Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 97 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2012.


It was noted that with regard to Minute No. 102/12 paragraph 3, it should read Wild Cherry Close and Whitebeam Crescent, and with regard to Minute No. 103/12 (g), Swanton Morley was spelt incorrectly.


Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Apologies & Substitutes

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Bowes and Armes, therefore Cllrs Duigan and Jermy were in attendance as their substitutes respectively.


Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received

Members are no longer required to declare personal of prejudicial interests but are to declare any new Disclosable Pecuniary Interests that are not currently included in the Register of Interests. Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 


In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.


Cllr Sharpe declared that he was a Member of the Hammond Trust who owned the site adjacent to the Deferred Item No. 8 (a) Swaffham.


Chairman's Announcements


Scheduled Agenda Item 9, Nos. 1 and 2 (Thetford) would be heard together.


The Chairman welcomed Martin Pendlebury, Director of Planning and Business Manager, Capita who replaced the Interim Head of Planning and Building Control.


Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 


There was no update to report on.


Deferred Applications pdf icon PDF 41 KB

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


Swaffham: Former Sixth Form Centre, Lynn Street : Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 16 flats, works to boundary walls to widen/improve access and associated works : Applicant: Norfolk County : References : 3PL/2012/0527/F and 3PL/2012/0528/CA pdf icon PDF 47 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:


Cllr Sharpe declared that he was a Member of the Hammond Trust who owned the site adjacent to the application.


The application sought full planning permission to provide 16 flats (6 one bed flats and 10 two bed flats) in two storey buildings.  Access to the site would be created off Lynn Street/Market Place whilst a pedestrian link would be provided from Whitsands Road.


The application was deferred at the Planning Committee held on 3 September to allow the NCC Highways Officer and the applicant time to address driver behaviour/traffic movements from Market Place onto Lynn Street.  The report contained the three options which sought to address Members’ concerns which were to build out and revise line marking, 20mph roundels should be applied to the carriageway in white thermoplastic on approaches to the Market Place and Market Place sub-plates should be provided to the 20mph signs.  The application was recommended for approval subject to a Grampian Condition to ensure that the improvement works at the junction of Lynn Street and Market Place were carried out.


Mrs Matthews, Ward Representative stated that whilst she felt nothing else could be done, she did ask that the entrance at the back be looked at again due to the space available.  The Principal Planning Officer replied that Highways had considered the access at Whitsands Road to be too dangerous.


Mr Scales, Agent, advised that they had sought to design something that would slow drivers down and change their behaviour when they came down Lynn Street, and the proposal would be of highway benefit when built out.  The “Give Way” signed proposed was based on advice from Highways, but they would be happy for it to be a “Stop” sign following a comment from a Member that he was firmly of the opinion that it should be a “Stop” sign.


RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers authorised to approve it as recommended,

on completion of the legal agreement.


Old Buckenham: Proposed residential development at land at Shrublands, Attleborough Road : Applicant : David Alson (Norfolk) Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2012/0193/F pdf icon PDF 980 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.


The application was deferred prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 9 July 2012, and since then, the proposal had been subject to an appeal against non-determination by the applicant, and was presented to the Planning Committee to ascertain the views of Members on the acceptability of the scheme which sought approval to remove a steel grain store, the demolition of 4 bungalows, convert agricultural barns to 8 residential units and erect 10 dwellings. 


The report had been subject of an assessment from the District Valuer who concluded that the applicant had adequately demonstrated that the level of new build was a proportionate response to the level of expenditure associated with the site.


The Committee were advised that the applicant had agreed to address the objection raised by the Environment Agency but drawings were not available to demonstrate that.


Concerns expressed in the original Committee report which related to the new build element of the scheme only had been addressed through the submission of the economic appraisal and, as such, the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms and would have been recommended for approval if the appeal had not been lodged.


Mr Ing, Parish Council, believed that nothing had changed as the main issues still remained.  They were very concerned with regard to highway access, excessive speed and accidents around the site access.  He felt it was wrong to put the residents of the bungalows under unacceptable pressure as they did not know where they would relocate to.  He asked for the application to be rejected.


Mr Joel, Ward Representative, was not supportive of the application.  He stated that it was a large development outside the Settlement Boundary and to claim was a windfall site was irrelevant.  Concerns covered safety onto the B1077, excessive speeds and no public transport links.  The proposed development would provide little income to Old Buckenham without a car, schools were full up and no social housing was proposed.  Should Members approve the application, he asked that a condition be made that the agricultural buildings be converted prior to the new buildings.


Members were advised that Highways did not object on highway safety grounds, and the Planning Manager gave an explanation to the Committee on what represented a windfall site.  It had been demonstrated that the new build element of the scheme was necessary to “cross fund” the barn conversion element.


RESOLVED that, if the Application had not been the subject of appeal for non-determination, the Committee would have approved it subject to the S106 Agreement, resolution of the Environment Agency concern, provision for bats and a condition for 10% on site renewables.


Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 140 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :


Item No



Page No


Location 3 Properties




Crown Estate & Pigeon (Thetford)




Mr A Thompson




Heritage Developments




Mr & Mrs A Hales





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :


(a)       THETFORD : Erection of foodstore (Class A1) with associated petrol filling station, car parking, servicing & access : Applicant : Location 3 Properties : Reference : 3PL/2012/0213/O (“Tulip”), and


(b)       THETFORD : Erection of class A1 foodstore petrol station, highway work, parking & related works : Applicant : Crown Estate & Pigeon (Thetford) Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2012/0748/O (“TEP”)


Michael Horn, Solicitor to the Council was present for both Agenda items which were discussed at the same time.


In answer to a comment raised by one Member that some Officers he wished to question about the applications were not present (one being a representative from NLP), the Solicitor to the Council advised that if Members felt at the end of the presentation, that they could not make a decision as they felt they lacked information, then they should defer both items.


Members had received correspondence about the applications one of which (Tulip), sought outline planning permission for the erection of an A1 retail/food store and associated petrol filling station on a site in Caxton Way, Thetford, and was for “access” only, with all other matters reserved and was recommended for outline planning permission and the other (TEP), where Outline permission was sought for a new retail foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking and access works, all matters reserved except for access, had been recommended for refusal.


Full and very clear presentations were given by the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) on the items (referred to throughout the presentation as Tulip and TEP).  He clarified that the combined impact on comparison and convenience goods turnover in the town centre would be 18.6% with regard to Tulip (not 11.7%).  The NPPF stated that when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that were well connected to the town centre.


            Mr Beaumont, Property Director for Lidl, Objector (Tulip site), stated that should Location 3 Properties be approved, Lidl would not move forward on their proposals as there would be no further scope for food stores on that side of the town.  The proposal would not help linkage to expansion zones and would increase carbon emissions.  There had been interest in the employment land site from the adjacent land owner.  The combined impact on comparison and convenience of 18.6% would have a significant effect and would harm the town centre and should be refused due to this as well as the loss of employment land.


            Mr McPhillips, Head of Property, 2 Sisters Food Group, Objector (Tulip site), advised that the company was a very large local employer who were trying to expand their business.  The Tulip application site was the only one they could expand onto as they wished to expand to brownfield which had services.  Their offers to acquire it had been refused. If Members refused the Tulip application it would protect future employment on the site.


            Mr Hoare, speaking as Agent for the Tulip site, stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.


Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning pdf icon PDF 58 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/12/2174134 : Dusty Meadow, Watton Road, Thetford : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the temporary standing of a mobile home by Mrs K McCarthy : Reference : 3PL/2011/0913/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed




Interests in Applications through Friends

The Solicitor wishes to discuss these situations under the new Code of Conduct and under the general law, and the appropriate action for members of the Committee to take.


The Solicitor discussed the interests in applications through friends under the new Code of Conduct and under the general law, and gave advice on the appropriate action Members of the Committee would need to take.