Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Democratic Services  01362 656870

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 90 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2016.



Councillor Gilbert had requested an amendment to Minute No 84/16 to clarify that comments made about access, drainage and pressure on local services had been made by him on behalf of Councillor Wassell and that his comments about Trenchard Crescent had been omitted.  He had said that Trenchard Crescent was a unique area which needed protection and to surround it with modern housing would destroy the setting of the existing houses.  He was not against some small scale high quality development on part of the site and suggested that the area around Trenchard Crescent could be incorporated into the open space.


Subject to that amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 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 Councillor Bowes.  Councillor Darby was present as her Substitute.



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

The duties to register, disclose and not to participate for the entire consideration of the matter, in respect of any matter in which a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011.  Members are also required to withdraw from the meeting room as stated in the Standing Orders of this Council.



Agenda Item 8a – Deferred Report: Old Buckenham.  All Members had received direct representation.


Agenda Item 9 – Schedule Item 14: Old Buckenham.  Councillor Joel was a personal friend of the applicant.  He left the room whilst the item was discussed.



Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)


In view of the number of applications to be considered the Chairman announced the order in which items would be discussed and confirmed which items would not be heard until the afternoon for the benefit of members of the public.



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 42 KB

To receive an update. 


The Planning Policy Officer provided the update and told Members that there had been a significant amount of work done on the Local Plan, including five sessions held in the Market Towns which had been well attended.  There would be one further session, the date had yet to be arranged.


Public consultation on site allocations, the settlement boundary review and the revised housing distribution would commence in September and last for six weeks.

The evidence base studies would be reported soon.


A number of Neighbourhood Plans were being prepared with Attleborough and Mattishall both at the pre-submission consultation stage.


Councillor Clarke asked again when the Dereham Transport Study would be published as the site specifics were dependant on that.  He was advised that no date had been set yet, but that Officers were aware of the issues and were hoping to confirm the date within the next couple of weeks.  He was also advised that Members would get the chance to see the Study when it was presented to the Local Plan Working Group, before it was included within the evidence base for the Local Plan.



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.


Old Buckenham: Builders Yard, Hargham Road: Single dwelling with access: Applicant: Mr B Barnard: Reference: 3PL/2015/0869/O pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.



All Members had received direct representation on this item.


The application had been considered by the Planning Committee in February and had been approved, subject to a legal agreement tying the dwelling to the business.  However, due to financial constraints the applicant had not been able to sign the legal agreement.


Members were given a recap of the application and asked to decide if they considered it to be sustainable development.


Mr Barnard (Applicant) had sent Members a letter setting out the key reasons he believed the development was sustainable.  He had been unable to obtain finance for the build whilst the dwelling was subject to a legal agreement.  He had a large amount of valuable cars on site and needed security.  By living on site he would no longer need to commute to his place of employment.  The business employed eight local people and supported local services.  It was a brownfield site and would replace one dwelling with another.  He would be happy to accept a condition limiting permission to one dwelling only.


Councillor Joel (Ward Representative) said the existing house had been derelict for over 30 years and it was an eyesore.  The applicant’s business had been operating from the site for 12 years.  He asked Members to remove the requirement for a legal agreement


Councillor Martin asked for guidance as he had thought that brownfield sites could be developed.  It was explained that that did not apply to sites in the countryside if they were not sustainable under NPPF criteria.


It was confirmed that the applicant currently lived on-site in a static caravan and that Old Buckenham Parish Council supported the proposal.


The recommendation of refusal was not supported.  Members felt that the application was sustainable.


RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement restricting the site to one dwelling only.


Members did not want to see any more dwellings on the site of the business of the area covered by this application.


Banham: Rosary Farm, Kenninghall Road: Erection of four dwellings: Applicant: Mr Graham Hancy: Reference: 3PL/2016/0232/O pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Report of the Executive Director of Place.



This application had been deferred from the previous meeting for consultation with the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) regarding the potential amenity problems caused by the working farm yard to the rear of the site.

The EHO had raised no objection subject to an additional condition requiring a scheme of measures to protect amenity.  The application was therefore recommended for approval with a two year time limit.


Councillor Joel supported the application which was in his Ward.

The Chairman was not happy with the layout, which was indicative only.  He suggested that it could be reconfigured but agreed with the principle of development.


RESOLVED to approve Outline Planning Permission, subject to conditions.



Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 257 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page Nos


Mr & Mrs Worledge




Mr C W Garrod

Stow Bedon/Breckles

See Pages



Mr C W Garrod

Stow Bedon/Breckles


Mr C W Garrod

Stow Bedon/Breckles


Mr C W Garrod

Stow Bedon/Breckles


Mr C W Garrod

Stow Bedon/Breckles


John Hilditch Builders




Mr & Mrs Granville Mark

North Elmham



Mr Dave Greenwood

Whinburgh & Westfield



Sovereign Group Limited




Mr Jon Pennells

North Elmham







Mr Simon Ball




Mr P Potter

Old Buckenham



Mr & Mrs Simon Rogers




Mr D Ulrych




Mr & Mrs Peter Mills

Stow Bedon/Breckles



Ms Sara Large

Swanton Morley



Dudley Business Services




Mr Stacey Beesley




Mr K Bell




Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)       Item 1: DEREHAM: Mill Vue Farm, Badley Moor: Remove covenants 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 on 3PL/2006/1067/O (re occupancy restriction): Applicant: Mr & Mrs Worledge: Reference: 3OB/2016/0006/OB


This application had been approved in 2006 subject to an occupancy restriction tying the dwelling to the engineering business.  The foundations had been laid but the Applicants had been unable to get funding for the build due to the occupancy restriction.  In the particular circumstances Officers felt it was reasonable that the restriction should be lifted.


