Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


The Dawe Charitable Trust








Earl & Countess Cathcart




Earl & Countess Cathcart




Mark Frankland




Mark Frankland




Mr & Mrs S and C Klinger




Paul Rackham Ltd




Paul Rackham Ltd




Paul Rackham Ltd





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)                           Item 1: 116 Sandy Lane, Dereham: Proposed 12 flats inc. demolition of existing building for The Dawe Charitable Trust: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0099/F


Item withdrawn


(b)                           Item 2: Shropham: Oak Tree Cottages, Hargham Rd: Proposed Replacement of Fire Damaged Industrial Units for TNP Ltd: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0185/F


Approved, see Minute 81/10


(c)                           Item 3: Gateley: Cart Shed Barn, Gateley Hall: Proposed re-erection of previously dismantled cart shed to form dwelling for Earl & Countess Cathcart: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0188/F


Mrs Irving noted that members had received direct representation on this matter.


Mr Labouchere, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he was a friend of the applicant, made a personal statement and then left the room before any discussion by members.


The PPO (MP) gave a report on the background to the proposal which would replicate one approved in 2004. Since the cart shed was no longer standing the application fell within the policies for a new dwelling in the countryside and would need to be justifiable e.g. for agricultural workers or other appropriate enterprise. The cart shed had been removed under an unfortunate set of circumstances.


Earl Cathcart, the applicant, informed the Committee that the cart shed itself was not listed but had been built at the same time as the adjacent barn. The Earl had worked on a number of other developments and would not knowingly jeopardise the planning permission. The cart shed had been dismantled following the discovery that the mainframe of the cart shed had collapsed when ivy was removed during repair work. The Earl was away at the time and the builders decided to dismantle the building, salvaging as much material as possible.


The Earl acknowledged that a mistake had been made and that he should have sought permission to dismantle the cart shed but had not received advice or been requested to do so at the time. He wished to reinstate the building as previously proposed.


Mr Borrett, Ward Reprsentative, in a statement supported the proposal, praising the high standard of work carried out by the applicant using local oak from his estate. He recommended approval of the proposal in order to restore the building.


Mr Labouchere informed members that, in his capacity as a structural engineer, he had advised the applicant on the timber of the cart shed had suggested the demolition and reconstruction retaining 80 to 90% of the timber in a new building which could incorporate the original components. Mr Labouchere then left the meeting.


Members were in sympathy with the circumstances which led to the dismantling of the cart shed and shared the view that it would be better to give permission for rebuilding as proposed. Members questioned whether the outside walls would be left as brick or whitewashed. The applicant said he was open minded and would be happy to follow the advice of the Council.


Approved, contrary to officers recommendation as they accepted that the building had been structurally unsound. Officers toadvise the applicant on appropriate external surfacing for the building.


(d)                           Item 4: Gateley: Cart Shed Barn, Gateley Hall: Proposed dismantling of cart shed retrospective and re-erection to form dwelling for Earl & Countess Cathcart: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0189/LB: 


This application was considered at the same time as the above.

Approved, contrary to officer recommendation, (see above).


(e)                           Item 5: Litcham: I Church Street: proposed conversion of ancillary accommodation to self contained holiday lets (northern wing). Introduce door to eastern wing: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0211/LB:


This application and the following application for planning permission were considered at the same time.


Mr Kiddle-Morris, declared a personal and prejudicial interest as an inhabitant of the village and customer of the Bull Public House, and then left the room after giving views as a Ward Representative.


The PPO (MP) outlined the application for consent for Listed Building and Full Planning Permission. There were no significant changes to the fabric of the building and the new self contained units would be acceptable from a policy perspective. The viability of the public house should not be compromised if the units were restricted to tourist accommodation only.


The Highways Authority had expressed concern that the existing access was inadequate. Objections had been received from the Parish Council and local residents particularly regarding the effect the conversion to 2 self contained holiday lets could have on the future viability of the public house business.


Mr Frankland, applicant, explained that the Bull PH was not currently financially viable. His tenant manager ran both the Bull and the room lettings from which he had not received full rental income for some time. He said the application would increase the flexibility of the letting accommodation and would not adversely affect the business of the public house. There was limited change of the building structure with regards to the listed building status.


Mr Kiddle-Morris, speaking on behalf of the Parish Council, whose representative was unable to attend, spoke against the proposal. He expressed concern that the proposed change from B & B accommodation to self catering units would result in the loss of 17 beds, the games room and the utility room, which would affect the Public House business and the landlord’s accommodations/facilities. He was also concerned that the use of the car park and courtyard (where there was a smoking area) would be restricted to customers. He said that the building had historical significance having been a former court room and stables, which would be affected by the conversion.


Mr Bond, the landlord of the Bull and bed & breakfast accommodation, spoke against the proposal as he felt it would reduce the potential income of letting rooms, restrict the use of the car park and affect the viability of the pub business.


Members expressed concern that the conversion could lead to a future application for permanent residential accommodation. The Solicitor confirmed that a Section 106 Agreement could restrict the use of the building for holiday use only and tie the accommodation to the public house.


Members were mindful to protect the viability of the public house business and considered that the mix of public house business and holiday accommodation did not work well.


Members were advised that the application could be deferred to obtain evidence as to whether the economic viability of the public house could be affected, but it was felt that further information was not necassary.


Refused, contrary to officer recommendation, as members were fearful that the viability of the pub as a business would be adversely affected by the conversion, and that there would be a damaging impact on the historical aspect of the building.


(f)                             Item 6: Litcham: I Church St: propose conversion of ancillary accommodation to self contained holiday lets (northern wing). Introduce door to eastern wing: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0212/F.


This application was considered at the same time as the one above.

Refused, contrary to officer recommendation


(g)                           Item 7: Snetterton: Willow Cottage, South End: Alterations and extension to existing dwelling including demolition of existing lean-to and replace with 1½  storey rear & single storey side extension: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0236/F


The application was for a large contemporary extension to a dwelling that had been the subject of various alterations and extensions over the years. The building was outside the settlement boundary but in a large landscaped setting.  The PPO (MP) advised that the application was considered excessive and disproportionate, being approximately 250% larger than the original dwelling house, and therefore did not meet the requirements of policy DC3.


Mr Klinger, applicant, said that the extension was needed to meet the accommodation requirements for his family of 3 children and aged parents. The proposal also included a specialist temperature controlled room where he would be able to store and process his own produce. He wanted to create a sustainable building which included using solar panels, ground heating and a living wall. He intended to source local materials where feasible. He had received full and unconditional support from the neighbours.


Mr Askew, Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application, commenting that the current property was the result of poor planning decisions and poor design and was not sustainable. The application would improve life for the family and there would be no loss of visual amenity in terms of appearance. The proposal was an improvement on the existing disproportionate and dysfunctional dwelling and was a modest increase compared to the existing building, some of which would be replaced. He felt policy DC3 was not appropriate and needed to be looked at again by the council.


Members were of the opinion that the proposal was a great improvement on the existing building and the new design would fit in well with the original building. The use of materials, design and style of the application was admired. A member who had visited the site confirmed that the street view would be unaffected and that the proposal would put right some of the previous unsympathetic development.


Approved, contrary to officers recommendation, as members considered the proposal to be an improvement on the existing building, as detailed above. 


(h)                           Item 8, 9 & 10: Bridgham: Camp Farm, Roudham: Change of Use of Building 10 to Hemp Processing and Erection of Office Extension for Paul Rackham Ltd: Application References: 3TL/2010/0008, 0009, 0010/TL.


Approved, as recommended, (see Minute No. 80/10)


At the end of the meeting the Chairman thanked all those who had served on the Development Control Committee over the past year, in particular those who had served on the committee for many years and who were standing down.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No.



Mr Cowen – Ward Rep

3 & 4

Earl Cathcart – Applicant

Mr Moulton - Agent

5 & 6

Mr Kiddle Morris – Ward Rep

Mr Frankland – Applicant

Mr Bond - Landlord


Mr Askew – Ward Rep

Mr & Mrs Klinger – Applicant

Ms Aitken – Agent

Mr Cumming – Agent

8, 9 & 10

Lady Fisher – Ward Rep

Mrs Jolly – Parish Council

Ms Matthews - Agent


Written Representations taken into account


Reference No

No. of representations




Supporting documents: