dev min 24 07 2006 - brecklanddemocracy.breckland.gov.uk/data/development control committee/2… ·...

Please ask for Julie Britton (01362) 656343 e-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA

NOTE: In the case of non-members, this agenda is for information only

Committee - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Date & Time - MONDAY, 14 AUGUST 2006 AT 9.30 A.M.

Venue - THE ANGLIA ROOM, THE CONFERENCE SUITE, ELIZABETH HOUSE, DEREHAM

Members of the Committee requiring further information, or with specific questions, are asked to raise these with the appropriate officer at least two working days before the meeting. If the information requested is available, this will be provided, and reported to Committee.

NOTE Ward Representatives wishing to speak on a particular application are asked to inform the Usher, Mrs H Burlingham, well in advance and arrive at the meeting by 9.30 a.m. as the items on which the public wish to speak will be taken first in order of the agenda.

LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED FOR

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

AT THE CHAIRMAN’S DISCRETION, THE ORDER OF THE MEETING MAY VARY FROM THE AGENDA TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING

PERSONS ATTENDING THE MEETING ARE REQUESTED TO TURN OFF MOBILE PHONES

Committee Services Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham, Norfolk, NR19 1EE Date: 1 August 2006

In the event of deferred items appearing on the agenda, Ward Representatives will be notified accordingly in advance.

PLEASE NOTE

Development Control Committee 14 August 2006

agenda20060814

PART A – ITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Page(s)

herewith

1. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2006. 6 - 15

2. APOLOGIES

To receive apologies for absence.

3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.

4. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (IF ANY)

5. REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA

To consider any requests from Ward Members, officers or applicants to defer an application included in this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public attending for such applications.

6. URGENT BUSINESS

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

7. NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING

To note the names of any non-members and public speakers wishing to address the meeting.

8. PLANNING POLICY NOTE

For information. 16

9. SCARNING: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: REAR OF RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE, SWAFFHAM ROAD FOR DGM PROPERTIES: REFERENCE 3PL/2005/1081/D

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 17

10. THETFORD: PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, FOREST RETAIL PARK, LONDON ROAD FOR LXB PROPERTIES LTD: REFERENCE 3PL/2006/0851/O

Report of the Operations Manager - Environment. 18 - 20

2


agenda20060814

Page(s) herewith

11. DEREHAM: ERECTION OF 65 AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS, LAND TO REAR OF 47 & 49 NORWICH ROAD FOR BROADLAND HOUSING ASSOCIATION: REFERENCE 3PL/2006/0861/F

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 21 - 24

12. THETFORD: EXTENSION TO SUPERMARKET, FOREST RETAIL PARK, LONDON ROAD FOR SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD: REFERENCE 3PL/2006/0979/F


13. MERTON: THE OLD MILKING PARLOUR, HOME FARM: CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL: REFERENCE 3PL/2006/0940/F


14. HOLME HALE: PLOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 CHURCH FARM, 1 CHURCH ROAD: PROPOSED NEW HOUSE AND BUNGALOW ON ALL FOUR PLOTS: REFERENCEDS 3PL/2006/0709/710/711/712/F

To consider this item in the light of the site visit held on Thursday 10 August 2006. A copy of the report to the meeting held on 24 July 2006 is attached.

31 - 42

15. DEFERR ED APPLICATIONS

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

43

• Thetford: Residential Development, Broom Covert, Kilverstone Park for Ashwell Developments Ltd: Reference 3PL/2005/1473/D (a copy of the previous report dated 12/12/2005 is also attached for information)

44 - 48

16. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications. 49

Item No. Applicant Parish

1 Philip Hyde Hockering 50 - 52

2 C W Utting & Son Beeston 53 - 54

3 DGM Properties Ltd Scarning 55

4 Ashwell Developments Ltd Thetford 56

5 Jon Holden Ltd Mileham 57 – 59

6 Mr & Mrs J Toll Dereham 60 – 62

7 Ian Jessett Watton 63 – 65

3


agenda20060814

Page(s) herewith

8 The Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre

Roudham/Larling 66 – 69

9 Mr & Mrs W G Bartlett Old Buckenham 70 – 71

10 Mr G Rose Ashill 72 – 73

11 Mr & Mrs A Bell East Tuddenham 74 – 76

12 Mr L Brown Thetford 77 – 79

13 George Tufts & Sons Ltd Watton 80 – 82

14 L & B Properties Thetford Ltd

Thetford 83

15 Broadland Housing Association

Dereham 84

16 Mr J Becker Attleborough 85 – 86

17 S J Collett & Partner Garboldisham 87 – 89

18 Mrs J Stagles Saham Toney 90 – 92

19 N Garner Saham Toney 93 – 94

20 The Hon Mr R De Grey Merton 95

21 South Pickenham Estate Co.

South Pickenham 96 – 98

22 Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd

Thetford 99

23 Done Bookmakers (Cash Betting)

Thetford 100 – 101

24 Mr & Mrs R Crisp Hoe 102 – 104

25 Mr & Mrs D Sparkes Mattishall 105 – 106

26 Mr & Mrs D Sparkes Mattishall 107 – 108

27 Miss B Powdrill Watton 109 - 110

28 Mr A Naylor Dereham 111- 112

17. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (FOR INFORMATION)

Report of the Development Services Manager. 113 - 134

4


agenda20060814

Page(s) herewith

18. APPEALS DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)

Reference No. & Details Decision

APP/F2605/A/06/2012275: Tittleshall: The Cedars, High Street: Appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission: Mrs C Tooley (application reference 3PL/2005/1789/F)

Allowed, and planning permission granted subject to conditions as set out in the formal decision

APP/F2605/A/05/1180380: Mattishall: Manana, Mill Road: Appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission: Mrs J Mooney (application reference 3PL/2004/1708/CU)

Dismissed

APP/F2605/A/06/2010212: Ovington: Dairy Farm, Saham Road: Appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission: Mr A King (application reference 3PL/2005/1382/F)

Dismissed

19. APPLICATION DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION

3CM/2006/0037/F: Attleborough: Chapel Road School, Chapel Road: Alterations & extension to swimming pool building for Director of Children’s Services.

Conditional Approval

3CM/2006/0035/F: Swaffham: Hammonds High School, Brandon Road: To site 10 mobile classrooms, one 7 bay 4 class base mobile unit, 1 office unit & 2 toilet units for duration of works for Norfolk County Council, Children’s Services Department.

Conditional Approval

5

Development Control Committee 24 July 2006

BRECKLAND COUNCIL

At a Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Held on Monday, 24 July 2006 at 9.30am in the

Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

PRESENT Gould, Cllr. E. (Chairman) Key, Mr. R.S. Byrne, Mr. A. Labouchere, Mr J Cathcart, The Earl Lamb, Mr. T.J. Duigan, Mr. P.J. Rose, Mr. B. Fanthorpe, Mr. M. Rudling, Mr. R.W. Howard-Alpe, Mrs. S.R. Spencer, Mrs. P. Kemp, Mr. R. Wilkin, Mr. N.C. ALSO PRESENT Askew, Mr. S. – for schedule item 25 Ball, Mrs. J. - for schedule items 9 to 12 and 17 Duffield, Mr. R. – for schedule item 29 Rogers, Mr. J. – for schedule item 15 Steward, Mrs. A. – for schedule item 24 Stasiak, Mr. A.C. – Executive Member In Attendance Addison, Mr. G. - Tree & Countryside Officer Allen, Mrs. S. - Standards Officer Britton, Mrs. J. - Senior Committee Officer Britton, Mr. G. - Principal Planning Officer Burlingham, Mrs. H. - Assistant Development Control Officer Chinnery, Mr. J.S. - Solicitor Daines, Mr. P.D. - Development Services Manager Hendry, Miss. L. - Assistant Development Control Officer Moys, Mr. N. - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) Action by

150/06 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2006 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

151/06 APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Messrs M. Ward, D. Wickham and D. Williams.

152/06 DECLARATION OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 3)

Mr Wilkin declared a personal interest in item 5 of the Schedule of Applications (Bradenham) on the grounds that the applicant was an occupier of a neighbouring property. Mr Wilkin remained in the room but took no part in the debate or discussion thereon.

153/06 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)

The Chairman advised the meeting of the procedures for public

6


Action by

speaking.

The Chairman welcomed Mr J Labouchere back to the Committee following his recent operation.

154/06 REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM 5)

The Development Services Manager informed the meeting that item 7 of the Schedule of Applications had been withdrawn.

155/06 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADRESS THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM 7)

Mr. S. Askew – Ward Member for schedule item 25

Mrs. J. Ball – Ward Member for schedule items 9 to 12 and 17

Mr. R. Duffield – Ward Member for schedule item 29

Mr. J. Rogers – Ward Member for schedule item 15

Mrs. A. Steward – Ward Member for schedule item 24

156/06 G.I.S. VIEWER PRESENTATION (AGENDA ITEM 9)

The Environmental Planning Manager and the G.I.S Officer provided the Committee with a brief demonstration of the capabilities of the new G.I.S system.

This new system/viewer stored a great deal of information albeit on a map basis. The information included:

• past planning permissions;

• listed buildings;

• tree preservation orders;

• ariel photographs; and

• council owned land.

All the above information could be generated into the forthcoming LDF. Further to this, the system could monitor trends and assist with emergency planning.

Examples were provided as to how the G.I.S system could help the Council and in particular the Contact Centre.

A Member asked whether the system would be connected to the Electoral Role. In response, it was explained that the G.I.S viewer was about properties and land; it was not about tracing people. Another Member asked whether the Council’s system could be linked to Norfolk County Council’s new mapping system, The Norfolk Explorer. The Environmental Planning Manager advised that any of Norfolk County Council’s information could be included onto Breckland’s, or

7


Action by

alternatively, Breckland could have a Norfolk County Council link.

The Committee was informed that this system was gradually being rolled out to all staff and that it would eventually be available to Members. This could necessitate some training, either on a one to one basis or as a group; either way Members were asked to inform the G.I.S Officer of their preference.

All to note/Jason Elliott

The Officers were thanked for an informative presentation.

157/06 DEREHAM: ERECTION OF 10 BUSINESS UNITS, RASH’S GREEN FOR MR P MEACHEN: REFERENCE 3PL/2006/0458/F (AGENDA ITEM 10)

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report which concerned an application for the development of land at Rash’s Green Industrial Estate in Dereham for business units.

The units would be provided in two blocks fronting onto a central parking area and a new access on to Rash’s Green would be formed.

The intended site layout and the design of the proposed buildings were displayed. If approved, the key issue of concern was the impact on the existing trees on the site, some of which were subject to recent Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) explained that the site presented a number of difficulties; the development of business units as originally proposed would have resulted in the loss of the two larger preserved trees, and the whole of the preserved group of trees. Following further negotiations with the applicant, the revised proposals provided for the retention of both oak trees; however, the group of smaller trees would still have to be removed to provide a suitable visibility splay. In support of these proposals the applicant had shown willingness to plant further trees on the site and increase landscaping on another development on Rash’s Green, also owned by the applicant.

The applicant, Mr Meachen, was present and provided Members with a brief history of the site. He explained that the TPOs had been served on the trees after he had been sold the land in question by Breckland Council in 2005. He also pointed out that in 2002 planning permission had been granted for an oil distribution site, and in 2001 permission had been granted for a car park both of which would have resulted in the removal of both the preserved oak trees. He urged Members to support his application as it would allow much needed employment. If the TPOS stood and permission was refused, the land would remain as amenity land resulting in great financial loss to the applicant.

A Member felt that the TPOs had compromised the development and the alternative put forward by the applicant should be supported.

The Tree & Countryside Officer advised that the tree line (the group of trees that was being referred to for removal) all pre-dated the industrial estate; reminding the public how it used to be. In response to a question as to whether this group of trees could be replanted, the applicant advised that this would prevent the required visibility splay.

The Ward Member felt that Toftwood had unfortunately been completely de-nuded of mature trees but so long as the applicant was willing to

8


Action by

retain the Ashes and the Oaks then he would reluctantly support it.

It was considered that the arguments for and against the proposal were finely balanced and the Development Services Manager advised that this application had been brought to Committee in a perfectly proper manner. Members should have all the facts before them before making a decision.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to suitable conditions.

Nick Moys

158/06 INVESTIGATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN (AGENDA ITEM 11)

The Standards Officer presented the report which concerned a finding of maladministration against the Council relating to planning and environmental issues. To remedy the injustice caused through the planning administration, the Council was being asked to consider making a payment of £ 2,000 to the complainant.

The Ward Member, Mrs S Howard-Alpe, spoke on behalf of the complainant. She stated that the value of the complainant’s property had devalued by £12,000 since the skate and bmx park in Attleborough had been installed. The complainant had put forward two of their own proposals in relation to option B of the report:

• use the £12,000 to move the skate park to a more suitable location; or

• the Council buys the complainant’s property at full market value.

In response to a question as to whether the compensation payment could be increased, the Solicitor advised that another financial statement would be required.

A Member pointed out that this case had been discussed at the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission on 20 July 2006 and asked what had been recommended. The Development Services Manager explained that the Commission had not been in a position to discuss the recommendations but had discussed any performance management or monitoring implications issues. He stated that this had been a very rare and unfortunate case but statistically it represented just one application in 10,000.

The Committee was informed that Attleborough Town Council owned the site but it was a company called Overboard who raised the funds for the skate park. Some Members felt that this matter should be investigated further before any decision was made.

The Solicitor reminded Members that the compensation payment was purely for the five month period when the acoustic fence had not been installed.

A Member who had attended the meeting in September 2003, and had been in favour of the application, said that his decision would have remained the same. He proposed that the compensation payment of £2,000 be approved.

9


Action by

RESOLVED that a compensation payment of £2,000 be paid to the complainant as suggested by the Ombudsman.

Sue Allen

159/06 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 12)

This item was noted.

160/06 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 13)

RESOLVED that the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations contained in the schedule, subject to the following conditions and amendments:

Principal Planning Officer

Reference & Details Decision

3CM/2006/0036/F: (item 1): Garvestone: Reymerston Quarry, Hingham Road: Change of use from the grading & washing of minerals to B1 business use, to recycle plastics for Hardingham Farms Ltd.

Members were reminded that their views only were being sought. The application would finally be determined by Norfolk County Council.

After a lengthy discussion, the Committee raised objections to the proposal and recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed use was inappropriate in this location, would cause further detriment to the surrounding landscape and might detract from the residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

Members agreed that the Council should be seen to encourage recycling and the refusal was purely based on location issues only.

3PL/2006/0458/F: (item 2): Dereham: Rash’s Green: 10 small units, B1, B2 B8, trade sales, showroom office and warehouse distribution for Mr P Meachen.

This item was considered in conjunction with Agenda item 10 (Minute No. 157/06 above refers).

3PL/2006/0670/F: (item 7): Attleborough: 69 Queens Road: Erection of 2 houses and garages for Mr R Richards.

This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

10


Action by


3PL/2006/0677/F: (item 8): Griston: Former Community Centre, Watton Road: Conversion of community centre to 12 no. residential units & erection of 3 no. bungalows within site for T Scott.

Amended plans had been received showing the layout of the bungalows positioned to ensure the retention of trees to minimise the impact on the amenities of neighbours.

Deferred, contrary to the recommendation; however, the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of the affordable housing element.

3PL/2006/0709/F: (item 9): Holme Hale: Plot 1, Church Farm, 1 Church Road: Proposed new house and garage for Ideal Developments (UK) Ltd.

Deferred for a site visit to take place on Thursday 10 August 2006 at 10.00 am.

3PL/2006/0710/F: (item 10): Holme Hale: Plot 2, Church Farm, 1 Church Road: New house and garage for Ideal Developments (UK) Ltd.

See above.

3PL/2006/0711/F: (item 11): Holme Hale: Plot 3, Church Farm, 1 Church Road: New house and garage for Ideal Developments (UK) Ltd.

See above.

3PL/2006/0712/F: (item 12): Holme Hale: Plot 4, Church Farm, 1 Church Road: New house and garage for Ideal Development (UK) Ltd.

See above.

3PL/2006/0720/O: (item 13): Dereham: 20 School Lane, Toftwood: Erection of 3 bed dwelling for Mr and Mrs P Sandford.

Refused, contrary to the recommendation on the grounds that the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site as well as being located on an extremely busy junction. Members were of the opinion that the proposal was inappropriate on this housing estate.

11


Action by


3PL/2006/0722/F: (item 14): Scarning: West Holme, Chapel Lane: New dwelling in existing garden and attached land for Mr and Mrs E Goward.

Refused as recommended. The applicant was advised that the refusal was purely on design grounds and the Committee was not averse to the principle of a dwelling on this site.

3PL/2006/0743/F: (item 15): Griston: Park Farm Caravan Site: Removal condition 3 on planning permission 3PL/1994/1091/F (to accommodate 12 units) for Griston Park Ltd.

Approved, contrary to the recommendation, on the grounds that this was a brownfield site and the development would be an expansion of existing facilities. The proposal would enable younger people in the district to get on the housing ladder. The Committee felt that the removal of the condition would enable the applicant to modernise and improve the site. The permission was subject to suitable conditions.

3PL/2006/0746/A: (item 16): Dereham: 39 Market Place: Internally illuminated shops and projecting signs for Woolworths Plc.

Three of the signs, known as signs ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ were approved as recommended; however, sign ‘B’ was refused. The Committee was of the opinion that the projecting sign was unsuitable and would harm the appearance of the street scene and detract from the adjoining listed building.

3PL/2006/0752/O: (item 17): Ashill: Millcroft, Hale Road: Erection of bungalow for A Ketteringham.

Approved, contrary to the recommendation on the grounds that this was an acceptable location within the settlement boundary. The Committee felt the site was adequate in size to accommodate a single storey dwelling only and would not cause harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

3PL/2006/0870/LB: (item 27): Thetford: 15a White Hart Street: Retention of satellite dish for Mehmet Tekagac.

Refused as recommended and enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of the satellite dish.

Enforcement Team

12


Action by


3PL/2006/0889/F: (item 28): Watton: Land of New Green Industrial Estate, Norwich Road: Erection of temporary storage building for Weco Engineering Ltd.

Permanent planning permission granted, contrary to the recommendation, to allow for the expansion of the company concerned, thus meeting the requirements of an Improvement Notice served on the Griston Road site by the Health and Safety Executive.

Members agreed that this land should be allocated for employment use prior to the adoption of the Local Development Framework (LDF).

Planning Policy Team

3PL/2006/0910/F: (item 30): Dereham: Rodmere, Larners Drift, Toftwood: Erection of chalet dwelling and double garage for Mr & Mrs Head.

In the light of amended plans being received, showing that the velux roof lights had been removed with the exception of one, the recommendation was amended to one of planning permission, to which Members agreed.

3PL/2006/0966/O: (item 33): Dereham: Pound Cottage, Cemetery Road: Demolition of cottage and erection of a pair of semi-detached houses for William Cook and Son.

Approved as recommended, subject to the inclusion of additional condition:

a) to agree the materials used.

Members felt that the applicant should be advised that the detailed plans should reflect the character of the existing cottage.

Notes to the Schedule

1. The under-mentioned persons were in attendance to speak in respect of the following items:

Schedule Item No. Speaker

1 Mr Lister - Objector

2 (Agenda item 10) Mr Meachen - Applicant

5 Mrs Norton - Objector

8 Mr Scott – Applicant

Mr Timmer - Objector

9 to 12 Mrs Ball – Ward Representative, spoke against the application

Mrs McNeil - Objector

13


Action by

13 Mr May - Objector

14 Mr Moore – on behalf of the Applicant

15 Mr Rogers – Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application

Mr Ulrych - Applicant

17 Mrs Ball – Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application

Mr Ketteringham - Applicant

20 Mr Took – Applicant’s Agent

22 Mr Giddings – Objector

Mr Taylor – on behalf of the Applicant

24 Mrs Steward – Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application

Mr Fox - Applicant

25 Mr Askew – Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application

Mr Baskerville – County Councillor

28 Mr McCarthy – on behalf of the Applicant

29 Mr Duffield – Ward Representative, spoke against the application

Mr Stocking - Applicant

31 Mr Lowings – Parish Council, spoke against the application

Mr Herbison – Applicant’s Agent

32 Mrs Jones - Applicant

Written representations taken into account

Reference No. No. of Representations

3PL/2006/0655/O 9

3PL/2006/0677/F 10

3PL/2006/0709/F 11

3PL/2006/0710/F 11

14


Action by

3PL/2006/0711/F 11

3PL/2006/0712/F 11

3PL/2006/0720/O 1

3PL/2006/0752/O 1

3PL/2006/0778/O 1

3PL/2006/0797/O 10

3PL/2006/0808/F 2

3PL/2006/0889/F 1

3CM/2006/0036/F 2

3PL/2006/0899/O 4

3PL/2006/0910/F 4

3PL/2006/0966/O 1

161/06 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (AGENDA ITEM 14)

In response to a question regarding a build up of permissions for a particular applicant in Necton, the Development Services Manager advised that the planning permissions related to a replacement dwelling and a barn conversion.

162/06 APPEALS DECISIONS (AGENDA ITEM 15)

The details were noted.

163/06 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (AGENDA ITEM 16)

The information was noted.

The meeting closed at 4.00pm

CHAIRMAN

15

G:\General\WORDDATA\Committee\Agendas Working Folders\Development Control (Working)\Plan-PolicyNote-Keep.doc

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

PLANNING POLICY NOTE

THE STRENGTH OF PLANNING POLICY IN DETERMINING PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Planning process is set up, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, to protect the public from the unacceptable planning activities of private individuals and development companies. Planning is primarily concerned to deal with issues of land use and the way they affect the environment. The Council has a DUTY, through the Town & Planning Acts, to prepare a “District Wide” Local Plan to provide a statutory framework for planning decisions. Breckland’s Plan contains the Council’s planning policies, which must be consistent with Government guidance, particularly with the Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs). The Local Plan now carries significant weight as it was adopted in September 1999. The full public scrutiny of the Council’s proposals will give the Plan an exceptional weight when dealing with planning applications. This shift towards a “Plan-led” planning system is a major feature of recent planning legislation. Under s54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the policies of the Plan, unless material considerations which are relevant to planning indicate otherwise. PPG1 summarises the objectives of the “plan-led” system as:-

• achieving greater certainty; • ensuring rational & consistent decisions; • securing public involvement in shaping local planning policies; • facilitating quicker planning decision; and • reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals.

Unless there are special reasons to do otherwise, planning permissions “run with the land”, and are NOT personal licences. The factors to be used in determining applications will relate to the effect on the “public at large” and will NOT be those that refer to private interests. Personal circumstances of applicants “will rarely” be an influencing factor, and then, only when the planning issues are “finely balanced”. THEREFORE we will:

• acknowledge the strength of our policies, • be consistent in the application of our policy, and • if we need to adapt our policy, we should do it through the Local Plan process.

Decisions which are finely balanced, and which contradict policy will be recorded in detail, to explain and justify the decision, and the strength of the material planning reasons for doing so.

LOCAL COUNCILS OCCASIONALLY, THERE ARE CONFLICTS WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PARISH OR TOWN COUNCIL. WHY IS THIS? We ask local parish and town councils to recognise that all comments received are taken into account. In 2001, about 90% of cases had agreement. Where we disagree it will be because:

• Districts look to “wider” policies, and national, regional and county planning strategy. • Case law might dictate a course of action. • There is extra information and views not available to the Local Council. • There is an honest difference of opinion. 16

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) SCARNING: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REAR OF RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE, SWAFFHAM ROAD: DGM PROPERTIES: 3PL/2005/1081/D Summary – This report concerns a development of 14 dwellings on land at Scarning. Amended plans have been submitted for consideration showing proposed changes in ground levels across the site.

1. This report concerns a development of 14 dwellings on land to the rear of Riverside Garden Centre, Scarning. The development is currently under construction.

2. Outline planning permission for the residential development of the site was

granted in September 2002. Approval of reserved matters for 14 dwellings was granted in September 2005. The approved development includes a range of house types from one-and-a-half storey cottage style dwellings to two-and-a-half storey town houses. A new adoptable road access is proposed to serve the proposed residential development and existing retail units adjacent.

3. Following the commencement of the work on site it became apparent that the

intended levels for the proposed houses, roads and gardens were higher than anticipated, based on information provided previously. Following discussions with the developer, plans showing the intended site levels have been submitted for consideration.

4. Whilst conditions on the existing permission do not require levels to be

agreed, it is considered that the current proposals would amount to a departure from the approved plans. The level of works needed to support the change in levels, particularly in respect of the new estate road, are sufficient to constitute development. It is suggested therefore that the most appropriate course is for the submitted plans to be considered as an amendment to the existing permission.

5. In support of the proposals, the developer states that the level of the

proposed dwellings is dictated by and is in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the original application. It is also noted that the proposed levels are similar to those of adjacent residential properties.

6. The views of interested parties on the proposals are being sought.

Neighbours have been notified.

7. RECOMMENDATION: A verbal recommendation will be made following a full assessment of the proposals and taking into the views from interested parties.

17

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) THETFORD: PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, FOREST RETAIL PARK, LONDON ROAD: LXB PROPERTIES LIMITED: 3PL/2006/0851/O 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report concerns an outline application for an extension to the Forest Retail Park on the outskirts of Thetford. This is a re-submission of an application refused permission in November 2005. The application proposes three retail units with a total gross floorspace of 5,574 square metres. A secondary access to the retail park is also proposed. Retail and Transport Assessments have been submitted with the application. A commuted sum has been offered towards improvements in local public transport improvements. 1.2 Outline permission for the retail park was granted in 1989. Since then the location has been developed with a foodstore (Sainsburys), a DIY store (Focus), a range of other smaller non-food retail units and a fast food restaurant. 1.3 There are two extant planning permissions for up to 3,255 square metres of retail floorspace on part of the application site. The most recent permission, granted in March 2005, was for a retail unit of 1,858 square metres plus a 929 square metre external garden centre. The total floorspace proposed over and above existing commitments therefore amounts to 2,319 square metres. 2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The matters covered in this report relate to the following Council priorities:

- a prosperous place to live and work - a safe and healthy environment

4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Thetford Town Council has objected to the application, indicating that it would prefer to see leisure uses in this location. 4.2 The Highway Authority (NCC) has raised no objection to the application. 4.3 The Highways Agency has raised no objection to the application, subject to improved signage to the A11/London Road roundabout and the provision of a travel plan. 4.4 Representations have been received on behalf of individual traders and from the operators of part of the existing retail park who are concerned about traffic congestion and retail impact. It is argued that the proposed development will result in

18

congestion at the main retail park access, resulting in unreasonable delays and inconvenience to shoppers. It is suggested that the proposed secondary access, due its location, will not be attractive to visitors and will not therefore reduce the use of the main entrance to an acceptable level. Concerns have also been raised about conflict between customer traffic and delivery vehicles. 5. POLICY 5.1 PPS 6 Planning for Town Centres sets out national planning policy on town centres and retail development. 5.2 Relevant local planning policies include Policies TCR.2 and TCR.3 of the Norfolk Structure Plan and Policies SHO.1 and SHO.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan. These policies adopt a sequential approach to site selection, with preference being given to town centre sites. Out-of–town developments are required to demonstrate that they will not harm the vitality and viability of town centres. 6. ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the principal issues raised by the proposed development relate to: (i) its likely impact on Thetford town centre, having regard to national and local retail policy, and (ii) the adequacy of the existing site access and the likely effects on additional traffic on the surrounding road network. 6.2 In respect of retail policy, the key issues raised relate to the need for the proposed development, the availability of sequentially preferable sites, and the likely impact of the development on the town centre. 6.3 Local and national planning policy states that a need must be demonstrated for proposed out-of-town retail developments. On the basis of information available, it is considered that there is a quantitative need for additional retail development in Thetford. The Council’s Retail and Town Centre Study (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2004) identifies a need for 1,800 square metres of new retail warehousing (over and above existing consents) in the south of the District, including Thetford, up to 2010. The current proposal would meet this identified need. Latest figures show that there is sufficient expenditure capacity in the town to support the proposal and existing retail commitments. In terms of qualitative need, it is considered that the proposal would assist in clawing back some of the expenditure lost from Thetford to other competing centres, such as Bury St Edmunds and Norwich. 6.4 Local and national planning policy states also requires a sequential approach to be applied to retail development, with preference being given to sites within existing town centres. The applicant’s Retail Assessment has considered a range of sites within and close to the town centre, including locations identified in the recent Moving Thetford Forward Report. The applicant’s conclusion that there are no suitable sequentially preferable sites in the town centre for large format stores is accepted. 6.5 In terms of the impact of the development on Thetford town centre, PPS 6 sets a number of policy tests to be applied. These tests include that new development should not undermine the overall spatial strategy for the area and that investment in the town should not be prejudiced. It is not considered that the proposal would have adverse effects in either respect. The proposed development would be consistent with current and emerging policy identifying Thetford as a strategic location for growth and a national growth point. As noted above, the proposed development would help to prevent leakage of expenditure away from Thetford, enhancing the

19

sustainability of the town. It is not considered that the proposal will prejudice investment in the town centre, bearing in mind the town’s prospects for future growth and given the identified need for smaller scale retail and leisure schemes in the town centre (Moving Thetford Forward report). The commuted sum offered could be directed towards improvements identified in the emerging Thetford Transport Strategy, which would benefit the town centre as well as more peripheral locations. 6.6 To conclude on the issue of retail policy, it is considered that there is a need for the proposed development, that there are no sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating the scheme in the short to medium term, and that the proposal will not undermine future investment in the town centre. 6.7 Turning to the traffic implications of the proposal, these may be divided into two broad categories: first, the impact on traffic movements on London Road and its junction with the A11, and second, the effect on internal traffic circulation within the Retail Park. 6.8 The Transport Assessment submitted with the applications concludes that additional traffic generated by the proposed retail units will fall within the capacity of the surrounding road network, including the main retail park access onto London Road and the nearby roundabout junction with the A11 trunk road. This conclusion has been accepted by the Highways Agency and Norfolk County Council. 6.9 In terms of internal traffic circulation, the applicant argues that even without the proposed secondary access the existing retail park entrance would operate within capacity, albeit with increased queuing at peak times. The proposed secondary access would, it is suggested, relieve any additional congestion caused at such times. However, assessments commissioned by existing retail operators suggest that the impact of traffic on congestion has been significantly under-estimated by the applicant. In order to avoid unacceptable congestion it is suggested that the proposed secondary access should be relocated to a more central position where it would offer a more attractive route for customers. 6.10 Given that traffic prediction is not an exact science, the various figures presented must be viewed with a degree of caution. However, the secondary access would be well related physically to the proposed development, and it is reasonable to assume this access would offer an attractive alternative route to customers of the proposed retail units, particularly at busy times. In addition, taking into account the potential for trip linkage within the retail park and the potential for visitors to re-time trips to avoid peak times, it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to result in significant congestion within the retail park. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with adjacent landowners and traders to secure improvements to circulation within the car park. It is suggested that a comprehensive signage scheme would assist in this respect 7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that outline planning permission be granted for the proposed extension to Forest Retail Park, subject to appropriate conditions, including a restriction on the type of goods to be sold and a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards local transport improvements. Matters of building design, access/parking layout and landscaping would be reserved for subsequent approval. It is also recommended that the extant legal agreement be varied.

20

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) DEREHAM: ERECTION OF 65 AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS, LAND TO REAR OF 47 & 49 NORWICH ROAD: BROADLAND HOUSING ASSOCIATION: 3PL/2006/0861/F Summary – This report concerns a planning application for the development of 65 dwellings, a new access road and associated open space on land off Norwich Road, Dereham. It is recommended that planning permission is granted. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report concerns a planning application for a development of affordable

housing by Broadland Housing Association on land off Norwich Road, Dereham. The proposed development would include a range of accommodation including 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses and flats.

1.2 The application is a re-submission of a proposal that was refused permission in

March 2006. The application proposes a number of revisions to the previous proposals, including changes to the layout and design of the development, and to the commuted sums offered. An Open Space Assessment has also been submitted in support of the proposal.

1.3 The site is presently unoccupied and vacant land, but was used previously as a

social club and private recreation ground. The site is identified in the Local Plan as open space. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. The site is adjoined to the east by the Dereham Neatherd High School, and to the west by Dereham Cricket Club.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report: A safe and healthy environment A well planned place to live and work 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Dereham Town Council has reiterated its strong objections to the proposed

development. Whilst recognising the need for affordable housing, the Town Council consider the proposal would result in unacceptable backland development, with inadequate access. Concerns were also raised about the effect of the development on the future expansion of Neatherd High School.

4.2 The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application, subject to

conditions and commuted sum contributions towards the Dereham Walking & Cycling Strategy and local public transport infrastructure.

21

4.3 Norfolk County Council has raised no planning objection to the development subject to commuted sum contributions being made towards local education, library and fire services.

4.4 The Council’s Principal Housing Officer supports the application, noting that the

provision of sustainable affordable housing is a key priority of the Council. It is considered that the proposal would make a significant contribution towards meeting current needs in Dereham.

4.5 The Council’s Tree and Countryside Officer has objected to the application on

the grounds that the proposed new access would result in the removal of mature trees.

4.6 Sport England has objected to the application on the grounds that it would

result in the loss of recreational open space and that the development would make inadequate provision for the recreational needs of future residents.

4.7 The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application subject to

appropriate conditions. 4.8 Norfolk Police’s Architectural Liaison Officer has raised some concerns about

the detailed layout of the development. 4.9 The proposal has engendered a good deal of local interest. A the time of

writing, 16 letters of objection had been received, raising concerns principally about increased traffic, the scale of development and loss of residential amenity. Petitions objecting to the proposal, with 575 signatures, have also been received. Letters of objection have been received from Neatherd High School and Dereham Cricket Club.

5. POLICY 5.1 Relevant policies in the Breckland District Local Plan (1999) include Policies

HOU.2, HOU.13, REC.2, REC.3, ENV.20 and TRA.5. Policy HOU.2 permits housing in towns like Dereham subject to compliance with certain criteria. Policy REC.2 requires open space to be provided as part of new residential developments. Policy REC.3 seeks generally to resist the loss of existing recreational open space. Policy ENV.20 deals with the protection of important trees. Policy TRA.5 deals with highway safety/capacity issues.

5.2 National planning policy of particular relevance is set out in PPG 3 Housing and

PPG 17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation 6. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principal issues raised by the application concern: i) the likely impact of the

development on the character of the area, having particular regard to the scale of development proposed, ii) the loss of existing preserved trees, iii) the loss of the existing open space and the adequacy of the open space proposed, and iv) the adequacy of the proposed access arrangements.

6.2 Dealing with the issue of local character, it should be noted that the established

pattern of development in Norwich Road is varied. The surrounding area includes substantial houses in grounds, as well as more modest semi-detached and terraced housing. Whilst the proposed development would not follow the pattern of immediately adjoining development, it is not considered that an

22

overdevelopment of the site would result or that harm to the overall character of the area would be caused. The proposed housing density at approximately 36 DPH is not excessive and falls towards the lower end the 30-50 DPH density range recommended in PPG 3.

6.3 It is considered that the proposal would create a distinctive and attractive

development in its own right. The development layout submitted proposes a variety of two and three storey buildings, including curved terraces, enclosing a sequence of well-landscaped open spaces. The dwellings would be of contemporary design and would be built to achieve a Very Good EcoHomes rating. The majority of the dwellings proposed would be of two storeys. Whilst the scheme does include some 3-storey buildings, this is not uncharacteristic of the locality. Following the previous refusal of permissions, amendments have been made to the layout and design of the scheme, including the relocation of one 3-storey building and changes to the design of the proposed crescent of flats to reduce its impact on neighbouring properties.

6.4 The application includes a number of substantial mature trees. The proposed

construction of a new estate road access onto Norwich Road would result in the loss of two preserved trees from this frontage. These trees are of considerable amenity value, and their removal would result in harm to character and appearance of this section of Norwich Road. The applicants have been asked to consider alternative access locations, but in response have confirmed that, due to constraints of land ownership, the currently proposed arrangement offers their only viable option for gaining proper access into the site. The applicant has offered to undertake substantial replacement tree planting and landscaping both on the Norwich Road frontage and within the main development site itself. Whilst the loss of trees is considered to be regrettable, it is considered that on balance the positive merits of the proposal as a whole are such that the application should not be rejected on this ground alone.

6.5 The application site is identified in the Local Plan as open space. Local Plan

Policy REC.3 permits the redevelopment of existing recreational facilities only where compensatory provision is to be made elsewhere in the locality. The proposed development would conflict with this policy. However, a number of mitigating factors must be taken into account. Firstly, it is considered the existing open space is of limited recreational value; it is not accessible to the general public and has been unused for some time. Secondly, other facilities for both formal and informal recreation are available elsewhere in this part of the town. Neatherd Moor would be easily accessible from the proposed development, via an existing footpath link. Other recreational facilities in this part of the town include the Station Road Recreation Ground, Dereham Football Club, Dereham Cricket Club and Dereham Hockey Club. The new Leisure Centre in Station Road is due to open in 2007. Thirdly, the applicant has also offered a commuted sum payment of £48,613 towards enhanced recreational facilities in the locality. Bearing in mind these mitigating factors, and given the significant benefits offered by the proposed development in terms of the provision of affordable housing, it is considered that an exception to Local Plan Policy REC.3 is justified in this instance.

6.6 In terms of on-site provision, it should be noted that areas of public open

space, including play areas, would be a prominent and integral part of the proposed development layout. Whilst the extent of these open spaces would fall below the standard specified in Policy REC.2, given the availability of other

23

recreational facilities in this part of the town and the commuted sum offered towards local enhancements, it is not considered that this shortfall is objectionable in this instance.

6.7 Considerable opposition to the proposal has been expressed locally because of

concerns about traffic conditions in the locality of the site. Whilst the Neatherd High School located immediately to the east does generate considerable volumes of traffic at peak times, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any significant worsening of traffic conditions. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. A contribution is also sought towards local transport initiatives designed to improve to local pedestrian and cycling facilities. These initiatives are intended to reduce reliance on car transport for local trips and could help to ease congestion problems associated with the school.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 That planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions and a

legal agreement relating to affordable housing, the provision of public open space and commuted sum contributions towards enhanced recreational facilities and local transport initiatives.

24

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) THETFORD: EXTENSION TO SUPERMARKET, FOREST RETAIL PARK, LONDON ROAD: SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD: 3PL/2006/0979/F Summary – This report concerns a planning application for an extension to the Sainsbury supermarket in Thetford. It is recommended that the application be refused. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report concerns a section 73 planning application to extend the time limit

on an existing planning permission for an extension to the Sainsbury supermarket in Thetford. The existing planning permission was granted on 20 December 2001, and will expire in December this year. The current application requests that the permission is extended for a further 5 years.

1.2 The proposal would extend the net retail floorspace of the existing supermarket

by 1,247 square metres to a total of 3,423 square metres. The supermarket currently has a net sales area of 2,322 square metres. The applicant states that extension is intended to improve the shopping environment of the store by the provision of wider aisles, additional service counters and checkouts, improved product presentation and choice. The proposal would result in the loss of part of the existing supermarket car park.

1.3 Although the application seeks a variation in the time limit, it is accepted

practice that such applications should be treated effectively as applications to renew a planning permission. This means of renewing permissions will be closed in the future as under recently introduced government regulations, no further permission under section 73 may be issued after 23 August 2006.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report: A safe and healthy environment A well planned place to live and work 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Comments from Thetford Town Council will be reported verbally. 4.2 The Highways Agency has indicated that whilst it does not intend to issue a

direction, it would expect the application to be supported by an up-to-date Transport Assessment.

4.3 Any further representations will be reported verbally.

25

5. POLICY 5.1 National planning policy of particular relevance is set out in PPS 6 Planning in

Town Centres and PPG 13 Transport. 5.2 Relevant local planning policies include Policies TCR.2 and TCR.3 of the

Norfolk Structure Plan, and Policies SHO.1 and SHO.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan. These policies adopt a sequential approach to site selection, with preference being given to town centre sites. Out-of–town developments are required to demonstrate that they will not harm the vitality and viability of town centres.

6. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principal issues raised by the application concern: i) the likely impact of the

development on Thetford town centre, having regard to national and local retail policy, and (ii) the transport implications of the development. As with any renewal application, it is necessary to consider whether the circumstances relating to the proposal have changed materially since the last grant of planning permission.

6.2 It is considered that since the last grant of planning permission in December

2001, the planning circumstances have changed materially. This change has occurred as a result of the issuing of new national planning guidance in the form of PPS 6 (Month 2005), the publication by the Council of a new Retail and Town Centre Study (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2004) and the publication of the Moving Thetford Forward regeneration report (2005).

6.3 Insofar as national retail planning policy is concerned, it should be noted that

whilst PPS 6 adopts the general principles of its predecessor PPG 6 in respect of out of town retailing, the detailed guidance relating to extensions to existing retail units has changed significantly. Specifically, PPS 6 introduces the concept of disaggregation, and requires extensions in excess of 200 square metres to be subject to the sequential test (previously the threshold was 2,500 square metres). To determine the scope for disaggregation retail operators are required to explore whether certain parts of a retail development could be operated from a separate unit in a sequentially preferable location.

6.4 The application as submitted does not address these issues adequately. In

particular, no information has been provided to demonstrate a need for the development, or to consider whether the proposed additional floorspace would be disaggregated and located in a separate store within or closer the town centre. The retail statement submitted with the 2001 application is out of date. On this basis, it is considered that the application is contrary to both national and local planning policy, as it has not been demonstrated that there is a need for the development or that there are no sequentially preferable sites.

6.5 As far as transport issues are concerned, PPG 13 advises that where

developments will have significant transport implications, Transport Assessments should be prepared and submitted alongside the relevant planning application. The previous 2001 application was supported by a Parking Report, but not by a Transport Assessment. In any event it is considered that an up-to-date assessment is required now taking into account current traffic figures, trip generation rates and local public transport provision.

7. RECOMMENDATION

26

7.1 That planning permission is refused on policy grounds and due to the lack of information relating to the transport implications of the proposal.

27

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14th August 2006 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Viv Bebbington (Senior Development Control Officer)

Merton: The Old Milking Parlour, Home Farm; Conversion to residential. 3PL/2006/0940/F

1. BACKGROUND 1.0 A similar proposal was determined by members in March 2006 (reference 3PL/2006/0118/F)

but the application was withdrawn before the decision notice for refusal of planning permission was issued.

1.2 The application has been amended to overcome the previous concerns regarding the proposal in relation to the size and extent of new build.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is to convert and extend a building to create a dwelling and erect a double garage.

2.2 The site is in open countryside some distance from a settlement boundary. Access to the site is via a narrow single track unclassified highway and an un-surfaced track which is also the Peddars Way.

2.3 The building is located to the rear of a group of agricultural building which are currently in use and adjacent to an existing dwelling.

3.0 CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Parish Council have commented: “Will permission for this application set a precedent for other barns on the same site to be developed into housing? If so the Parish Council would not be happy with this over development.”

3.2 The Tree and Landscape Officer considers the Norway Maple, which is of an unusually large stature and the young oak to the south east of the building to have more value than the existing building. The trees would be retainable with the proposed development.

3.3 The Environmental Health Officer has indicated that the site is close to a noise source that they are currently investigating. A noise survey has not been undertaken but it is considered that a bund or acoustic fence may resolve any noise issues.

3.4 The Highway Authority has raised no objection providing the applicant secures the provision of 2 passing bays within the highway verge adjacent to the unclassified road.

Summary: The proposal is to convert and extend a single storey rural building to create a dwelling and erect a double garage. The main issue in this instance is the degree of weight that should be afforded to recent government advice which post dates the relevant Breckland policy. The report sets out the policy issues and concludes with a recommendation of refusal.

28

3.5 English Nature consider a survey, assessment and mitigation measures should be undertaken to establish the presence of bats and owls.

3.6 Two letters of objection have been received raising concerns regarding the poor access, loss of the trees, impact on the wildlife, loss of privacy, lack of marketing, unsustainable location, noise from adjacent agricultural buildings, lack of quality of the building.

4.0 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Policies HOU 6, HOU 11, TRA 5 and Planning Policy Statement No 7, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, August 2004.

HOU 6 – Residential development will not be permitted outside of settlement boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities.

HOU 11 – The conversion of rural buildings to residential use will be permitted subject to criteria.

Planning Policy Statement No 7 – Indicates that Government Policy is to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed buildings where this would meet sustainable development objectives. One of the sustainable principles is that development should be adjacent or closely related to an existing towns or villages. It then indicates a policy criteria should be the need to preserve a building of historic/ architectural interest or local character.

5.0 KEY DECISION

5.1 This is not a key decision.

6.0 COUNCIL PRIORITIES

6.1 The matter raised in this report falls within the following Council priorities:

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The building is located in a location where a business use would not be considered suitable due to the close proximity of the adjacent residential property and the unsatisfactory access. No structural report has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the building can be converted without substantial repair/rebuild: However the building appears visually to be in good condition. The proposal broadly accords with the policy criteria of HOU 11.

7.2 Local Plan policy HOU 11adopted with the Breckland Local Plan in 1999 nearly 7 years ago and is therefore dated in some areas. The policy context of PPS7 is clearer than the provisions in PPG 6 which was in place when the Local Plan policy was drafted. The main considerations are the location and suitability of retention. Policy HOU 11 only addresses in part the suitability of retention aspect of national policy in terms of whether it can be converted without substantial rebuild. It does not address the quality of the building or the locational aspects.

7.3 PPS7 is a material consideration which should be taken into account.

29

7.4 In terms of PPS 7, it is considered the building is not worthy of retention. It has been repaired over the years using unsympathetic concrete blocks which represent nearly 50 % of the existing wall area. It is a relatively small building with no distinguishing features. Further more it is located in an unsustainable location away from a main settlement. The village of Merton does not have a settlement boundary. The proposal is in conflict with national planning policy.

8.0 OPTIONS AVAILABLE

8.1 Refuse the application on the grounds that there is a conflict with National Policy.

8.2 Approve the application on the grounds that it broadly accords with Policy HOU 11.

9.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

9.1 The government advice is more up to date than Policy HOU 11 and therefore more weight should be afforded to national policy.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION(S)

10.1 Refusal of planning permission.

30

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 24-07-2006

DC131

9

HOLME HALE Plot 1 Church Farm

Ideal Developments (UK) Ltd The Old Rectory Holme Hale

Sketcher Partnership Limited First House Quebec Street

Proposed new house and garage

Full

3PL/2006/0709/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

Y

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

1 Church Road

RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

1. Residential development within the Settlement Boundary. 2. Development of brownfield land. 3. Proximity to mature trees.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks approval for a house and garage within the village of Holme Hale. The Ward Member has requested that this application and three others are considered by Members.

The site was formerly used for agricultural purposes. The buildings are in poor repair, and the surrounding land overgrown.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

SITE AND LOCATION

No relevant site history RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

31


DC131

Policies HOU.4, ENV.19, INF.8, TRA.5 and ENV.20 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application:- HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.19 - Trees under threat may be retained through the imposition of Tree Preservation Orders.INF.8 - Development will only be permitted on or within in close proximity to landfill or contaminated sites providing an assessment of ground contamination has taken place. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted. ENV.20 - Trees that contribute to the character and appearance of the locality will be protected from development. PPG 3 is also considered to apply.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Letters of representation have been received expressing concern relating to the overall density ofdevelopment on the land, the narrowness of the lane, loss of mature trees and overshadowing of the house(s) from the remaining trees.

REPRESENTATIONS

* The application relates to the use of brownfield land within the Settlement Boundary. * The buildings are in poor condition. * The Tree Officer considers that the trees on the western boundary, whilst contributing to the rural scene and providing a useful separation between the adjacent site and this are not appropriate for a Tree Preservation Order. * Subject to the comments of the County Council's highway representative, the application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO HOLME HALE P C See letter dated 21st June 2006.

CONSULTATIONS

TREE OFFICER - considers that the trees do not merit an order. CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER - no objection subject to conditions. HIGHWAY AUTHORITY - comments to be forwarded on receipt of further information from the agent.

32


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3104 3800 3802 3804 3700 3140 3402 3414 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted plans External materials to be approved Services to be placed underground Precise details of surface water disposalPrecise details of foul water disposalDetails of roads, footways etc. Prior approval of slab level Boundary screening to be agreed Fencing protection for existing trees NOTE: Reasons for Approval

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

33


DC131

10




New house and garage

Full

3PL/2006/0710/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

1 Church Road



KEY ISSUES




SITE AND LOCATION


34


DC131




REPRESENTATIONS


ASSESSMENT NOTES


CONSULTATIONS


35


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3104 3800 3802 3804 3700 3140 3402 3414 3998


RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

36


DC131

11





Full

3PL/2006/0711/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

1 Church Road



KEY ISSUES




SITE AND LOCATION


37


DC131




REPRESENTATIONS


ASSESSMENT NOTES


CONSULTATIONS


38


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3104 3800 3802 3804 3700 3140 3402 3414 3998


RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

39


DC131

12





Full

3PL/2006/0712/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

1 Church Road



KEY ISSUES




SITE AND LOCATION


40


DC131




REPRESENTATIONS


ASSESSMENT NOTES


CONSULTATIONS


41


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3104 3800 3802 3804 3700 3140 3402 3414 3998


RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

42

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 August 2006 SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

Def-Sched-keep

REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETING FIRST REPORTED TO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

REASON FOR DEFERMENT

3PL/2005/1816/CU: Attleborough: Butterfly Walk, Long Street: Touring caravan/camping/motor home site for Mr Derek Eatough.

30/01/06 Refusal Deferred, at the request of the applicant.

3PL/2006/0557/F: Gateley: Centre Farm: Change of use from redundant farm buildings into single storey 3 bed house for Mr & Mrs J Savoury.

05/06/2006 Refusal Deferred, to enable further discussions to take place with the applicants on the issues raised at Committee. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission subject to certain conditions.

43

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) THETFORD: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BROOM COVERT, KILVERSTONE PARK: ASHWELL DEVELOPMENTS LTD: 3PL/2005/1473/D Summary – This report concerns a reserved matters application for residential development at Kilverstone Park, Thetford. It is recommended that approval is granted. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report concerns a reserved matters application for 93 dwellings on land at

Broom Covert. It is anticipated that this development will represent the final substantial phase of housing development at Kilverstone Park under the terms of the existing outline planning permission.

1.2 Committee considered this application in December 2005, when it was

resolved to defer the application to allow further discussions with the applicant in respect of affordable housing provision. All other matters relating to layout, design, trees and parking were resolved. Following discussions with the applicant, an offer has been made in respect of further affordable housing provision. This offer is outlined below.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report: A safe and healthy environment A well planned place to live and work 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Outline planning permission for residential development at Kilverstone Park

was granted in 1999. This permission was renewed in 2002. The majority of this development has now been built out.

4.2 With regard specifically to Broom Covert, reserved matters approval was

granted in July 2003 for 51 dwellings. Permission for a further 2 dwellings was granted in February 2004.

4.3 The current application applies to only part of the Broom Covert site. Under the

terms of the permissions referred to above, the current application site has consent for 43 dwellings.

5. ASSESSMENT 5.1 As originally submitted, the current application proposed no affordable housing

(and none is required here under the terms of the current outline permission). The affordable housing required for the Kilverstone Park development is

44

currently being provided as part of the applicant’s phase 3 development off Charlock Road. This phase is nearing completion.

5.2 Whilst there is not a requirement to provide further affordable units, as a

gesture of goodwill and taking into account members’ concerns on this issue, the applicant has now indicated a willingness to provide a further 4 units of affordable housing as part of the current development off Charlock Road.

5.3 This offer is considered to be acceptable. Affordable housing is already being

provided in this location in partnership with an established Registered Social Landlord. Under this offer additional units of affordable housing could be delivered relatively quickly and without the need for further legal agreements.

5.4 The applicant has also offered to provide a further 2 units elsewhere on

Kilverstone Park subject to further planning approval. This offer presents some difficulties, however. The proposed dwellings would be sited on the edge of a wooded area, the majority of which is to be transferred to the Council as public open space. These dwellings are the subject of a currently unregistered application. On the basis of the information provided with this application, it is considered that the dwellings would not be compatible with the retention of existing preserved trees.

5.5 The applicant has also suggested that an element of the commuted sum

payments required for the maintenance of public open spaces under an existing section 106 agreement could be re-directed towards affordable housing provision. However, it is not considered that the sums for open space maintenance required will provide any surplus that could be re-directed in this way.

6. RECOMMENDATION 6.1 That approval of reserved matters is granted, subject to appropriate conditions

and confirmation of the transfer of 4 units of affordable housing within the applicant’s adjacent phase of development to a Registered Social Landlord.

45

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 12th DECEMBER 2005 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)) THETFORD: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BROOM COVERT, KILVERSTONE PARK: REFERENCE: 3PL/2005/1473/D APPLICANT: ASHWELL DEVELOPMENTS LTD SUMMARY – This report concerns revised proposals for residential development by Ashwell Developments at Kilverstone Park. It is recommended that approval is granted. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report concerns a reserved matters application for a development of 35

houses and 48 flats on land at Broom Covert, Kilverstone Park, Thetford. Broom Covert currently has detailed permission for the erection of 53 dwellings. The current proposals incorporate various revisions to provide for a wider range of house types including flats and smaller houses. The overall arrangement of access roads and open space remains generally unchanged.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report: • A safe and healthy environment • A well planned place to live and work 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Outline planning permission for residential development at Kilverstone Park

was granted in 1999. This permission was renewed in 2002. 4.2 Reserved matters approval was granted for 51 dwellings at Broom Covert in

July 2003. Permission for 2 further dwellings was granted in February 2004. The area of Broom Covert covered by the current application has approval for 43 houses. The remaining 10 dwellings approved previously in this phase of development would be unaffected by the current proposal.

5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Thetford Town Council – see schedule Item 4

46

5.2 The Highway Authority has made comment on issues of parking provision and

road layout details. 5.3 The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal. 5.4 Two letters of objection have been received raising concerns about the

environmental impact of further development at Kilverstone Park, and in particular the effect on existing trees.

6. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principal planning issues raised by the proposed development relate to: i)

its design quality, ii) the retention of preserved trees and iii) the adequacy of parking arrangements.

6.2 The central design concept adopted in the previously approved scheme for

Broom Covert of a large ‘landmark building’ with houses in trees around the site perimeter has been maintained in the current proposals. Whilst the latest proposals represent a significant increase in housing density in terms of unit numbers, this has been achieved with only a marginal increase in ground coverage. Much of the increase in dwelling numbers results from the substitution of flats in place of town houses within the ‘landmark building’. House type designs are similar to those built on an adjacent development phase by Ashwell Developments, and are considered to be acceptable. Improvements to the detailed design and layout of buildings have been made following negotiations with officers and directly with the Town Council. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would relate satisfactorily in design terms to its surroundings.

6.3 Existing preserved trees and wooded areas within and adjacent to the

application site make a significant contribution to the environmental quality of the area and provide a valuable buffer between new and existing residential development. It is considered that generally the proposed development layout achieves a satisfactory relationship between houses and trees. Whilst some areas of potential conflict have been identified, amendments to the proposed layout have been made in order to address the concerns raised. Negotiations are continuing on this matter in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. The outcome of these discussions will be reported verbally. In line with the approved scheme, three trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Replacement planting is proposed on a ratio of 7:1.

6.4 The proposed ‘landmark building’ is of particular interest in terms of its

landscape impact. Whilst the current proposal would be less likely to cause any direct damage to existing trees in the adjacent public open space than previous proposals (due to the omission of the access road originally proposed), the building itself would be closer to these trees, which could increase pressure in the long term to remove trees because of future residents’ concerns about nuisance. At this stage, however, the trees would be within the control of the Council as part of the public open space, giving them an additional degree of protection. Additional tree planting is proposed to both the front and rear of the landmark building to enhance its landscape setting. On balance it is considered that the current proposal is acceptable in this respect.

47

6.5 Finally, on the issue of parking, concerns have been raised by the Highway

Authority about the level of parking proposed to serve the flat development. In response, amendments to the design and layout of the parking area have been made to ensure that adequate spaces are provided for both residents and visitors. Overall parking provision is consistent with national policy, as set out in PPG 3, and is considered to be acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Subject to tree protection issues being resolved satisfactorily, it is

recommended that approval of reserved matters be granted.

48

DC131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Item No.

Philip Hyde C W Utting & Son DGM Properties Ltd Ashwell Developments Ltd Jon Holden Ltd Mr & Mrs J Toll Ian Jessett The Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre Mr & Mrs W G Bartlett Mr G Rose Mr and Mrs A Bell Mr L Brown George Tufts & Sons LtdL & B Properties Thetford Ltd Broadland Housing Association Mr J Becker S J Collett & Partner Mrs J Stagles N Garner The Hon Mr R De Grey South Pickenham Estate Co Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd Done Bookmakers (Cash Betting) Mr & Mrs R Crisp Mr & Mrs D Sparkes Mr & Mrs D Sparkes Miss B Powdrill Mr A Naylor

Applicant

HOCKERINGBEESTONSCARNINGTHETFORDMILEHAMDEREHAMWATTONROUDHAM/LARLINGOLD BUCKENHAMASHILLEAST TUDDENHAMTHETFORDWATTONTHETFORDDEREHAMATTLEBOROUGHGARBOLDISHAMSAHAM TONEYSAHAM TONEYMERTONSOUTH PICKENHAMTHETFORDTHETFORDHOEMATTISHALLMATTISHALLWATTONDEREHAM

Parish

3CM/2006/0040/F 3PL/2003/0198/CU 3PL/2005/1081/D 3PL/2005/1473/D 3PL/2006/0571/F 3PL/2006/0580/O 3PL/2006/0725/F 3PL/2006/0737/F 3PL/2006/0774/F 3PL/2006/0801/O 3PL/2006/0812/F 3PL/2006/0833/CU 3PL/2006/0837/D 3PL/2006/0851/O 3PL/2006/0861/F 3PL/2006/0881/F 3PL/2006/0911/F 3PL/2006/0925/F 3PL/2006/0927/F 3PL/2006/0940/F 3PL/2006/0947/F 3PL/2006/0979/F 3PL/2006/0984/CU 3PL/2006/0994/F 3PL/2006/1009/F 3PL/2006/1010/LB 3PL/2006/1026/D 3PL/2006/1064/O

Reference No.


49


DC131

1

HOCKERING Frans Green Industrial Estate Sandy Lane

Philip Hyde Pips Skips Frans Green Industrial Estate

Philip Hyde Pips Skips Frans Green Industrial Estate

Storage of empty skips

Full

3CM/2006/0040/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

Employment

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

COMMENTS TO COUNTY

Use of land outside allocated site

KEY ISSUES

The proposal relates to the storage of empty skips on land adjacent to an established waste transfer station.

The site lies adjacent to land designated as "allocation for employment uses" within the BrecklandDistrict Local Plan, on Frans Green Industrial Estate at Sandy Lane, Hockering. The site is made up of a strip of hard surfaced road and rough ground alongside, lying between two lines of established trees and hedging. A prefabricated building which stands at the northern point of the land was approved under reference 3PL/1998/1424 (See planning history). Large storage containers, smaller skips and an old fire engine already stand on the site. There is evidence that some of the trees have been damaged by the siting of these containers and skips close to the boundaries. Agricultural land borders the site and the nearest residential dwelling is Fransgreen Farm to the south east


SITE AND LOCATION

The use of the adjacent site for the storage of skips and as a waste transfer station has been established through County Council approvals. A number of other businesses operate from the Industrial Estate. 3PL/1998/1424 - Erection of building for dismantling cars - Approved subject to conditions restricting use to dismantling cars only and personal to the applicant (Mr. K. Gray), highway conditions re parking and turning areas and the provision of boundary screening.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

50


DC131

Policies ENV.3, ECO.3 and ECO.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. ECO.3 - Economic development that cannot be accommodated on established or allocated sites could be permitted on disused Airfield Sites ECO.5 -Economic development outside settlement boundaries will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances


None

REPRESENTATIONS

CONSULTATIONS

Norfolk County Council are responsible for statutory consultations, publicity, advertising and notification to Parish Council and neighbours. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER - Objection on grounds of Policy ENV.3 which seeks to protect the countryside and the proposal's encroachment onto unallocated land. Any extension to this site should be pursued through the LDF process in order that full consideration can be given to the strategic location of new employment land and detailed site- specific issues on the ground. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - No objection subject to relevant conditions imposed on other parts of the site.

51


DC131

Comments to County Council

9900 Encroachment of a commercial use into the countryside

RECOMMENDATION

* The application details include only an indicative sketch plan of the area proposed to be used for the storage of skips in connection with the applicants' business and waste transfer station, on adjacent land. A more accurate, scaled plan has been requested from Norfolk County Council. Comments are based on the submitted details and a recent site visit. * The site appears to be part of an access track which originally ran through the middle of the industrial estate and along the north western boundary. The road has been closed at the bend inthe road and access to the application site is now through the waste transfer station site and yard. * Whilst it is acknowledged that the land lies outside the Local Plan allocated land, on the ground it relates as an extension to the existing business and is already being used in connection with that operation. The trees either side screen the site although these appear to be under threat of further damage with an intensification of the use. The use would be unlikely to have an impact onother users of the site or residential property. * Policy ECO.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan has established employment areas such as Frans Green to cater for industrial and commercial development of a type which would not be appropriately located on established or allocated sites. This site lies outside that allocation and must be considered in the light of Policy ENV.3 which seeks to protect the countryside for its ownsake and ECO.5 which would only allow such uses outside allocated sites in exceptional circumstances. Such an extension of the commercial use of the site should be considered as part of the LDF process. On that basis, it is recommended that the application should be refused.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

52


DC131

2

BEESTON Punch Farm

C W Utting & Son Punch Farm Litcham

Ian Utting The Old Dairy Punch Farm

Change of use from general purpose agricultural building to general purpose/ housing for livestock

Change of Use

3PL/2003/0198/CU

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


Residential amenity

KEY ISSUES

It is proposed to use a farm storage building for livestock in connection with a dairying enterprise. The building is used for calf rearing. The application is retrospective.

The building is adjacent to an established farm complex in an area of generally open countryside between the villages of Longham and Litcham. Outside the farm, the nearest residential property is located approximately 100 metres away.


SITE AND LOCATION

The building, which is the subject of this application, was erected as 'permitted development' following notification to the Council under the GPDO procedure. Farm buildings erected as 'permitted development' may not be used to accommodate livestock without further consent if they are located within 400 metres of a residential property.


Policy ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.


53


DC131

Planning Permission

3006 3046 3920

Full Permission Time Limit (5 years)In accordance with submitted plans TO FOLLOW

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

Objections to the application have been made by a nearby resident who is concerned about increased problems of smell and flies.

REPRESENTATIONS

* It is considered that the key issue raised by the proposal relates to its impact on the amenities of the nearest residential property. * The building concerned is situated in relatively close proximity to the nearest residential property. The DEFRA Code of Practice recommends that livestock buildings are sited at least 400 metres from residential property. The nearest residential property is located approximately 100 metres from the building. * However, the building is adjacent to an established dairy farm. It is understood that cattle have been reared at the farm for at least two generations and that the new building is required to replace former cattle rearing accommodation which was too small and out-dated. * In these circumstances it is considered that it would be difficult to substantiate an objection in principle to the use of the building for livestock. However, given the understandable concerns raised by the neighbour and the Council's Environmental Health Officer, it is recommended that conditions be attached to any permission granted to require measures to be agreed with the Council to control and minimise problems of flies and smell and to require approval of drainage/waste disposal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO BEESTON P C No Objection

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - has raised objections to the application dueto concerns about the impact of the development on the amenities of the nearest dwelling to the farm.

54


DC131

3

SCARNING Former to the rear of Riverside Garden CSwaffham Hill

DGM Properties Ltd 43 Double Street Spalding

Ian H Bix & Associates Sandpiper House Leete Way

Residential development for 14 dwellings and associated works to access road

Reserved Matters

3PL/2005/1081/D

Y

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

No recommendation made

1950 SEE MAIN AGENDA ITEM

RECOMMENDATION

REPORT TO COMMITTEE

CONSULTATIONS

55


DC131

4

THETFORD Phase 2 Kilverstone Park

Ashwell Developments Ltd Botanic House 100 Hills Road

Grafik Architects Ltd Station Court Radford Way

Residential development comprising 83 units (mix 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed), public openspace & assoc. infrastructure

Reserved Matters

3PL/2005/1473/D

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

Y

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


RECOMMENDATION

REPORT TO COMMITTEE

CONSULTATIONS

56


DC131

5

MILEHAM Land rear of Moulton House The Street

Jon Holden Ltd Charlton Court Back Lane

Jon Holden Ltd Charlton Court Back Lane

Erection of 2 two storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling and garages

Full

3PL/2006/0571/F

Y

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Expansion of site previously granted planning permission for residential development - subject to a legal agreement. 2. Development within a Conservation Area, on edge of settlement. 3. Loss of trees and protection of remaining tree.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks approval for 3 dwellings on land to be accessed from Back Lane. The access is through a site currently being developed for 14 houses. The layout has been amended to accommodate the concerns of the Tree Officer in respect of a walnut tree within the rear garden of Moulton House.

The site is partly to the rear of Moulton House, The Street, Mileham. The site is partly within the Settlement Boundary. The land to be used for the 3 dwellings is currently a paddock. There is anexisting stable block along the western boundary. The site is within the Conservation Area.


SITE AND LOCATION

3PL/2003/1693 - Kibigori Farm, Back Lane, Mileham - Erection of 14 dwellings - Permission granted 6th August 2004 subject to a Section 106 agreement. 3PL/2005/1403/D - Erection of 14 dwellings - Permission granted 15th November 2005.


57


DC131

Policies HOU.4, HOU.15, HOU.13, ENV.20, INF.1, INF.2, INF.8, ENV.12 and ENV.10 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) and PPG3 are considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted. ENV.20 - Trees that contribute to the character and appearance of the locality will be protected from development. INF.1 - Development that would adversely affect groundwater supplies will not be permitted. INF.2 - Development generating surface water run-off in excess of the capacity of the sewerage and land drainage disposal system will not normally be permitted. INF.8 - Development will only be permitted on or within in close proximity to landfill or contaminated sites providing an assessment of ground contamination has taken place. HOU.15 - The design and layout of new residential development will be to a high standard. HOU.13 - Affordable Housing will be sought as part of new housing development. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. ENV.12 - Views into and out of Conservation Areas will be protected. PPG3 - Housing


Original submission - 1 letter of support, 4 letters of objection which relate to impact upon possible flooding and issues covered below. Revised submission - 1 letter in support, 3 letters of objection repeating earlier concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy, impact upon Conservation Area, impact upon Moulton House and its setting.

REPRESENTATIONS

CLERK TO MILEHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT...

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S TREE AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER - No objection to revised drawings. COUNCIL'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER - No objection.

58


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3048 3104 3212 3310 3304 3405 3450 3414 3408 3920 3822 3840 3920 3943 3804 3808 3994 3994

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted AMENDMENTSExternal materials to be approved No additional windows at first floor No alterations to lose garage No P.D. rights for extensions, sheds, etcFencing/walls - details and implementationDetails of parking, servicing and pavingFencing protection for existing trees Landscaping - details and implementationSurface water drainage Roof water via sealed downpipes Depth of soakaways Investigation and assessment of risk of contaminationContamination found during developmentPrecise details of foul water disposalApproved surface water system to be constructedNOTES: Outline condns./EA notes/ Wildlife Act/Land ownershipNOTE: Conservation Area Consent required for demolition

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

* The scheme is considered to be of significance given the position within the Conservation Area,on the settlement edge and close to a Scheduled Ancient Monument. * The revised scheme is considered satisfactory, subject to suitable conditions relating to drainage and contamination given the low lying nature of the site relative to the site to the north- west, where dwellings are currently under construction. * The Council's Tree Officer and the Historic Buildings Officer do not have any objection to the scheme, as revised. * Moulton House itself is not considered to be candidate for listing.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

59


DC131

6

DEREHAM 16 Neatherd Moor

Mr & Mrs J Toll Wisteria 16 Neatherd Moor

David A Cutting Building Surveyors Limited 70 Market Street

Residential development of two dwellings

Outline

3PL/2006/0580/O

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

Re-submission of previously refused application. Revised scheme fails to overcome previous concerns in respect of amenity.

KEY ISSUES

This outline application proposes the erection of 2 no. houses and garages on land forming part ofthe rear garden of 16 Neatherd Moor, Dereham. The existing access, currently used by 14 and 16 Neatherd Moor, is proposed for use. The principle of the development and access to it are required to be determined at this time, with all other matters being reserved for future determination.

The 0.2ha site is set approximately 37m south of Neatherd Moor, approximately 20m to the rear of a row of dwellings fronting onto it. Comprising a large area of garden land which is relatively well screened to the south, east and west, the site is set on two levels, one being a sunken area approximately 3m below the level of the main garden. One dwelling is indicated to be set within the hollow with another on the higher ground to the east.


SITE AND LOCATION

Application reference 3PL/2005/1168 for the residential development of 2 no. dwellings was refused by this Committee at its meeting of 5th September last year. The reason for refusal was due to the harm likely to result to the amenity of the occupiers of both 14 and 16 Neatherd Moor by virtue of noise and disturbance from vehicles entering and leaving the site.


60


DC131

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION

Policies HOU.2 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is/are considered relevant to this application. HOU.2 - Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries of the five towns will be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.


Three letters of objection have been received raising concerns in respect of the inability of the foul sewer to cope with additional flows and possible flooding, increase in traffic movements and lack of visibility, effect on character of area and impact on amenity.

REPRESENTATIONS

* Whilst the site is clearly of an adequate size to accommodate 2 dwellings, and the Council's Tree Officer has no objections in principle, it is considered that the previous reason for refusal has not been overcome. * The applicants advise that all windows facing onto the drive are secondary only and could, if considered necessary, be infilled. A semi permeable driveway in paviours would further reduce noise from vehicles. * Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that an unacceptable level of harm would result to the occupiers of both the principal dwelling and that of its neighbour, 14 Neatherd Moor, due to the tight access arrangement. Not only would there be noise from passing traffic but a significantdegree of inconvenience due to the lack of passing places within the narrow driveway.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO DEREHAM T C Councillors objected due to backland development and also considered that the access road is too narrow.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - Objection due to the inadequate visbility splays at the junction of the access with the county highway, more than 8 dwellings served off a private drive and that the width of the access (between dwellings) measures only 3.3m whereas the County standard requires a minimum of 4.1m. NORFOLK LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY - No objection but request the attachment of an archaeological condition. COUNCIL'S TREE AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER - No objection

61


DC131

9900 9900 9900

D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.2 Effect on amenity due to noise of vehiclesD.W.L.P. Policy ENV.28

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL

62


DC131

7

WATTON Land to rear of 15 Swaffham Road

Ian Jessett Walnut Farm Developments Walnut Farm

Broadacre Associates UK Ltd The Planning Centre Offices 3-5 The Old Garage

Erection of 4 dwellings

Full

3PL/2006/0725/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Access/visibility. 2. Layout and detailing. 3. Amenity of neighbouring households.

KEY ISSUES

This application is a resubmission of a scheme submitted earlier this year (our ref. 3PL/2006/0376/F). The number of units is still four, the footprints and detailing have been changed to reflect the setting of the site close to the settlement edge.

The site is part of the rear garden to No. 15 Swaffham Road. There are a number of semi- derelict buildings on the site. The site has a narrow frontage to Swaffham Road. South of the semi-detached houses, numbers 18 and 17, the access is intended to have a new brick wall.


SITE AND LOCATION

Previous planning application - 4 dwellings -withdrawn - recommendation for refusal - 3PL/2006/0376. 3PL/2003/1033/F - permission given subject to conditions - 4th March 2004 - construction of 4 dwellinghouses.


63


DC131

Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION

Policies TRA.5, HOU.2, ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. TRA.5 Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted. HOU.2 Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries of the five towns will be permittedsubject to criteria. ENV.28 Amenity will be protected. PPG3 - Housing is considered to be relevant to this application.


None at the time of writing the report.

REPRESENTATIONS

* The scheme, as amended, is considered satisfactory. * The layout has been broken up with planting between dwellings and along the access. * Three individual units are arranged oblique to the side boundaries, with plot one perpendicular to and in view from Swaffham Road. * The planting at the rear of the site, adjacent to Three Post Road, will be retained. * The application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

WATTON TOWN CLERK No objection. Members are concerned that there is a building on land next to the development which has been condemned but it is not the applicants property. It is the policy of Watton Town Council that a S106 contribution be applied for on all developmentfrom one build onwards.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - no objection to amended scheme, subject to conditions.

64


DC131

3007 3048 3750 3750 3750 3920 3920 3412 3414 3402 3403 3310 3304 3850 3802 3990 3987 3972 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted AMENDMENTSAccess to NCC standard Indicated access onlyParking/servicing areas provided Contamination condition re desk studyContamination precautionary conditionTrees/hedges to be retained Fencing protection for existing trees Boundary screening to be agreed Screen fencing &/or walling to be builtNo alterations to lose garage No P.D. rights for extensions, sheds, etcDetails of foul drainage Precise details of surface water disposalNOTE: re. land ownership rights NOTE: Underground services near treesNOTE: Bats and OwlsNOTE: Reasons for Approval

CONDITIONS

65


DC131

8

ROUDHAM/LARLING Feralands Roudham Road

The Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre Feralands Roudham Road

Custom Homes South Suffolk Business Centre 48a Alexandra Road

Replacement of present staff accommodation with purpose built dwelling closer to cattery & offices

Full

3PL/2006/0737/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

Harling Road


Functional and financial justification for a permanent dwelling.

KEY ISSUES

This is a full application to erect a permanent manager's dwelling on land currently used as a rescue centre for cats and rabbits. The proposal is the resubmission of an application which was withdrawn in December 2005 under reference 3PL/2005/1488/F.

The site lies in a relatively rural location outside the Settlement Boundary and employment area. The site is within the Area of Important Landscape Quality.


SITE AND LOCATION

3PL/1996/0717/CU - Change of use to animal rescue centre and retention of mobile home. Temporary consent for the renewal of the mobile home has been renewed successfully since 1994. 3PL/2005/1488 - Manager's dwelling - Withdrawn


66


DC131

Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) and PPS.7 are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless itis justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities. PPS.7 - The existing use of the site is considered an appropriate rural based enterprise therefore it is necessary to apply the principles of Planning Policy Statement no. 7 "Sustainable development in rural areas" in respect of the functional and financial tests.


None

REPRESENTATIONS

* The principle of accommodation on the site was established in 1994 by the granting of temporary planning permission for a mobile home. The temporary permission has been successfully renewed. There is currently a temporary log cabin on the site. * The applicant has submitted a case demonstrating there is a functional need for one or more persons to be readily available to care for the animals on the site. * The applicant has submitted financial information to demonstrate that the business is financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so. The charity has invested over £100.000 in the current building on the site, which has an extant consent for a further wing. * The existing accommodation on the site is very poor and suffers from damp condensation and is poorly insulated for winter use. * The proposed dwelling is a 3 bedroom property with an integral bed-sit. It is sited close to the existing building on site. The proposed siting and size of the properties is considered acceptable.* The applicant has satisfied the functional and financial tests set out in PPS7. * The use of the land is considered to be a use which, out of necessity, needs to be located in a rural location, away from other dwellings and should be assessed using the same principles as if it were on agricultural dwelling. * The applicant has satisfied the functional and financial tests set out in PPS7 and is therefore in accordance with Policy HOU.6.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO ROUDHAM & LARLING P C Objection: See letter received 9th June 2006

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No objection. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - Conditions requiring occupation to be limited to a person employed by the rescue centre and assessment of suitability of septic tank drainage COUNCIL'S CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER - Condition requiring desk study to investigate risk of contamination and informative regarding soil gas migration.

67


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3048 3549 3920 3104 3996

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted AMENDMENTSOccupation limited to a person employed by the rescue centreDesk study - Contamination External materials to be approved NOTE: Capacity of foul water system. Filled land

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

68


DC131

9

OLD BUCKENHAM 6a Old Post Office Terrace

Mr & Mrs W G Bartlett 6a Old Post Office Terrace Old Buckenha

Tutton Consultants Limited Tutton House Baylham

Demolition of existing outbuildings, erection of single storey rear extension

Full

3PL/2006/0774/F

Y

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Amenity 2. Impact on Conservation Area

KEY ISSUES

Seeks planning permission to demolish a number of outbuildings in the side and rear garden of the applicants’ property, to be replaced with a single-storey side and rear extension comprising of a garden room, porch, shower and utility room. The extension would measure approximately 6.1 metres by 7.1 metres with a height to the ridge of 3.5 metres.

The property is a semi-detached brick cottage which lies in the centre of the village of Old Buckenham, facing onto the village pond.


SITE AND LOCATION

Planning permission was granted for a replacement garage/shed in the garden of the property in 2004 (Ref: 3PL/2004/1671/F).


Policies HOU.17 and ENV.10 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 - Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced.


70


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3100 3102 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted plans Wall materials Roofing materials NOTE: Reasons for Approval

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of loss of light and view, overbearing impact, and impact on character of property.

REPRESENTATIONS

* Concern has been raised by both the owners of the adjacent properties and the Parish Council that the proposed extension would significantly detract from the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, particularly in terms of loss of light and overbearing impact. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would result in an element of loss of light and overbearing, particularly to the adjoining dwelling (No.6), given that the height of the extension to the eaves would be only slightly higher than that of a boundary hedge or fence which could be erected without the need for planning permission, refusal of the extension on amenity grounds alone is considered difficult to justify. * Furthermore, whilst the property lies within the Conservation Area, no objection has been raisedby the Council's Historic Buildings Officer to its design or impact on the Conservation Area. * The application is, therefore, on balance, recommended for approval.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO O BUCKENHAM P C Comment: Proposed extension would darken properties either side and would have a detrimental impact. Is also out of character.

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER - No objection.

71


DC131

10

ASHILL Land to south of B1077

Mr G Rose C/o 7 Hearts Lane Bawburgh

Mr F Munford Charnwood 36 New Sporle Road

Erection of 2 storey dwelling

Outline

3PL/2006/0801/O

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Development within countryside and intensification of existing sporadic development. 2. Residential development within the countryside.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks approval for the erection of a 2 storey dwelling on land south of the B1077 outside of Ashill village.

The site was formerly part of a commercial garage. The buildings now used by the Well ChristianCentre were also part of the garage business. There are a number of buildings and a caravan/mobile on the site.


SITE AND LOCATION


Policies HOU.6 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) and PPG3 are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless itis justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. PPG3 - Housing


72


DC131

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

9042 9044 9048 9300 9310 9110 9140

Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villagesPolicy not met outside settlement No evidence that cannot be met in settlementSetting a precedent Despite personal circumstances D.W.L.P. - ENV.3 - Protected for its own sakeFurther consolidation of sporadic development

RECOMMENDATION


A letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring property expressing concern about access arrangements and possible inconvenience to the occupants of any new dwelling arising from the proximity to a meeting centre used most days and evenings.

REPRESENTATIONS

* A statement has been submitted on behalf of the applicant outlining the personal circumstancesfor the application. * However, these are considered insufficient to outweigh normal policy guidance at national and local level. * The site is well maintained and tidy. The site owner has continued to pay business council tax and is used for storage. * The application is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO ASHILL P C Objection: This site outside the planning envelope, access would be onto a very dangerous stretch of road where there is already problems with traffic queueing for the recycling site. At present the site is causing concern over its use and there is no reason to develop this site.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No objection. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No objection subject to conditions.

73


DC131

11

EAST TUDDENHAM Riverside Farm Rotten Row

Mr and Mrs A Bell Riverside Farm East Tuddenham

The W R Davidge Planning Practice PO Box 463

Change of use and conversion of redundant ag buildings to provide 2 units of accom for leisure & holiday letting

Full

3PL/2006/0812/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Vehicular access. 2. Principle of conversion.

KEY ISSUES

This is a full application for the change of use and conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to use as two units of holiday accommodation. Each unit would contain three bedrooms. A parking area would be sited to the rear of the buildings. An existing steel portal frame building would be demolished as part of the scheme. Vehicular access would be via Rotten Row.

The existing buildings are single storey in a linear form. A further building is set immediately to the north of the two buildings subject of this application, effectively forming an enclosed courtyard. The site adjoins an existing dwelling - Riverside Farm and a residential annexe. The locality is rural in nature and also adjoins a public footpath.


SITE AND LOCATION

1) 3PL/2002/1347/F - Removal of agricultural occupancy condition to existing bungalow - approved 10th October, 2002. 2) 3PL/2003/0576/F - Erection of new dwelling and conversion of existing bungalow to annexe - approved 20th May, 2003.


74


DC131


Policy TOR.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. TOR.6 - Conversion of Rural Buildings to Tourist Accommodation may be permitted subject to criteria.


Letters of objection have been received from nearby residents raising objection on grounds of poor highway access, increase in traffic movement, impact on pedestrians.

REPRESENTATIONS

* In taking account of Policy TOR.6 it should be noted that, in normal circumstances, a business use for rural buildings should be considered prior to considering residential or holiday accommodation uses. However, the Committee will note the comments of the HighwayS Authority who suggest that Rotten Row is unsuitable for commercial traffic. In these circumstances alternative uses can be considered. * The buildings subject of conversion are in good condition (supported by a structural report) and can be converted without major reconstruction or alteration. They are constructed of traditional materials and their conversion would not, therefore, harm the appearance of the locality. * The Committee will note that a number of objections have been received from nearby occupants in relation to the poor quality of the highway serving the development. However, the use as holiday accommodation is not considered to be a major generator of traffic movements and to refuse the application on these grounds would not be sustainable. In conclusion, the proposed scheme is considered to comply with Policy TOR.6 and is recommended for approval subject to a condition restricting the buildings to holiday use only.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO EAST TUDDENHAM P C Whereas the Council had no objection to the design of the conversions there was concern about safety with regard to traffic in Rotten Rown and Church Lane. It was decided to make sure that all residents in Rotten Rown and Church Lane were aware of this development before the Parish Council made its response.

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - requires a sewage treatment plant to servethe development. HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - consider that the existing highway is unsuitable for larger commercial vehicles whereas the proposed use will generate minimal vehicle movements. Objection on highway grounds is therefore not raised. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - Conditions re drainage

75


DC131

3007 3046 3110 3139 3304 3545 3920 3740 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted plans External materials to match existing Structural stability No P.D. rights for extensions, sheds, etcUse for holiday accommodation onlySewage Treatment Plant recommended for useOn-site parking and turning conditionNOTE: Reasons for Approval

CONDITIONS

76


DC131

12

THETFORD Theatre House 14 White Hart Street

Mr L Brown St Edmundsbury Finance 81 Whiting

Mr L Brown St Edmundsbury Finance 81 Whiting Street

Change of use to day nursery

Change of Use

3PL/2006/0833/CU

Y

Grade II

In Settlemnt Bndry

Second. Comm. Area

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks to change the use of the building from offices to a day nursery. The maximum number of children it is proposed to care for would be 27 with 5 staff plus cook on the ground floor and 3 staff plus manager on the first floor. Children would not have access to the second floor. Opening hours are proposed to be 8.00am - 5.30pm Monday to Friday. It is anticipated that 4 of the staff would have vehicles who would use the adjacent public car park. Parents with vehicles would also use the adjacent car park with waiting time anticipated to be approximately 10 - 15 minutes. Most deliveries would be in small to medium vans. It is proposed to locate outdoor play equipment of the type suitable for home use, plastic climbing frames, slidesetc, in the garden. There is no intention to install large, permanent structures.

The site lies close to the centre of Thetford, on the east side of White Hart Street. The building is three storey's high and is Listed. The adjoining property is a dwelling, whilst to the south is the Council car park. Opposite the property is a pub.


SITE AND LOCATION

3PL/1988/2097/CU approved a change of use of the building from residential to offices. 3PL/1992/1062/LB approved Listed Building Consent for replacement windows to the ground floorkitchen. 3PL/2000/0727/LB approved Listed Building Consent to replace the existing heritage plaque with a new updated version.


77


DC131

Policy ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. Policy ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.


A local resident objects on the grounds that the proposed day nursery will affect quietness and privacy within his garden; vehicle access is limited already and the car park always full; the footpath is narrow and the area is residential and within a Conservation Area.

REPRESENTATIONS

* Given that this is a Listed Building, consent is required for proposed internal alterations. Whilst an application for Listed Building consent has been submitted it is currently invalid pending the submission of further details. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a Listed Building and will be thesubject of a separate application, the planning issues of this proposal need to be considered on their merits. * White Hart Street contains a mix of commercial and residential uses, with commercial uses generally concentrated closer to the town centre. Clearly the proposed use would fall into the category of commercial. * However, the building adjoins a residential property and it is considered that the proposal could generate significant noise disturbance over long periods of time, particularly when children are outdoors in the garden. * Furthermore, White Hart Street is a cul-de-sac and it is considered that the proposal could generate significant volumes of traffic along a narrow road. Whilst the views of the Highway Authority are awaited it is considered that additional traffic could have an impact on the general amenity of White Hart Street. * Furthermore, the adjacent Council operated car park is conveniently located for shoppers to thetown centre and consequently well used. It is considered that the proposed use could affect the availability of car parking spaces for visitors to the town centre. * Given that it is considered the proposal will be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residential properties, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV.28 and is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO THETFORD T C Objection:- Inappropriate use of a listed building and major concerns about traffic implications.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - Views awaited. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER raises no objections

78


DC131

Refusal of Planning Permission

9900 Detrimental impact on amenities of neighbouring properties

RECOMMENDATION


79


DC131

13

WATTON Ex George Tufts Builders Yard Norwich Road

George Tufts & Sons Ltd Bradenham Norfolk


Proposed residential development

Reserved Matters

3PL/2006/0837/D

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Design. 2. Parking. 3. Residential amenity.

KEY ISSUES

Reserved matters approval is sought for the erection of 24 houses. The development would comprise 2 and 2 1/2 storey dwellings arranged in short terraces. A new adoptable access road is proposed to serve the development.

The site is a former builders yard on Norwich Road, Watton. The site is adjoined to the south andeast by an established industrial estate and to the north and west by residential properties.


SITE AND LOCATION

Outline planning permission for up to 24 dwellings was granted in October 2005. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

Policy HOU.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is/are considered relevant to this application. HOU.2 - Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries of the five towns will be permitted subject to criteria.


80


DC131

Disapproval of Reserved Matters

9900 TO FOLLOW

RECOMMENDATION


Wayland Chamber of Trade & Commerce has objected on the grounds that the development would conflict with the use of existing commercial uses adjacent. A letter of objection has been received from a local resident relating to boundary issues.

REPRESENTATIONS

* Whilst the principle of residential development in this location is accepted, it is considered that the proposed layout and design of the scheme falls short of the standard required. It is considered that the layout would appear cramped and would be dominated visually by proposed parking areas and access roads. It is also considered that the development would relate poorly to adjacent residential properties. * In order to safeguard the amenities of future residents, it is considered to be essential that the proposed development incorporates adequate acoustic screening to its boundaries with existing commercial uses. This screening should be fully integrated into the development layout. The current layout does not include proposals for acoustic screening.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

WATTON TOWN CLERK Recommend refusal - see letter received 23rd June 2006. Members recommend refusal due to inadequate parking for the number of houses and feel very strongly that the access should not be onto an industrial estate. It is the policy of Watton Town Council that a S106 contribution be applied for on all developments from one build onwards.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - has asked for amendments to the layout and design of the proposed estate road and parking provision. COUNCIL'S TREE & COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER - has asked for further information relating to retention of trees and new planting COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - has raised concerns about potential disturbance to future occupants form adjacent commercial development. Details of acoustic screening are requested.

81


DC131

14

THETFORD Land at Forest Retail Park London Road

L & B Properties Thetford Ltd c/o agent

Burnett Planning & Development Goldencross House 8 Duncannon Street

Non-food retail development with external garden centre, assoc. car parking, etc(resubmission 3PL/2004/2045)

Outline

3PL/2006/0851/O

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

PP-alloc. for Retail

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

Outline Planning Permission


RECOMMENDATION

REPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

CONSULTATIONS

83


DC131

15

DEREHAM Land to rear of 47 & 49 Norwich Road

Broadland Housing Association c/o agent

Ingleton Wood LLP 43 All Saints Green Norwich

Erection of 65 affordable dwellings with associated access parking & amenity/ play areas

Full

3PL/2006/0861/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

Y

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:

Planning Permission


RECOMMENDATION

REPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

CONSULTATIONS

84


DC131

16

ATTLEBOROUGH Point House Besthorpe Road

Mr J Becker The Vineyard Leys Lane

Architectural Services Anglia Ltd 43 Rectory Gardens

Extension to restaurant

Full

3PL/2006/0881/F

Y

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

Y

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Impact on Conservation Area 2. Highway Safety

KEY ISSUES

Seeks to construct a UPVc conservatory to the side of a property currently used as a restaurant. The conservatory would provide an additional eating area and would measure approximately 7.6 metres by 7 metres.

The premises lie to the edge of Attleborough town centre and are accessed off Besthorpe Road.


SITE AND LOCATION

Planning permission was granted in 2005 to change the use of the ground floor and basement of the property to a restaurant with staff accommodation above (Ref: 3PL/2004/1436/F).


Policies ENV.10, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.


85


DC131


9570 9370

D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.10 Incompatible design of extension

RECOMMENDATION


None

REPRESENTATIONS

* Whilst it is considered that the construction of an extension in the position proposed would detract from the symmetry of this attractive building, given its commercial use and the fact that the property is not Listed, the principle of the extension is considered difficult to resist. * However, the design of the conservatory, combined with the use of UPVc in its construction, is considered inappropriate for such a prominent site within the Conservation Area. In particular, theuse of UPVC joinery would dictate the need for the use of brick pillars. * Whilst the Highways Authority has indicated that they would be unlikely to object to the scheme on highway safety grounds, the proposal would result in a loss of existing on-site parking provision. The applicant has, therefore, been requested to submit a revised plan showing the level of parking which would be retained. Members will be updated verbally in respect of this matter at the meeting. * The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to Policy ENV.10 of the Local Plan, by virtue of failing to preserve the appearance and character of the Attleborough Conservation Area and is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC No objections

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER - Objection on the grounds that the design and materials to be used in its construction are inappropriate in this prominent location. HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - Awaiting comments. COUNCIL'S TREES AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER - No objection. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the installation of ventilation equipment and noise mitigation measures.

86


DC131

17

GARBOLDISHAM Hall Farm

S J Collett & Partner Hall Farm Garboldisham

John Stephenson Ashby House 194 Broomhill

Conversion of barn to two dwellings and two outbuildings to garages

Full

3PL/2006/0911/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Residential Barn Conversion Policy. 2. Inadequate Marketing. 3. Structural Condition.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to convert a small group of agricultural buildings to residential use. The proposal involves the creation of garaging in two single-storey barns, and two detached three- bedroom dwellings in each of the larger barns. The units would be served off the Harling Road.

The group of buildings on the site comprise of a mixture of modern and traditional agricultural structures which are situated to the north of the village of Garboldisham.


SITE AND LOCATION


Policies HOU.11 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.11 - The conversion of rural buildings to residential use will be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.


87


DC131

None

REPRESENTATIONS

* Policy HOU.11 requires that applicants make "...every reasonable attempt to secure a suitable business reuse prior to consideration being given to their residential conversion". * In this case, whilst the applicant has stated that the existing road network makes the buildings unsuitable for a business re-use, no evidence of a marketing exercise has been provided. Furthermore, whilst the buildings are relatively close to a number of residential dwellings, the buildings appear to be still in agricultural use and are served off their own access off Harling Road, already resulting in an element of disturbance. No highway objection has been raised to the proposed scheme, and therefore a business re-use may be acceptable from a highway aspect. * In addition, Policy HOU.11 also states that to be converted buildings should be "of a permanent and substantial construction and be capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction". Whilst the accompanying report indicates that, from a visual inspection only, the buildings could be converted, the scale of the work proposed to facilitate such a conversion is relatively extensive, with the design detailing of the scheme likely to be unsympathetic to the fabric of the existing buildings. * Therefore, given the lack of marketing, the overall structural condition of the buildings and the design detailing, the application is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO GARBOLDISHAM P C NO REPLY AS At 28 JULY 2006

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER - Raises concern that the engineers report concentrates on repair works as opposed to impact of the conversion scheme on the structures. If carried out, the conversion may involve substantial remodelling or rebuilding works, as well as the proposed design being unsympathetic. HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to access, parking and turning. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER - No objection subject to condition relating tofoul water drainage. ENGLISH NATURE - Objection on the grounds that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse effect on protected species. COUNCIL'S CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER - No objection subject to contaminated land condition. COUNCIL'S BUILDING CONTROL OFFICER - Report indicates buildings suitable for conversion providing access is suitable for fire appliance access for first 20m and drainage is via treatment plants, if no mains available.

88


DC131


9900 9900 9900

Policy HOU.11 Failure to secure a suitable business re-useBuildings not capable of being converted without major work

RECOMMENDATION


89


DC131

18

SAHAM TONEY Land adjacent 56/58 Richmond Road

Mrs J Stagles 1 Meadow Grove Saham Road

Adrian Morley Kingsfold Watton Road

Erection of 2 no. cottages

Full

3PL/2006/0925/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Principle of development. 2. Site access. 3. Drainage.

KEY ISSUES

This is a full planning application for the erection of a pair of semi-detached, two storey dwellings. Each property has three bedrooms. The proposed design is traditional in style and incorporates garage and turning space. The total site area measures 0.0542 hectares and provides a reasonable sized garden for each property.

The proposed dwellings are sited just within the Settlement Boundary for Saham Toney, althoughpart of the garden area does extend over the defined boundary. The site currently consists of a vacant area of land accessed by a private drive. The drive currently serves five other residential properties and also adjoins a number of properties fronting Richmond Road.


SITE AND LOCATION


90


DC131


Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village.


Three letters of objection have been received raising concerns with regard to potential flooding, drainage problems, loss of privacy, impact on amenity and increased traffic danger. These concerns have been reiterated by the Ward Representative.

REPRESENTATIONS

* The site area is considered to be an acceptable size in order to accommodate the proposed dwellings and to provide the necessary parking and turning space. The proposed design is traditional in style and would not harm the appearance of the locality. Access is via a private drivewhich, with the new dwellings, would serve a total of seven properties. The maximum number from a private drive is eight. * Comments from neighbouring properties concerning potential flooding and drainage issues are noted and the response of the Drainage Officer and Anglian Water will be reported verbally. * The proposed development is considered to comply with Policy HOU.4 and is recommended forapproval.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO SAHAM TONEY P C Objection. Comments:- 1. The proposed road surface is not considered substantial enough for the increased traffic. 2. There is a high water table in this location and the owners of 62 and 64 Richmond Road experience regular problems with blocked foul water drains and flooding. 3. The owners of 64 Richmond Road have had problems with a sunken floor resulting in a large insurance claim.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY consider traffic generated by two additional dwellings in this location would not cause significant increase in traffic movements and recommends conditions

91


DC131

3007 3046 3106 3720 3722 3802 3804 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted plans External materials and samples to be approvedProvide access and parking Turning space to be constructed Precise details of surface water disposalPrecise details of foul water disposalNOTE: Reasons for Approval

CONDITIONS

92


DC131

19

SAHAM TONEY Ovington Road

N Garner Tall Trees Chequers Lane


Creation of additional access road within the site

Full

3PL/2006/0927/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


Visual impact on countryside

KEY ISSUES

The proposal is to create a perimeter roadway around a pond from an existing track across a field. The pond is to be used by the applicant for his personal use for fishing. The proposal does not involve the creation or alteration of an existing vehicular access from the highway.

The site is located on the Ovington Road, adjacent to the Richmond Park Golf Course.


SITE AND LOCATION

Planning permission was granted under reference 3PL/2005/0115 in April 2005, for the excavation of the pond and the relocation of a vehicular access. The pond was proposed to provide a habitat for wildlife and flora.


Policy ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is/are considered relevant to this application. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible.


93


DC131


9900 9900

Policy ENV.3 Detrimental effect on the character and visual amenities

RECOMMENDATION


A letter of objection has been received raising concerns regarding the manner in which the site has been developed and the applicant's ultimate aims for the site.

REPRESENTATIONS

* The use of the amenity lake for fishing would not require change of use providing the lake is for the applicant's private use. A letter from the agent has been received confirming this. * The main issue in this instance is the visual impact the perimeter road and associated hardstanding for the parking of cars would have on the character of the area. * It is considered that the introduction of hard landscaping and associated vehicular access is unwarranted and, as such, constitutes a visual intrusion into the countryside and is therefore contrary to Policy ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO SAHAM TONEY P C Objection. Comments:- 1. The hedge has not been filled in on Ovington Road. 2. The hedge adjacent to the railway track has not been filled in - the passing place here needs to be retained. 3. Two tracks are being formed by the lorries where they are going in and out. 4. It is not considered that a road is necessary for people to enjoy the natural wildlife and flora. 5. Anglers have not been mentioned previously and in any event they would only require a track and space to park their cars not a fully made up road. 6. There appears to have been a change of use from the original plan. 7. The site is open with a deep excavation - there should be some health and safety measures inforce here.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY As works are on private land, the Authority would not wish to restrict the grant of permission.

94


DC131

20

MERTON The Old Milking Parlour Home Farm

The Hon Mr R De Grey Merton Hall Thetford

Mr D Bouwens Ivy Green London Road

Conversion to residential

Full

3PL/2006/0940/F

N

N

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:



RECOMMENDATION

REPORT RECOMMENDING REFUSAL

CONSULTATIONS

95


DC131

21

SOUTH PICKENHAM Village Hall Site The Street

South Pickenham Estate Co Estate Office Home Farm

Parsons & Whittley Ltd 1 London Street Swaffham

Erection of a pair of semi detached dwellings & detached garages following demolition of village hall (resubmission)

Full

3PL/2006/0947/F

Y

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Outside Settlement Boundary. 2. Loss of mature tree. 3. Consolidation of sporadic development.

KEY ISSUES

The proposal is for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and detached garages on thesite of the former village hall. There is a mature oak tree adjacent the existing access which is proposed to be felled to achieve satisfactory visibility.

The site is within the Conservation Area and the Area of Important Landscape Quality and adjacent to a Historic Park and Gardens. The site is outside any Settlement Boundary. Part of the site is currently used as garden by the occupants of the adjacent dwelling. The remains of theformer village hall are evident in the middle of the site.


SITE AND LOCATION

Application for the erection of 4 dwellings was submitted under ref. 3PL/2005/1882/F but was subsequently withdrawn. Permission was refused in 1990 for the erection of 7 cottages on the site as part of a larger application, at the same time consent was given for the demolition of the existing hall.


96


DC131

Policies HOU.6, ENV.1 and ENV.10 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities. ENV.1 Development will not be permitted in the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens except in exceptional circumstances. ENV.10 Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced.


None

REPRESENTATIONS

CHAIRMAN TO STH PICKENHAM P C The Council raised no objection to the erection of dwellings, but are strongly opposed to the felling of the large oak tree at the entrance to the site.

CONSULTATIONS

TREE AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER - Has raised an objection due to the loss of mature oak tree. COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER - Has raised a policy objection on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to Policies HOU.6 and ENV.1. HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - Have raised no objection subject to conditions requiring a visibility splay which would necessitate the removal of the oak tree. COUNCIL'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER - No objection subject to conditions regarding materials

97


DC131


9100 9570 9042 9044 9046 9140

D.W.L.P. - ENV.1 adverse impact on landscapeD.W.L.P. Policy ENV.10 Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villagesPolicy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc.Further consolidation of sporadic development

RECOMMENDATION


* The village of South Pickenham does not have a Settlement Boundary due to the sporadic nature of the existing development and the special architectural and historic interest of the area surrounding Pickenham Hall, which is designated as a Conservation Area and a Historic Park andGarden. * The site is outside a Settlement Boundary and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy HOU.6. Furthermore, it is considered that the erection of the dwellings would result in the undesirable consolidation of the existing sporadic development to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy ENV.10 and ENV.1. * The existing access has severely restricted visibility in a southerly direction. The required improvement to the visibility would result in the loss of a mature oak tree which is of a significant amenity value. The tree is protected by virtue of the Conservation Area regulations. * The applicant's agent considers the proposal would be planning gain to secure removal of the village hall. * It is considered the use of the land as a village hall has been abandoned due to the dilapidated condition of the hall and the long period of time since it was last used. * The structure has partly fallen down and appears in a fragile state. However, it is considered that insufficient planning gain would be achieved by the removal of the village hall, to justify a departure from policy given the strong policy objections to the proposal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

98


DC131

22

THETFORD London Road

Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd C/o Agent

Indigo Planning Ltd Queens House Holly Road

S73 application - variation of condition 1 of planning permission 3PL/1999/0471/F

Full

3PL/2006/0979/F

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:



RECOMMENDATION

REPORT RECOMMENDING REFUSAL

CONSULTATIONS

99


DC131

23

THETFORD 14-16 Riverside Walk

Done Bookmakers (Cash Betting) c/o Pegasus Planning

Pegasus Planning Group 4 The Courtyard Church Street

Change of use of ground floor from Class A1 (shops) to A2 (Betting Shop)

Change of Use

3PL/2006/0984/CU

Y

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

Primary Comm. Area

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


The effect on the character, appearance and trading performance of the primary commercial areaand the Conservation Area.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks a change of use of two retail units (Class A1) to a betting shop (Class A2).

The site is located within Riverside Walk, part of the Primary Commercial Area of the town centre.It also falls within Thetford Conservation Area.


SITE AND LOCATION

Planning permission was granted in 2004 to refurbish these and other retail units in Riverside Walk.


Policies ENV.10 and SHO.7 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. SHO.7 - The change of use of ground floors to uses other than specified retail uses will not be permitted in the primary commercial areas of Dereham and Thetford.


100


DC131

Planning Permission

3007 3046 3920 3998

Full Permission Time Limit (3 years)In accordance with submitted plans Premises to be used as a betting office onlyNOTE: Reasons for Approval

RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONS

A letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring retailer raising concerns about the loss of retail uses

REPRESENTATIONS

* The proposal is not considered to have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. * The proposal is clearly contrary to Policy SHO.7 of the Local Plan. In support of the application the applicant submitted 8 recent appeal decisions for similar proposals all of which were allowed. The Inspectors were of the opinion that betting office frontages were visually stimulating and would not result in dead frontage or harm the attractiveness of the shopping environment. Modern betting offices were considered to share many of the attributes of a retail shop and be likely to stimulate pedestrian flows just as much as many Class A1 uses. * Riverside Walk is a modern shopping area containing a mix of shops and uses including A2 uses (an estate agents and building society). There are also two units currently vacant, one of which is the largest unit in the parade. * Whilst the units are currently occupied by a jewellers and pine shop, it is considered that the proposal will not have a significant harm on the retail function of Thetford Town Centre.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO THETFORD T C Unanimous view that this is not an appropriate activity in the primary commerical area. Covering letter states erroneously that shop units are vacant - very troubling to the existing tenants!

CONSULTATIONS

COUNCIL'S ENIVRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER - Objection - The proposal is contrary to Policy SHO.7 and there is a policy objection on that basis.

101


DC131

24

HOE Swanton Morley Road Worthing

Mr & Mrs R Crisp Home Farm Swanton Morley Road

R & J Parker Bldg Design Consultants Ltd Home Farm Cottage

Proposed erection of two cottage style dwellings and two detached double garages

Full

3PL/2006/0994/F

N

N

Out Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Residential development outside Settlement Boundary. 2. Impact on local character.

KEY ISSUES

This is a full planning application proposing the erection of two detached cottages. Each property has a detached garage, turning space and good sized gardens.

The site measures 0.19 hectares in area and is located outside any defined Settlement Boundary. The site currently consists of open farmland. The locality is characterised by scattered residentialdevelopment but is predominantly rural in character.


SITE AND LOCATION

There have been a number of previous refusals for residential development on this land in the past. A similar scheme to the current application was refused last year.


Policies HOU.6 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless itis justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible.


102


DC131

Refusal of Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION

None received.

REPRESENTATIONS

* As noted above, applications for residential development on this land have, to date, previously been refused. There has been no material change in circumstances since those earlier decisions. * No justification has been provided for locating the dwellings outside the Settlement Boundary. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would result in the consolidation of the existing sporadic form of development along Swanton Morley Road and be harmful to the rural character of the area. * The application is, therefore, considered contrary to Policies HOU.6 and ENV.3 of the adopted Local Plan and is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CHAIRMAN TO HOE & WORTHING P.C. The planning sub-committee (Worthing) supports this application for the following reasons: 1. There is strong support from Worthing residents for this application, both those in the immediate vicinity of the site and the village as a whole. 2. Worthing does not have a formal development boundary, but this site is within the natural boundary of the village and is regarded by residents as "an infill site" suitable for sensitive development. Development will serve to unite the two parts of the village that are separated by ca50m of field frontage with no hedge. We understand that the small size of the site poses access difficulties for large agricultural machines (e.g combine harvesters) from the rest of the field, thus the site has limited agricultural value. 3. The position on the site of the proposed two houses, their modest size, flint features with dormer windows and retention of mature trees will enhance the village. The current view from Swanton Morley across the site in a southerly direction is of rising agricultural land with the skyline dominated by a very large World War II aircraft hanger ca. 1/3 mile distant (used previously as a grain store, aircraft restoration/ maintenance, furniture store and currently as a lambing shed). Arguably the view from the road will be enhanced by the development screening the hanger. 4. Worthing has a mix of properties (ca 35 dwellings), the majority being houses/cottages of character associated with 19th century agriculture, the tannery and water mill. However, there arealready four modern properties (built ca 1970-1990) in Church Road and one in Swanton Morley Road of similar size and design to those in this application. The Worthing planning sub- committee considers that the proposed houses will contribute to the aims of the Local Development Framework (LDF) by providing two modestly sized houses without altering the character of the village.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY have stated that they would only support the application so long as Swanton Morley Road was widened to 4.5 metres with a 2 metre verge along the entire site frontage.

103


DC131

9042 9044 9046 9115 3140

Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villagesPolicy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc.Non-std - ENV.3 reason for refusal Prior approval of slab level


104


DC131

25

MATTISHALL 5 Dereham Road

Mr & Mrs D Sparkes 5 Dereham Road Mattishall


One and a half storey rear extension

Full

3PL/2006/1009/F

Y

Grade II

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Overdevelopment. 2. Overbearing impact on neighbouring property.

KEY ISSUES

The proposal is to demolish a modest existing single storey extension and erect a one and half storey extension. The dwelling is a Grade II Listed Building.

The dwelling is a semi detached property located on the main road through Mattishall.


SITE AND LOCATION


Policies HOU.17 and ENV.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 - Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.13 - Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected.


CLERK TO MATTISHALL P C Parish Council comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

CONSULTATIONS

105


DC131


9900 9900

Policy HOU.17 Harmful to the amenity of adjoining neighbours

RECOMMENDATION


None

REPRESENTATIONS

* The proposed extension is positioned on the boundary with the adjoining property and, as such,would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property. * Furthermore, the proposed extension would result in significant overshadowing and loss of light.* It is considered that the development, if permitted, would unacceptably harm the amenity of the adjoining properties by virtue of those reasons stated. * The application is recommended for refusal being contrary to Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


106


DC131

26

MATTISHALL 5 Dereham Road

Mr & Mrs D Sparkes 5 Dereham Road Mattishall


Demolition of rear single storey extension & erection of one and a half storey rear extension. Internal alts

Listed Build Consent

3PL/2006/1010/LB

Y

Grade II

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


1. Overdevelopment. 2. Overbearing impact on neighbouring property.

KEY ISSUES

The proposal is to demolish a modest existing single storey extension and erect a one and half storey extension. The dwelling is a Grade II Listed Building.

The dwelling is a semi detached property located on the main road through Mattishall.


SITE AND LOCATION


Policies HOU.17 and ENV.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 - Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.13 - Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected.


CLERK TO MATTISHALL P C Parish Council comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

CONSULTATIONS

107


DC131

Refusal of Listed Building Consent

9900 9900

Policy HOU.17 Harmful to the amenity of adjoining neighbours

RECOMMENDATION


None

REPRESENTATIONS

* The proposed extension is positioned on the boundary with the adjoining property and, as such,would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property. * Furthermore, the proposed extension would result in significant overshadowing and loss of light.* It is considered that the development, if permitted, would unacceptably harm the amenity of the adjoining properties by virtue of those reasons stated. * The application is recommended for refusal being contrary to Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


108


DC131

27

WATTON 9 East Road

Miss B Powdrill 9 East Road Watton


Erection of dwelling - 3 bedroom detached house

Reserved Matters

3PL/2006/1026/D

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


Overdevelopment of the site.

KEY ISSUES

This application is a reserved matters application providing detailed design for a three bed, two storey dwelling. The dwelling has been designed to avoid overlooking to neighbouring property and provides a parking area to the front of the site.

The site consists of a corner plot made up of an existing side garden serving an existing semi- detached dwelling and a grassed area of public open space not within the applicant's control. Thetotal site area is 0.028 hectares. The site is within the Settlement Boundary for Watton and is predominantly residential in character.


SITE AND LOCATION

3PL/2005/0611/O - Erection of 3 bedroomed house - Approved by the Council in June 2005. Thisapplication included the current area of public open space. 3PL/2005/1289/O - Erection of house - Refused by the Council on grounds of overdevelopment inSeptember, 2005. This application did not include the area of open space. An appeal against this refusal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on grounds that the dwelling would have insufficient space around it and would be contrary to Policy HOU.2.


109


DC131

Disapproval of Reserved Matters

9900 9170

Policy HOU.2 Overdevelopment of site

RECOMMENDATION


Policy HOU.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.2 - Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries of the five towns will be permitted subject to criteria.


None received.

REPRESENTATIONS

* The Committee will note that the Outline Planning Permission for this development included the area of existing open space which was originally proposed to form part of the garden to serve thenew dwelling. * However this land remains as public open space and is not in the control of the applicant. In effect therefore the plot size and shape is reduced to that of the later application which was refused on grounds of overdevelopment. * Without the additional area of open space the site is significantly smaller when compared to other plots in the immediate vicinity. The resulting plot is awkward in shape and not capable of accommodating a new dwelling in a satisfactory manner. * The current proposal is therefore considered to be overdevelopment and does not overcome the previous reasons for refusal on this site. The scheme is contrary to Policy HOU.2 and recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

WATTON TOWN CLERK Comments: Members recommend refusal on the grounds that it would be an overdevelopment of the site andnot in keeping with the area. It is the policy of Watton Town Council that a S106 contribution be applied for on all developments from one build onwards.

CONSULTATIONS

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No objection subject to conditions. COUNCIL'S CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER - Recommends informative re soil gas migration

110


DC131

28

DEREHAM 28 Stone Road Toftwood

Mr A Naylor 28 Stone Road Toftwood


Demolition of existing garage Erection of bungalow & garage and garage for 28 Stone Road

Outline

3PL/2006/1064/O

N

N

In Settlemnt Bndry

No Allocation

N

ITEM

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

APPN TYPE:

POLICY:

ALLOCATION:

CONS AREA:

TPO:

LB GRADE:


Cramped form of development.

KEY ISSUES

This outline application proposes the erection of a bungalow and garage on part of the rear garden of a bungalow located off Stone Road, Toftwood. An existing access off Larners Drift is proposed to serve the new dwelling, whilst a new access is proposed to serve the parent dwelling set adjacent to its western boundary. A new single garage is also proposed for use by the existing bungalow.

The application site, which is relatively well screened, comprises garden land measuring 16m x 16m, set 11m to the rear of the principal dwelling. The 4m wide access is set to the north of an existing two storey cottage, 37m north of the Drifts' junction with Stone Road. Development surrounding the remainder of the site comprises modest detached and semi-detached bungalows.


SITE AND LOCATION


Policy HOU.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.2 - Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries of the five towns will be permitted subject to criteria.


111


DC131

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

9900 9170

Policy HOU.2 Overdevelopment of site

RECOMMENDATION


None

REPRESENTATIONS

* Whilst it is acknowledged that the application site falls within the Dereham Settlement Boundary, it is considered that it is too small to accommodate a dwelling and garage as proposedwithout harm to the relatively spacious character of the area. * The application is recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

CLERK TO DEREHAM T C NO REPLY AS AT 28TH JULY 2006

CONSULTATIONS

112

BRECKLAND COUNCILDEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date of List -

List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0072/F

3PL/2006/0125/F

3PL/2006/0212/F

3PL/2006/0255/F

3PL/2006/0282/F

3PL/2006/0364/F

3PL/2006/0372/F

3PL/2006/0429/D

Messrs Large & Martin

Mr W Rutland

Keystone Development Trust

Mr Martin Merriman

Benton Builders

Mr & Mrs Pearson

Mr & Mrs Hale

Mr & Mrs M Hedges

Land off Edenside Drive

Hillside

Riversdale

off Thetford Road

Holly Farm Cottage

Hill Farm Barn

18 School Road

Highfields Farm

Dereham Road

Tanner Street

Heath Road

Church Road

Revision to planning consent

Erection of house and garage

New entrance and reception

Ground floor pharmacy unit

Extension with conservatory

Amendments to p.p. ref no.

Erection of dwelling

Erection of 5 dwellings

3PL/2000/0808 in respect of

area & new rear glazed

with 6 no. flats above, 8 no.

and new garage

3PL/2004/0655/F including use

amendments to plots 9, 10, 11

enclosure

car parking spaces externally

of outhouses as temporary

ATTLEBOROUGH

BEESTON

THETFORD

WATTON

WENDLING

BANHAM

NECTON

BEETLEY

& 12 & add. of plots 11a & 12a

with delivery drop off point

accommodation annexe

113


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0474/D

3PL/2006/0478/F

3PL/2006/0485/F

3PL/2006/0492/F

3PL/2006/0508/F

3PL/2006/0527/F

3PL/2006/0529/F

3PL/2006/0547/F

Mr P Howell

Mr & Mrs M Burrows

Swaffham Conservative Club

Mr & Mrs K Bessent

Mr P Skinner

Mr C Seaman

Mr Colin Kilby

Mr & Mrs Howe

Blackhall Farm

2 White Houses


4 The Street

Lawnswood House

8 Low Road

Hawthorndon

35 Mill Lane

Holt Road

Browns Lane

23 London Street

Rectory Meadow

London Road

Proposed detached 2 bed

Reinstatement from one

Proposed extension &

Two storey rear extension &

Erection of single storey

Two storey side extension and

Extension to side to include

To increase size of an

dwelling

dwelling to two cottages with

alterations

single storey side extension

kitchen extension & single

single storey front and rear

balcony & rear to provide

existing white UPVC

extension, and garage (in part

storey games room (detached

extensions

living accommodation & garage

conservatory

NORTH ELMHAM

HOLME HALE

SWAFFHAM

BILLINGFORD

LITCHAM

NORTH TUDDENHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

CARBROOKE

retrospective)

& of timber construction)

114


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0549/F

3PL/2006/0555/F

3PL/2006/0570/F

3PL/2006/0579/F

3PL/2006/0592/F

3PL/2006/0598/F

3PL/2006/0611/F

3PL/2006/0614/F

Mr M Dillon

Kevin David Peaks

Mr C King

James Russell

Mr M Codling

Mr & Mrs Warner

Mr E Sayer

Mrs S Pleszko

The Granary

3 Forge Close

29c Cromwell Road

Ambleside

16 Boyd Avenue

Barn adjacent The Byre

62 Yaxham Road

Domek

Church Farm Barns

The Street

Toftwood

High Green

Castle Lane

Erection of detached garage/

Proposed conservatory

Attached garage

Single garage extension to

Side and front extension

Conversion of barn to

Conversion of attic to bedroom

Erection of two conservatories

car port, garden wall and

existing bungalow

residential use

and construction of extension

fencing. Erection of garden

(renewal)

at rear

LITTLE ELLINGHAM

OLD BUCKENHAM

WEETING

MILEHAM

DEREHAM

BRADENHAM

DEREHAM

THETFORD

shed (retrospective)

115


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0619/F

3PL/2006/0620/F

3PL/2006/0621/F

3PL/2006/0624/F

3PL/2006/0625/F

3PL/2006/0626/F

3PL/2006/0627/F

3PL/2006/0629/F

Lidl UK GmBH

Mr & Mrs J Wells

Sharon Sadler

Mr & Mrs M & J May

Mr Geoffrey Londcaulk

Dr Adam Pain

Mr & Mrs G Tweed

Mrs L Walsh

Lidl Foodstore

Angel View

2 Watton Road

Mill House

20 Newall Avenue

1 Jubys Farm Cottage

Broomhill

Rose Farm Cottage

Queens Road

Church Street

Maid Marion Way

Richmond Road

Ivy Todd

Extension to existing

Side and rear single storey

Revised window design and

Conversion and extension of

Proposed demolition of

Replacement garage &

Single storey side extension

Conversion of barn to

foodstore

extension

additional windows in west

mill tower to one dwelling,

existing garage & construction

workshop with garage &

dwelling

elevation of approved

and extension to Mill House

of pair of semi detached

workshop with extended loft

ATTLEBOROUGH

SWANTON MORLEY

GREAT ELLINGHAM

GREAT ELLINGHAM

CARBROOKE

BRADENHAM

SAHAM TONEY

NECTON

extension (retrospective)

dwellings

space

116


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0630/F

3PL/2006/0631/D

3PL/2006/0634/F

3PL/2006/0642/F

3PL/2006/0650/F

3PL/2006/0654/F

3PL/2006/0658/A

3PL/2006/0665/F

Mrs L Walsh

CNC Building Services Ltd

Mr R Sparrow & Miss K Town

Mr & Mrs Sullivan

Mr Shildrake

Ronald James Corbitt

Trevor Greef

PCC St Margaret Breckles

Rose Cottage Farm

Plot at 132 Hargham Road

Land adjoining 65 Leys Lane

Teachers House

39 The Street

35 Rosecroft Way

Swaffham Car & Service Centre

St Margaret Breckles

Ivy Todd

68 Holt Road

Castle Acre Road

Replacement dwelling

New dwelling with garage

New two storey detached

Rear extension

Conversion of garage parents

Edwardian conservatory with

Externally illuminated

Construction of footpath inc.

dwelling and garage

wing and construction of

glass roof

facsia, canopy and free

resiting bulkhead lights on

garden room

standing signs

new oak posts & installation

NECTON

ATTLEBOROUGH

ATTLEBOROUGH

NORTH ELMHAM

OVINGTON

THETFORD

SWAFFHAM

STOW BEDON/BRECKLES

of lamp in car park

117


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0669/F

3PL/2006/0674/F

3PL/2006/0675/F

3PL/2006/0676/F

3PL/2006/0680/F

3PL/2006/0682/F

3PL/2006/0685/F

3PL/2006/0687/F

Mr J Riley

Mr T A Leggett

Mrs S Whales

Mr & Mrs Smith

Mr G Foulger & Miss S

Mr N Giles

Thetford Investments Ltd

Evans Trust

Plot 1

46 Comfrey Way

Stebbings Barn

3 White Houses

The Lilacs

The Orchards

Unit between Aldi & CentralTyre

DJE Construction

Former Builders Yard

Letton

Browns Lane

Low Common

Burgh Common

Lime Kiln Lane

Foundation House

Erection of detached house and

Rear extension

Extension to existing single

Two storey extension and new

Extension & alterations

Replace flat roof to tiled

Extension & alterations to

Erection of light industrial/

garage

storey dwelling

porch

disused unit

commercial starter units

BEETLEY

THETFORD

CRANWORTH

HOLME HALE

SOUTH LOPHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

THETFORD

ATTLEBOROUGH

118


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0689/F

3PL/2006/0690/F

3PL/2006/0691/F

3PL/2006/0692/D

3PL/2006/0693/F

3PL/2006/0694/F

3PL/2006/0696/F

3PL/2006/0698/F

Mr and Mrs M Truman

Mr T White

Mr and Mrs D Walkerdine

D R Builders Ltd

Mr and Mrs C Rogers

Mr & Mrs M Smith

Goymour Properties Ltd

W R Garner & Son

Land at Brent

Kingfishers

50 Peppers Close

Dale Farm Bungalow

Dale Farm Bungalow

8 Cherry Tree Close

Banham Zoo

Great Barn

Norwich Road

Bow Street

30 Reepham Road

30 Reepham Road

Illington Road

Kenninghall Road

Godwick Hall

Erection of a single storey

Amend to 3PL/2004/0503

Conservatory and garage

Erection of a two storey

Demolition of existing


Erection of isolation &

Renovate, refurbish & extend

detached dwelling

conversion of 1 storey to 2

extension

dwelling and garage

dwelling and the erection

concrete panel garage,

rabies quarantine units

great barn to conference &

storeys & including rear

of a house and garage

erection of new double

in service area

function centre, inc. car

YAXHAM

GREAT ELLINGHAM

WEETING

BAWDESWELL

BAWDESWELL

WRETHAM

BANHAM

TITTLESHALL

balcony & conservatory

garage

parking & assoc. access

119


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0699/F

3PL/2006/0704/A

3PL/2006/0715/O

3PL/2006/0716/F

3PL/2006/0721/F

3PL/2006/0726/F

3PL/2006/0727/A

3PL/2006/0728/F

Mrs S Clowser

EMG Ford

Martin Penn

Mr & Mrs D Palmer

Mr & Mrs B Manning

Mr & Mrs C Mack

Ian McArdle

Keystone Development Trust

Gable End

EMG Ford

Wayside

Lyons Cottage

St Georges Cottage

Bartles Lodge

20 King Street

Keystone Enterprise Factory

Hall Lane

1 Fison Way

2 Bilney Road

Crown Lane

Cressingham Road

Church Street

39 Brunel Way

Change of use in respect of

Erection of internally

Detached dwelling and

Extension to dwelling

Side and rear extensions

Proposed lake (0.4 hectare)

Proposed non-illuminated

New entrance door

former pair of cottages

illuminated free standing pole

garage

to dwelling at first floor

shop sign

situated within curtilage to

and wall mounted signs

COLKIRK

THETFORD

GRESSENHALL

FRANSHAM

SAHAM TONEY

ELSING

THETFORD

THETFORD

holiday accommodation

120


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0730/F

3PL/2006/0732/F

3PL/2006/0734/F

3PL/2006/0735/F

3PL/2006/0736/F

3PL/2006/0738/F

3PL/2006/0741/F

3PL/2006/0742/F

Martin Ungless &

Mr & Mrs J Keen

Mr & Mrs Bradshaw

Mr R A & Mrs A Fleming

Ms A Sandells

Anglian Water Services Ltd

Mr & Mrs Gardner Drake

Moulton Building Services

The Limes

Freshfields

Lavengro

20 Brandon Road

18 Victor Charles Close

Carbrooke Water TreatmentsWorks

Maytree Cottage

Flintstones

Market Place

Town Street

Fakenham View

4 Church Close

Water End

Dwelling alterations, inc.

Extension over existing ground


Replacement and

Erect white PVCu

Construction of a potable

Single storey rear

Relocation of

amendments to kitchen &

floor bedroom

single storey dwelling

enlargement of

conservatory to rear

water treatment works

extension and new porch

vehicular access

utility areas, valley gutter

existing conservatory

of property

KENNINGHALL

SWANTON MORLEY

COLKIRK

WATTON

WEETING

CARBROOKE

BAWDESWELL

GREAT CRESSINGHAM

infill & new dormer windows

121


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0744/F

3PL/2006/0747/F

3PL/2006/0749/F

3PL/2006/0750/F

3PL/2006/0751/F

3PL/2006/0753/F

3PL/2006/0757/D

3PL/2006/0760/F

Mr & Mrs C Browne


Mr T Young & Ms K Turner

Mr & Mrs M Young

Mr J Badman

Mr R Marjoram

Pilson Development Co Ltd

Mr & Mrs B Watts

6 Acacia Avenue

Dereham Water Treatment Works

Keepers Corner

17 Rougholme Close

Field View

Plot adjoining Honeysuckle Cottage

Church Farm

64 Stone Road

Cemetery Road

Chapel Lane

The Street

Toftwood

Bedroom extension

Construction of generator

Conservatory

Erection of conservatory

Erection of double garage

Erection of cottage



and GRP kiosk

to rear

bungalow & erection of

landing dormer and

2 new dwellings &

conservatory to rear

ASHILL

DEREHAM

WRETHAM

GRESSENHALL

BEESTON

FOXLEY

NEW BUCKENHAM

DEREHAM

garages

122


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0763/F

3PL/2006/0764/F

3PL/2006/0765/F

3PL/2006/0766/A

3PL/2006/0769/F

3PL/2006/0771/F

3PL/2006/0772/F

3PL/2006/0773/F

Mr & Mrs A Besgrove

Mrs S A Lake

K Hasler

McCarthy & Stone (Devs) Ltd

Mr K J Lappage

Mr & Mrs A R Nally

Mr & Mrs Hannon

J H Martin & Son

67 Westfields

Top Barn

Stable Cottage

Former Vauxhall Garage

Plot 2

Beech Cottage

5 Atling Way

New Bungalow

Telegraph Hill

Bell Inn Yard

Bury Road

Former Builders Yard

Barrows Hole Lane

r/o 5 Atling Way

Erection of PVCu

A free standing 6KW proven

Store room extension

Two illuminated free standing

Single detached house

Removal of extg porch, replace

Retrospective application to


conservatory to the

wind turbine mounted on a 15m

signs

with two storey ext. to front,

retain 1.6m high panel fence

front of property

tower situated on a concrete

add first floor to extg, new

NARBOROUGH

HARLING

BAWDESWELL

THETFORD

BEETLEY

LITTLE DUNHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

ATTLEBOROUGH

base (domestic purposes only)

extension to rear

123


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0777/F

3PL/2006/0780/F

3PL/2006/0782/F

3PL/2006/0783/F

3PL/2006/0785/F

3PL/2006/0787/F

3PL/2006/0789/F

3PL/2006/0791/F

Mr D Carey & Mrs J Whetter

Mr F Salard

Mr F P & Mrs C Harvey

Mr & Mrs T Holbrook

Mr Jeremy Le Poer Power

Mr & Mrs M Brown

Mr & Mrs R Tilly

Mr & Mrs M Taylor

Kalkan

11 St Edmund Road

5 Elizabeth Fry Close

Old Owl Barn

Broomscot House

Foresters Lodge

6 Burns Close

Peacock Farm

Rosemary Lane

Oxwick Road

44 Smallworth Common

4 The Wood Cutters

Peacock Lane


Proposed alterations and

Side extension

Conversion, alterations,

Alterations and extension to

Proposed swimming pool

Extension to side of house

Proposed general

extension

extension and

existing house

& extensions to garage &

to incorporate a carport &

purpose building

garage/workshop building

kitchen, sitting, dining &

bedroom/ensuite bathroom

NEW BUCKENHAM

WEETING

THETFORD

HORNINGTOFT

GARBOLDISHAM

GREAT ELLINGHAM

THETFORD

BEETLEY

utility areas

(two storey)

124


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0793/F

3PL/2006/0794/F

3PL/2006/0798/F

3PL/2006/0800/F

3PL/2006/0804/F

3PL/2006/0805/F

3PL/2006/0806/F

3PL/2006/0809/F

Mr Z Sinka

A Porter

Mr & Mrs P Duffield

Anne Williams

Mr M Birleson

Mr and Mrs Batch

Mr G Harvey

Mr G Coote

23 Glebe Road

Town Green Farm

Alcudia

The Beeches

Cider Barn

Holly Cottage

Brooke Cottage

32 The Lammas

Sandy Lane

1 West Harling Road

Heath Road

Chapel Street

Silver Street

Side extension to bungalow

Conversion of barns to

Rear extension to bungalow

Storage shed (retrospective)

Proposed side extension and

Extension to rear to form new

Rear extension

Demolition of garage &

dwellings (2no. units)

cart store. Conversion of

family room, kitchen, bedroom

erect 2 storey side &

garage to playroom

and shower. Reposition of

single storey rear

WEETING

WATTON

DEREHAM

HARLING

BANHAM

ROCKLANDS

BESTHORPE

MUNDFORD

stair

extensions

125


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0811/F

3PL/2006/0813/F

3PL/2006/0817/F

3PL/2006/0818/F

3PL/2006/0820/F

3PL/2006/0823/F

3PL/2006/0828/F

3PL/2006/0831/D

Mr G & Mrs H Hilton

Mr and Mrs Anderson

Mr & Mrs P Harrold

Andrew Skiggs & Janice Dane



Mr & Mrs R Garner

Mrs J Thomas

Spring Farm

8 Masons Drive

High Elm House

20 Swaffham Road

Banham Zoo

Banham Zoo

Land adjacent Clifton Villa

Building Plot

Bow Street

Kenninghall Road

Kenninghall Road

Paper Street

The Lings

Extension

Bedroom extension

Extension and alteration

Extension to bungalow to

Giraffe House

Zebra House

One new agricultural

Erection of dwelling with

to dwelling

create new master

dwelling

garage

bedroom & detached double

GREAT DUNHAM

NECTON

GREAT ELLINGHAM

MUNDFORD

BANHAM

BANHAM

YAXHAM

GARVESTONE

garage

126


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0834/F

3PL/2006/0841/F

3PL/2006/0842/F

3PL/2006/0845/F

3PL/2006/0846/F

3PL/2006/0849/F

3PL/2006/0850/D

3PL/2006/0856/D

Mr & Mrs J Jobbins

P R Woodcraft

Mr & Mrs J Adams

Mr & Mrs M Robinson

Mr R Wells

Mr & Mrs Rodger James

Mr & Mrs K Taggart

Mr C S Brown

The Guild House

Marshalls

29 Wavell Road

124 Southlands

Four Winds

2 Abbey Road

Adj. April Cottage

The Ranch

Rectory Road

West Church Street

North Green

Church Road

Main Road


Extension to provide kitchen/

Retention of garage

Erection of attached garage

Extension to rear

Relocation of shed,

Proposed new dwelling

Erection of dwelling &

conservatory and erection

dining room and bedroom

conversion to garden

conservatory & erection

timber garage to serve

of extension

room

of fence

kennels

ELSING

KENNINGHALL

DEREHAM

SWAFFHAM

GARVESTONE

WATTON

BEETLEY

NORTH TUDDENHAM

127


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0858/F

3PL/2006/0859/F

3PL/2006/0860/F

3PL/2006/0863/F

3PL/2006/0866/F

3PL/2006/0867/F

3PL/2006/0868/F

3PL/2006/0869/F

Mr & Mrs M Lee

Mr & Mrs M Keddie

Mr & Mrs A G Lindhofer

R J Warnes Esq

Mr & Mrs G McCloud

Mr & Mrs R Upton

Mrs V Green

Ms S Neave

9 William Close

4 Northwell Pool

Lindley House

62 Nunnery Drive

14a Fisher Way

4 Black Horse Close

4 Home Farm Cottages

14 Grove Close

Shouldham Lane

Thetford Road

Erect PVCu conservatory

Rear extension

Erection of a two storey

Single storey addition to

Convert garage to playroom

Erection of garden shed

Two storey extension


to the rear of the property

rear extension

existing dwelling

WATTON

SWAFFHAM

SWAFFHAM

THETFORD

THETFORD

WATTON

RIDDLESWORTH

SCARNING

128


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0875/F

3PL/2006/0876/F

3PL/2006/0877/F

3PL/2006/0880/F

3PL/2006/0884/F

3PL/2006/0888/F

3PL/2006/0893/F

3PL/2006/0897/F

A J Freake

Mr P Wheeler

Mr & Mrs Stancombe

Mr & Mrs Hayward

Mr & Mrs Osborne

J W Allen & Sons

Mr & Mrs Ray

Kevin Joy

36 Hargham Road

1 Church Mews

Beck Springs

5 West Harling Road

Greenacres

AND ATTLEBOROUGH

4 Dale Close

5 Latimer Way

Beckett End

Watton Road

Portwood Farm

Norwich Road

Erection of single garage


Minor gable extensions,

Extension to create porch

Construction of 2 no. dormer

New building for packing

Conservatory extension

Garage/workshop

erection of double garage &

windows into existing roof

& preparation of asparagus

(amended design)

sun room & conv. of existing

slope

crop grown on site (amendments

OLD BUCKENHAM

SWAFFHAM

FOULDEN

HARLING

SHROPHAM

GREAT ELLINGHAM

WATTON

NORTH PICKENHAM

garage to living accomm.

to 3PL/2005/1640)

129


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0898/F

3PL/2006/0903/F

3PL/2006/0905/F

3PL/2006/0906/F

3PL/2006/0909/A

3PL/2006/0928/F

3PL/2006/0930/F

3PL/2006/0931/F

Mr Jeffery

Mr M Wiley

Breckland Council

Mrs P Rudd

Travis Perkins PLC

Mr D C & Mrs J DeClerk

Mr & Mrs Sparks

Mr & Mrs Palmer

32 Chequers Green

8 Ellingham Road

Elizabeth House

9 West Harling Road

Greens Road

Greenacres

34 Theatre Street

Jobenda

Walpole Loke

Church Road

Rectory Road

Proposed bedroom extension to

Rear extension to dwelling

Erection of front entrance


Non-illuminated signs

Extensions to house



side

(retrospective application)

porch

conservatory and erection of

(various)

front and rear extensions

GREAT ELLINGHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

DEREHAM

HARLING

DEREHAM

GRISTON

SWAFFHAM

SWANTON MORLEY

130


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0932/F

3PL/2006/0933/F

3PL/2006/0939/F

3PL/2006/0942/F

3PL/2006/0948/F

3PL/2006/0950/O

3PL/2006/0275/CU

3PL/2006/0382/CU

Mr & Mrs S Ashurst

Mr G Fraser & Mrs A Johns

Mr R Richards

Mr and Mrs Payter

Mr and Mrs Goymour

Mr and Mrs Wright

Mr B Stammers

S & M Personnel Limited

16 Griston Road

65 Heathlands

110a Besthorpe Road

Brackenwood House

13 Pound Close

Land adj 19 Mortimer Close

Caravan Site

66 High Street

Common Road

(South of Angel P H)

Double glazed conservatory,

Proposed two storey extension

Conservatory to side of

Timber conservatory to rear

Front extension to form porch

Erection of detached 2 storey

Use of land as touring

Change of use from retail to

with clear roof in georgian

property

and WC

dwelling

caravan site, 12 pitches

office

style (retrospective)

seasonal use (renewal)

(Retrospective)

WATTON

SWAFFHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

EAST TUDDENHAM

BANHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

ROUDHAM/LARLING

WATTON

131


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

3PL/2006/0484/LB

3PL/2006/0486/EU

3PL/2006/0623/LB

3PL/2006/0646/LB

3PL/2006/0652/CU

3PL/2006/0686/EU

3PL/2006/0697/LB

3PL/2006/0700/LB


Wendy Rands

Mr & Mrs M & J May

Mr D Carter

Mr Paul Sutton

Mr B J Rivett

W R Garner & Sons

Mrs S Clowser

23 London Street

Puddledock Farm Campsite

Mill House

Park Farm

Oakleigh

Manor Farm

The Great Barn

Gable End

Church Street

The Street

30 Connaught Road

Godwick Hall

Hall Lane

Proposed extension and

Use of land as a caravan &

Conversion and extension of

Demolish existing stack

Change of use from dwelling

Use of outbuildings at Manor

Removal of 1950's concrete

Conversion of pair of

alterations

camping site including

mill tower to one dwelling

down to flashing level &

house to office use (B1)

Farm as additional & supp.

frame barn, refurbishment and

former cottages situated

associated amenity area

and extension to Mill House

rebuild to same shape &

accom living & leisure areas

extensions, barn used for

within curtilage to holiday

SWAFFHAM

HOCKHAM

GREAT ELLINGHAM

MILEHAM

ATTLEBOROUGH

GATELEY

TITTLESHALL

COLKIRK

(Certificate of Lawfulness)

size

to Manor Farm house

functions, events etc

accommodation

132


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Permission

Temporary Permission

3PL/2006/0703/CU

3PL/2006/0729/LB

3PL/2006/0748/LB

3PL/2006/0824/LB

3PL/2006/0835/LB

3PL/2006/0840/CA

3PL/2006/0871/LB

3PL/2006/0887/LB

Paul Rackham Ltd

Martin Ungless & Elspeth


Barchester Healthcare Ltd

Mr & Mrs J Jobbins

Peter Woodcraft

Mr & Mrs Q Archer

J W Allen & Sons

Dolphin Farm

The Limes

Dereham Water Treatment Works

Ford Place Nursing Home

The Guild House

Marshalls

Foulden Hall

AND ATTLEBOROUGH

off A1066

Market Place

Cemetery Road

Ford Place

Rectory Road

West Church Street

Portwood Farm

C/U of agricultural bdg to

Alterations to kitchen &

Construction of generator

Alterations within building,


Removal of chimney stack,

Modification of listed bdg

New packing house

workshop/business use (B1/B2)

utility areas, dormer window

and control kiosk

making one room to two offices

conservatory and erection

alter roof pitch, add cladding

consent to add extension of

building (amendment

& new access road

& valley gutter infill

& putting up partition & door

of extension

provide new kitchen/dining &

paved terrace at rear and side

to 3PL/2005/1639/LB)

HARLING

KENNINGHALL

DEREHAM

THETFORD

ELSING

KENNINGHALL

FOULDEN

GREAT ELLINGHAM

(alternative scheme)

additions

around extg nursing station

bedroom in an extension

of Foulden Hall

133


Date of List -


31 JUL 2006

DC135

Temporary Permission

3PL/2006/0756/F

3PL/2006/0767/F

3PL/2006/0799/F

3PL/2006/0912/F

3PL/2006/0314/CU

Mr & Mrs J F Taylor

Mr Paul Layzell

Mr G R Newton

The Administrator

Keith Betterton

Marlborough Cottage

Old Buckenham Airfield

Rear of No.2 Dillington HallCottages

Old Buckenham Primary School

Thornwood Farm Boarding Kennels

Smallworth Common

Abbey Road

Dillington

Abbey Road

Roudham Road

Siting of static caravan

Continued use of land for

Replacement mobile home for

Siting of 1 no. mobile

Change of use of existing log

stationing of clubhouse for

agricultural worker

classroom

cabin from office/staff accom.

use in connection with the

(renewal)

to residential annexe for temp

GARBOLDISHAM

OLD BUCKENHAM

DEREHAM

OLD BUCKENHAM

ROUDHAM/LARLING

airfield (Renewal)

period (retrospective)

134

dev min 24 07 2006 - brecklanddemocracy.breckland.gov.uk/data/development control committee/2… ·...

Documents