Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 83 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2011.


With regard to Minute No. 1185(a) (Swanton Morley) 4th paragraph, the word, “not”, should be removed from the sentence.


Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


The incorrect spelling of Mr Adrian Stasiak’s name under Agenda No. 10, Item 3 was noted.


Apologies & Substitutes

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Cllr C Clark.


Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received


Cllr N Wilkin declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, Deferred Application (b) Shipdham, by virtue of a family member who lived close to the proposed site.


The following declarations were made in Agenda Item 10, Schedule of Planning Applications :-


Cllr English declared a prejudicial interest in Item 2 Weeting, by virtue of knowing the applicant very well.


Cllr Rogers declared a prejudicial interest in Item 3 Attleborough, by virtue of being a friend of the applicant.  Cllr North declared a personal interest as the applicant was her Branch Chairman.  Cllr Stasiak declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being the applicant.


Cllr Rogers declared a prejudicial interest in Item 5 Besthorpe, by virtue of being the applicant.  Cllr North declared a personal interest as the applicant was a fellow Ward Member.  Cllr Stasiak declared a prejudicial interest as he was a friend of the applicant.



Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


The Breckland Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD would go to Full Council on 19 January 2012 with the recommendation of adoption.


Localism Act 2011 - Predetermination pdf icon PDF 37 KB

Note for Members from Legal Services


Legal Services had prepared a Note For Members on the Localism Act 2011 as far as predetermination was concerned, and the Solicitor gave advice to Members on the subject.


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 no. dwelllings, garaging, parking and access land : Applicant : Hopkins and Moore Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2011/0830/D pdf icon PDF 51 KB

Additional documents:


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) refreshed Members’ memories of the application, and explained amendments to the application.


Mr Atterwill, Parish Council, advised they were keen to make sure that the third party’s drainage recommendations were all taken on board.  He wished to know of the maintenance longevity and how it would work.  He was pleased the field access had been removed but asked for a condition that no access was given in the future, and questioned if the boundary hedge at the back would be completed.


Mr Hyde, Objector, thanked the developer for withdrawing the field access.  In his professional opinion the drainage feature would increase flooding to his property and gave reasons of what could be done to prevent that.  He stated that 50% of water captured by the swale trench would discharge to his property.  It was totally unacceptable to use his property as a giant soak away drain.


Mrs Jamieson, Objector, had hoped an email on drainage from the Consultant would have been addressed.  No evidence could be found of subsequent work having been done.


Mr Eburne, Agent, advised that they would be quite happy to have a condition put in place that prohibited vehicle access.  Maintenance of the swale and rubble filled trench feature would be put in the hands of a management company for the life of the development.  A hedge would be planted to make sure there was a continuous boundary.  He believed drainage concerns were unwarranted, as both the appointed consultants and consulting engineers had clear guidance on how the drainage would work.  Drainage would not flow to Mr Hyde’s property, which would not be used as a soak-away and would not be flooded.


Mr Richmond, Ward Representative, stated neighbours had concerns with regard to adequate fencing, as they wanted something more substantial than post and rail.  He understood that the ecology study would be down to the developers going forward but wondered whether it would be taken seriously by the builders, and therefore questioned whether Mr. Addison’s concerns should have been considered further.


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) stated that the drainage proposals had been scrutinised by drainage consultants appointed by the Council.  He believed there to be some misunderstanding on how the swale would work, as the swale feature would purely be for storage and the other one an overflow; he explained how the overflow system would work.


The Agent confirmed that they would be happy to erect any fencing that was reasonably required.


Approved, as recommended subject to the extra conditions set of fencing and boundary treatment and no vehicular access to the field


Shipdham: Erection of 8 dwellings with garages, including highway improvements, on land to east of Mill Road: 3PL/2011/0182/O AND Conversion of former school buildings to 6 affordable housing units including some demolition works at The Old School House, Chapel Street: 3PL/2011/0187/CA & 3PL/2011 0189/F pdf icon PDF 43 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


Cllr N Wilkin declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member who lived close to the proposed site.


The two sites were presented together by the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects). A response had now been received from Natural England. The local Ward Representative was supportive of the scheme.


Miss Bambridge, Objector, stated that any local resident would dispute the fact that the area did not flood, and added that some locals used the area for diving and canoe practice.  She was concerned with security and over water being diverted into her garden which was lower than the site.  There was a natural hedge at the back of her property and she wanted a fence erected to replace it.  The development would affect the value of her property as her house was considerably higher than the site. She asked, if the developer removed trees and shrubs from the site, would he replace them, also would he indemnify her against her home flooding.


Mr Plank, Objector, advised that at the back of the quarry was a 30’ embankment and neighbours were worried about flooding and erosion.  More than three newts were seen all the time.  Natural England had not been to the site.  Neighbours were very worried about the volume of traffic.  The pavement was 1’ wide.


Mr Matthews, Agent, said at the time of the application there was one letter of concern, so he was surprised so many were now worried.  The Dodd family had been residents of Shipdham for the past ten years.  The old school building had had a mixture of uses, all of which generated traffic; more maintenance was needed on the building and alternative uses had long been considered.  The car park alongside the school was being used by others.  The Housing Association were not interested in co-ownership of the building.  No objection had been received from Highways.  Three Great Crested newts were the maximum number counted on one occasion at the site over a period of 5 years, as the Ecologist had worked on previous applications.  The site needed to be economically viable and explained why the sites were being considered as one application.  The school building would have a secure future.  The applications provided a total of 13 new dwellings, six of which would be affordable.  Both the Dodd family and the Parish Council were keen to see some affordable housing being made available to those in the village.


Everything that needed to be done with regard to the translocation of the newts, which were protected by legislation would be done, the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) assured Members.


RESOLVED, that application reference 3PL/2011/0187/CA be approved as recommended


RESOLVED, that applications reference 3PL/2011/0189/F and 3PL/2011/0182/O be deferred and the Officers authorised to grant approval subject to conditions on completion of the legal agreement


The Committee requested that the Reserved Matters applications in pursuance of the Outline be brought to the Committee.


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 148 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :


Item No



Page No


Mr David Taylor




Childerhouse Lodge Farms




Mr Adrian Stasiask




L Carter & Sons




Mr S Rogers




Mrs R Shearwood





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :-


(a)       Item 1 : Harling : Erection of 8 no. houses (phase 3) including affordable housing & open space : Reference : 3PL/2011/1071/F


The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects).  In answer to a question from a Member he said when the applicant put the site forward through the LDF process all of the site was included, but when the planning applications were considered each one was separate.  The Member felt that building a further 8 houses in Harling was excessive.


Mr Scott Brown, Agent, advised that they had tried to create a second village green.  They had created some disabled persons bungalows and incorporated a veranda design feature, and worked to create something of architectural merit.  Structural trees would be incorporated.  They would deliver the proposal as fast as they could. There had been very quick take-up of properties built thus far.  The affordable housing in Phase 1 was now occupied.


Mr Matthews, Agent, responded to a comment about dove cotes being included rather than chimneys, that most social housing did not seem to provide open fires, and they believed the dove cotes would break up the roof line, but they could be adjusted if it was felt there were too many.  The three social houses from Phase I had dummy chimneys.


The ownership of land to the left of Phase 3 (behind Phase 1) was in the ownership of someone else.


On the Chairman’s casting vote the application was deferred, and the Officers be authorised to grant approval subject to conditions on completion of the legal agreement.


(b)       Item 2 : Weeting : Development of 35 dwellings, new access, 24 allotments, community woodland, open space and assoc. landscaping : Reference : 3PL/2011/1102/F


            Cllr Childerhouse who had been in the audience left the room.


Cllr English declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of knowing the applicant very well.


Members had received a letter and photographs from EJW Planning Ltd. 


The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report which included full responses from Natural England and other consultees.  He believed it was helpful to look at what the Planning Inspector’s report had stated in relation to the Site Specific Policies DPD report, and he read out a section of the report for the benefit of Members.  A number of objections had been received from local residents.


Mr Prosser, Chair of Parish Council, advised they were in support of the application which was enthusiastically welcomed as the development was seen as sympathetic.  They were conscious the proposed development sat in the stone curlew buffer zone in the village, and whilst they always supported their well being they had an obligation to residents and prospective residents.  The inclusion of affordable housing was of benefit.  For the last few years, the Parish Council had been trying to find land for allotments but had been unsuccessful.  The proposed development presented them with wonderful opportunities which would be a significant asset.


Ms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning pdf icon PDF 72 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/11/2160769 : 1 The Retreat, Mattishall Road, East Tuddenham, Dereham, Norfolk, NR20 3LT : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the change of use of land from utilities to domestic use and erection of a garage.  Reference : 3PL/2011/0621/F

Decision : Appeal Allowed


APP/F2605/A/11/2157092 : 6 High Street, Watton, Thetford, IP25 6AE : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for an extension to existing letting agent premises with flat over.  Reference : 3PL/2010/1257/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/11/2160144 : Land situated between No. 8 Crown Way and No. 1 Pound Close, Pound Close, Banham, Norfolk, NR16 2SY : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of one detached single-storey dwelling, involving use of existing vehicular access.  Reference : 3PL/2011/0537/F

Decision : Appeal Allowed




Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information) pdf icon PDF 39 KB