Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


David Watson Transport Ltd


36 to 38


Norfolk Homes Ltd




Mr P Burton




Mr I Leonard




Mr I Leonard




Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd




Mr & Mrs D Alston


44 to 46


Mr N McLeod


47 to 50



RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :


(a)       Item 1 : Weeting : David Watson Transport Ltd., Mundford Road : Vary S106 agreement to allow vehicles owned/operated by Applicant to use A1065 through Brandon on PP 3PL/2005/0326/F. 

Reference : 30B/2010/0001/OB


Members were made aware of the history of the site and the existing Section 106 Agreement.


Mr Watson, Applicant, felt that the restriction was overly restrictive and hampered his business, stating that the cost to his business was £60,000 prior to the recent fuel increase.  His business generated 12-15 movements a day through Brandon, and the vehicles would usually be empty through the High Street.


Strong objections had been received in respect of any additional movement through Brandon.  The Ward Representative had sent an email supporting the recommendation of refusal on the grounds of the impact on local congestion and that the applicant had been well aware of the situation when he took on the tenancy of the building.


The Applicant advised that the direct route to Barton Mills was 10 miles, and the route to avoid Brandon was 22 miles, more than double, which added 37,000 litres of diesel, £40,000 costs and additional driver time, totalling £63,000.  One quarter to one third of the trucks were away from site all day, 4-6 rigid vehicles left before the rush hour and returned after it.  The extra 37,000 litres of diesel was a waste and the £63,000 costs was crippling to his business.  There was one year left on the current lease and he would consider the viability of the depot if the variation was refused.


Whilst the Chairman understood why the restriction had been included in the legal agreement, she believed it unreasonable when the costs of £63,000 were considered against those to the environment.


It was felt by one Councillor that although he was aware of the traffic situation in Brandon, 10-12 movements was marginal, and should not handicap a particular business.


There was a need for a by-pass.


Approved contrary to recommendation on the grounds :-


(1)       of an acknowledged need to support a local business and local economy and that,


(2)       the additional movement through Brandon would be only a marginal increase.



(b)       Item 2 : Attleborough : Land to North of Honeysuckle Way : Residential development (66 dwellings & amend 2 no. prev approved dwellings, assoc garages, roads footways etc for Norfolk Homes Ltd

Reference : 3PL/2010/1041/F


Approved, as recommended, see Minute No. 09/11


(c)        Item 3 : Harling : Cloverfield, Lopham Road : Proposed residential development of 17 no. houses including a mix of 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses for Mr P Burton : Reference : 3PL/2010/1079/F


Refused , as recommended, see Minute No. 010/11


(d)       Item 4 : Shipdham : Land to east of Pound Green Lane : Erection of 35 dwellings with associated open space, access and infrastructure for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1095/0


Refused, as recommended, see Minute No. 011/11


(e)       Item 5 : Shipdham : Land off Parklands Avenue : Erection of 15 dwellings with associated open space, access and infrastructure for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1096/0


Approved, as recommended, see Minute No. 012/11


(f)         Item 6 : Dereham : Land North of Norwich Road : Erection of 200 dwellings with assoc. parking, garages, open space & landscaping & change of use of land to cemetery for Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Reference : 3PL/2010/1142/F


Deferred, see Minute No. 013/11


(g)       Item 7 : Attleborough : Wood Farm, Deopham Road : Erection of a single detached dwelling for Mr & Mrs D Alston : Reference : 3PL/2010/1181/0


The application sought outline planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling.  The applicant ran the business from a building nearby and part of the purpose of the proposed dwelling was to provide a demonstration house showing some of the products the business supplied.  In addition to that role, it would provide a house close to the business and to the applicant’s parents. It would be built to Code Level 5 and would be a 100% improvement on building regulations.


Mr Took, Agent advised that the application was a re-submission of a proposal from the previous year with the dwelling now relocated to a far better location.  It was of innovative and imaginative design and would possibly be the first designed to Code Level 5 in the district; it would be available as a show house of sustainable construction.  The Applicant would be happy to link it to the business and confirm it would be a family home.  There would be some ‘tweaking’ with regard to windows for example as the design was indicative.


Whereas it was felt not to be of ground breaking design by one Councillor another believed that Planning Policy was to support modern ecological low energy buildings.


The Agent said it would be linked to the house from the office, and would allow better access to visitors and customers.


Deferred, and the Officers be authorised to approve, contrary to recommendation on the grounds that it was an innovative design linked to the business, on completion of a :-


(1)       Section 106 Agreement that the dwelling be linked to the business, and subject to conditions including that the design would be similar to the indicative design and be built to Code Level 5.


It was felt that if Councillors tour the area in the future, that the property be included in the tour.


(h)        Item 8 : Gressenhall : High House Farm : Extension to existing workshop unit for Mr N McLeod : Reference : 3PL/2010/1258/F


The reason for the application was to create an extension as additional floor space to better manage the existing workshop operation.  Conditions of no power tools to be used outside and the roller shutter doors to be closed when machines were used, had not been imposed following planning permission granted previously.


The Committee were made aware of concerns raised with regard to radio noise, some of which had been heard at 6 a.m in the morning.  It had also been heard during the middle of the day on a footpath close by and could also be heard with the doors shut. 


Mr Bambridge, Agent, referred to the original planning application made in 2009 to change the use from farm building to a workshop.  The applicant said that it was not possible to close off the doors to the east and had therefore not implemented that permission but had resubmitted an application. Three people were employed at the premises.  The only other activities on site were farming.


The applicant said that suggestions had been made to keep the main doors shut but radio noise had not been discussed.  However, the applicant would talk to the tenant about the radio.


The Environmental Health Officer had asked for conditions to be imposed in relation to hours of operation and the use of power tools, and a recommendation with regard to hours had been received of 7.30 a.m – 6 p.m.


An additional condition to deal with the radio was recommended in respect of agreeing any amplification either in or outside the building.


Approved, as recommended subject to conditions including :-


(1)       An additional condition in respect of agreeing any amplification elating to the radio either in or outside the building.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No



Mr Watson – Applicant


Mr Stasiask – Ward Rep

Mr Harper – For Applicant


Mr Belton - Agent


Mr Hewett – Ward Rep

Mr Irvine - Agent


Mr Hewett – Ward Rep

Mrs Jordon – Objector

Mr Irvine - Agent


Mr Hyde – Agent

Mr Calvert - Agent


Mr Took - Agent


Mr Watson – Applicant


Written Representations Taken Into Account


Reference No.

No. of Representations














Supporting documents: