Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


Mr T Gray


16 - 23


Abel Homes Ltd


24 - 33


Abel Homes Ltd


34 - 39


Mr & Mrs Greenwood


40 - 48


Mr & Mrs P J Plummer


49 -56


Reads Nurseries


57 - 64



RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)    Item 1: NECTON: The Necton Diner, Norwich Road: Residential Development: Applicant: Mr T Gray: Reference: 3PL/2013/0983/O


The redevelopment of this former diner was acceptable in principle.  The application had been independently assessed and was only marginally viable; therefore no affordable housing was included.  It was proposed that the application be approved subject to a legal agreement which would include a viability review.  Members were requested to delegate authority to Officers to refuse the application if the legal agreement was not completed within three months, unless the Planning Manager agreed to an extension.


Mr Richardson (for Objector) spoke on behalf of the owners of the adjacent garage, raising concerns about encroachment on their land.  They owned a fully functioning business and were concerned that no restrictions should be applied to their operations.


Mr Evans (Agent) advised that the Highways preferred option had been for a staggered junction at the access point but that could not be achieved.  However, Highways had not objected to the revised scheme.  The site was an eyesore and development would improve views from the A47.


In response to a question about the effect of the development on the adjacent business the Planning Manager advised Members that mitigation measures including screening and acoustic fencing were proposed.  However, there could be future complaints from residents about noise, etc.  It would be appropriate to condition double glazing to the rear of the houses to try to overcome that, but there was no certainty that it would prevent future complaints.


Councillor Sharp was concerned that there was no direct benefit to Necton from the proposals. 


The Planning Manager explained that the Independent District Valuer had confirmed that the site could not deliver affordable housing, only a library and recreation contribution.  It was up to Members to decide if that money should be put towards affordable housing.


Members discussed the viability of brownfield sites and Councillor Duigan pointed out that if they insisted on affordable housing, such sites would be left redundant eyesores.  The benefit to the community was in getting rid of that.


In response to further concerns about the access the Applicant’s Solicitor Mr Fowler confirmed that the adjacent garage had right of access over the land which would be preserved.  They would still have unfettered access.


Approved, as recommended.


It was agreed that the Reserved Matters application should come back to Committee for approval.


(b)    Item 2: WATTON: The Warren, Watton Green: Erection of 18 houses with garages, ancillary works and landscaping: Applicant: Abel Homes Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/0330/F


This was an amendment to a previously approved, recently expired scheme for 19 houses.  The site area had been reduced to exclude Drone Garage. 


The affordable housing bungalows would be built as lifetime homes making them easily adaptable to the changing needs of occupants.


In response to concerns about the impact of such developments on the doctors’ surgeries the Planning Manager advised that health and wellbeing were matters that could be considered by the Committee.  In the new Local Plan which was currently going through the consultation process, Members could focus on health provision.  Currently there was no policy for small scale schemes to provide contributions for doctors.


Mr Abel (Applicant) advised that eight years ago he had offered to build a new surgery and provide it at a peppercorn rent but the Health Service had had no interest in it as they didn’t have any money to run it.  He also confirmed that as there was an oversupply of standard affordable housing in Watton he was happy to provide the more expensive lifetime homes for the elderly/disabled.


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.


(c)     Item 3: SWAFFHAM: Swans Nest Site, Land East of Brandon Road: Residential development of 82 dwellings (Phase 1): Applicant: Abel Homes Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/0359/D


This Reserved Matters application was the first phase of development and gave details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.


It was confirmed that each affordable house had a driveway with room for two cars or allocated on-street parking and that the paving would be permeable to SUDS standards.


Mr Abel advised that the trees would be checked as a matter of course and put in good condition and that he was ready to start work on site in mid September.


In response to a request from Councillor Sharp, Mr Abel confirmed that the Town Council would be consulted on what play equipment to include on the site.


Approved, as recommended.


(d)    Item 4: GRESSENHALL: Chequers Lane: Residential Development (2 Dwellings): Applicant: Mr & Mrs Greenwood: Reference: 3PL/2014/0461/O


It was not considered that this previously refused proposal satisfied the requirements of the NPPF.  The small contribution it would make in providing housing did not outweigh the harm it would do to the character and appearance of the area.  It would also set an undesirable precedent.


Mr Windle (Objector) said the site was an important part of the ambience of the village and development would be an unwarranted intrusion.  He showed photographs of the field and asked the Council to safeguard its biodiversity.  He also highlighted errors in the application.


Mr Greenwood (Applicant) showed slides of the site.  His family had farmed the area for three generations.  The site would provide natural infill.  Gressenhall had an excellent range of facilities and three major employers.  He asked for the opportunity to build two homes to enhance and sustain the village.


It was confirmed that the land was currently unused and was cut occasionally by the owner.


Refused, as recommended.


(e)    Item 5: MATTISHALL: Honingham Welding & Fabrication Services, Kensington Forge, Dereham Road: Residential development of 11 dwellings including change of use from storage/distribution and light industrial: Applicant: Mr & Mrs P J Plummer: Reference: 3PL/2014/0495/F


Additional information had been provided in the supplement to the agenda.


Councillor Rose (Ward Representative) was unable to attend.  He had written of his concerns about the access which was on a narrow part of the road with a blind bend nearby.  He felt the application was in the wrong location.


The application was recommended for refusal due to the site being unsustainable and lack of Highways support.


Mr Porter (for Applicant) pointed out that the site met sustainability requirements for bus service and had a footpath to the shops.  In rural areas it was recognised that cars were the key mode of transport.


Mr Parsons (Agent) said that the brownfield site had permission for timber waste recycling and it would be a benefit to the community to remove that use.  The proposal included 40% affordable housing and Hastoe Housing Association had agreed to take that forward. 


Councillor Claussen was also a Ward Representative for Mattishall.  He said the village did not have one good road.  He thought neighbours would prefer Passivhausing to loud reversing bleepers.


Councillor Lamb thought that the countryside was not the place for a housing estate and that the Council should be supporting the industrial undertaking.


Members discussed the affordable housing and it was confirmed that it was anticipated that the housing would be occupied by people with a local connection.


The Planning Manager advised that if Members were minded to approve the application they needed to be clear that the offer of 40% affordable housing linked to a registered housing provider was a significant factor and in the absence of 40% they would have refused the application.  That needed to be clearly flagged in any approval.  The starting point on the scheme was actually 100% affordable housing as the site was outside the Settlement Boundary.


The recommendation of refusal was not supported.  Members were minded to approve the application as the development would improve the amenity of the surrounding area and provide 40% affordable Passivhausing. 


Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions including a 40% affordable housing requirement and a two year time limit, on completion of the section 106 agreement.


(f)      Item 6: DEREHAM: Old Hall Nurseries, Dumpling Green, Dereham: Erection of two 3-bedroom detached houses with garages (Re-submission): Applicant: Reads Nurseries: Reference: 3PL/2014/0576/F


Additional information had been provided in the supplement to the agenda.


This proposal had been previously refused and had gone to appeal.  The only reason that the appeal had failed had been because the Unilateral Undertaking had not been signed.  The new application had been accompanied by a signed Unilateral Undertaking and it was therefore recommended for approval.


Approved, as recommended.


Notes to the Scheudle

Item No



Mr Richardson – for Objector

Mr Fowler – for Applicant

Mr Gray – Applicant

Mr Evans - Agent


Mr Abel - Applicant


Mr Lucas – Agent

Mr Abel – Applicant


Mr Windle – Objector

Mr & Mrs Burrell – Objectors

Mr Greenwood – Applicant

Mr Evans - Agent


Mr Porter – for Applicant

Mr Parsons – Agent

Mr & Mrs Plummer – Applicants

Ward Rep comments


Written Representations taken into account

Reference No

No of Representations














Supporting documents: