Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 100 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2013.



The Solicitor pointed out that the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 2 of the Minutes should be amended to read ‘ends’ rather than ‘ended’.


Subject to that amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Armes and Mr Claussen.


Mrs Chapman-Allen was present as substitute for Mr Claussen.



Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received (Agenda Item 3)

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.


Members noted that they had received direct representation concerning Agenda Item 9 (Schedule Item 3, Old Buckenham).



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.


It was noted that the application at Schedule Item 5 (Mattishall) (Agenda Item 9) had been withdrawn.



Local Development Framework (Standing Item) (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 


The Planning Manager gave a brief update.


On 8 January 2013 Cabinet had recommended the development of a Local Plan to replace the adopted Local Development Framework (LDF).  That recommendation had been ratified at Council on 24 January 2013 and a Local Plan Working Group had been appointed, comprising Mr Nunn (Chairman), Mrs Turner and Mr Kiddle-Morris.  The Working Group had met for the first time on 6 March and agreed a proposed timetable of work which included the following milestones:


  • Initial issues consultation April/May 2014
  • Draft Local Plan prepared by June/July 2015
  • Proposed submission date of February 2016
  • Examination in Public June 2016
  • Inspectors Report expected in August 2016; and
  • Formal adoption to take place in September 2016.


The next Local Plan Working Group meeting was programmed for 26 March 2013 where a number of evidence based updates would be discussed, relating to the Attleborough Transport Study, Housing Numbers Methodology, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Market Assessment.



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 207 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Mrs E Clarke




Breckland Storage Ltd




Messrs J A Askew and Partners

Old Buckenham



Mr B Todd




Miss Margaret Cook




Mr B Todd




Mr & Mrs J Smith




Mr & Mrs Matthews





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: THOMPSON: Plot adjacent Thatched House, Mill Road: Erection of 3 bedroom, 1½ storey cottage style dwelling: Applicant: Mrs E Clarke: Reference: 3PL/2011/0582/O


This outline application for a cottage style dwelling with all matters reserved had been with the Council for some time.  A number of amendments had been submitted in response to local concerns.  The site was an infill plot within the Settlement Boundary and indicative details showed a one and a half storey dwelling, positioned to avoid overlooking of the adjacent property and to allow most trees on site to be retained.


Mrs Winslow (Parish Council) said their unanimous view was that the proposal would affect the amenity value of adjacent properties and was not sympathetic to the Listed Building.  She also raised concerns about road safety at the dangerous junction and the Anglian Water supply pipe which passed through the plot.


Mrs Mills (Objector) owned the adjacent Listed Building which was an award winning bed and breakfast business.  She said it would have to close during construction works because of noise and disturbance.  She was also concerned that another access would double the danger at the junction.


Mr Parsons (Agent) said the water supply pipe was on the boundary of the plot and would not be affected by building works.  Road safety concerns were not supported by the Highways Officer.  They had reduced the scale of the design in response to concerns and positioned the property to ensure no significant impact on the adjacent dwelling.  The only overlooking window was an obscure bathroom window.  The applicant was willing to accept a condition requiring a one and a half storey three bedroom dwelling.


Councillor Cowen (Ward Representative) said it was rare for an application to cause so much local concern. Although the site was within the Settlement Boundary it was not appropriate for development as it was adjacent a Listed Building and close to a dangerous junction.


Councillor North noted that many roads in the district were dangerous.  She thought the site was a natural plot for development, subject to strict conditions on the outline approval.


Councillor Bambridge agreed and thought that no strong reasons for refusal had been put forward.  He asked the main objector why she could not continue her business whilst construction took place especially if hours of work were restricted.


Mrs Mills confirmed that she would have to close whilst construction work took place as the business was advertised as being peaceful and quiet.


Councillor Cowen explained that the close relationship with the prominent Listed Building was the main problem.  He also pointed out that the number of amendments available to view on-line made it very confusing to know what was being proposed.


The Planning Manager noted that there had been various previous permissions on the site which had lapsed and in the meantime the Thatched House had been granted listed status which did change matters.  However, the requirements of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.


Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (for information) (Agenda item 10) pdf icon PDF 75 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.



The report was noted.



Enforcement Items (For Information) (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 53 KB


The Principal Planning Officer updated Members on the fourth item on page 77, Otterwood Kennels.  An Enforcement Notice had been served on 5 March 2013 for the removal of the residential caravans and other equipment and buildings connected with residential use.  The Notice would be effective 22 April 2013 with nine months to comply.  An un-validated planning application had been received and was awaiting further information.


Councillor Chapman-Allen asked about any animals on site and was advised that it was not in use as a kennels.


The report was noted.



Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (for information) (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 29 KB


The report was noted.



Appeal Decisions (For Information) (Agenda Item 13)

APP/F2605/A/12/2181116:  Hilborough:  Forest Lodge, High Ash:  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a showroom building by Mrs J Redshaw-Anthony:  Reference:  3PL/20012/0341/F

Decision:  Appeal Dismissed


APP/F2605/A/12/2184875:  Necton:  Land fronting Chapel Road and Ivy Todd:  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the use of a mobile home for residential accommodation by Mr M Dugdale:  Reference:  3PL/2012/0200/F

Decision:  Appeal Allowed


APP/F2605/A/12/2178854:  Old Buckenham:  Eel Farm, Fen Road:  Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the removal of Condition 8 of planning permission 3PL/2003/1720/F and new garage and alterations by Mr K Seaman:  Reference:  3PL/2011/1318/F

Decision:  Appeal Dismissed


The report was noted.



Delegated Arrangements and the Planning Guarantee (Agenda Item 14) pdf icon PDF 126 KB

Report of the Executive Members for Planning & Environmental Services and Assets & Strategic Development.


The Planning Manager presented the report and explained that changes in Government legislation made it likely that in future Local Authorities would have to determine applications within six months (including completing legal agreements) or face paying back the fee.


If the application then went to appeal the authority might also have to pay additional costs because of the delay.  Looking at the previous year’s figures, the Council would have had to pay back about £190,000 in fess which equated to over 16% of all income from planning applications.


In cases where it was clear that negotiations were going to be lengthy the Council and applicant would need to agree a bespoke timetable.  As long as a formal agreement could be reached, the figures for those applications would be taken out of the statistical returns.


These changes were being brought in by the Government to support their Growth Agenda.  However, they might prove to be counter-intuitive if they caused applications to be refused due to lack of information.  The Council needed to put a process in place to ensure that applications could be dealt with quickly.  The Planning Committee should only deal with contentious and major applications.


Not all Major applications were contentious and it was proposed that those that were not and that did not have significant strategic implications should not need to be determined by the Committee.


Currently all applications by Members or staff also came to Committee.  In future it was proposed that all Member applications should continue to do so for transparency.  However, applications by members of staff that had no direct interaction with the Planning Officers should not.  There would be a need to manage public perception and any applications by Senior Managers would still automatically be referred to Committee.  It was noted that by bringing every member of staff application to the Committee it actually gave an opportunity for the staff member to address the Committee on applications recommended for refusal, giving them a perceived ‘advantage’ over other members of the public who did not get that opportunity.


With regard to Member Call-Ins, the Planning Manager said it was important to record the reason why an application was called in to Committee and also to record why that request was accepted or declined.  The proposed forms, if adopted, would be kept as an audit trail.


In conclusion he advised Members that over the past 12 months, if the new scheme had been in use, only about a dozen applications would not have come to Committee.  All of those had been approved unanimously, usually without any discussion at all.  They tended to have been applications for large agricultural buildings such as onion stores or poultry units, which had come to the Committee due to their size.


He sought Members’ views on the proposals.


Councillor North thought it was a very good document and that the Member Call-In Form was the right thing to have to provide transparency.


Councillor Carter asked if the work of the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.