Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 11)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:


Item No



Page No






Lakeside Country Club




Mr N Medler




Mr G Foulger

South Lopham




RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:


(a)       Item 1: Watton: Beechwood House, High Street: Erection of residential care home for Jetspark: Reference: 3PL/2009/0618/F:


Refused, see Minute No 181/09.


(b)       Item 2: Lyng: Lakeside Country Club, Quarry Lane: Erection of additional holiday accommodation in two blocks for Lakeside Country Club: Reference: 3PL/2009/0715/F


Approved, see Minute No 182/09.

(c)        Item 3: Tittleshall: 13 High Street: Domestic extension and wall and pedestrian entrance for Mr N Medler: Reference: 3PL/2009/0887/F

This application sought permission for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension to an existing two storey end of terrace dwelling.  This development would require the removal of a protected tree.

Officers considered this to be a well designed scheme, but the loss of the protected tree would be detrimental to the Conservation Area and to the streetscene and on that basis alone the application was recommended for refusal.

Mr Garner, for the Parish Council, said that this was the last plot needing improvement in the High Street.  The Parish Council fully supported the application which would provide accommodation for a young couple to settle in the village.  The protected tree was in a position which might cause problems to drainage in the future, it was not a very attractive tree and the applicant had offered to replace it with two new trees which would be very acceptable.

Mr Payne, Agent, said that the tree had only recently been protected.  The right trees needed to be grown in the right places and this tree was too big and did not fit in the domestic space.  It would be better to put an appropriate tree in the right place.

The Development Services Manager pointed out that this permission would not be personal to the young couple, who could sell the property on at any time.  He asked Members to bear that in mind.

Members were divided on the importance of retaining the tree and the vote on the recommendation was tied.  The Chairman’s casting vote supported the recommendation.

Refused, as recommended.

(d)       Item 4: South Lopham: The Lilacs, Low Common: Amendments to existing dormers and amendments to dormer, front door and porch of previous approval 3PL/2006/0680/F (retrospective) for Mr G Foulger: Reference: 3PL/2009/0926/F

This application sought to regularise work carried out which was not in accordance with an earlier approval.  The changes related to two existing dormers and a new dormer in the approved extension which had been raised to incorporate higher cills; and minor changes to the front porch and a chimney.

The dwelling was one side of a pair of semi detached cottages.  The occupant of the other cottage and the Parish Council objected to the changes.

Members were reminded that the fact that the application was retrospective was not relevant to the consideration.  They must decide whether the changes to the appearance of the two properties caused significant harm.  It would be better if all the dormers matched, but the two cottages had not exactly matched before the development.  Officers did not consider that the changes were significant enough to warrant refusal.

Miss Buxton, applicant, addressed the objections.  The chimney had been replaced because the wall had been unsafe.  It had been replaced on a like for like basis. 

The dwellings had originally been split in 1947 and since then there had been changes to windows and a door had been moved.  The changes to the porch were in keeping with others in the area and could have been added after the build without the need for permission.

She concluded by saying that the changes had arisen due to inaccuracies in the original plans.

Mr Morley, objector, said that the original approval had been in keeping with the adjacent cottage.  The changes affected the profile and pitch of the front roof.  There was no longer a continuous roof line and the heights differed.

Mr Nunn, Ward Representative, said that the original permission had been granted on the basis that the changes were in keeping with the existing cottage.  The development had changed over time and no longer matched.  He had no problem with the changes to the porch, but felt that it would be preferable if all the dormers matched. 

One Member pointed out that the two cottages were different and it was not for the Committee to try to make them look like one building.  Members discussed the changes and agreed that the original dormers were better.  They were also concerned that it had taken so long for a new application to be submitted.

The Development Services Manager explained that there had been lengthy discussions with the applicant prior to the submission of the application.

Approved, as recommended.

Notes to the Schedule


Item No


1 (Agenda Item 9)

Mr Gilbert – Ward Representative

Mr Rudling – Town Council

Mrs Osborne - Objector

Mr Pettifer – Agent

Mr Worsfold – NCC Highways

2 (Agenda Item 10)

Mr Bambridge – Ward Representative

Mr Lumbley – Parish Council

Mr Clarke - Agent


Mr Garner – Parish Council

Mr Payne - Agent


Mr Nunn – Ward Representative

Mr Morley – Objector

Miss Buxton – for Applicant

Written Representations taken into account


Reference No

No of Representatives








Supporting documents: