Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (AGENDA ITEM 13)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Mr R Scammell


39 -42


Heritage Developments Ltd




Mr P J Southgate Ltd


44 - 47






Mr Chris Smith




Mr R Jay

New Buckenham

50 - 52


Mr Terry Gray

North Pickenham




RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


a)         Item 1: Beeston: Ploughshare, The Street:  Alterations to Ploughshare PH, car park and erection of three terraced dwellings for Mr R Scammell: Reference: 3PL/2010/0516/O


It was noted that the application description referred to three dwellings but this had been reduced to two.


Outline permission was sought to retain and refurbish the public house and construct dwellings in the grounds. A post office/village shop was proposed to be incorporated within the public house.  Only access and layout were to be considered.


The main issues were form and character; amenity; design and the protection of key services.


It was noted that the garden area of the public house was recommended for removal from the Settlement Boundary under the Site Specifics proposals and this should add weight to the determination.


The impact on the occupiers of the new dwellings was also an issue and the potential for complaints about noise from the public house and function room which might affect its viability.


Mrs Laws, Parish Council Vice-Chairman, said residents were concerned that long term amenity might be affected by the loss of the garden and the closeness of the new dwellings.  She said that if there was a shop and post office in the pub the limited parking available could lead to long term problems with on-street parking and affect public safety.  Finally she was concerned that the applicant had made no effort to re-open the public house.


Mrs Howden, objector, wanted to retain the village pub.  She lived close to it and knew about noise problems and she felt that having houses so close would lead to the pub failing.  It had been well run in the past and had been the hub of the village.  She had collected about 50 signatures on a petition against the proposal.


A written representation from Mr Scammell, applicant, was summarised by the Principal Planning Officer:

The poor recent history had been caused by lack of investment.  The proposal would allow the pub to revive.  He had held a meeting to reassure residents.  He was willing to enter a legal agreement that the pub would reopen before the housing was developed and that no lease would be for less than ten years.  He asked Members to ensure the long term viability of the pub.


The Chairman said that the Ward Representative could not be present, as adjoining Ward Representative she read out his thoughts:

He had attended the Parish Council meeting at which the proposal was discussed.  He was concerned about the access to the new dwellings being through the pub car park and the dwellings being so close to the pub would lead to complaints.  He referred to the proposal to remove the garden and carpark from the Settlement Boundary under the LDF and said that previous proposals to use a pub to get development had been refused.


Members were concerned that the loss of the garden would affect the viability of the pub and that new houses so close would lead to conflict.


Refused, on these grounds and on conflict with Policy DC18.


b)         Item 2: Harling: Land East of East Harling School, Kenninghall Road: Change of use of agricultural land to residential for 40 units and garages/car spaces including sixteen affordable homes for Heritage Developments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/0596/F


Deferred, see Minute No 148/10.


c)         Item 3: Attleborough: Lyng Farm, Long Street: Erection of 32,000 bird free range egg unit, 4 x feed silos, extension to access way and hard standing for Mr P J Southgate Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2010/0603/F


This application sought approval for an identical structure to the one already existing on site.  The application followed changes to the standard reducing the ‘roaming’ area required for the birds, therefore provision for additional birds was needed.


An objection had been received from the nearest neighbour and the building had been moved further from there and landscaping and mitigation measures were proposed.


Mrs Shelly, Agent, said the application was due to the change in density.  Two flocks would be kept separately, each having 16 hectares of land.  The birds were kept on a 13 month cycle and were cleaned out once every 13 months.  The litter stayed in the unit, there were no fans and it stayed dry so there was no smell.  Following the objection they had moved the building.  Chicken wire would be provided to the boundary with the dwelling.  No incineration would take place when the wind was from the south west.


A Member asked if the smell was monitored and the agent explained that when the objector was invited to visit site there had been no smell.  The site was licensed by the Environment Agency.


Approved, as recommended.


d)         Item 4: Watton: 43 Beechwood House, High Street: Residential care home (C2) with associated parking/access, retention of Beechwood House, demolition of side wing and outbuildings for Jetspark: Reference: 3PL/2010/0627/F


Refused as recommended, see Minute No 149/10


e)         Item 5: Watton: Saham Road: Erection of 91 residential dwellings with associated open space for Mr Chris Smith: Reference: 3PL/2010/0639/F


Refused as recommended, see Minute No 151/10


f)          Item 6: New Buckenham: Kings Head Public House, Market Place: Erection of one two storey dwelling with detached garage for Mr R Jay: Reference: 3PL/2010/0722/F


This application sought permission for a dwelling and garage on land to the rear of the Kings Head Public House (listed building).  The site was not currently used by the public and would be accessed off Rosemary Lane.


A passing bay was proposed to the front of the new dwelling, created by removing an area of the existing boundary wall and rebuilding it 2.4 metres into the site.


There had been previous refusals on the site on highway safety grounds.


Mrs Highton, objector, said this was an identical proposal to the previous refusal.  The highway situation remained the same, the lane was narrow and rough and used by pedestrians of all ages.  The wall was a big feature of the historic village and the loss of green coverage at the centre of the village would decrease drainage and damage the Conservation Area.  It was Government Policy to discourage backland development.  The three supporters were not residents of the village.


Mr Venning, Agent, said that the wall was not part of the listing of the Public House and probably dated from the 1880s.  It was deteriorating and would require rebuilding in the next few years.  The proposal to provide the passing bay was to help traffic movements.  The lane was within a 20mph zone (which had been introduced since the previous application) and there would be minimal traffic movements from one dwelling.  An additional dwelling would help the viability of the pub.


Mr Joel, Ward Representative, said the site was in the middle of the village and the proposal was supported by the Parish Council.  He did not want to lose the pub which had financial problems due to lack of business.  The previous application, for two dwellings, had been refused on highway grounds.  This application for one dwelling reduced the number of movements that would be made.  He asked Members to take these matters into consideration.


A Member asked if there was vehicular access to the site from the Public House side to avoid removing part of the wall, but there was not.


Refused, as recommended.


g)         Item 7: North Pickenham: Romany Dream, Brecklands Green: Residential development – 7 No dwellings and detached double garage for Elliott House for Mr Terry Gray: Reference: 3PL/2010/0742/F


Deferred, see Minute No 150/10.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No.



Mrs Laws – Parish Council

Mrs Howden - Objector


(Agenda Item 9)

Lady Fisher – Ward Representative

Mr Bartram - Applicant


Ms Shelley - Agent


(Agenda Item 10)

Mr Pettifer - Applicant


(Agenda Item 12)

Mr Gilbert – Ward Representative

Mr Rudling – Town Council

Mr Upton – Objector

Mr Smith - Applicant


Mr Joel – Ward Representative

Mrs Highton – Objector

Mr Venning – Agent

Mr Jay - Applicant


(Agenda Item 11)

Mrs Ball – Ward Representative

Mr Gray – Applicant

Mr Evans - Agent

Deferred Item

(Agenda Item 8a)

Mr Chapman - Applicant


Written Representations taken into account


Reference No.

No. of Representations


















Supporting documents: