and welcomed shared ownership.


RESOLVED as recommended, that the Section 106 Agreement be varied to allow the shared ownership units to be let as social rented units by the provider.


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 253 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :


Item No



Page No


Mr A Jones




Necton Garden Centre




Mr J Eglen




Mr Ian Thompson




Breckland Council




A F Machinery Ltd




Hopkins Homes Limited




Ms Sharmane Edwards




Mr S Becker




Richmond Park Golf Club




Mr & Mrs Chapman





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :


(a)       Item 1 : Attleborough : Change of use of land for siting of 6 static caravans & 2 tourers, erection of general purpose building & associated work : Reference : 3PL/2011/419/F


Correspondence had been received by Members.  An Enforcement Notice was valid on the site.  The Town Council had raised objections, and Highways had recommended refusal of the scheme.  Four representations had been received from local residents.


Messrs Harvey & Becker, Objectors, questioned it if was a Romany site or not.  Commercial fridges on site were being disposed of without a licence.  Conditions had not been adhered to.  5 static caravans were there and no tourers.  There was a long history of anti social behaviour and local businesses had to provide 24 hour security.  There were very large vehicle and container movements, with litter and human waste on the site.


Mr Jones, Applicant, lived in Leys Lane, as his family had done for 4 generations and he wished to extend the site to make it less crowded.  Whilst he accepted the site had been untidy in the past, it was now clear and if permission was granted it would stay in a tidy condition.  He owned the site which he called a Romany site but he did not want gypsies or travellers to live there, only his family, who would remain there.


Members were advised, that if they were minded to approve the application, names could be provided of those who would occupy the static caravans.


Refused, as recommended.


(b)       Item 2 : Necton : Residential development (10 dwellings) : Reference : 3PL/2011/0877/O


Refused, as recommended, with an additional reason given by Members being the lack of noise assessment information.


(c)        Item 3 : Dereham : Change of use of land for parking provision for additional two lorries : Reference : 3PL/2011/0896/CU


            Application withdrawn.


(d)       Item 4 : Necton : Residential development (10 dwellings) : Reference : 3PL/2011/0909/O


            Refused, as recommended.


(e)       Item 5 : Mileham : Construction of 13 dwellings : Reference : 3PL/2011/0938/O


Cllr Sharpe declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being an Executive Support Manager for Asset Manager, he left the room.


Concern from Members covered the possibility that the 6 parking spaces could get blocked in, the development would be cramped, and there was no children’s play area.


Deferred, to allow Officers the opportunity to investigate if the drainage lagoon area could be a play area and look into the points raised by Members, which were over development of the site, poor design, and no provision for open space.


(f)         Item 6 : Wretham : Potato/onion storage and general farm storage sheds : Reference : 3PL/2011/0954/F


The Parish Council raised no objection.  Since the report had been written, further information had been received from the RSPB and they no longer raised an objection.  Natural England raised no objection provided that certain mitigation was supplied.  There were strong objections from the Policy Team and Officers.  The Principal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.


Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning


Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.





Appeal Decisions (For Information)

APP/F2605/A/11/2152572 : Beeston : Land adjacent to Brereton and Lazy Acre, Dereham Road, Beeston, Kings Lynn : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for 3 No dwellings and garages by Middleton Developments Ltd : Application Reference : 3PL/2010/1002/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/11/2155408 : Dereham : Humbletoft Farm, Sandy Lane, NR19 2QA : Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for proposed new house and garage by Mr and Mrs T Hall : Application Reference : 3PL/2010/1140/0

Decision : Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/11/2154974 : Mileham : Land off Reed Lane, Stanfield, NR20 4JG : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling for Mr & Mrs A Gould : Application Reference : 3PL/2011/0347/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed







Applications Determined By Norfolk County Council (For Information) pdf icon PDF 31 KB