Public Document Pack

AGENDA

NOTE

WARD REPRESENTATIVES WISHING TO SPEAK ON A PARTICULAR APPLICATION ARE ASKED TO INFORM THE PLANNING USHER AT planningusher@.gov.uk BY WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2020

Committee - PLANNING COMMITTEE Date & Time - MONDAY, 22ND JUNE, 2020 AT 1.00 pm

THIS MEETING WILL BE STREAMED LIVE VIA THE LINK BELOW AND WILL BE ACTIVATED AT THE START OF THE MEETING

https://www.breckland.gov.uk/virtual-committee-meetings

THIS MEETING IS IN LINE WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE AND CRIME PANELS (CORONAVIRUS) (FLEXIBILITY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY AND POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETINGS) ( AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2020

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/392/contents/made

THE ORDER OF THE MEETING WILL NOT VARY. TO REDUCE WAITING TIMES EACH APPLICATION WILL BE HEARD AT AN ALLOTTED TIME (PLEASE SEE TIME SLOTS BELOW)

VOTING:

If the first vote is lost in considering an application, a new proposal will be requested (eg a vote for approval, if lost, does not automatically mean “refused”). On a tied vote, the Chairman has a casting vote, if he/she wishes to use it. It is necessary for summary reasons for approvals or refusals to be identified in each case.

Democratic Services Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, , NR19 1EE Date: Thursday, 11 June 2020

Please note that some applications may overrun the allotted time slot due to any Wi-Fi issues that may occur, and/or the number of questions asked and the subsequent responses. BRECKLAND COUNCIL – PLANNING 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’s planning policy documents set the strategic context for development in the District, governing the decisions made on planning applications and what types of development are suitable for each area.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets an expectation that each Local Planning Authority (LPA) should produce a single Local Plan which sets out the strategic planning priorities for the District.

The Localism Act, introduced in 2011, also comes with a requirement that Local Authorities produce and justify their own housing targets rather than having to rely on the targets set out by the abolished Regional Spatial Strategy ( Plan).

The Breckland Local Plan was adopted on the 28th November 2019. It is a key document that guides development in the District over the next 20 years. This contains the Council’s planning policies which must be consistent with the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and accompanying technical guidance. The full public scrutiny of the Council’s proposals that has been carried out gives the Local Plan an exceptional weight when dealing with planning applications.

This shift towards a “Plan-led” planning system is a major feature of planning legislation. The Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the policies of the Plan, unless material considerations which are relevant to planning indicate otherwise.

The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development. The core planning principles contained within the NPPF are summarised as:  To be genuinely plan led  To drive and support sustainable economic development  Seek high quality design  Conserve and enhance the natural environment  Encourage the effective use of land  Conserve heritage assets

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 LDF 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 comments received are taken into account. Where we disagree with those comments it will be because: • Districts look to “wider” policies, and national, regional and county planning strategy.  Other consultation responses may have affected our recommendation. • There is an honest difference of opinion. Planning Committee 22 June 2020

Page(s) herewith PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR EACH APPLICATION ARE ASKED TO LOG IN 10 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE TIME-SLOT ON THE AGENDA. Public Speaking on Planning Applications

Any members of the public who are registered to speak and wish to make representations to the Committee following the publication of an agenda can do so by joining the remote meeting and instructions on how to do this will be provided to those who register to speak.

Registered speakers will also be required to provide a written statement which will be read out or summarised at the relevant time in the meeting in the event that the speaker fails to join the remote meeting. Submissions must not exceed the permitted 3 minutes speaking time when read out.

In the event of more than one applicant, supporter or objector wishing to address the Committee, a spokesperson should be nominated who will submit representations on behalf of all registered speakers.

Ward Members may address the Committee by joining the meeting and also submitting a written statement which will be read out in the meeting if the Member fails to join the remote meeting. Submissions must not exceed 3 minutes speaking time when read out.

Ward Members and members of the public are asked to register to speak by 5pm on Wednesday, 17 June 2020 and any written statements/submissions must be emailed to: [email protected] by 12 noon on Friday, 19 June 2020.

