agenda - brecklanddemocracy.breckland.gov.uk/data/development control committee... · agenda note:...

AGENDA

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

Committee - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Date & Time - MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2005 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 December 2005

Please ask for Julie Be-mail: julie.britton

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

PLEASE NOTE

ritton (01362) 656343 @breckland.gov.uk

Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

PART A – ITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Page(s)

herewith

1. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2005. 5 - 14

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. 15

9. THETFORD: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – BROOM COVERT, KILVERSTONE PARK

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 16 - 18

10. SHIPDHAM: LITTLE HALE ROAD – BREACH OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE


11. LITTLE DUNHAM: BARROWS HOLE LANE – UNAUTHORISED MOBILE HOMES


agenda20051212

22


Page(s) herewith

12. 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.

32

13. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications. 33

Item No. Applicant Parish

1 AHC Aerospace Ltd SHIPDHAM 34 - 35 2 Mr & Mrs Meek DEREHAM 36 3 Omar Park Homes WATTON 37 - 38

4 Ashwell Developments Ltd THETFORD 39 5 The Cat & Rabbit Rescue

Centre ROUDHAM/ LARLING

40 – 42

6 Norfolk Golf & Country Club GARVESTONE 43 – 45 7 B & L Properties Ltd SCARNING 46 – 48 8 Mr & Mrs N Phillips WATTON 49 – 50 9 Somerfield Stores Ltd THETFORD 51 – 52

10 Somerfield Stores Ltd THETFORD 53 - 54 11 Somerfield Store Ltd THETFORD 55 - 56

12 Mr G V Moore & Ms J A Willsea

MATTISHALL 57 - 58

13 R Hancy & Sons BANHAM 59 - 61 14 Somerfield Stores Ltd THETFORD 62 - 63 15 Mr M R Boyce COLKIRK 64 - 65 16 Mr R Gorrell LONGHAM 66 - 67 17 Mr Ivan Garrod GARVESTONE 68 - 69 18 Mrs E Tilbrook EAST

TUDDENHAM 70 - 72

19 Mrs L Milne DEREHAM 73 - 74 20 Mr & Mrs P Woolerton BANHAM 75 - 76 21 Breckland Council SWAFFHAM 77 - 78 22 R J Smith NORTH

TUDDENHAM 79 - 80

23 Mr A Furnell COLKIRK 81 - 83 24 Mr C Hawes ATTLEBOROUGH 84 - 85 25 Hayes New Homes Ltd SHROPHAM 86 - 87 26 Mr Caruth and Ms Sewell TWYFORD 88 - 89 27 Mr and Mrs Jones CROXTON 90 - 91 28 Mr and Mrs N Doye SWANTON

MORLEY 92 - 93

29 Mrs J Peters BYLAUGH 94 - 95 30 Miss Pam Brackley SWAFFHAM 96 - 97 31 Mr & Mrs O Taylor-Roberts SHIPDHAM 98 - 99

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

Report of the Development Services Manager. 100 - 114

agenda20051212

33


Page(s) herewith

15. APPEALS DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)

Reference No. & Details Decision

APP/F2605/A/05/1186290: Great Ellingham: Shevaloe, 34 Long Street: Appeal against a refusal to grant outline planning permission: Mr and Mrs J Potter (application reference 3PL/2004/1848/O)

Dismissed

APP/F2605/A/05/1185826: Mattishall: The Firs, Dereham Road: Appeal against a refusal to grant outline planning permission: Mr S Mann (application reference 3PL/2005/0540/O)

Allowed and outline planning permission granted subject to conditions as set out in the formal Appeal decision.

16. APPLICATION DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION

3CM/2005/0030/F: Mileham: Mileham Primary School, Litcham Road: Demolition of garden wall, repositioning of sheds and mobile office with extension to existing playground area for Chair of Governors, Mileham Primary School.

Conditional Approval

3CM/2005/0028/LB: Gressenhall: Union Farm, Roots of Norfolk Museum of Rural Life: Construction of porch to St Nicholas Barn for Head of Cultural Services, Norfolk County Council.

Conditional Listed Building Consent

agenda20051212

44

Development Control Committee 14 November 2005

BRECKLAND COUNCIL

At a Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Held on Monday, 14 November 2005 at 9.30 a.m. in the

Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

PRESENT

Gould, Elizabeth (Chairman) Paines, Mr A. Cathcart, Earl Rose, Mr B. Darby, Mr P. R. W. Rudling, Mr R. Fanthorpe, Mr M Spencer, Mrs P. Howard-Alpe, Mrs S. Ward, Mr M. Kemp, Mr R. Wickham, Mr D. Labouchere, Mr J. P. Wilkin, Mr N Lamb, Mr T. J. Williams, Mr D ALSO PRESENT

Bambridge, Mr S Duffield, Mr R Claussen, Mr P Matthews, Mrs S Cowen, Mr P Stasiak, Mr A (Executive Member) In Attendance

Britton, Mr G. - Principal Planning Officer Britton, Mrs J - Committee Officer Chinnery, Mr J - Solicitor Daines, Mr P. - Development Services Manager Moys, Mr N - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) Action By

220/05 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2005 were confirmed as correct record and signed by the Chairman.

221/05 APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Messrs A. Byrne, P Duigan and R Key.

222/05 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 3)

Mr Wickham declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 4 of the Schedule of Applications. The interest related to him being previously involved in a similar circumstance. Mr Wickham left the room whilst this item was being discussed.

Earl Cathcart declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 25 of the Schedule of Applications. The interest related to him knowing the applicant. Earl Cathcart left the room whilst this item was being

5


Action By

discussed.

223/05 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)

1) The Chairman advised the meeting of the procedures for public speaking.

2) It was explained that the Council was keen to increase the attendance of the public at its meetings and the views of the public were requested in the form of a survey that had been circulated. The Chairman pointed out that the completion of the survey should not be based on the outcome of the planning decision.

3) Item 5 of the Schedule of Applications had been withdrawn.

4) In the light of an amended design received for item 7 of the Schedule of Applications, the recommendation had accordingly been amended to one of approval

5) Members were given an update on the Banham Poultry application that had previously been presented to the Development Control Committee meeting on 26 September 2005 (Minute No. 194/05 refers). A consultant had been appointed to assess and investigate the points raised by the public.

6) A request to defer application reference 3PL/2005/1372/F: Attleborough, to enable a further site visit to be carried out by the Highway Authority, was refused.

7) The Solicitor informed the Committee of a new procedure that would apply to future meetings. It was explained that when a vote was lost, another proposal might be requested, enabling conditions, if required, to be considered. It would also be an opportunity for the Officers and Members to raise further issues.

224/05 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM 7)

Mrs Matthews – Ward Member for items 2 & 3 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Duffield – Ward Member for item 12 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Bambridge – Ward Member for item 13 of the Schedule of Applications, and in his capacity as a Norfolk County Councillor, for item 25 of the Schedule of Applications..

Mr Claussen – Ward Member for item 14 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Cowen – Ward Member for item 22 of the Schedule of Applications.

6


Action By

225/05 MUNDFORD: SELETAR GARAGE, SWAFFHAM ROAD – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: REFERENCE 3PL/2004/2050/O – APPLICANT: BEECHBROOK DEVELOPMENTS

This application had been approved by the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on 25 July 2005 (Minute No. 158/05 refers). It had been approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement, requiring the applicant to provide the construction of a footpath link to the village school and the provision of a commuted sum towards affordable housing.

During recent negotiations on the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, the applicant had been unclear as to the resolution of the Minute and had asked whether he was to construct the footpath himself or to hand over the commuted sum to Norfolk County Council to construct the footpath.

Members agreed that the applicant should construct the footpath himself, and should the construction cost less than the agreed £40,000 (estimated), any balance should be payable towards the affordable housing costs.

RESOLVED that Principal Planning Officer

(1) the applicant be required to construct the footpath prior to the occupation of the approved dwellings;

(2) should the construction of the footpath cost less than the estimated £40,000, any balance be paid towards the previously agreed off-site affordable housing budget.

226/05 ATTLEBOROUGH: 5 ATLING WAY: ERECTION OF A BUNGALOW: REFERENCE 3PL/2005/1372/F

This report was considered in the light of the site visit held on Thursday 10 November 2005.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had recently amended the scale of the bungalow to one of a much smaller size.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Highways Officer and Attleborough Town Council had not objected to this application; however, 24 letters of objection had been received.

Mr Halls spoke on behalf of the objectors to the application and urged Members to support the Officer’s recommendation which was one of refusal.

Mr Westaway, the applicant’s agent, gave his views to the application and highlighted the fact that planning permission had been granted for similar applications on much smaller plots in the area.

7


Action By

Mr Stasiak, the Executive Member for Development Control and a Ward Representative for Attleborough, who supported this application, was unable to attend; however, his comments were read out by the Solicitor.

After some discussion Members felt that compared to other plots in the immediate locality the bungalow would fit on the site very well and would be an improvement.

RESOLVED that the application be approved contrary, to the recommendation, on the grounds that:

Principal Planning Officer

(1) the dwelling would enhance the area; and

(2) it would make good use of a brownfield site.

Earl Cathcart asked that it be recorded that his vote on this application was one of refusal.

227/05 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 11)

a) Billingford: Pit Meadow, Holl Lane: Standing of residential caravans: Reference 3PL/2005/0884/F

This application had been deferred from the Development Control Committee meeting held on 25 July 2005 (Minute No. 159/05 item 13 refers) to allow the applicant to provide a business justification for the residential occupation of this site. Further information had been sought in respect of the applicant’s gypsy status.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that an investigation had been carried out as to whether the applicant could be re- located to any other official gypsy sites in the area; however, it had been found that these sites were all occupied to full capacity. He further reported that the applicant had not provided the required additional information.

In support of his application, the applicant, Mr Russell thanked the Committee for giving him the extra time and disclosed a business case and two letters of support from the local doctor and school.

In the light of this information, the Committee agreed that this application should once again be deferred.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred in the light of new information received.


b) Thetford: Forest Retail Park, London Road: Proposed Retail Development: Reference 3PL/2004/2045/O

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report and reminded Members that the application had previously been deferred from the Development Control Committee meeting held on 17 October 2005 (Minute No.

8


Action By

213/05 refers). The reason for the deferral was so that further information could be provided for the provision of a second access.

Plans were shown of the new access together with details of anticipated traffic flows at both the existing entrance and the new access.

On the basis of the information available, it was considered that the creation of the second access to the retail park was satisfactory.

Mr Burnett, the applicant’s agent and Mr Eyton, the traffic consultant, were present to speak to the application.

A Member was concerned that the Committee’s attention had been diverted from other important issues: the requested increase of extant floorspace, and the debatable ‘out of town’ retailing. He felt that development should only be approved for recreational facilities.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) reminded Members of the retail survey that had previously been carried out which had been one issue mentioned at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 17 October 2005. However, certain Members still felt that the extra floor space and the retail aspect would have a detrimental effect on the town centre.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) informed Members that, current retail policy generally discouraged out of town developments; however, if developments met with certain retail tests, which this development clearly had, it could be justified. He advised the Committee that Thetford was continuing to lose trade to centres such as Bury St Edmunds and Norwich, and he felt that further out of town retail would allow Thetford to maintain its position in the retail hierarchy. Available evidence indicated that the proposal would not significantly affect the town centre shopping.

The Development Services Manager reminded Members that the Committee had previously resolved to defer the determination of this application for the provision of the second access and not the other matters being discussed. He urged Members to turn their attention to the matter in hand.

After further discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the additional floor space should be refused. In response, the Solicitor advised that if Members were mindful to refuse this application, a supportable ground for refusal was required as the applicant could go straight to appeal.

Members felt that one of the options referred to in the previous report was applicable, and it was

9


Action By

RESOLVED that the application for outline planning permission be refused contrary to the recommendation on the grounds that a retail development of this scale would have a potential adverse affect on the viability and vitality of Thetford town centre.

Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)

228/05 ENFORCEMENT ITEMS (AGENDA ITEM 12)

Swanton Morley – Miss Cade, Derwent, Woodgate Lane (2004/0357)

The Committee was informed that the appellant was moving house and had withdrawn the appeal.

Swaffham – Mr M Carroll, The Grange, Lynn Road (2005/0251)

Two Enforcement Notices that had to be complied with by 14 November 2005 were being investigated.

Thetford – Savers Health & Beauty PLC, 39-41 King Street (2005-0272)

Amended proposals to the signage had been received; however, the Enforcement Team was still pursuing the details of the time scale in which the signage would be replaced.

Caston – Mrs Lond-Caulk, Allcrest, The Street (2005/0455)

The Council’s solicitors were currently preparing the Enforcement Notice.

229/05 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:


Reference & Details Decision

3PL/2005/1262/F: (item 1): Attleborough: Land at rear of Exchange Street: Erection of four dwellings for Mr R Smith.

