Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 106 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2011.


With regard to Minute No. 179/11 (e) it should read Executive Support Member for Asset Management and not Manager.


Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


Jaimie Smith and Sarah Robertson were in attendance to provide the Members with an update.  The Site Specifics Inspector’s report had been received and was available on the website.  The report would go to full Council with the recommendation that the Council adopted the document.  If adopted it would result in a 3.6 year land supply.  The report was delayed due to the additional consultation carried out in Shipdham, and following that the Inspector went with the original decision of one single site in the middle of the village.  As part of the Document, all the settlement boundaries were reviewed.


If Members had any questions outside of the meeting, they were invited to contact the Officers direct who would circulate their replies to all Committee Members.


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.


Swanton Morley: Greengate: Erection of 20 residential dwellings with associated garaging, parking and access: Applicant: Hopkins & Moore Limited: Reference: 3PL/2011/0830/D pdf icon PDF 19 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Officer presented slides to refresh the Members’ memory and went through the reasons why the application was deferred on 31 October 2011 and the amendments made to the proposed drainage strategy and flood alleviation proposal for the site.


Mr Atterwill, Parish Council, believed that the subject of flooding should be satisfied before full approval was granted.  It was fundamental who would own the large swale feature and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of it.  He questioned why a third field access was being considered when there were two already available.  The plan was out of date.  Cladding had been changed and the number of rendered properties had been reduced.  He did not believe that the pond had been assessed for suitability for great crested newts as advised it should be by the Tree & Countryside Officer in his comments shown in the report to the Committee on 31 October 2011.


Mrs Jameson, Objector, who resided at 40 Greengate was also present to represent the views of those who lived at 42 Greengate.  She believed that the short notice given to interested parties was unacceptable.  The field access was of concern.  They were unable to dispute claims as they were not drainage experts.


Mr Hyde, Objector, stated that the proposed swale would not have a level base and would increase flooding to his property.  Levels adjacent to the site had been ignored.  62 Greengate was 2m lower.  His property would be used as a giant soak-away for the development.


Mr Eburne, for Applicant, advised that they had provided a Flood Risk Assessment.  The development would not exacerbate the existing flood issues but would improve them which had been verified by the Council and its drainage advisors.  The swale feature would be maintained and render materials could be withdrawn for bricks.  He stated the development would be better for the locality than a field.  Proper drainage would be installed.  Currently there was no drainage under the road.  The proposal was good and had been made better by the deferment.  The field access and drainage system would be maintained by a formal management company.  The farm access was a contractual arrangement and the land owner was reserving his rights.


Mr Richmond, Ward Representative, supported the Parish Council in their views that they were not pleased that there were still rendered properties proposed.  There was no provision for street lighting.  They were not happy with the second entrance as agricultural machines could travel through the site.  The need for a newt and ecology survey seemed to have been ignored.  Boundary disputes had not been clarified.


The Solicitor made reference to an eight page emailed letter received from Mr Hyde, Objector, on Sunday 18 December 2011 which raised a number of matters with regard to the proposed application.  The Solicitor advised that he had not been consulted with about his legal opinion of the site.  He believed any legal challenge with regard to outline permission has passed.  He had not been asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185a


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 99 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :


Item No



Page No


Healthcare Homes Group Ltd




Bennett Plc




Bennett Plc




Mr Michael Parker




Hopkins Homes Ltd





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :


(a)       Item 1 : Beetley : Removal of Section 106 on pp 3PL/2005/0920 to allow occupancy for under 55s : Reference : 30B/2011/0002/OB


            The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer.


Mr Leigh, Parish Council, stated that the Parish Council had discussed the application at length on two occasions.  When the development was consulted on in 2005, they felt that the S106 agreement was necessary to protect the development from potential residents who could disturb the tranquil neighbourhood and the Care Home.  The original applicant was no longer the owner.  The properties would not remain as ancillary accommodation for the Care Home.  The Parish Council had discussed with the Agent lowering the age of occupants to 45, but they had received no response to that suggestion, and they continued to object to the proposal.


Mr Peecock, Agent, advised that since submitting the application, there were now six empty properties and he believed that part of the problem with regard to the marketing and saleability of those, was that they were two storeys, lacked nearby amenities and market competition.  The Applicant was trying to free up the properties and make proper use of a valuable asset.


Mr Duffield, Ward Representative, questioned if the District Valuer had checked the property values which were leasehold and not freehold.


Members agreed with the Chairman’s concerns over price and occupancy and that more options should be explored by the Applicant, one being affordable housing.


From evidence put before them, the recommendation to approve planning permission was not supported by Members, as they believed the same reasons still applied as they had at the time of the original application 3PL/2005/0920/F.


Contrary to the recommendation, the application was refused as Members were not convinced that sufficient evidence had been put forward to satisfy them that the reasons for entering into the agreement were no longer valid and  for the detrimental effect on residents.


(b)       Item 2 : Croxton : Demolition of two existing dwellings and existing outbuildings : Reference : 3PL/2011/1020/CA


            The application was considered at the same time as the item below.


            Refused, as recommended.


(c)        Item 3 : Croxton : Residential development of 14 dwellings following demolition of two existing dwellings & ext outbuildings : Reference : 3PL/2011/1021/F

            The application was considered at the same time as the item above.


The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and advised that significant representations had been received as detailed in the report.  Two outstanding matters of concern were ecology and archaeology.  A further survey on protected species (bats) was required, but as that could only be undertaken during the period May to September it was one of the reasons for refusal.  The second being further information required following advice from Norfolk Landscape Archaeology.


Mr King, Parish Council, advised that whilst they had no objection to the demolition of the two existing dwellings, they found the proposal of a residential development of 14 dwellings unacceptable due to non  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.


EPR Thetford Liaison Group

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


Cllr Lamb advised that Thetford Town Council thought that it was premature for them  to take over the administration of the Group.  However the Chairman of the Planning Committee believed Thetford Town Council were better placed to enable issues be dealt with by people local to the area.  Whilst the Planning Committee had no input into the Liaison Group, they would not “close their minds” should there be a need to deal with any matters in the future.


RESOLVED to disband the Group.


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.





Enforcement Items pdf icon PDF 60 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.




Applications Determined By Norfolk County Council (For Information) pdf icon PDF 32 KB




State of the Environment

Presentation by Dr Geoff Brighty, Area Manager for the Environment Agency.


Dr Brighty will be presenting his case on the state of the environment and how this then relates to the development and land use pressures within the Council’s area.


Members are invited to ask questions following the presentation that is scheduled to take place at the end of the meeting.


Dr Geoff Brighty, Area Manager for the Environment Agency presented his report after the meeting had closed.