Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No


J S Bloor (Sudbury)




Mr B Titchiner




Supreme Taste of India




Raker Farms




Mr B J Gooderham




Mr J Chapman




Mr M Haller





RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: 3PL/2009/0171/D: Carbrooke: Area B, Former RAF Watton, Norwich Road: House type substitution for plots 77-79, 85-88, 90 and 91 and 101-103 inclusive for J S Bloor (Sudbury)


This Reserved Matters application sought to change the house types of 12 plots.  Previous approval had been granted in 2007 for two and a half and three storey dwellings on these sites.  Due to a decline in demand for that type of house, the applicant sought a reduction to three bedroom, two storey units.  Layout, parking and materials would remain the same.  No objections had been received.


Approved, as recommended.


(b)       Item 2: 3PL/2009/0209/F: Lyng: Swan Pens, Elsing Road: Erection of single storey dwelling and cartshed for Mr B Titchiner


Mr Kiddle-Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the room whilst it was discussed.


This application proposed a dwelling within the Settlement Boundary on land forming part of the back garden of Swan Pens.  Members were shown surrounding development which included two other examples of backland development.


Officers considered that in this instance backland development was acceptable.  The proposal was not considered to impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties; being single storey there was no problem with overlooking; the access drive was six metres from the adjacent property; and the proposal was in keeping with the character of the area.


Mr Payne, Agent, said that the single storey house met planning criteria.  Backland development had already been permitted in the area.  The new and existing development only covered 18% of the site so could not be considered overdevelopment, and the access drive was adjacent the shed and greenhouse of the adjacent property and would not cause noise and disturbance to the neighbours.


Mr Bambridge, Ward Representative, had received representation from the Parish Council and neighbours against the application, as well as from the applicant.  He agreed with the officers’ assessment that there would be no detriment to the area, and he supported the application.


Two Members raised concern about the potential conflict caused by the shared access drive.


Approved, as recommended.


(c)        Item 3: 3PL/2009/0214/F: Dereham: Former Library, Church Street: Conversion of library building to restaurant (Class 3) and associated take-away (Class 5) (no demolitions) for Supreme Taste of India


Mr P Duigan had spoken to the agent prior to the submission of this application and the Chairman had spoken to people making representation on the application.


This application to convert the former library to an Indian restaurant and take-away would result in little physical change to the building.  Two doors and a flue would be introduced, together with a facility for storing waste.  Signage would be dealt with separately.


The Parish Council and some neighbours objected to the proposal.  The Ward Representative, Robin Goreham, had written to reluctantly request refusal because he had serious concerns about the detrimental effect of the proposal on the neighbourhood.


Mrs Stimpson, objector, wanted to see the building re-used but was concerned re litter, parking, the effect on the Queen Mother’s Garden and the potential effect of smells on the adjacent flats.


Mr Cutting, Agent, said the application had been submitted following negotiations.  The potential impact on adjacent properties had been considered.  The main concern was noise from the extraction unit.  To overcome this, details had been provided of the sound baffles and filtration system to be used to make it as quiet as possible.  The flue was located to minimise its impact on the adjacent flats.  Only food deliveries would be made to the rear of the building.


Members discussed the toilets and whether they could be made available for the public; the windows in the roof, to confirm that they were for light only and there was no upper floor to the building; and the filtration system and the potential problems with smells.


Approved, as recommended.


(d)       Item 4: 3PL/2009/0228/F: Croxton: Adjacent 7 Watton Road: New workshop and machinery storage building for Raker Farms


Councillor C Bowes declared a personal interest in this item.


This application site was bounded on three sides by the Special Protection Area for Stone Curlews.  It was on a site well screened from the road and comprising a farm house and a number of other farm buildings.


Permission had previously been granted for a smaller workshop and storage building which had not been constructed.   This larger building was required to rationalise farming operations.


The Committee was satisfied that the proposed development was not likely to have any significant effect on the interest features of the SPA with the proposed conditions.


Approved, as recommended.


(e)       Item 5: 3PL/2009/236/F: Kenninghall: Oak Tree Fam, North Lopham Road: Erection of chicken shed and 2 No feed bins for Mr B J Gooderham


This application proposed a fifth chicken shed on a site approximately 500 metres from Kenninghall.  The buildings were not particularly intrusive in the landscape as they were cut into the site to reduce their height and significant planting provided screening from the road.  The new building would be the same colour as existing buildings which were approved in 2004.


Concerns raised about a breach of condition to that earlier permission, requiring the removal of a chicken shed at Ash Farm, would be investigated by the Enforcement team.


The original application had been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Statement which referred to 180,000 birds.  Due to a change in regulations this number of birds had never been held on site.  Even with the fifth building the number of birds would not exceed 157,500.


Mr Davidson, for the applicant, said that the breach of condition had resulted from a misunderstanding.  The building at Ash Tree Farm was younger than other buildings which had been removed.  It would not be replaced at the end of its useful life.  It was not up to modern standards, but was still in use due to the change in regulations requiring fewer birds to be kept in each building.


A Member asked how the washdown waste was disposed of and was told that it went to sealed underground tanks before being taken off site.


It was pointed out that the condition attached to the original permission for the removal of other chicken sheds was because of concerns about the number of birds in the area, which was no longer an issue.


Approved, as recommended.


(f)                 Item 6: 3PL/2009/0297/CU: Thetford: Woodlands, 87 Mallow Road: Change of use of land to garden area for Mr J Chapman


This application was for the change of use of land to form an extension to the garden of 87 Mallow Road.  Adjacent land, also in the ownership of the applicant would be fenced and retained as woodland.  This did not require the benefit of planning permission.


Further representations had been received since the report had been written raising concerns about the effects on the character of the area and on wildlife and the loss of open space.  Three letters of support had also been received.


It was acknowledged that the green space was an important feature of the area but it was not felt that the proposal would have any direct effect on the area and no trees would be removed.  A condition would restrict building on root protection areas. 


In relation to the loss of open space it was pointed out that the land was private and had not been offered for adoption.  The S106 agreement for the whole development did not clearly define the woodland areas and it would be difficult to mount an objection on the grounds of the loss of public open space.


Members were also notified of two undetermined planning applications made by the developer for a dwelling on either side of the road, within the wooded area.  Officers felt that these proposals would have a detrimental effect on the area, but they indicated that the developers had never intended to offer the land as public open space.


Mrs Bangay, objector, explained the objections of local residents to Members.  This was a large area of land with lots of wildlife.  Children played there and local people walked their dogs there.  In the original plans she said the area was shown as being set aside as public open space.


Mrs Hutchinson, objector, said the community had no objection to the extension to the garden but did not think that such a large piece of land was necessary.  She was concerned that there might be future plans to build on the land which could set a precedent.  She also felt that the woodland added to the health and welfare of the residents.


Mr Butler-Finbow, representing the developer, was present to answer questions.


Mr Chapman, applicant, had bought his house ‘off plan’ in 2004 and had originally intended to build a conservatory.  However, when the fencing was erected there was not enough room.  He had sought to buy extra land and had been in negotiations since.  When he was approached to buy the larger area he had agreed, to prevent any future building on the adjacent land.  He had no desire to build on the woodland, and on the extension to the garden he only intended to erect the conservatory and an ornamental shed.


Members discussed this application at length.  They were concerned about the enclosure of what was perceived as public open space.  The details of the S106 agreement were discussed and the reasons for the lack of definition of the open space areas were explained by the solicitor.  It was not uncommon for S106 agreements to leave the exact position of boundaries on estates to be sorted out by the developers.


Mr Butler-Finbow provided an up-to-date plan showing the areas intended for adoption as open space.  He confirmed that there was no intention to develop other woodland areas and offered to withdraw the outstanding applications for development either side of Mallow Road.


It was confirmed that both the application site for change of use to garden, and the adjacent woodland area were already in the ownership of the applicant.


Approved, as recommended.


(g)       Item 7: 3PL/2009/0323/F: Scarning: St Margarets: Replacement of existing boundary wall with close boarded wooden fence – 1.8m high for Mr M Haller


This application was to replace an existing low garden wall with a 1.8 metre close boarded fence.  The principle issue was visual amenity as the site was on a fairly prominent corner plot adjacent a relatively busy road.  Officers felt it would create a hard urban edge in a countryside area.


Mr Haller, applicant, said that he wanted to replace the wall with a fence for security reasons and for privacy.  He had received no objections to his proposal from neighbours.  The site was very open and as the property was a bungalow his wife felt vulnerable when alone at home.  As the two properties opposite had two metre high garden walls he did not feel that the fence would harm visual amenity.


It was suggested that soft planting would look better, or a smaller wall, but Mr Haller explained that following research of police websites a six foot fence was necessary for crime prevention.


Members did not support the recommendation.


Approved, contrary to recommendation (subject to a condition that the colour be agreed) on the grounds that the fence would provide security for the property and would not have an undue effect on visual amenity.


Notes to the Schedule


Item No



Mr Bambridge – Ward Representative


Mr Cutting – Agent

Mrs Stimpson - Objector


Mr Davidson – for Applicant


Mrs Bangay – Objector

Mrs Hutchinson – Objector

Mr Butler Finbow – Developer (Ashwells)

Mr Chapman - Applicant


Mr Haller - Applicant

Agenda Item 9

Mr Wells - Agent


Written representations taken into account


Reference No

No of Representations










Supporting documents: