Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Democratic Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1)

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2016.

Additional documents:


The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2016 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 Councillors Claussen and Newton.

Councillors Darby and Hollis were present as their Substitutes.



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

Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate in 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 that they have, in relation to an agenda item that supports the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.


Agenda Item 9:      


·       Schedule Item 7 (Bridgham) All Members had received direct representation.

·       Schedule Item 9 (Ashill) Councillor Sharpe spoke as Ward Representative in support of the application and then left the room.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


The Chairman welcomed Councillor Gould back to the Committee.  He  reminded Members that the Local Lead Flood Authority would be giving a presentation after the next meeting and thanked those Members that had attended the visit to the Highway Authority Operations Centre at NCC.



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.





Urgent Business (Agenda Item 6)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.





Local Plan Update (Agenda Item 7) pdf icon PDF 41 KB

To receive an update. 


The Planning Policy Manager gave a brief update on the information provided in the Agenda.


The Local Plan Preferred Options consultation had received 2,600 comments and 119 new sites had been put forward.  Officers were preparing a report on the consultation which would be presented to the next meeting of the Local Plan Working Group (date to be arranged).


The second phase of the Dereham Transport Study had commenced looking at issues of junction capacity which had been highlighted in the initial study.  It was expected to be completed in early May.  The results of other evidence base studies were expected in March/April.


A new Neighbourhood Plan Officer had been appointed.  Currently plans for Yaxham and Saham Toney were being progressed.


A draft response was being prepared on behalf of Members to a technical consultation on planning changes from the Government.  The consultation would close on 18 April 2016.


Councillor Duigan asked when detailed plans for the Thetford Sue were expected.  He was concerned that delays to that permission would have an effect on the housing numbers in the emerging Local Plan. He asked if the number of outstanding planning permissions was known.


The Operations & Contract Manager advised that a meeting had been held with the applicants to discuss the discharge of conditions and they were strongly marketing the site.  Regular monthly meetings would be held in future and Members would be advised of progress.


The Planning Policy Manager noted that the figures for outstanding permissions would be included in the annual monitoring report.




Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 43 KB

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


ATTLEBOROUGH: Coombe-Martin, Hargham Road: Erection of Two Bungalows: Applicant: Mr R Adcock: Reference: 3PL/2015/1186/O pdf icon PDF 46 KB

Report of the Executive Director Place.

Additional documents:


Members were reminded that they had been minded to approve this application, but further ecological information had been required.  A study had been carried out and no protected species had been identified.


The Chairman noted that Councillor Stasiak (Ward Representative) had phoned to say that he supported the application.


RESOLVED to approve the application subject to conditions in respect of highway safety and ecological enhancement.



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 271 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Mrs Anne Bowes

Saham Toney



Mr & Mrs S Skipper

Saham Toney



Mr John Rix




Ms Sara Large

Swanton Morley



Dr Sophie North

Great Cressingham



Mr & Mrs D Stebbings




Strutt & Parker Farms Ltd




Miss Margaret Cook




Mr Andrew Yeomans & Mrs A Pickering




Mr & Mrs Gooch








Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)         Item 1: SAHAM TONEY: Land adjacent Stanway Farm, Chequers Lane: Proposed 5 No residential dwellings with associated access drive, amenity space and garaging: Applicant: Mrs Anne Bowes: Reference: 3PL/2015/0242/F


Councillor Bowes took no part in the discussions and abstained from voting.


This was a full application for five dwellings centrally located to village services.  The proposal would contribute to the housing land supply and offered a financial contribution towards affordable housing through a legal agreement.


Standing water on the site had been caused by works to ditches which were being addressed by the Lead Local Flood Authority.


Mr Creek (Parish Council) raised concerns about: the distance to bus stops and the lack of pavements; drainage issues; and the lack of need for more houses as there were already at least 15 houses on the market in the village. 


Mr Taylor and Mr Steele (Objectors) raised concerns about the inadequate ecological survey which was inaccurate and not fit for purpose; and drainage issues caused by the lack of land drains from the site, leading to extensive flooding.


Mr Futter (for Applicant) referred to the high quality of the five individual homes on large plots.  There had been no statutory objections.  It was a well-conceived scheme with significant benefits which was sustainable and deliverable.


Councillor Gould asked about the sewage system and where surface water from driveways would go.  The sewage would link to the mains and the driveways would have a crated drainage system.


There was discussion about ditches and riparian responsibilities which the Solicitor gave some assistance with.  Councillor Duigan noted that the EA produced a very useful booklet on the matter.


Decision that authority be delegated to the Executive Director Place in consultation with the Chairman to grant approval, subject to the conditions in the report, on prior completion of the section 106 agreement.


b)         Item 2: SAHAM TONEY: Site adjacent Homelands, Ploughboy Lane: Proposed residential development: Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Skipper: Reference: 3PL/2015/0879/O


Councillor Bowes took no part in the discussions and abstained from voting.


This was an outline application with all matters reserved.  Indicative details had been provided showing two semi-detached affordable dwellings and three detached properties.


Mr Parsons (Agent) said it was infill development with road frontage plots.  A previous application for 18 dwellings had been refused, this smaller scale proposal was more appropriate.  There were no statutory objections and the highway improvements would be good for the wider community.


Mr Chapman (Objector) thought the development was detrimental to highway safety as there were no footways or lighting.  The lane was narrow with no passing places.  Local services were over-stretched.  The school and doctors were full.  It would have an adverse impact on a rural area of the village.  It was remote from services and an unsustainable location.


Councillor Robinson noted that the affordable houses had no garages and it was pointed out that most affordable housing providers would not include garages due to cost implications.


Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.


Applications determined by the Executive Director of Place (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.


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 (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 80 KB





Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) (Agenda Item 12)

Following the review of the Council’s Constitution, approved by Council on 21 January 2016, responsibility for the determination of appeals against the making of TPOs has been delegated to the Planning Committee.  Capita’s Tree & Countryside Officer and the Solicitor will advise Members on the procedure.


The Tree & Countryside Officer explained the process he followed to protect a tree.  Usually Tree Protections Orders (TPOs) were applied if it was felt that a tree was under threat.  He would visit the site and carry out an assessment using the TEMPO method (template tabled for Members).  If the tree scored highly enough a TPO was served and the tree was immediately protected.  There was then a 28 day period for comments and or appeals against the Order.  If no objections were made the Order would be confirmed after six months.


Where an objection was raised a report was written explaining why the tree had been protected.  The appellant would usually attend the meeting to explain the reasons for their objection and then it was up to Members to make a judgement.


The Operations & Contract Manager noted that Members would determine the appeal in public and that the process would be basically the same as that for a planning application.  Members would receive a presentation including photographs of the tree, listen to the objections and then make their decision.


Councillor Gould noted that the Planning Committee had been responsible for such appeals previously but the responsibility had been passed to the Appeals Committee to avoid conflicts of interest where planning applications were dependent upon the removal of trees. 


The Solicitor advised that legally the Committee were required to consider the objections and representations before confirming or not confirming a TPO.