Approved, as recommended, subject to further conditions including:

1) the back elevation of the dwellings be reversed to the front;

2) the windows be of a sash design; and

3) clay pantiles be used for the roof.


10


Action By


3PL/2005/1315/F: (item 2): Swaffham: Holmwood House, 40 Whitecross: Extension comprising of self contained (Elderly Mentally Infirm) unit providing 16 bedrooms for Integrated Nursing Homes Ltd.

Approved, contrary to the recommendation subject to the negotiation of materials used.

Members were of the opinion that the proposed extension would not diminish the distinctive appearance and surroundings of Holmwood House, a Grade ll Listed Building.


3PL/2005/1316/LB: (item 3): Swaffham: Holmwood House, 40 Whitecross: Extension comprising self contained (Elderly Mentally Infirm) unit providing 16 bedrooms for Integrated Nursing Homes Ltd.

This item was considered in conjunction with schedule item 2 above. Approved.

3PL/2005/1333/F: (item 4) Litcham: Off Manor Drive to rear of ‘Cedarville’ Front Street: Erection of single storey dwelling for Mr N P Hooks.

Approved as recommended.

Note: Mr Holland, the Ward Representative, was unable to attend the meeting but had objected to the proposal. An e-mail was read out on his behalf by the Principal Planning Officer.

3PL/2005/1384/F: (item 5): Carbrooke: Old Carbrooke Stores, Broadmoor Road: Single storey store for domestic use for Mrs Samantha Lond-Caulk.

Withdrawn at the applicant’s request.

3PL/2005/1413/F: (item 7): Caston: Old Rectory Cottage, Attleborough Road: New conservatory for Mr & Mrs Davies.

In the light of an amended design being received, the recommendation was amended to one of approval. Approved.

It was agreed that the Principal Planning Officer would monitor the works.


3PL/2005/1424/A: (item 8): Dereham: Unit 2a Wrights Walk: Illuminated fascia sign for Sportswift Ltd.

Refused as recommended, and enforcement action be authorised for the removal of the illuminated fascia sign.

Members felt that the design brief for these new buildings should be adhered to.

Principal Planning Officer/Enforcement Officer

11


Action By


3PL/2005/1425/F: (item 9) Dereham: Unit 2a Wrights Walk: Cosmetic refit to include new suspended ceiling & new shop front for Sportswift Ltd.

This item was considered in conjunction with item 8 of the schedule of applications.

Refused as recommended and enforcement action be authorised for the removal of the unauthorised shop front.

Principal Planning Officer/Enforcement Officer

3PL/2005/1428/F: (item 11): Thetford: land at Bridgate Court, Bridge Street: Construction of 3 no. residential units with assoc. in/cycle storage amenity areas for Mr Robert Ferrari.

Refused, contrary to the recommendation, on design grounds and the materials proposed.


3PL/2005/1440/F: (item 13): Lyng: Balaclava Pottery, The Street: Demolition of existing pottery and erection of new dwelling in traditional style for Peter Reynolds.

Refused, contrary to the recommendation. The Committee felt that the proposal was of an inappropriate design, the roof height was out of keeping with the surrounding buildings and there was inadequate parking.

Note: 24 letters of objection to this proposal had been received.


3PL/2005/1441/F: (item 14): North Tuddenham: Street Farm, Low Road: Installation of 20m high telecommunications tower, 3 antennas, 2 dish antenna, radio equip. housing & ancill. for Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd.

Deferred, contrary to the recommendation. The Committee felt that the applicant had not supplied sufficient information regarding alternative siting.

Members were made aware of the time constraints pertaining to this decision.


3PL/2005/1478/O: (item 19): Saham Toney: Adjacent 151 Hills Road, Saham Hills: Erection of dwelling for Mrs R Goddard.

Approved, contrary to the recommendation. The Committee felt that that the proposal was an acceptable development and that the Highway objection was unreasonable.


3PL/2005/1519/F: (item 23): Scarning: Removal of outbuildings, erection of new dwelling & garage & conversion of extg dwelling to holiday accom.

Refused as recommended. Note: This application had been supported by County Councillor, John Gretton, and his grounds for support were read out to the Committee.


12


Action By

Notes to the Schedule of Planning Applications:

1. The under-mentioned public speakers and Ward Members were in attendance to speak in respect of the following items:

Schedule Item No. Speaker(s)

Agenda item 10 Mr Halls – Objector

Mr Westaway – Applicant’s Agent

Agenda item 11 - Thetford Mr Burnett – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Eyton – Traffic Consultant

Agenda item 11 - Billingford Mr Russell - Applicant

2 & 3 Mrs Matthews – Ward Representative, in support of the application

Ms Hayes – on behalf of the applicants

10 Mr Morley – Applicant’s Agent

12 Mr Duffield – Ward Representative, spoke against the application

Mr Mann – Applicant’s Agent

13 Mr Bambridge – Ward Representative, spoke against the application

Mr Pinch – Objector

Mr Brigham – Parish Council, spoke against the application

Mr Bill – Applicant’s Agent

14 Mr Claussen – Ward Representative, spoke against the application

Mr Burton – Objector

Miss Hook – Objector

Mr Pywell – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Bly – Parish Council, spoke against the application

15 Mr Kerbison – Applicant’s Agent

16 & 17 Mr Woodrow - Objector

18 Mr Phillips – Applicant’s Agent

13


Action By

19 Mr Garner – in support of the applicant

Miss Goddard - Applicant

20 Mr Mann – Applicant’s Agent

22 Mr Cowen – Ward Representative, spoke in support of the application

23 Mr Baldry - Applicant

25 Mr Bambridge – in his capacity as County Councillor spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application

Mr Howell - Applicant

26 Mr Easter - Applicant

Written representations taken into account

Reference No. No. of Representations 3PL/2004/2045/O 4 3PL/2005/1262/F 1 3PL/2005/1333/F 1 3PL/2005/1394/F 2 3PL/2005/1427/F 1 3PL/2005/1435/O 1 3PL/2005/1440/F 23 3PL/2005/1441/F 24 3PL/2005/1442/F 4 3PL/2005/1467/F 1 3PL/2005/1468/F 1 3PL/2005/1478/O 2 3PL/2005/1496/O 1 3PL/2005/1519/F 2 3PL/2005/1544/O 1

230/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (AGENDA ITEM 14)

The report was noted.

231/05 APPEALS DECISIONS (AGENDA ITEM 15)

This item was noted.

232/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (AGENDA ITEM 16)

The item was noted.

The meeting closed at 4.40 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

14

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.

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

15

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

16

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.

17

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.

18

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE: 12 DECEMBER 2005 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Debbie Wragg: Planning Enforcement Officer

BREACH OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE LITTLE HALE ROAD, SHIPDHAM

Summary: This report seeks Members authority to prosecute the owners/occupiers of the above site which is the subject of an existing Enforcement Notice.

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 1.1 An enforcement notice was served on Mr and Mrs Soames the owners of this land in

1998 requiring them to remove a residential caravan and associated shed and garage from the land and the permanent cessation of the use of the land for the standing of a residential caravan and associated shed and garage. The notice gave a 12 month compliance period.

1.2 In 2000 authorisation was given by the Development Control Committee to prosecute

in respect of the failure to comply with the Notice. The matter was referred back to the Development Control Committee and members were asked whether they wished to re-consider the previously agreed enforcement action following the reference of this matter to the local MP. Members although having sympathy for the owners recommended that enforcement action continue.

1.3 The matter was then referred to the Magistrates Court where both Mr and Mrs

Soames were found guilty of failing to comply with the enforcement notice and given a conditional discharge for 12 months. An undertaking was submitted on the owners behalf by Leathes Prior solicitors that the owners would comply with the enforcement notice within six months, this expired in December 2001.

1.4 During this time an application was submitted to use the garage and outbuilding for

the storage of household effects and garden equipment, this was refused in September 2001 and a subsequent appeal dismissed on 8 March 2002.

1.5 In 2002 the owners still were in breach of the enforcement notice, their solicitors were

advised by letter on 13 March 2002 that failure to comply within 28 days would lead to injunctive proceedings being commenced. A site inspection was made on 11 April 2002 and the file closed as the requirements of the Notice had been met.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The matter(s) raised in this report fall(s) within the following Council priority(ies):

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities 4. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 4.1 In September of this year we were notified that the owner had re-erected the garage

which was the subject of the existing enforcement notice. A site inspection was carried out and Mr Soames has confirmed that it is his intention to move back on the

19

site before Christmas as he has been ordered to vacate his current site in the Fakenham area.

4.2 I have discussed the matter at length with colleagues from Peddars Way Housing

Association and Strategic Housing who have advised me that should Mr Soames approach them he would be eligible for housing as he has no permanent residence and the land has limited monetary value as it is still classed as agricultural under the Town and Country Planning Act, however Mr Soames is reluctant to take such advice.

5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 5.1 To prosecute for breaching the existing enforcement notice. 5.2 To take no further action. 6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) 6.1 Given the history of this site and that complaints are being received to take no action

would be considered inappropriate and contrary to Policy H.6 of the Norfolk County Structure Plan (April 1993), and policies HOU.6, HOU.12 and HOu.15 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999).

7. RECOMMENDATION(S) 7.1 To take prosecution action as outlined in 5.1 above.

Appendices: Site Plan Photos

20

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE: 12 DECEMBER 2005 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Debbie Wragg: Planning Enforcement Officer)

UNAUTHORISED MOBILE HOMES BARROWS HOLE LANE, LITTLE DUNHAM

Summary: This report concerns unauthorised mobile homes and associated structures at the above site. It is recommended that authorisation be given for enforcement action to secure the removal of the unauthorised mobile homes and associated structures.

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 1.1 In June 2005 planning permission was refused for the erection of a dwelling at the

above site as it was considered that it would result in an unwarranted intrusion into this rural setting to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the area.

1.2 Complaints were received into this office late June 2005 that two mobile homes had

appeared on the land and were currently being occupied by Mr and Mrs Wright and their family. A site visit was made and the owners of the land confirmed they were intending to submit an application for temporary permission to retain the mobile homes whilst they appealed against the planning refusal.

2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The matter(s) raised in this report fall(s) within the following Council priority(ies):

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities 4. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 4.1 To date no application has been received into this office for the retention of the

mobile homes, or an appeal lodged against the planning refusal. 4.2 Since the initial inspection further unauthorised structures have been erected and the

site now has some degree of permanency. 4.3 It is unlikely that any application submitted into this office for the retention of the

mobile homes would receive officer support. 5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 5.1 To take enforcement action to secure the removal of the unauthorised mobile homes

and associated structures. 5.2 To take no further action. 6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) 6.1 The mobile homes are on the land with no permission and are contrary to policies

ENV.3, HOU.6 and HOU.12 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999).

23

6.2 As complaints have been received to take no further action would be considered

inappropriate as the Authority must be seen where possible to deal with issues in line with its own planning policies.

7. RECOMMENDATION(S) 7.1 To take enforcement action as outlined in 5.1 above.

Appendices: Site Plan Photos Planning Refusal

24

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 12 December 2005 SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED APPLICATIONS REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETING

FIRST REPORTED TO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

REASON FOR DEFERMENT

3PL/2005/0884/F: Billingford: Pit Meadow, Holl Lane: Standing of residential caravans for Mr F Russell & Miss H M Gooch.

14/11/05 Refusal Deferred, in the light of new information received.

3PL/2005/1441/F: North Tuddenham: Street Farm, Low Road: Installation of 20m high telecommunications tower, 3 antennas, 2 dish antenna, radio equip. housing & ancill. For Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd.

14/11/05 Approval Deferred, to enable the applicant to provide information on alternative siting.

Def-Sched-keep 32

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 12-12-2005

Item No.

Reference No. ParishApplicant

3PL/2005/0990/FSHIPDHAMAHC Aerospace Ltd 1 3PL/2005/1402/FDEREHAMMr & Mrs Meek 2 3PL/2005/1451/FWATTONOmar Park Homes 3 3PL/2005/1473/DTHETFORDAshwell Developments Ltd 4 3PL/2005/1488/FROUDHAM/LARLINGThe Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre 5 3PL/2005/1500/OGARVESTONENorfolk Golf & Country Club 6 3PL/2005/1541/FSCARNINGB & L Properties Ltd 7 3PL/2005/1546/FWATTONMr & Mrs N Phillips 8 3PL/2005/1548/FTHETFORDSomerfield Stores Ltd 9 3PL/2005/1549/ATHETFORDSomerfield Stores Ltd 10

THETFORD 3PL/2005/1550/ASomerfield Store Ltd 11 MATTISHALL 3PL/2005/1551/OMr G V Moore & Ms J A Willsea 12 BANHAM 3PL/2005/1562/CUR Hancy & Sons 13 THETFORD 3PL/2005/1569/ASomerfield Stores Ltd 14 COLKIRKMr M R Boyce 3PL/2005/1582/F15 LONGHAMMr R Gorrell 3PL/2005/1589/O16 GARVESTONEMr Ivan Garrod 3PL/2005/1594/O17 EAST TUDDENHAMMrs E Tilbrook 3PL/2005/1609/F18 DEREHAMMrs L Milne 3PL/2005/1612/F19 BANHAMMr & Mrs P Woolerton 3PL/2005/1615/F20 SWAFFHAMBreckland Council 3PL/2005/1623/O21 NORTH TUDDENHAMR J Smith 3PL/2005/1624/O22 COLKIRKMr A Furnell 3PL/2005/1626/F23 ATTLEBOROUGHMr C Hawes 3PL/2005/1632/CU24

Hayes New Homes Ltd 3PL/2005/1637/FSHROPHAM25 3PL/2005/1643/FTWYFORDMr Caruth and Ms Sewell 26 3PL/2005/1647/FCROXTONMr and Mrs Jones 27 3PL/2005/1650/FSWANTON MORLEYMr and Mrs N Doye 28 3PL/2005/1662/CUBYLAUGHMrs J Peters 29 3PL/2005/1675/FSWAFFHAMMiss Pam Brackley 30 3PL/2005/1677/OSHIPDHAMMr & Mrs O Taylor-Roberts 31

DC131 33


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/0990/F

Full

Change of use for aerodrome & erection of 3 small hangars, 1 storage building &associated landscaping work

Ridgers Barn Bunny Lane Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

West End Cottage High Street AHC Aerospace Ltd

Shipdham Aerodrome SHIPDHAM

1 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

KEY ISSUES * Detrimental to flight safety.

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO SHIPDHAM P C The Council object to this application. The Council have serious concerns at the way this application presents itself. It appears at face value to be an expansion of the existing Airfield. Whereas, on closer inspection it seems that the applicant is intending to develop a second airstrip in parallel with the existing. The Council are extremely concerned at the safety implication of planes landing and taking off independently fromtwo sets of facilities. The Council has further concerns about sight lines, land use etc which it willset out in a separate letter. It should be noted that Cllr Hewett has written to the Planning Dept objecting to the application. 5th August 2005 Re Amendment The Council continue to object to this application. The Council have serious concerns with this application. It seems that the applicant is intent on developing a second airstrip in parallel with the existing. The Council are extremely concerned atthe safety implication of planes landing and taking off independently from the two sets of facilities. It would also appear that a separate access would have to be created on to Letton Road. This would create an additional hazard on this busy road.

* This application proposes the incorporation of 4.3 hectares of agricultural land into the use of the adjacent Shipdham Aerodrome. The proposal also includes the erection of 3 No 24m x 12m aircraft hangars and a 6.5m x 15m storage shed within this parcel of land which is located immediately north of the principal runway. * The hangars are stated to be required to house up to 12 small light aircraft with the store to be utilized for agricultural machinery.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 34


* Whilst the application initially included 'landscaping works' in the form of a 20m wide grassed strip running 370m in length immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of the main runway, the applicants advise that this is to be withdrawn from the proposal. * Six letters of objection have been received raising concerns in respect of the site access, increase in aircraft noise, impact on the public footpath and air safety. * The Highways Authority raises no objection. * There are currently no controls over numbers of aircraft and the Environmental Health Officer has no objection. * The withdrawal of the grassed runway from the scheme will remove the concern in respect of the footpath. * Although the principle of the extension to the aerodrome is considered to be acceptable, the Civil Aviation Authority has objected to the scheme on aircraft safety grounds. It advises that theposition of the hangars would be such that they are likely to cause turbulence and windshear to aircraft on short finals approaching the runway. * The application is recommended for refusal on flight safety grounds.

Refusal of Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Detrimental to flight safety 9900

DC131 35


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

Y

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

Y

3PL/2005/1402/F

Full

Demolition of extg buildings, conversion of extg building into 2 dwellings & erection of 8 new 3 storey dwellings

No.3 Colegate Norwich Purcell Miller Tritton

12 Bately Avenue Gorleston Mr & Mrs Meek

34-36 Swaffham Road DEREHAM

2 REPORT TO COMMITTEE

KEY ISSUES * Scale, Residential Amenity, Access


CLERK TO DEREHAM T C No objection although some Councillors expressed concern that there was insufficient parking.

* It is proposed to redevelop an existing commercial property close to Dereham town centre for housing. The site falls within a predominately residential area. * The site is considered to be suitable in principle for redevelopment for housing. The proposal isin line with national policy that encourages the re-use of well-located brownfield land for residential purposes. * The site occupies a prominent corner location on the edge of the Dereham Conservation Area. The proposal involves the retention of the principal traditional building on the site and its conversion to two dwellings. It is proposed to demolish remaining buildings, including some modern structure, to make way for a further eight units. It is considered that the design of the proposed development would relate well to its surroundings. * However, certain elements of the proposal relating to access, impact on trees and residential amenities have given rise to concern. Following negotiations, amended proposals have been submitted in an effort to address these concerns. The outcome of on-going discussions on thesematters will be reported verbally. * Objections to the proposal have been raised by a number of local residents on grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenities, poor access and parking.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

RECOMMENDATION:

DC131 36


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1451/F

Full

Removal of condition 10 relating to provision of open space on planning permission 3PL/2003/1223/O

48 St Ives Road Hemingford Grey Andrew S Campbell Assoc.

c/o agent Omar Park Homes

Redhill Lane Mobile Home Park WATTON

3 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

KEY ISSUES * Loss of Amenity Area, Impact on Landscape.

Policies HOU.6, HOU.12, REC.3 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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. HOU.12 - Applications for Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans will be determined as if they were for permanent housing. REC.3 - Recreational open space will be protected. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible.

POLICY NOTES

Outline planning permission for the extension of the mobile home park, including new access, was granted permission in March 2004 (reference 3PL/2003/1223). The outline planning permission was subject to a condition requiring the area of open space (for the use of the residents of the park) indicated on the approved plan to be provided. A section 106 agreement was also agreed to provide monies to improve the recreational provision within the town in lieu of providing public open space within the development. It was agreed that the number of pitches and the siting of the mobile homes would be covered by the site licence rather than the planning permission.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

WATTON TOWN CLERK No objection

DC131 37


* The application seeks the removal of a condition on a planning permission requiring the provision and retention of open space at the entrance to mobile home site The new owners of the site wish to alter the position of the mobile homes and utilise this open space area for additional mobile homes. The applicant considers the facilities on the original area of the park home site (recreational room and quiet area) and the financial contribution to off site recreational provision is sufficient to satisfy the recreational requirements. * The Town Council have raised no objection to the proposal. * The main issues in this instance are the loss of a proposed amenity area for the residents and whether this area is important to be retained to provide a soft edge to the development. * Although the removal of the condition would enable the provision of 2 additional units on the site which would be technically contrary to policy, it was agreed at outline stage that the number and siting of the units on the site would be regulated through the site licence rather than through the planning permission. There is no policy objection to the proposal on the grounds of Policy HOU 6. * This area was not intended as public open space but was put forward by the applicant as a recreational area for the residents of the mobile park. It was not required as part of the previous application. The applicant considers the existing recreational /amenity facilities sufficient. No representations have been received from residents of the park regarding its retention; therefore itis considered there is no conflict with Policy REC 3. * The site is quite open, adjacent the highway, due to the removal of the existing hedge to provide a visibility splay to the access. The approved plan indicated that new planting would be provided along the new vision splay. Once established the new planting should reduce the impact of the mobile homes on the landscape. * The proposal is recommended for approval.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

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

3007 3046 3998

DC131 38


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

Y

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1473/D

Reserved Matters

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

Station Court Radford Way Grafik Architects Ltd

Botanic House 100 Hills Road Ashwell Developments Ltd

Kilverstone Park Phase 2 THETFORD

4 REPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

CLERK TO THETFORD T C At the meeting of our Planning Applications Committee on 26th October 2005, members agreed to await further revisions to the design of the landmark building within the above development (this followed a presentation to the meeting by Ashwell representatives) At the Committee's next meeting on 16th November 2005, the Committee was presented four options for said building. There was a unanimous support expressed for option 4. No other comments were forthcoming.

Approval of Reserved Matters RECOMMENDATION: SEE MAIN AGENDA ITEM 1950

DC131 39


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1488/F

Full

South Suffolk Business Centre Alexandra RReplacement of present staff accommodation with purpose built dwelling closer to cattery and offices

Custom Homes Ltd

Feralands Roudham Road The Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre

Roudham Road Feralands ROUDHAM/LARLING


KEY ISSUES * Policy, Scale/Design, Highway Safety.

Policies HOU.6, ENV.1, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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.1 - Development will not be permitted in the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens except in exceptional circumstances. 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2004/0274/F - Standing of mobile home - Approved (Temporary Permission). 3PL/2001/0094/F - Standing of mobile home - Approved (Temporary Permission). 3PL/1997/1323/F - Extension to create further accommodation - Approved. 3PL/1997/1154/F - Standing of mobile home - Approved (Temporary Permission). 3PL/1996/0717/CU - Change of use to animal rescue centre and retention of mobile home - Approved (Temporary consent for mobile home). 3PL/1994/0102/CU - Use of land as pigeon stud farm and retention of mobile home - Approved (Temporary consent for mobile home). 3PL/1993/0623/F - Standing of mobile home - Refused.


CLERK TO ROUDHAM & LARLING P C

DC131 40


Objection. Comments: See letter received 7th November 2005

* This full application proposes the construction of a brick and pantile detached managers dwelling on land currently used as a re-homing centre for feral and domestic cats to replace an existing mobile home. Various temporary planning permissions have been granted for the retention of the mobile home since 1994. * The site lies in a relatively rural location in an Area of Important Landscape Quality outside any designated Settlement Boundary where Policy HOU.6 states that new residential development will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that it is essential for uses such as agriculture or forestry. * Concerns relate to whether the proposal meets the financial and functional tests to justify the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside. The agent has stated that a permanent dwelling is required on site to allow 24 hour care and supervision of the animals. Therefore, whilst it could be argued that a ‘functional’ need exists to support the application, insufficient evidence of the long term 'financial' viability of the business has been provided to justify a departure from policy in this case. * Furthermore, the size and design of the proposed dwelling also raises concern. The two-storeydwelling would comprise of four bedrooms and associated living accommodation, as well as a self-contained bedsit, providing a substantially greater level of accommodation to that which was provided by the existing mobile home and having a much greater visual impact on the surrounding landscape. * The dwelling would be accessed by an existing unmade access off Roudham Road. The Highway Engineer raises no objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. * Therefore, the application is considered contrary to Policies HOU.6 and ENV.1 of the BrecklandLocal Plan, and recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P. (Sept 1999) Policy HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Insufficient agricultural need No evidence that cannot be met in settlement

9062 9063 9064 9066

DC131 41


Reymerston

LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1500/O

Outline

Erection of 12 holiday cabins & associated works

14 Oakfield Road Long Stratton Landmark Associates

Shipdham Road Reymerston Norfolk Golf & Country Club

Shipdham Road The Norfolk Golf & Country Club GARVESTONE


KEY ISSUES * Impact on Rural Landscape.

Policies TOR.8 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. TOR.8 - Outside the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardenss tourist accommodation in new permanent buildings may be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible.

POLICY NOTES


CLERK TO GARVESTONE P C Objection: See letter received 28th October 2005.

* Outline permission is sought for the erection of 12 holiday cabins on part of the Norfolk Golf and Country Club at Reymerston. * The application site comprises an unused parcel of open land, adjacent to the golf course and situated on the eastern outskirts of the village. * Policy TOR.8 of the Breckland District Local Plan permits new tourist accommodation in rural areas such as this, provided that the development would not conflict with landscape or nature conservation considerations or cause harm to the rural character of the locality. * It is considered that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, contrary to Local Plan Policy TOR.8. Due to its scale, location and layout, the development proposed would result in a significant visual intrusion into the rural

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 43


landscape and would appear quite out of keeping with the established pattern of development in the area. The proposed holiday cabins would be isolated from the main complex of buildings associated with the golf course. * Letters of objection have been received from local residents concerned about the impact of the proposal on the rural character of the area, increased traffic and harm to residential amenities.

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy TOR.8 Unwarranted intrusion into landscape

9089 9130

DC131 44


Dereham Road

LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1541/F

Full

Construction of six dwellings and garages

Sandpiper House Leete Way Ian H Bix & Associates

c/o agent B & L Properties Ltd

Garage Depot Euroview Coaching SCARNING


KEY ISSUES * Principle of Development, Affordable Housing Requirement.

Policies HOU.6 and HOU.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan is 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. HOU.13 - Affordable Housing will be sought as part of new housing development.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2005/0383/O - Application for four dwellings - Approved by Committee.RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CLERK TO SCARNING P C Comments: The Council did not want to see an increase in the size of this development. It is felt that it is too many houses for the size of the plot. It is also felt that there are large 4 bedroom houses with small gardens and that there are no nearby facilities for children. In addition, both the Dereham Road and Draytonhall Lane are felt to be dangerous roads for children to cross, given the proximity of the development to both. There were also concerns about the lack of visibility for cars leaving the proposed development onto the main road.

* This is a detailed application for the redevelopment of the existing coach depot and workshop located on Dereham Road, Scarning. Six detached dwellings are proposed. The site is outside but abuts the existing Settlement Boundary. * The Committee will recall that a previous application for four dwellings was approved by Committee on the 25th April, 2005. It was considered that because the site was a brownfield

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 46


site, located on the edge of the settlement boundary that a scheme for residential development was appropriate. There was no requirement for affordable housing in that instance. * The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the current scheme but require conditions tobe attached to any approval. * The County Council Director of Planning and Transportation has not raised objection to the application. * The Enabling and Projects Officer has suggested that a commuted sum of £50,000 is provided as an affordable housing contribution. * Although noting that this is a brownfield site, it is located outside of the Settlement Boundary where normally only dwellings in association with agriculture or forestry are permitted. However it is considered that the principle of residential development on the site has now been establishedunder the previous planning permission (3PL/2005/0383/O). * The proposed density of six dwellings is also considered appropriate – the density is equivalentto 30 dwellings to the hectare, the minimum density for residential development recommended by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. * The proposed dwelling design reflects a mixture of architectural detailing and material finishes but overall projects a traditional cottage styling. It is considered that the development would enhance the appearance of the site at this important location on the edge of the Settlement Boundary. * If the Committee consider that the principle of the development is acceptable then an element of affordable housing provision is required. For development of five dwellings or more in the rural area of the district, 30% of the development should be dedicated to affordable housing in the form of built units or via a commuted sum. * On a site for six dwellings this would normally equate to two units being set aside for affordablehousing. The applicant has supplied a breakdown of costs in developing this site which includes a significant element of decontamination work. Based on these site costs the applicant has offered a commuted lump sum of £45,000 as affordable housing provision. * Having carefully considered the breakdown of costs in developing this site, officers have concluded that in this case £45,000 represents an acceptable contribution for affordable housing.* The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring the payment of £45,000 as an affordable housing contribution and to ensure removal ofthe existing business use from the site.


CONDITIONS: Full Permission Time Limit (3 years) In accordance with submitted AMENDMENTS External materials and samples to be approved Fencing/walls - details and implementation Landscaping - details and implementation Precise details of surface water disposal Precise details of foul water disposal Vehicular access Other accesses permanently closed Visibility splay On-site parking/turning area Scheme for off-site highway improvements

3007 3048 3106 3405 3408 3802 3804 3740 3740 3740 3740 3740

DC131 47


Off-site highway improvements - before occupation Contaminated Land - Remediation Non-standard note re: S106

3740 3949 3992

DC131 48


Thetford Road

LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1546/F

Full

Standing of a mobile home and construction of a concrete pad

Homefield 67 Griston Road Mr & Mrs N Phillips

Homefield 67 Griston Road Mr & Mrs N Phillips

Certificated location Babes in the Wood WATTON


KEY ISSUES * Outside Settlement Boundary, Intrusion into the Countryside, Insufficient Justification/Need.

Policies HOU.6, HOU.12, ENV.4 and ENV.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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. HOU.12 - Applications for Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans will be determined as if they were for permanent housing. ENV.4 - Development will not be permitted either in or near to a designated nature conservation site. ENV.5 - Development will not be permitted that could adversely affect a County Wildlife Site.

POLICY NOTES

Two applications for the erection of an amenity facility with workshop/store were refused in 2001 on the grounds of visual intrusion into the countryside.


WATTON TOWN CLERK No objection: Members have no objection but would request that a condition be sought that the mobile home be for the sole use of the owner/occupier and that a time limit restriction of 5 years be part of the agreement.

* The proposal is to construct a concrete pad and stand a mobile home thereon. * The site is an established certificated caravan site for up to 5 touring caravans. * The site has water and electricity points provided but no toilet/amenity block.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 49


* The site is located immediately adjacent to Wayland Wood, as ancient woodland, an SSSI, anda Norfolk Wildlife Trust reserve. * Policy HOU.12 requires application for mobile homes to be determined as if they were for permanent dwellings. The site is outside the Settlement Boundary. Policy HOU.6 requires dwellings outside Settlement Boundaries to be essential in connection with agriculture, tourism etc. * The Norfolk Wildlife Trust consider the activities on the site have resulted in disturbance to the Wayland SSSI and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and have expressed concerns regarding the future development of the site, the proximity of the mobile home to the wood and the impact night time lighting may have on bats and insects. * One letter of support from the Wayland Tourism Association has been received. * The applicant has indicated that the proposal is required to provide site security and aid booking in/out of caravans. * It is considered that insufficient justification has been put forward to demonstrate that it is essential for the management of the site that an on site presence is provided. * It is considered that the proposed accommodation is not warranted for this type and scale of caravan site and would be contrary to the protection of the countryside policies.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P.sept 1999 - Caravans considered as dwellings Adopted D.W.L.P. (Sept 1999) Policy HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Insufficient agricultural need No evidence that cannot be met in settlement Unwarranted intrusion into landscape

9086 9062 9063 9064 9066 9130

DC131 50


RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL 9 ITEM

3PL/2005/1548/F REF NO:

THETFORD Full APPN TYPE: LOCATION: Kwik Save Store In Settlemnt Bndry POLICY: Minstergate Street

Primary Comm. AreaALLOCATION:

N CONS AREA:Somerfield Stores Ltd APPLICANT: Somerfield House Whitchurch Lane N TPO:

Adjacent Grade 2 LB GRADE: ATP Group AGENT: Brook House Coventry Road

New shopfronts to replace existing and new car park lighting PROPOSAL:

KEY ISSUES Visual Impact, Impact on Nearby Properties, Highway Safety.

Policies ENV.28, ENV.30 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevantto this application. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected. ENV.30 - The character of traditional shop fronts and facades will be enhanced and maintained. 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.

POLICY NOTES

CLERK TO THETFORD T C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* The application is for the replacement of existing shop fronts and new car park lighting at the former Kwik Save store, currently being redeveloped by Somerfields. * The scheme is considered acceptable in design terms, and no objection has been raised by theCouncil’s Historic Buildings Officer. * The Highways Engineer also raises no objection to the new lighting subject to the imposition of a condition relating to luminance levels. * Furthermore, whilst there are a number of residential properties within the vicinity of the site, noobjection has been raised to the new lighting by the Environmental Health Team. * Therefore, the application is considered to accord with Policies ENV.28, ENV.30 and TRA.5 of the Breckland Local Plan and recommended for approval.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 51



CONDITIONS: Full Permission Time Limit (3 years) In accordance with submitted plans Highway safety condition Non-standard note relating to luminance levels

3007 3046 3740 3994

DC131 52


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

Primary Comm. Area

In Settlemnt Bndry

Adjacent Grade 2

N

3PL/2005/1549/A

Advertisement

Erection of illuminated totem pole sign

Brook House Coventry Road ATP Group

Somerfield House Whitchurch Lane Somerfield Stores Ltd

Minstergate Street Kwik Save Store THETFORD


KEY ISSUES * Visual Impact, Highway Safety.

Policies ENV.13 and ENV.34 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. ENV.13 - The setting of Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected. ENV.34 - Advertisements and signs will only be permitted where they are not harmful to local amenity or road safety.

POLICY NOTES


* The application is for the erection of an internally illuminated free-standing totem pole sign located adjacent to the vehicular entrance into the Somerfields store. The sign would measure approximately 2.3 metres in height. Given that this is an application for advertisement consent, the only matters for consideration are the impact of the sign on the visual amenities of the area and highway safety. * The Council's Historic Buildings Officer raises objection to the scheme on the basis that the sign would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area, particularly in respect of the effect on the setting of the listed buildings on the adjacent sites. * The Highways Engineer raises no objection to the sign subject to the imposition of conditions controlling luminance levels. * Therefore, the application is considered contrary to Policy ENV.34 of the Breckland District Local Plan and recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

Refusal of Consent to Display Advertisements RECOMMENDATION:

DC131 53


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.34 Detrimental to appearance and character

9900 9425

DC131 54


RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL ITEM 11

3PL/2005/1550/A REF NO:

THETFORD Advertisement APPN TYPE: LOCATION: Kwik Save Store In Settlemnt Bndry POLICY: Minstergate Street

Primary Comm. AreaALLOCATION:

N CONS AREA:Somerfield Store Ltd APPLICANT: Somerfield House Whitchurch Lane N TPO:

Adjacent Grade 2 LB GRADE: ATP Group AGENT: Brook House Coventry Road

Proposed external illuminated shop signs PROPOSAL:

KEY ISSUES Visual impact. Highway Safety.

Policies ENV.13 and ENV.34 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. ENV.13 - Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected. ENV.34 - Advertisements and signs will only be permitted where they are not harmful to local amenity or road safety.

POLICY NOTES


* The application is for the erection of two externally illuminated signs located on the front and side elevations of the building. Given that this is an application for advertisement consent, the only matters for consideration relate to the impact of the signs on the visual amenities of the areaand highway safety. * Whilst the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer does not raise objection to the principle of the new signage, concerns have been raised to the size of one of the signs. However, whilst the agent has been requested to consider reducing the size of the sign on the side elevation, notwithstanding this, it is not considered that refusal of the signs as proposed could be justified. * The Highways Engineer raises no objection to the signs subject to the imposition of conditions relating to luminance levels. * Therefore, on balance, the application is recommended for approval.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

Consent to Display Advertisements RECOMMENDATION:

DC131 55


CONDITIONS: Standard Advert Conds. (a) (incl Time Limit) Standard Advert Conditions In accordance with submitted plans NOTE: Reasons for Approval

3014 3600 3046 3998

DC131 56


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1551/O

Outline

Erection of one, two storey dwelling

Thynne House Thynnes Lane Mr G V Moore & Ms J A Willsea

Thynne House Thynnes Lane Mr G V Moore & Ms J A Willsea

Thynnes Lane Thynne House MATTISHALL


KEY ISSUES * Impact on Neighbouring Property, Highway Access.

Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2004/1926/F – Extension to Thynne House approved. 3PL/2001/0491/F – New dwelling to west of Thynne House approved (recently completed).



CLERK TO MATTISHALL P C Objection. Comments:- Council strongly objects to planning application. Overdevelopment of site and not in keeping withthe area. Objects to the felling of trees. Plans shown are misleading as they are inaccurate. The plot to the right of Thynne House only shows a double garage and not the extensive house now built on there. This is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for increased traffic use.

* This is an outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling on the side garden of a property known as Thynne House. * The site measures 0.158 hectares, is oblong in shape and is located inside the Settlement Boundary for Mattishall. A new dwelling to the west of the site has recently been completed.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 57


* The applicant proposes to demolish a poor quality stable block to the site frontage, retaining part of the existing front wall as a site boundary wall. * The Highway Authority raise objection stating that Thynnes Lane is inadequate to serve the development proposed and that inadequate visibility splays are provided at the site entrance. * The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection. * Three letters of objection have been received raising concerns regarding overdevelopment, loss of rural character, increase in traffic movements. * The application site is of a good size and can easily accommodate a new two storey dwelling without harming existing neighbour amenity or the visual amenity of the site. * Although noting the Highway Authority comments concerning the nature of Thynnes Lane, one extra dwelling will not exacerbate the existing highway conditions to such a degree that refusal could be justified. * With regard to visibility it should be noted that the vehicular access to the site does presently exist. Demolition of the stable block will also lead to improvements to the visibility. Again refusalwould be difficult to justify on visibility grounds. * In conclusion, the site provides for a good sized plot within the Settlement Boundary and does not harm the existing setting of the village. The application is recommended for approval.

Outline Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

CONDITIONS: Outline Time Limit (3 years) Standard Outline Condition Standard outline landscaping condition Fencing/walls - details and implementation Turning space to be provided NOTE: Reasons for Approval

3005 3058 3060 3405 3724 3998

DC131 58


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1562/CU

Change of Use

Continue change of use of an agricultural part ground floor building to a car/lorryworkshop/office (renewal)

Rosary Farm Kenninghall Road R Hancy & Sons

Rosary Farm Kenninghall Road R Hancy & Sons

Kenninghall Road Rosary Farm BANHAM


KEY ISSUES * Current Use Unauthorised, Breach of Planning Conditions.

Policies ENV.31 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. ENV.31 - The conversion of rural buildings to non-residential uses will be permitted subject to thebuilding being of permanent and substantial construction, being in keeping with their surroundings and being capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.

POLICY NOTES

Planning permission was granted in October 2002 for the change of use of part of agricultural ground floor building to a car and lorry workshop and small office, under reference 3PL/2002/1114/CU. This permission was subject to conditions requiring certain insulation works being undertaken prior to the use of the building. The permission was also temporary for 3 years and personal to the user. Conditions were also imposed restricting the hours of operation of machinery inside the building and no machinery/power tools to be used outside the building.



CLERK TO BANHAM P C See letter dated 3rd November 2005.

* The proposal is a renewal of permission for the change of use of part of an agricultural building to a car/lorry workshop/office. * The permission was made temporary and personal to the specific user and was subject to a

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 59


condition requiring works of noise insulation for the building and the compressor housing to be implemented fully prior to the commencement of use of the building. * The site forms part of a larger agricultural building which is accessed through an existing farm and is located adjoining an existing dwelling. * Policy ENV 31 permits the conversion of rural buildings to non residential uses providing the buildings are permanent and structurally sound. * Policy ENV 28 seeks to refuse proposals which have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining buildings. * The Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the conditions of the planning permission not being fulfilled. * Letters of objection have been received from and on behalf of the adjacent neighbour raising concerns regarding noise and pollution disturbance resulting from the breach of planning conditions and the operation of an unauthorised haulage business from the site. * This Authority was not aware of the breach of conditions and had not received any letters of complaint until the permission was due to be renewed. * The premises have been operating without the works regarding noise insulation to either the building or the compressor housing being undertaken. As these works were required before the operation commenced, the use of the site is unauthorised. The applicant has been made aware of the situation and any reply will be reported verbally at the meeting. * The use of the site as a haulage business is currently being investigated as a separate issue tothe use of the building as a car/ lorry workshop. * It is considered that it is inappropriate to renew a use which is currently unauthorised and operating in breach of planning permission. * The committee is requested to authorise enforcement action.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.28 - affect on amenity 9900

DC131 60


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

Primary Comm. Area

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

Y

3PL/2005/1569/A

Advertisement

Erection of pole sign

Brook House Coventry Road ATP Architects & Surveyors

Somerfield House Whitchurch Lane Somerfield Stores Ltd

Minstergate Street Kwik Save Store THETFORD


KEY ISSUES * Visual Impact, Highway Safety.

Policy ENV.34 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. ENV.10 Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. ENV.13 Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected. ENV.34 - Advertisements and signs will only be permitted where they are not harmful to local amenity or road safety.

POLICY NOTES


* The application is for the construction of a non-illuminated free-standing 4 metre high pole sign advertising the Somerfields store on land adjacent to the main site. The land to which the application relates lies within the Thetford Conservation Area, and is in close proximity to a number of listed buildings. The only matters for consideration relate to the sign's impact on the visual amenities of the area and highway safety. * The Council's Historic Buildings Officer raises objection to the scheme on the basis that the sign would be within a prominent position when viewed from the footpath link between the Priory and the remaining historic core of the town. Whilst it is acknowledged that the visual quality of this link has been diluted by poor quality development in the past, it is considered that the introduction of signage in this location would further erode the visual amenities of the area. * Furthermore, the sign would be situated on land outside the main part of the site in a detached location from the development to which it relates. * The Highways Authority does not raise objection to the scheme. * Therefore, the application is considered contrary to Policy ENV.34 of the Breckland Local Plan and recommended for refusal.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 62


Refusal of Consent to Display Advertisements RECOMMENDATION:

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Against Policy ENV.34 Unacceptable advertisement board Unacceptable advert

9900 9420 9425

DC131 63


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1582/F

Full

Erection of single storey dwelling

Market Place Burnham Market Harry Sankey Design

Pond House Gormans Lane Mr M R Boyce

Gormans Lane Pond House COLKIRK


KEY ISSUES * In Settlement Boundary but Failure to Enhance Form and Character.

Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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.

POLICY NOTES


CLERK TO COLKIRK P C Objection In response to the above planning application, Colkirk Parish Council strongly object to the erection of a single storey dwelling between the garage of Pond House and The Dibblers. The main reason for our objection is that the Planning Authority refused a previous application (3PL/2005/1023/F) on 5th September on the same site on the grounds that the proposal did not accord with Policy HOU.4. It is the opinion of the Colkirk Parish Council that whilst this latest application shows the proposed dwelling has been moved away from the neighbouring property by some 1.5m it is still a small bungalow set between two substantial properties and will not enhance the form, character and setting of this part of the village. We are still concerned about the creation of a new vehicular access close to the potentially dangerous junction at Gormans lane, Church Road, The Parish Hall and the grain store. This access would also be directly opposite the driveway of No 2 Gormans Lane. The impact such a dwelling will have on the privacy of the residents of the neighbouring property is also a concern.

DC131 64


* Members may recall refusing a similar application for a single storey dwelling on this site, at their meeting held on 5th September 2005. * That proposal was considered to be contrary to Policy HOU.4 due to its failure to enhance the form and character of the area. The site was considered to be too small and out of keeping with the more spacious nature of development evident on this western edge of Colkirk. * This proposal is for the same style and size of dwelling set at the same depth within the plot. The only change proposed is that of the widening of the site by 1m and setting the dwelling 1.5mfurther to the south of the neighbouring house. * Given the minor nature of these changes it is considered that the proposal remains contrary to Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan and should be refused on the same grounds aspreviously cited.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P. - (September 1999) Policy HOU.4 Failure to enhance form, character and setting Cramped development

9012 9014 9240

DC131 65


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1589/O

Outline

Erection of one dwelling

The Bungalow Church Road Mr R Gorrell

The Bungalow Church Road Mr R Gorrell

Chapel Road LONGHAM


KEY ISSUES * Outside Settlement Boundary, Intrusive Development in Open Countryside

Policies ENV.3 and HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) and Policy PPS 7 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. 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2002/1148/O Erection of one dwelling Refused 24th September 2002 3PL/2000/0476 Erection of house Refused 22nd May 2000 3PL/1993/0252 One cottage style dwelling with garage Refused 16th February 1994 Dismissedon appeal by Secretary of State



Letter(s) of SUPPORT

CLERK TO LONGHAM P C Objection:- Outside the building guidelines, very small plot, poor access, outside village settlement boundary.

* This outline application seeks approval for the erection of one dwelling on 0.1 hectare of untended, undulating, open land on the northern edge of the village.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 66


* It is fenced off from a large field to the north; to the south is a dwelling, "Brook House", which is within the Settlement Boundary of the village. * The site is described by the applicant as "Redundant Garden Area". * The site has been the subject of three previous refusals for residential development since 1993.* The Parish Council object to the scheme. * Three letters of representation have been received, one in favour of the proposals on the grounds of visual enhancement, and two households have objected citing policy, highway safety and loss of boundary planting. * County Highways raise no objection to the scheme. * A response is awaited from Norfolk Wildlife Trust. * The Council's Contaminated Land Officer has recommended a detailed site investigation to establish whether the land is contaminated. * The application site lies outside the Settlement Boundary for Longham. It is considered that theproposal would result in an unwarranted intrusion into the surrounding countryside. Planning permission has also been refused for residential development on land immediately to the north ofthe site on a number of occasions. The edge of the village at this point is well defined by existingfencing and hedging along the southern boundary of the application site. * It has been said the site is garden land, part of the curtilage to Brook House, formerly Bushy Lodge. Brook House was the subject of a permission given prior to the adoption of the Local Plan. The applicant has not submitted the application on the basis of personal needs or agricultural or any other justification. It is considered that no overriding reason has been given tojustify a departure from normal policy considerations. If allowed, it would undermine the Council's ability to control development in the countryside. The cumulative effect of similar proposals could lead to a consolidation of existing scattered development, to the detriment of theappearance of the area. * The application is recommended for refusal on the following grounds.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. - ENV.3 - Protected for its own sake Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. Unwarranted intrusion in rural setting Setting a precedent

9110 9042 9044 9046 9150 9300

DC131 67


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1594/O

Outline

Erection of detached dwelling together with associated garage, driveway and landscaping

3 Tove Lane Towcester Mr Ivan Garrod

3 Tove Lane Towcester Mr Ivan Garrod

Dereham Road Field Number 8957 GARVESTONE


KEY ISSUES * Residential Development Outside the Settlement Boundary.

Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan is 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.

POLICY NOTES


CLERK TO GARVESTONE P C Comments:- In order to facilitate acquisition of new village hall and associated facilities we support this application with the following conditions:- "As outside the Settlement Boundary only one property on site" "Dwelling should be nearer to existing site entrance" "Suggest early archaeology inspection of site".

* This is an outline planning application for the erection of one detached dwelling, garage, drive and landscaping. All matters including design are reserved. * The site measures 0.1 hectares in area and currently forms part of a meadow set outside the defined Settlement Boundary for Garvestone. * The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal but requires foul and surface water details by condition. * The Environment Agency raise no objection to this proposal. * The Highway Authority do not raise objection.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 68


* Five letters of objection have been received objecting on grounds that the application site is outside the Settlement Boundary, no local need, setting of precedent, adverse impact on the environment, poor drainage, concerns raised regarding the interdependence of this application with that of the proposed playing field extension, loss of open views and poor site access. * Policy HOU.6 of the adopted Breckland Local Plan states that outside Settlement Boundaries permission for new residential development will not be permitted unless it is essential to the operation of agriculture, forestry, organised recreation or tourist facilities. * The applicant has suggested that evidence exists of a previous dwelling on the land but this is not clear from a visual assessment of the site and in any event is irrelevant when considered against the adopted policy. * Although other dwellings exist on the opposite side of the highway the application site itself would be viewed as distinctly separate from the existing built form of the village. Open land would remain either side of the dwelling and the development would appear isolated as a result. * In conclusion this is an inappropriate location for a new dwelling and is contrary to Policy HOU.6. The application is recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc.

9042 9044 9046

DC131 69


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1609/F

Full

Sub division of curtilage & erection of one dwelling

3 Sunny Grove Costessey Stephen Moore

The Beeches Common Road Mrs E Tilbrook

Common Road The Beeches EAST TUDDENHAM


KEY ISSUES * Site Outside Settlement Boundary.

Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan is 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2003/1079/F – Application for dwelling refused on grounds that the site was outside the defined Settlement Boundary for East Tuddenham.


CLERK TO EAST TUDDENHAM P C Support: See letter received 18th November 2005.

* This is an application for full planning permission for the erection of a large family sized dwelling. * The site is located outside the Settlement Boundary for East Tuddenham and forms part of the side garden to a detached property known as ‘The Beeches’. * The site measures 1 hectare in area and is characterised by the existence of a large number ofmature trees. The applicant has indicated that no trees would be removed. * The Highway Authority have not raised objection to the proposal. * Policy HOU.6 of the adopted Breckland Local Plan states that outside Settlement Boundaries residential development should be restricted to dwellings occupied in connection with agriculture,forestry, recreation or tourist facilities. * No justification showing compliance with Policy HOU.6 has been submitted with the application.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 70


* The site, due to the large variety of mature trees and shrubs on the site, makes a significant contribution to the street scene in this part of East Tuddenham. Development as proposed is considered to harm this existing strong character. * The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HOU.6 and is recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement No evidence that cannot be met in settlement

9042 9044 9048

DC131 71


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1612/F

Full

New single storey dwelling with garage

30 Market Place Dereham Abbotts Land & New Homes

c/o agent Mrs L Milne

Toftwood 15 Brook Grove DEREHAM


KEY ISSUES * Site Layout, Access.

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

POLICY NOTES

CLERK TO DEREHAM T C Objection: Councillors objected due to there being poor access, over development of the site and backland development.

* This is a full application for the erection of a detached single storey dwelling in the rear/side garden to an existing bungalow. The site measures 0.045 hectares in area. * The site forms part of a corner plot within a cul-de-sac characterised by a mix of semi-detachedand detached bungalows. Access to the application site is via the vehicular access serving the existing bungalow. * The Highway Authority have not raised objection to the application. * This application should be considered in relation to Policy HOU.2 of the adopted Local Plan. This requires that new residential development should not significantly adversely affect existing character, has satisfactory access and is of a scale, density and layout appropriate to its locality. * Although space exists within the site to accommodate a new dwelling the proposed access arrangement is extremely cramped, necessitating both the existing and proposed dwelling sharing the same access drive. An existing single garage will be demolished to facilitate access.* The proximity of the drive to the existing bungalow is likely to cause adverse impact in terms of vehicular and pedestrian movements. There would be practical difficulties in accessing the site due to the restricted access width proposed, particularly for delivery vans or larger vehicles.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 73


* In conclusion the existing layout does not enable a suitable access to be made to the application site and development would result in a layout which is inappropriate and cramped in this location. * The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HOU.2 and is recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.2 Unacceptable backland development

9900 9320

DC131 74


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1615/F

Full

Erection of conservatory

Saxon House The Street Woods Design

Littlemoor Farm The Moor Mr & Mrs P Woolerton

The Moor Littlemoor Farm BANHAM


KEY ISSUES * Relationship of Extension to Dwelling in terms of Size, Scale and Design

Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria.

POLICY NOTES

CLERK TO BANHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* The application relates to the erection of a white UPVC conservatory on a brick base to the sideand rear of a traditional red brick farmhouse in a rural setting at The Moor, Banham. * The frontage is relatively open with a low brick and flint wall to the highway boundary directly in front of the dwelling and new 2 metre high close boarded fencing to the side garden. * The hipped roof conservatory runs flush with the front face of the dwelling, to a width of 4.7 metres, wrapping around the existing dwelling to the rear, to a depth of 7.6 metres. * The proposed conservatory is considered to be out of scale with the existing farm house in terms of its bulk, design and setting and would be likely to detract from the appearance of this attractive building. * The application is recommended for refusal as being contrary to Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.17 9900

DC131 75


Incompatible design of extension 9370

DC131 76


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1623/O

Outline

Erection of two dwellings

Elizabeth House Walpole Loke Breckland Council

Elizabeth House Walpole Loke Breckland Council

Sandringham Way Land between 44 and 46 SWAFFHAM


KEY ISSUES * Density/Layout of development appropriate to its surroundings/context. * Maintenance of amenity of adjacent households/locality. * Satisfactory access/parking, including provision of cycleways/footpaths. * Setting of the town-landscape considerations.

Policies HOU.2, ENV.28, TRA.5, ENV.20 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- 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. ENV.20 Trees that contribute to the character and appearance of the locality will be protected from development. PPG3 para 58 - efficient use of land - density guidance (as amended). Circular 01/05 - The Town and Country Planning (residential density) direction 2005 (london, SE England, SW England, East of England and Northamptonshire) (sites > 1ha or <30 dwellings/ha).

POLICY NOTES

* 86/0365 - permitted 11th July 1986 - Erection of dwellings, Swans Nest/Sandringham Way. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CLERK TO SWAFFHAM TOWN COUNCIL No objection

DC131 77


* This outline application relates to the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings on land between 44 and 46 Sandringham Way. Both 44 and 46 are bungalows. One tree is to be removed. * The site was designated as an area for future road construction to the field to the south, as partof an earlier planning permission (our ref. 3/86/0365) granted in July 1986. The southern edge of the site is contiguous with the settlement edge for the southern part of Swaffham. North of thesite, on the opposite side of Sandringham Way, is a public footpath through the estate. * The site itself is flat and is bounded by timber fencing along the flank boundaries. The boundary to the open countryside to the south is marked by the remains of a hedge. * Provision has been made within the site for the maintenance of the existing pedestrian accesses to Nos 42 and 48 Sandringham Way. * Norfolk County Council's Highway Engineer does not wish to raise any objection to the proposals. * The scheme is considered satisfactory in terms of density and layout given that the surroundingestate is a mixture of single storey and two storey units, and the advice given in PPG3 regarding density. * The flank elevations of both dwellings could be left blank to maintain the amenity of neighbouring households. * The existing hedgerow along the southern edge of the site is overgrown and could be replantedas part of a landscaping scheme. * The proposals are satisfactory. The application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

Outline Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

CONDITIONS: Outline Time Limit (3 years) In accordance with submitted plans Standard Outline Condition Standard outline landscaping condition Boundary screening to be agreed No additional windows at first floor NOTE: re. land ownership rights NOTE: Reasons for Approval

3005 3046 3058 3060 3402 3212 3990 3998

DC131 78


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1624/O

Outline

Erection of cottage style farm workers dwelling adjacent to livestock unit

Abbotts Farm Mill Road R J Smith

Abbotts Farm Mill Road R J Smith

Mill Road Abbotts Farm NORTH TUDDENHAM


KEY ISSUES * Outside Settlement Boundary, No Agricultural Justification

Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/1999/0798 - Planning Permission - Agricultural Worker's DwellingRELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CLERK TO NORTH TUDDENHAM PC The supporting information which has been submitted with the above mentioned planning application is known by the Parish Council to be six years out of date. (This is confirmed by the date, August 1999, on page 14 of the ADAS report enclosed with the application). The Parish Council is unable to discuss the application or to make a decision until this information is either updated or replaced. Perhaps you would forward the updated information to us when it becomes available, at which point we will be able to comment on the application.

* This outline application proposes the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling on land forming part of this 80ha agricultural holding at North Tuddenham. * The 0.9ha site, which lies outside the Settlement Boundary, forms part of an existing field immediately adjacent to the principal buildings and yard at Abbotts Farm. * The case put forward by the applicant in support of his proposal was originally prepared by ADAS in August 1999 in connection with the then current application for an agricultural dwelling. That proposal was approved and the two storey dwelling subsequently built and occupied.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 79


* Whilst some minor changes have been made to the report in terms of increased milk yields andnumbers of livestock, the needs of the holding in respect of a further dwelling have not been addressed. * The application is recommended for refusal on the basis of lack of agricultural need.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P. (Sept 1999) Policy HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Insufficient agricultural need Agricultural enterprise already served

9062 9063 9064 9068

DC131 80


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1626/F

Full

Erection of 4 dwellings

7a Oak Street Fakenham Martin Hall Associates Ltd

28 Batterby Green Hempton Mr A Furnell

Dereham Road Land at White House COLKIRK


KEY ISSUES * Failure to Enhance.

Policies HOU.4 and ENV.28 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.28 - Amenity will be protected.

POLICY NOTES

3/97/0979 - Planning Permission - Erection of cottage and garage. 3PL/2002/0320 - Renewal of Planning Permission - Erection of cottage and garage. 3PL/2004/1780 - Planning Permission - Erection of 2 new houses and garages. 3PL/2005/0317 - Outline Planning Permission - Erection of 2 semi detached houses (to replace approved single house).


CLERK TO COLKIRK P C Objection: See letter received 22nd November 2005.

* This application proposes the erection of 2 pairs of semi detached dwellings on a vacant plot set between a 1½ storey cottage and a bungalow at Dereham Road, Colkirk. The site lies within the Settlement Boundary for the village. * The history of the site indicates extant permission for a pair of semi detached houses (outline) towards the site frontage and one 2 storey cottage and double garage to the rear. One double

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 81


garage is approved for the frontage units. * This proposal for two pairs of semi detached dwellings of 9m each to the ridge also includes one parking space and a 6 car ‘cartshed’ adjacent to the rear garden of Holly Cottage (east) and a double garage 1½m from the side boundary of the bungalow (west). Both units are indicated to be 3m off the boundary of this dwelling which only benefits from a small rear garden. * The application is recommended for refusal on the basis of the overbearing impact of the buildings on this latter property’s amenity, the potential overlooking of its rear garden and likely noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the proposed and existing dwellings by virtue of vehiclemovements within the site. * The large expanse of hardsurfacing forming the drive and parking areas is also considered to be contrary to Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan due to its failure to enhance the form and character of the area.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P. - (September 1999) Policy HOU.4 Failure to enhance form, character and setting D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.28 Out of keeping and impact on amenity

9012 9014 9900 9016

DC131 82


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1632/CU

Change of Use

Change of use from light commercial storage to sui generis to allow trade & retail sales of bathrooms

Anglia Bathroom Centre Ltd Wood Farm Mr C Hawes

Anglia Bathroom Centre Ltd Wood Farm Mr C Hawes

Deopham Road Wood Farm ATTLEBOROUGH


KEY ISSUES * Use of Building, Highway Safety, Amenity.

Policies SHO.4, SHO.6, TRA.5, ENV.3 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. SHO.4 - Retail provision for local needs, including village shops, may be permitted subject to criteria. SHO.6 - Wholesale warehouses and workshops (which include a retail element) may be permitted on proposed employment areas subject to criteria. 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.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2005/0266/CU - Change of use of building from agricultural use to light commercial storage -Approved.


CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* The proposal seeks to retain the use of a light industrial unit with permission for B1/B8 use, to sui generis use to allow for the storage, retail and trade sales of bathroom equipment. The

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 84


applicant has indicated that the building would comprise of a warehouse area, a showroom and aretail sales area. * The unit lies outside any designated Settlement Boundary. Although Policy SHO.6 relates primarily to retail sales being undertaken from employment areas, given that the items being soldwould be compatible with uses within town centres, the proposal is considered unacceptable. Furthermore, out of town retail developments such as that proposed would conflict with the principles of PPG 6. * Policy SHO.4 permits small scale shopping facilities in villages where there is a proven local need. In this case, given the relatively remote location of the business, and in particular the ‘retail’ element of the business, it is considered that it would be more sustainable for the sales element of such a business to be located within the nearby town. * Given that the building already exists, it is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape. * No objections have been raised by the Highway Engineer in respect of the impact of the proposal on highway safety. * Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal, and a request for enforcement action sought.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy SHO.4 D.W.L.P. Policy SHO.6 Detriment to vitality of town centre NOTE - Enforcement Notice Authorisation requested

9900 9900 9900 9800

DC131 85


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1637/F

Full

Construction of terrace of five, 2 and 3 bed cottages and parking spaces

Pegasus House Chapel Street Hayes New Homes Ltd

Pegasus House Chapel Street Hayes New Homes Ltd

Rocklands Road Morgans Cottages SHROPHAM


KEY ISSUES * Outside Settlement Boundary, No Affordable Housing Provision.

Policies HOU.6 and HOU.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan 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. HOU.13 Affordable Housing will be sought as part of new housing development.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2004/1510/F – Terrace of four bed houses – approved by Committee 18th October, 2005.RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CLERK TO SHROPHAM P C Comments Not happy it is five buildings rather than four as these type of dwellings are not appropriate in a village with no amenities.

• This proposal is a full planning application for the erection of a terrace of five two storey dwellings, two 3 bedroom, three two bedroom dwellings. • The site is located to the east of Shropham Road adjoining the village hall and bowling green. A residential property – ‘Land House’ is sited to the north. The site is located outside the defined Settlement Boundary for Shropham. • The Highway Authority, whilst not objecting to the principle of the scheme, have suggested that the access drive into the site should be widened. • Policy HOU.6 of the adopted Breckland District Local Plan specifically refers to land outside Settlement Boundaries. It states that new residential development will only be permitted if it is

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 86


connected with agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourist facilities. • The applicant has suggested that the development provides starter homes for Shropham at the lower end of the market place. This is not considered justification for allowing development outside the Settlement Boundary. • It is also the requirement of the Council's adopted policy for affordable housing that developments of five or more dwellings should include a proportion of affordable housing. No provision for affordable housing has been included with the application. * The application therefore fails to meet adopted policy on two grounds – the site is outside the Settlement Boundary and no affordable units are provided as part of the scheme. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.13 No provision for affordable housing

9042 9044 9046 9900 9900

DC131 87


RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL 26 ITEM

3PL/2005/1643/F REF NO:

TWYFORD Full APPN TYPE: LOCATION: Barn at Chop Lodge Farm Out Settlemnt Bndry POLICY:

No Allocation ALLOCATION:

N CONS AREA:Mr Caruth and Ms Sewell APPLICANT: Chop Lodge Farm Twyford N TPO:

N LB GRADE: Mr B A Fuller AGENT: 2 Aldwick Road Wymondham

Conversion of barn to residential dwelling PROPOSAL:

KEY ISSUES * Building not capable of the conversion proposed without major re-construction.

Policy HOU.11 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. HOU.11 - The conversion of rural buildings to residential use will be permitted subject to criteria.

POLICY NOTES

CHAIRMAN TO TWYFORD P C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* This application seeks the residential conversion of a former grain store and stable set within Chop Lodge Farm, Twyford. * The building comprises a 2 storey element which has open ground floor with brick and flint walls forming the sides and rear and first floor of timber stud and weather board. The roof is cladwith slates. Adjoining this structure and linked to it by a stone staircase is the single storey stable, having masonry walls and a corrugated asbestos and slate roof. * Whilst the application details include a structural survey, it is considered that given the new openings proposed, and the uncertainty of the roofing and stud timberwork that the conversion works would be so significant that little of the original building would remain. As such the proposal is recommended for refusal being contrary to Policy HOU.11 of the Breckland District Local Plan, which requires such buildings to be capable of conversion without major reconstruction. * Although the Highways Authority has recommended refusal to the application due to inadequate levels of visibility being available at the site access, it should be noted that the accesscurrently serves the parent dwelling and farm holding and therefore its use for an additional dwelling should not cause demonstrable harm.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 88



REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.11 Proposed conversion tantamount to reconstruction

9900 9900

DC131 89


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

Adjacent Grade 2

Y

3PL/2005/1647/F

Full

Replace Velux windows with dormers

9 Park View Weeting K Swierdzewski

Wyndham Lodge The Street Mr and Mrs Jones

The Street Wyndham Lodge CROXTON


KEY ISSUES * Impact on Neighbouring Properties.

Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 - Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2002/1644/F - Sun Lounge Extension and Side Window - Approved. 3PL/1998/0584/F - Erection of Bungalow and Garage - Approved. 3PL/1988/2033/O - Erection of Dwelling - Approved. 3PL/1988/1309/O - Erection of Dwelling - Refused.


CLERK TO CROXTON P C No Objection.

* This application seeks to construct four new dormer windows to replace four rooflight windows on the front and rear elevations of a dwelling situated on a backland plot. The new windows would serve bedrooms as well as a landing within the roof space of the property. * Notwithstanding the fact that no objections have been raised by the owners of the adjoining properties at the time of writing this report, it is considered that the positioning and size of the dormer windows would result in significantly increased overlooking to adjacent properties, resulting in a loss of privacy. * Furthermore, the dormer windows are also considered unacceptable in terms of their scale. In particular, the dormer window over the garage would result in the garage block no longer appearing subservient to the main house. * The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy HOU.17 of the Local Plan, and

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 90


recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Non-std residential amenities reason for refusal Adverse effect on amenities

9335 9330

DC131 91


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

In Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1650/F

Full

Erection of 1st floor extension to side

Bramble Lodge Brick Kiln Road Stephen A.C.Bush

19 Farrow Close Swanton Morley Mr and Mrs N Doye

19 Farrow Close SWANTON MORLEY


KEY ISSUES * Loss of Amenity.

Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria.

POLICY NOTES


CLERK TO SWANTON MORLEY PC NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* This application proposes a first floor extension over the existing pitched roof garage and flat roof utility room, to provide an additional bedroom and study. * The addition, which will have an eight metre wide, almost full height gable, will be less than onemetre from the boundary and eight metres from the neighbouring house which lies to the north east. * One letter has been received from the neighbouring occupier, raising concerns in respect of loss of sunlight and the overbearing effect of the addition. * Given the close relationship between both dwellings, it is considered that these concerns are justified and that the extension as proposed will appear overbearing whilst also resulting in the overshadowing of the neighbours' principal amenity garden area. * The application is recommended for refusal being contrary to the provisions of Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

ASSESSMENT NOTES


DC131 92


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.17 Unacceptable loss of amenity

9900 9900

DC131 93


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1662/CU

Change of Use

Change of use of one holiday chalet to managers accommodation

Swanton Lodge Bylaugh Park Mrs J Peters

Swanton Lodge Bylaugh Park Mrs J Peters

Bylaugh Park 4 Swanton Lodge Cottages BYLAUGH


KEY ISSUES * Transfer of occupancy - creates new dwelling in countryside.

Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is 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.

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2003/0725/F Planning permission - Relocation of access road. 3PL/2003/1370/F Planning permission - Erection of a single storey building to use as two holidaychalets. 3PL/2005/0798/F Planning permission - Erection of two single storey holiday cottages.


CLERK TO BYLAUGH P C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* This application seeks to change the use of a recently constructed holiday chalet to a manager's dwelling. * The chalet, which is one of a pair of semi-detached units approved earlier this year, forms part of a small complex of four holiday cottages currently managed from Swanton Lodge, approximately 50 metres to the south west. Being located outside the Settlement Boundary these units were approved under Policy TOR.8 of the Breckland District Local Plan. * Due to unforeseen circumstances the applicant now wishes to sell Swanton Lodge and part of the 1.3 hectare site and relocate to one of the holiday cottages. * Such action would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 94


* The application is recommended for refusal, as an approval would be contrary to Policy HOU.6.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. Despite personal circumstances Contrary to Policy HOU.6

9042 9044 9046 9310 9900

DC131 95


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1675/F

Full

Proposed conversion of existing barn to 2 no. holiday lets and garage

Ashlee Methwold Road Broadacre Associates

Pedlars Home Stables Norwich Road Miss Pam Brackley

Norwich Road Pedlars Home Stables SWAFFHAM


KEY ISSUES * Business Use Not Considered.

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

POLICY NOTES

3PL/2005/1240/F – Application to convert the stables to two dwellings Refused by Committee 26th September, 2005.


CLERK TO SWAFFHAM TOWN COUNCIL No objection

CLERK TO SPORLE P C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

• This application proposes the conversion of an existing stable block to a pair of holiday units forlet. A double garage also forms part of the scheme. • The property is located in a relatively isolated location some 2 km east of Swaffham. The site islocated well outside the recognised Settlement Boundary. • The stables consist of a large 'L' shaped building set 25 metres east of the existing dwelling, beyond a 2.0 metre high brick wall. The stables benefit from a separate access into the site. • The Highway Authority have not raised objection. • Policy TOR.6 of the adopted Breckland Local Plan states that proposals to convert rural

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 96


buildings to tourist accommodation will only be permitted where the applicant has made every attempt to secure a suitable business re-use or the conversion forms a subordinate part of a scheme for business re-use. • The applicant has not demonstrated in a satisfactory manner that the site has been advertised for alternative business uses. This would normally be demonstrated through a rigorous marketing campaign aimed at such re-use. • As no such attempt has been made in this instance and given the detached nature of the site would readily accommodate an alternative business use, the application is contrary to Policy TOR.6 and is recommended for refusal.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. Policy TOR.6 No alternative business use sought

9900 9900

DC131 97


LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/1677/O

Outline

Removal of "Atcost" barn and replace with 1 two storey dwelling

Abbey Farm Herne Lane Mr & Mrs O Taylor-Roberts

Abbey Farm Herne Lane Mr & Mrs O Taylor-Roberts

Herne Lane Abbey Farm SHIPDHAM


KEY ISSUES * Highway Safety, Impact on Landscape, Outside Settlement Boundary.

Policies ENV.3, HOU.6, TRA.5 and TRA.6 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. 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. 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. TRA.6 Development with direct access to a corridor of movement will not be permitted.

POLICY NOTES

CLERK TO SHIPDHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT 24TH NOVEMBER 2005.

* This application seeks outline approval for a two storey dwelling at Abbey Farm, Herne Lane, Shipdham. The existing Atcost barn would be demolished. All matters are reserved. * The site is located in gently sloping open countryside about 570 metres south of Dereham. * The site lies on the southern side of the lane, approximately 520 metres west of the A1075 Dereham - Thetford Road. Herne Lane is a gravelled private access drive and public footpath, some 3.8 metres wide. The lane widens close to the junction with the A1075, with occasional passing places. The lane serves the existing dwelling at Abbey Farm and other dwellings to the west and east of the application site. * The Highway Authority object to the proposals in principle, given the designation of the

ASSESSMENT NOTES

DC131 98


Dereham Road as a corrdior of movement and also because of the net increase in vehicle movements where visibility at the junction with Herne Lane is severely substandard. * No agricultural justification has been provided in support of the proposal as required by Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan; it is not considered that the development would resultin any environmental gain. The barn is used for storage, it is of a modern, functional design and is in good order. The site is open to view; it is considered that the construction of another dwelling within this setting would have an adverse impact on the landscape. The development, ifpermitted, would consolidate the existing sporadic development. * In the light of the above, and the comments given by the Highway Authority, the application is recommended for refusal on the following grounds.


REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: D.W.L.P. - ENV.3 - Protected for its own sake Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. No evidence that cannot be met in settlement Further consolidation of sporadic development Intensification of interference to classified highway Inadequate visibility splays

9110 9042 9044 9046 9048 9140 9455 9455

DC131 99

28 NOV 2005 Date of List -

BRECKLAND COUNCILDEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

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

Permission

3PL/2005/1121/F Mr and Mrs Barnes Erection of replacement garage with ancillary accommodation at first floor level

East View CottageGARVESTONE

Silver Street

3PL/2005/1180/F Mr D J Brock Erection of 2 no. 2 storey dwellings

Land adjacent to Ashes FarmNORTH LOPHAM

The Green

3PL/2005/1189/D R Mitchell Erection of dwelling and garage on site of joinery workshop

HaresfootCARBROOKE

Drury Lane

3PL/2005/1225/F R S Baker & Son Ltd Conversion of barns into five new units suitable for holiday purposes with access to shared leisure facilities

Three Bridges FarmELSING

3PL/2005/1246/F Mr & Mrs S Green Proposed house and garage

105 Dereham RoadMATTISHALL

Goymour Properties Ltd 3PL/2005/1256/F Extension of existing caravan park for 49 pitches

The RallyfieldBANHAM

Banham Zoo

The Lord Walsingham 1992 3PL/2005/1279/F Two storey extension, drive and garages

Belhams Butters Hall Cottage

THOMPSON

Butters Hall Lane

John Investments Ltd 3PL/2005/1298/F Erection of double garage

Plots 42/43WATTON

Thetford Road

DC135 100




Permission

3PL/2005/1318/O Exors of the Late A J Pratt Residential development

Church RoadELSING

Mr M Ready 3PL/2005/1325/F Conversion of property to 2 dwellings (change of use ref 3PL/2002/1126/CU)

2a Ash CloseSWAFFHAM

E G H Parsons 3PL/2005/1330/F Conversion of existing dwelling into 2, demolition of outbuilding and erection of 3 dwellings and garages

The Old GrapesATTLEBOROUGH

High Street

Mr & Mrs T Sumners 3PL/2005/1332/F Single storey extension to side/rear of house to form utility room, lobby, toilet & shower room

3 The WatlingsSCARNING

Mrs S Lake 3PL/2005/1334/F Conversion to dwelling and new double garage

Top BarnHARLING

Telegraph Hill

Mr & Mrs Hajee 3PL/2005/1348/F Alterations and extensions including front lobby and rear conservatory

73 Moorgate RoadDEREHAM

Richard Hines 3PL/2005/1352/F Erection of single storey shed

2 Council HouseROUDHAM/LARLING

Harling Road

Mr & Mrs P Dickson 3PL/2005/1357/F Extension to dwelling incorporating annex accommodation

The Old Sun InnOLD BUCKENHAM

Ragmere Road

DC135 101




Permission

3PL/2005/1358/F Mr & Mrs R Lond-Caulk Residential development for 3 detached houses with garages (re-design of appeal approval ref APP/F2605/A/04/1148854)

Former Peggs Transport Depot

CASTON

Dukes Lane

3PL/2005/1361/F Mr & Mrs Simmonds Single storey extensions & alterations to dwelling & conservatory

3 SouthparkWEETING

3PL/2005/1364/F Little Ouse Headwaters Demolition of existing timber footbridge over Little Ouse River and construction of new footbridge

Blo' Norton FenBLO' NORTON

Fen Road

Mr & Mrs P Skipper 3PL/2005/1374/F Proposed conversion of existing function room to en-suite bedrooms to let with assoc. office, laundry & store

Yaxham MillYAXHAM

Mr & Mrs M Kidd 3PL/2005/1375/F Erection of conservatory

Bell CottageMILEHAM

5 The Street

Mr Corley 3PL/2005/1381/O Proposed residential site

65 Leys LaneATTLEBOROUGH

Mr & Mrs Malt 3PL/2005/1383/F Proposed conservatory

Spring FarmHOE

Hall Road

Mr & Mrs Ingrams 3PL/2005/1386/F Restoration & modifications to Listed barn, conversion of adj steel barn to dwelling, conv. of cartshed to annexe & office

Old Hall FarmGREAT ELLINGHAM

DC135 102




Permission

3PL/2005/1388/F Mr S Barnetson Proposed alterations to premises to convert one flat into two

19/21 Norwich StreetDEREHAM

Mr & Mrs Hopcroft 3PL/2005/1390/F Proposed accommodation above converted garage

4a Larwood WaySHIPDHAM

J H Martin & Sons 3PL/2005/1391/F Erection of garage

5 Atling WayATTLEBOROUGH

Jamie Hewitt 3PL/2005/1395/F Conversion of 3 bedroom bungalow into a 3 bedroom 2 storey dwelling

HomefieldsDEREHAM

Cherry Drift

Mrs J Hucklesby 3PL/2005/1396/O Pair holiday cottages

Pear Tree FarmSAHAM TONEY

Long Road

David John Fordham 3PL/2005/1399/F Study extension to lounge

HazeltreesGUIST

Malthouse Lane

Mr & Mrs T Panter 3PL/2005/1400/F Conversion of barn to dwelling and new double garage

Cherry Tree BarnBESTHORPE

Cherry Tree Farm

Mr & Mrs T Benjamin 3PL/2005/1401/F Erection of fence (amendment to planning permission 3PL/2002/1725/F) Retrospective application

46 Teasel DriveTHETFORD

DC135 103




Permission

3PL/2005/1403/D Jon Holden Erection of 14 dwellings

Charlton CourtMILEHAM

Back Lane

Mr & Mrs Mellor 3PL/2005/1404/F New conservatory

108 Ollands RoadATTLEBOROUGH

Roger Bryn & Barbara Clarke3PL/2005/1405/F To divide the house into 2 flats and one house

Eversley HouseSWAFFHAM

8 Station Street

Superdrug Stores Plc 3PL/2005/1410/A Non illuminated shop sign

SaversDEREHAM

Unit 3/4 Wrights Walk

Mattishall Surgery 3PL/2005/1412/F Extension and alterations

Mattishall SurgeryMATTISHALL

15 Dereham Road

Mr & Mrs A L Lawrence 3PL/2005/1415/F Rear extension

PantilesSWANTON MORLEY

Norwich Road

Mr & Mrs Cresswell 3PL/2005/1416/F Side/rear extension

Hawthorn BarnBEESTON

Reed Lane

Mr & Mrs I Fletcher 3PL/2005/1417/F Extensions, demolition of garage & erection of new garage

4 St Edmunds RoadWEETING

DC135 104




Permission

3PL/2005/1418/F Mr & Mrs S Cattermole Demolition of outbuildings & erection of cottage style dwelling

Rear of Simon Cattermole Butchers

NEW BUCKENHAM

King Street

Mr & Mrs Barnett 3PL/2005/1423/F Erection of conservatory

4 Back LaneBEESTON

Mr & Mrs T Rushton 3PL/2005/1429/F Extension to dwelling

The GatehouseNARBOROUGH

Dennys Walk

Mr & Mrs T B Ashby 3PL/2005/1430/D Erection of dwelling and detached garage

Land adj to Oak ViewNORTH TUDDENHAM

Mill Road

Mr & Mrs D Perry 3PL/2005/1431/F Proposed shower room, study and hall

Kiln LodgeSOUTH LOPHAM

Brick Kiln Lane

Earl & Countess Cathcart 3PL/2005/1432/F Proposed alterations & improvements & formation of office on ground floor & ensuite to second floor

Gateley HallGATELEY

N Anderson Esq 3PL/2005/1436/F Extension

30 OaklandsSWAFFHAM

Mr & Mrs C Lodge 3PL/2005/1437/F Erection of conservatory

1 Yew Tree CourtHOCKERING

DC135 105




Permission

3PL/2005/1438/F Mr & Mrs C Simpson Proposed front porch extension

88 GreengateSWANTON MORLEY

3PL/2005/1439/F Mr C Harris Replacement windows

9 Middle StreetWATTON

3PL/2005/1443/F Mrs Aileen Richmond Shaw Ground floor disabled shower room extension

4 Chapel Hill CottagesNEW BUCKENHAM

3PL/2005/1446/F Mr & Mrs P Allwork Single storey pitched roof side extension

31 Primrose CloseTHETFORD

3PL/2005/1448/F Mr & Mrs W Cox Extensions to dwelling

Jasmin CottageCASTON

Stow Bedon Road

3PL/2005/1449/O Mr & Mrs E Williams Proposed residential dwelling

Site adjacent The RowansBRISLEY

School Road

3PL/2005/1454/F Elvin & Curtis Use garage for playroom and provide parking to rear of dwelling

Plot 4OLD BUCKENHAM

College Farm

3PL/2005/1455/F Mr & Mrs Perks Proposed alterations and extensions to bungalow

Meadow WayMATTISHALL

South Green

DC135 106




Permission

3PL/2005/1456/F Mr & Mrs J Gladd Conversion of one garage to bedroom

4 Merryweather RoadSWAFFHAM

3PL/2005/1462/F Mr M S Easton Construction of all weather equestrian menage

ShiaraimMATTISHALL

Mill Road

Royal Mail 3PL/2005/1463/F Attaching one external condenser to an outside wall below a set of stairs

Thetford Delivery OfficeTHETFORD

1 Market Place

Mr & Mrs. R. Kernan 3PL/2005/1464/F Alts & exts. to dwelling, demo of outbdg & erec. new garage & store & provision of grooming parlour and kennels

Silverstream KennelsHOCKHAM

Little Brick Kiln Farm

Mr D S Newson 3PL/2005/1466/F Front, flank and rear extensions

SwayslandGARVESTONE

Tanners Green

Mrs Patricia Rice 3PL/2005/1471/F Change of condition 4 on planning permission 3PL/1999/0680/CU - change of name

10 George Borrow RoadDEREHAM

Mr & Mrs S Suggitt 3PL/2005/1474/F Resubmission of previously approved extension for increase in size (rear extension)

2 The BungalowROUDHAM/LARLING

Roudham Road

Necton Rural Community 3PL/2005/1475/F Front extension to existing village hall, new meeting room, disabled toilet & baby changing room

Necton Rural Community Centre

NECTON

Tuns Road

DC135 107




Permission

3PL/2005/1476/F Mr & Mrs Maginniss Conservatory to rear

4 Rosa Vella DriveDEREHAM

3PL/2005/1482/F Mr & Mrs Beardon Erection of single bungalow on adjacent land

21 HighlandsTHETFORD

3PL/2005/1485/F Mr & Mrs J Ashworth New single storey rear extension

59 BrewstersHARLING

3PL/2005/1486/F Mr & Mrs N Bunton Erection of stable block, shed, dog kennel and run

Pixie PaddockATTLEBOROUGH

Leys Lane

3PL/2005/1487/F Mr & Mrs D Archibald Two storey rear extension

22-23 The LingGARBOLDISHAM

3PL/2005/1498/F Mr T McMichael & Mr S Parsl Extension to domestic outbuilding to create conservatory

River Bank HouseHARDINGHAM

Low Street

3PL/2005/1499/F Mr D Goldsmith Rear kitchen extension

ThistledewOLD BUCKENHAM

Fen Street

Walnut Farm Developments 3PL/2005/1501/F Proposed 2 new 3 bed bungalows and 2 single garages

Land south of Moorgate Cottages

DEREHAM

Southend

DC135 108




Permission

3PL/2005/1502/F Mr & Mrs Humphrey Proposed single storey extension and replacement porch

The BungalowBESTHORPE

Spronces Crossing

3PL/2005/1506/F Mr & Mrs J Duffield Conservatory

CymaraDEREHAM

South Green

Mr & Mrs R Parker 3PL/2005/1507/F Proposed erection of cottage style dwelling and garage

PettycurSWANTON MORLEY

Woodgate Lane

Mr & Mrs R Parker 3PL/2005/1508/F Alterations and extensions to bungalow

PettycurSWANTON MORLEY

Woodgate Lane

Mr & Mrs C Allhusen 3PL/2005/1510/F Demolition of C20 annexe, internal & minor external alterations, new porch extension

Bradenham HallBRADENHAM

Mr R Palmer 3PL/2005/1511/F Extend dwelling

21 Rectory LaneGREAT ELLINGHAM

Mrs E Davies 3PL/2005/1516/F Proposed conservatory to rear of dwelling

WoodpeckersYAXHAM

Well Hill

Mr & Mrs Coulthard 3PL/2005/1525/F Proposed alterations and additional windows, including 3 new dormer windows to front

Cherry Tree FarmLYNG

Primrose Green

DC135 109




Permission

3PL/2005/1528/F Mr D Lewitt Proposed single storey rear extension

SunningdaleGARBOLDISHAM

Smallworth

Mr & Mrs J Menzies 3PL/2005/1529/F Conservatory

7 Saxon MeadowsBAWDESWELL

Mr Wheeler Smith & Miss 3PL/2005/1536/F Erect a PVCu conservatory to rear of property

10 Victor Charles CloseWEETING

Mr M A Green 3PL/2005/1537/F Two storey extension

34 Fakenham RoadTITTLESHALL

Robert Paterson 3PL/2005/1542/F Clay lined lagoon to collect & store polluted livestock waste water prior to spreading on land

The GrangeSHIPDHAM

Mr & Mrs Green 3PL/2005/1543/F Conservatory

11 Cedar CloseNORTH ELMHAM

N Morley Ltd 3PL/2005/1545/F Extension to dwelling

Plot 2SAHAM TONEY

Martins Close

Mr M D Wilkins 3PL/2005/1552/F Rear single storey extension and attic accommodation

Prospect HouseGREAT ELLINGHAM

Long Street

DC135 110




Permission

3PL/2005/1553/F Mr & Mrs Boulton Conservatory

12 Burns CloseDEREHAM

3PL/2005/1555/F Mr & Mrs Burrell Conservatory to rear of property

37 Burgh LaneMATTISHALL

3PL/2005/1556/F Mr & Mrs P Blanshard Proposed new sun lounge to replace existing UPVC conservatory

2 Thynnes LaneMATTISHALL

3PL/2005/1561/F G Johnson Conversion of integral garage to residential annex & erection of lean to replacement garage

5 Sheppard WayATTLEBOROUGH

Mr S F & Mrs S McCarthy3PL/2005/1563/F Extension to bungalow

11 Saham RoadWATTON

Mr & Mrs C Whittle 3PL/2005/1564/F Pitch roof (pantile) replacing flat roof to existing garage

Lloyd CottageMATTISHALL

Church Plain

Mr Wilson 3PL/2005/1565/F Conservatory to rear

77 Burgh LaneMATTISHALL

F S Dann & Son Ltd 3PL/2005/1567/F Revised scheme of alterations and extensions (3PL/2005/0832/F)

Pound LodgeNORTH TUDDENHAM

Pound Farm

DC135 111




Permission

3PL/2005/1572/F Mr David Isbell Extension & alterations of existing dwelling and new double garage

Bury Hall CottagesHOLME HALE

Hale Road

Mr & Mrs E Gardiner 3PL/2005/1575/F Take down hedge and replace with close boarded 2m high wooden fence with concrete posts

17 Sunsalve RideDEREHAM

Mr & Mrs S K Pye 3PL/2005/1577/F Extension to side of dwelling

28 School RoadFOULDEN

Mr & Mrs Mitchell 3PL/2005/1199/LB Erection of timber conservatory

White HallSAHAM TONEY

Whitehall Lane

Mrs A Nubbert 3PL/2005/1345/LB Alterations, convert bed 3 to bathroom, convert existing bathroom to utility, demolish internal walls, infill porch

14 The CrescentHARLING

Lopham Road

James Higgins 3PL/2005/1362/LB Removal of existing flint dressing to front elevation and rebuild

15 Melford CommonTHETFORD

Mr T Fenge 3PL/2005/1363/LB Addition of two new conservation type velux windows to roof space

Tao BarnTHOMPSON

Marlpit Road

Mr & Mrs Ingrams 3PL/2005/1387/LB Restoration & modifications to Listed barn, conversion of adj steel barn to dwelling, conv. of cartshed to annexe & office

Old Hall FarmGREAT ELLINGHAM

DC135 112




Permission

3PL/2005/1406/LB Roger Bryn & Barbara Clarke Divide house into three units, alteration to internal walls & doorways, put solid roof on extg glasshouse conservatory

Eversley HouseSWAFFHAM

8 Station Street

3PL/2005/1420/CU Victor Manuel Pinto Silva Change of use to tattoo parlour

95 Market PlaceSWAFFHAM

Mr Malcolm & Ralph Cross3PL/2005/1434/CU Change of use from store to store and sales

7 Cley RoadSWAFFHAM

Mrs A Richmond Shaw 3PL/2005/1444/LB Proposed ground floor disabled shower room extension to rear of house

4 Chapel Hill CottagesNEW BUCKENHAM

Mr & Mrs G Jones 3PL/2005/1465/CU Change of use from holiday cottages to residential (annexe to principal dwelling)

Wittle CourtQUIDENHAM

Hugh C Hamilton 3PL/2005/1504/LB Proposed painting of shopfront from green to maroon colour (BS04045), 2 windows & door tobe repainted white

9a Dereham RoadMATTISHALL

Mr & Mrs C Allhusen 3PL/2005/1509/LB Demolition of 20th century annexe, internal & minor alterations, new porch extension

Bradenham HallBRADENHAM

Mr. D. Hinks 3PL/2005/1512/LB Replace entrance door, works to provide disabled access

1 Plowright PlaceSWAFFHAM

DC135 113




Permission

3PL/2005/1531/LB Barry & Marion Trainor To paint back of house (colour - stone)

2 The CottagesTHETFORD

Nunnery Place

R A & P J Logan 3PL/2005/1566/LB Erection of conservatory (renewal)

Church FarmhouseGARVESTONE

Reymerston

Temporary Permission

M J & J A Easey 3PL/2005/1460/F 4 residential caravans for farm staff (renewal)

Evergreen FarmSWAFFHAM

South Pickenham Road

DC135 114

agenda - brecklanddemocracy.breckland.gov.uk/data/development control committee... · agenda note:...

Documents