Mr Futter (Agent) explained that the Applicants had been trying to get a mortgage since 2008.  Their presence on the site was necessary and they were currently living on site in a caravan on temporary consents, with no certainty of future renewals. 


Councillor Monument (Ward Representative) said that the applicants had persevered with the business which was viable and which she believed they intended to continue.  The caravan was deteriorating and she asked Members to support the proposal.


Approved, as recommended.


b)       Item 2: STOW BEDON/BRECKLES: Watering Farm (Building 1) Woodcock Road: Demolition of existing duck rearing buildings & erection of pig rearing building - Building 1 (retrospective): Applicant: Mr C W Garrod: Reference: 3PL/2012/0707/F


Items 2 to 6 were discussed together.  They were five retrospective planning applications.  The background to the site was explained.  The key issues were all set out in the report and included: impact on Peddars Way, residential amenity and pollution.


It was noted that the applicant could continue to rear 2,500 pigs in the original indoor buildings and up to 20,000 outdoor pigs without requiring planning permission.  That was described as the ‘fall back’ position and was a material planning consideration. 


After considerable discussions the applicant had agreed to remove the outdoor pigs, in perpetuity, in exchange for permission for the buildings.


Mr Pickering (Agricultural Planning Specialist on behalf of the Applicant) pointed out that the planning balance was in favour of approval.  The Applicant had lawful use for 20,000 outdoor pigs and was prepared to agree to stop that use and limit the number of indoor pigs to 7,000.  That was the best case for the environment.


Mr Gooding (for Applicant) explained that eight buildings had been demolished and replaced by four on the same footprint.  The farm had originally had pigs before ducks and was now used for pigs again.


Mr Cowen (Ward Representative) represented all the Parishes concerned and they and the residents were astonished by the recommendation of approval.  Peddars Way was an historic route which had been destroyed by the traffic movements.  It became impassable in wet weather.  The immediate neighbour lived in misery due to the noise, smell, etc.  He urged Members to refuse the application due to the pollution and harm to the environment.


Councillor M Chapman-Allen wondered why NCC had not taken any enforcement action.  The Solicitor pointed out that the Committee had to determine the applications before them.  They could condition a traffic movement scheme.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.


Applications determined by the Executive Director of Place (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 116 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 65 KB





Enforcement Update (Agenda Item 12)

Please note there will not be an Enforcement Update.  If Members need any information on enforcement matters they are requested to contact Chris Curtis, Planning Enforcement Manager. (





2016 Annual Statement of Five Year Housing Land Supply (Agenda Item 13) pdf icon PDF 37 KB

Report of the Executive Director of Commercialisation.

Additional documents:


The Senior Planning Policy Officer presented the report and explained that there had been some changes to the five year housing land supply calculation based on a new evidence base. 


Previously the Council had been expected to create 780 new dwellings per year, which was the target set within the Core Strategy and reflected the Regional Spatial Strategies’ requirements.  That target had been adjusted to 597 per year following new evidence from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).  Due to the previous under delivery against the housing requirement, it was necessary to provide a 20% buffer on land supply as per the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).


In 2015/16, 619 dwellings had been delivered.  This was the highest delivery rate of new homes since 2008/9.

The way in which the figures had been calculated was explained to Members.  Legal advice had been taken on which method the Council should use.  A range of scenarios was presented within the report.


It had become apparent that the majority of housing provision from the two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) in Attleborough and Thetford, would provide housing over a longer period than the Local Plan would cover.  The five year housing land supply could only include houses which would be delivered in the next five years.  Following research with developers and giving consideration to the sites with existing planning permissions it was estimated that 3509 dwellings would be delivered in the next five years which would provide a 4.7year housing land supply based on the SHMA figures and the Liverpool approach.  The statement had been calculated as at 31 March 2016 and there had been some recent planning applications which were not included.  Therefore, it had been decided to produce a mid-year statement in October to see if the five year land supply could be achieved.  In the absence of a five year land supply the NPPF stated that the policies in the Local Plan regarding housing supply were not considered to be up to date.


Councillor Duigan asked if there was a more recent SHMA than the one produced in 2015.  It was explained that the SHMA had been finalised in mid-2015 and it was a joint report with four other Local Authorities.  The other Local Authorities were using the SHMA figures to calculate their five year housing land supply.


Councillor Clarke noted that with the slower delivery of the two SUE developments would put greater on Dereham and surrounding areas to provide housing.


As the two SUEs had a development period beyond 2036 which was the end date for the Local Plan, discussions were being held with developers to try to clarify delivery rate figures as accurate information was needed to avoid an appeal challenge to the Plan.


Councillor Clarke asked for an explanation of the relationship between Neighbourhood Plans and the Local Plan.  It was explained that when a Neighbourhood Plan was adopted it became part of the development plan for the District.  It was subject to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.