1. MINUTES 6 - 13 To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2020.

2. APOLOGIES & SUBSTITUTES To receive apologies for absence.

3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED The duties to register, disclose and not to participate for the entire consideration of the matter, in respect of any matter in which a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. Members are also required to withdraw from the meeting room as stated in the Standing Orders of this Council.

4. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

5. REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA (IF ANY) 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. Planning Committee 22 June 2020

Page(s) herewith

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. LOCAL PLAN UPDATE (STANDING ITEM) To receive an update if any).

8. DEFERRED APPLICATIONS 14 To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

a) Land off Road, Westfield Road and Westfield Lane: 15 - 99 Reference: 3PL/2015/1490/O - 1:00PM Residential development for a maximum of 291 dwellings, link roads, open space and recreational space, together with demolition of existing Railway Bridge at Westfield Lane and construction of a replacement two- way railway bridge.

This application was last heard at Planning Committee on 26th November 2018, where Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to proposed conditions and a S106 Agreement.

The S106 Agreement has been concluded and has now been signed and completed by all relevant parties. It is considered appropriate, given the significant period that has passed since the previous Committee resolution, to bring the application back to Committee. This follows a public re-consultation with all neighbours and statutory consultees. The comments received are included in the report.

9. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

a) : Peels Farm, Whitings Lane, Rockland All Saints: Reference: 100 - 106 3PL/2019/1091/F - 2:00PM Retrospective full planning permission for erecting an agricultural storage building.

b) Rocklands: Peels Farm, Whitings Lane, Rockland All Saints: Reference: 107 - 117 3PL/2019/1058/VAR Variation of Condition 2 on pp 3PL/2016/0748/F - to regularise the as built development as it differs from approved plans.

c) : Land at Brandon Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/0189/F - 118 - 140 2:45PM Full Planning Application for a crematorium including memorial gardens, car parking, a new vehicle access onto Harling Drove and ancillary works. Planning Committee 22 June 2020

Page(s) herewith

d) : Land to the west of 49 Hargham Road: Reference: 141 - 147 3PL/2020/0117/PIP - 3:15PM Permission in principle for the erection of 4 dwellings (Town and Country Planning) Permission in Principle (amendment) Order 2017.

e) : Land south of Snetterton Speed Shop, Snetterton Business 148 - 153 Park: Reference: 3PL/2020/0309/O - 3:30PM Outline application for erection of two dwellings (bungalows).

10. APPEALS SUMMARY (FOR INFORMATION) 154

11. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 155 - 201 PLACE (FOR INFORMATION) Report of the Executive Director of Place.

Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.

12. NEXT MEETING An additional meeting has been arranged to be held on Tuesday, 14 July at 1pm (the same virtual arrangements will apply). Agenda Item 1 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

At a Meeting of the

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Held on Monday, 9 March 2020 at 9.45 am in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

PRESENT Mr N.C. Wilkin (Chairman) Mr H. E. J. Clarke Mr P. S. Wilkinson (Vice- Mrs H Crane Chairman) Mrs V. Dale Mr R. Atterwill Mr P.J. Duigan Councillor C. Bowes Mr K.S. Gilbert Mr R. F. W. Brame Mr K. Martin Councillor M. Chapman-Allen

Also Present Mr S Askew (Ward Mr J.P. Cowen (Ward Representative) Representative) Mrs S. E. Suggitt Mr S.G. Bambridge (Ward Representative)

In Attendance Michael Horn Solicitor to the Council Rebecca Collins Head of Development Management Tom Donnelly Development Management Planner Chris Hobson Principal Development Management Planner Naomi Minto Development Management Planner Mark Simmonds Principal Development Management Planner Joe Barrow Planning Graduate Julie Britton Democratic Services Officer Mandy Cunnington Technical Support Officer Rebecca Harris Technical Support Officer

Action By 23/20MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM 1)

Councillor Atterwill mentioned a factual error under Minute No. 14/20 and wanted it recorded that not all Members had been involved in the Panel meetings as stated in the Minutes.

Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2020 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

24/20APOLOGIES & SUBSTITUTES (AGENDA ITEM 2)

None.

25/20DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM 3)

: Warwick Farm, Cley Lane: Reference: 3OB/2019/0033/OB (Agenda item 9(f))

Councillor Crane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and remained in the room but did not take part or vote on the application.

 Sporle: Land off The Street: Reference: 3PL/2019/1403/F: (Agenda item 6 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

9(h))

The Chairman, Councillor Nigel Wilkin, declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the room whilst this application was being discussed.

26/20CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)

None.

27/20REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM 5)

None.

28/20URGENT BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM 6)

None.

29/20LOCAL PLAN UPDATE (STANDING ITEM) (AGENDA ITEM 7)

Although this matter had been mentioned before, Councillor Atterwill said that he still had not been able to find the Minutes of the Local Plan Working Group meetings that had taken place since the adoption of the new Local Plan. The Chairman advised that this matter would be investigated.

There was nothing further to report.

30/20DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 8)

The schedule of deferred applications was noted. a) : Land adjacent to The Paddocks, Leys Lane: Reference: 3PL/2019/0397/F

Proposed erection of five detached two storey dwellings with garages and associated parking.

This application was deferred at January's Planning Committee Meeting, to allow the applicant and Agent to consider and address the comments made by the District Valuer within the Viability Assessment, and to find an appropriate Highways solution. These considerations had been further considered in sections 4.0 (paragraphs 4.8- 4.9), 5.0 (paragraph 5.6 - 5.8) and 6.0 (paragraph 6.1 and 6.2) of the report.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Naomi Minto, Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

A representation was made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Applicant’s Agent: Jon Venning

DECISION: Members voted 9 x 2 to refuse the application as recommended. 7 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

31/20SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 9)

The Schedule of Applications was determined as follows: a) Banham: Mill Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1444/O

Two detached two storey dwellings.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Tom Donnelly, Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the outline application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Ward Representative: Councillor Stephen Askew (in support of the application)

Applicant’s Agent: John Spencer

DECISION: Members voted unanimously to defer the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

REASONS:

1. to allow the applicant and Agent to address the comments made by Members in respect of cutting back the hedgerow to improve the visibility splay for highway safety; 2. to submit revised plans to show the two driveways amalgamated into one – one access; and 3. Highways to be re-consulted. b) Lyng: Yew Tree Bungalow, Primrose Green: Reference: 3PL/2019/1168/F

Four self-build dwellings.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Joe Barrow, Planning Graduate.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Ward Representative: Councillor Gordon Bambridge (spoke in support of the application)

Applicant: Stuart Woodcock (to answer questions)

Applicant’s Agents: Jonathan Stimpson and Fraser Jackson

DECISION: Members voted 10 x 1 to refuse the application as recommended. 8 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By c) : Land off Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1183/F

Erection of 27 dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping and surface water attenuation.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Chris Hobson, Principal Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Applicant’s Agent: Andrew Gore (Marrons Planning)

Necton Parish Council: Cllr Jean Bass (Chairman) & Cllr Alice Spain (spoke against the application)

Objectors: Debbie Lane & Edward Spratt

DECISION: Members voted unanimously for approval as recommended; subject to: 1. the conditions listed in the report; 2. the revised conditions as listed in the supplementary report (pages 57-60 of the agenda pack); and 3. a S106 Agreement to ensure the scheme delivers:

a) the proposed public open space; b) footpath routes; c) 100% affordable housing; and d) a clawback mechanism be provided should a subsequent review of viability prove that the scheme can viably provide for contributions towards educations and library facilities. d) Necton: Land off North Pickenham Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1184/D

Reserved Matters application following outline permission – 3PL/2016/0983/O – appearance, layout, scale and landscaping with the erection of 46 dwellings, together with the provision of a community park and surface water attenuation pond.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Chris Hobson, Principal Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the Reserved Matters application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Applicant’s Agent: Andrew Gore (Marrons Planning)

Necton Parish Council: Cllr Jean Bass (Chairman) & Cllr Alice Spain spoke against the application) 9 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

Objectors: Debbie Lane & Edward Spratt

DECISION: Members voted unanimously for approval as recommended subject to:

1. the conditions as listed in the report; 2. the revised conditions as listed on the supplementary report (pages 81-83 of the agenda pack); and 3. the completion of a new S106 Agreement to ensure the scheme delivers:

a) the proposed public open space; b) footpath routes; c) 100% affordable housing; and d) a clawback mechanism be provided should a subsequent review of viability prove that the scheme can viably provide for contributions towards education and library facilities. e) Rocklands: Allisons Farm, 82 The Street, Rockland All Saints: Reference: 3PL/2019/0971/F

Demolition of outbuilding for the erection of a new dwelling with attached one bedroom annexe and restoration of existing house.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Rebecca Collins, Head of Development Management.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Supporter (on behalf of applicant): Richard Day

Objector: David Roznowski

DECISION: Members voted unanimously for approval as recommended subject to the conditions as listed in the report and the revised conditions as listed in the supplementary report (page 95 of the agenda pack). f) Saham Toney: Warwick Farm, Cley Lane: Reference: 3OB/2019/0033/OB

Modification of S106 Agreement – 3PL/2013/0869/F – to remove recreation contribution.

Councillor Helen Crane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and did not take part in or vote on this application.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Rebecca Collins, Head of Development Management.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings: 10 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

Applicant: Chris Tilley

Saham Toney Parish Council: Cllr Roger Harrold (against the removal of the recreation contribution)

DECISION: Subject to one abstention, Members 8 x 2 to allow the removal of the recreation contribution as recommended.

Councillor Atterwill felt that the Parish Council deserved a written response to apologise for no enforcement action being taken in respect of the S106 monies not being paid once the first 8 dwellings had been occupied in accordance with the S106 Agreement. g) : Rose Cottage, Low Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1600/D

Reserved Matters erection of two dwellings following outline permission 3PL/2018/1466/O.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Naomi Minto, Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the Reserved Matters application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Ward Representative: Councillor Philip Cowen (spoke against the application)

Applicant’s Agent: John Barbuck (Patterson Design Ltd)

Shropham Parish Council: Cllr David Napier (Chairman)

Objector: Susan Phillips

DECISION: Members 9 x 2 to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

REASONS: Members felt that the design of the proposals were inappropriate in terms of the scale of the two detached two storey five/six bedroom dwellings.

DECISION: REFUSED h) Sporle: Land off The Street: Reference: 3PL/2019/1403/F

Construction of dwelling and commercial unit with B8 business use (re- application of 3PL/2019/0704/F).

The Chairman declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left the room whilst this application was being discussed.

Following Members’ agreement, Councillor Marion Chapman-Allen Chaired this application. 11 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

Consideration was given to the report presented by Joe Barrow, Planning Graduate.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Ward Representative: Councillor Peter Wilkinson (spoke in support of the application)

Applicant: Michael Bevan

Sporle Parish Council: Cllr Kalvin McLeod (Vice-Chairman) (spoke in respect of this application)

DECISION: Subject to one abstention, Members 7 x 2 for approval contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

REASONS: Members felt that in terms of the overall planning balance of the scheme, including its potential to the local economy, the principle of both the dwelling & garage and the industrial unit in this location was considered acceptable.

DECISION: Subject to one abstention, Members voted 7 x 2 to approve the application; subject to:

1. delegated authority being granted to the Executive Director of Place to agree and impose suitable conditions including recommended highways conditions; and including

2. a S106 Agreement to close the existing operation to the north of the village of Sporle on occupation of the new unit.

The Chairman, Councillor Nigel Wilkin, returned to the room to Chair the remainder of the meeting. i) : Former Elm Road Day Centre, Elm Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1531/F

Proposed change of use of existing building from day centre (D1) to provide affordable housing with a combination of dwelling houses (C3 use), comprising 3 no. flats and an HMO (Sui Generis), providing further bed spaces along with external alternations and associated works.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Mark Simmonds, Principal Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

No representations were made in respect of the application.

Due to the site falling within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone, Natural England must be consulted on this application. 12 Planning Committee 9 March 2020

Action By

DECISION: subject to no objections being received from Natural England, Members voted unanimously for approval as recommended subject to the conditions as listed in the report. j) Thompson: Land to east of Marlpit Road & South Mill Road: Reference: 3PL/2019/1189/F

Erection of 6 dwellings.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Mark Simmonds, Principal Development Management Planner.

Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

Representations were made in respect of the application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Ward Representative: Councillor Philip Cowen (spoke against the application)

Applicant’s Agent: Geoff Armstrong (Rigg Planning)

Thompson Parish Council: Cllr Angus Welch

Objector: John Stanley

DECISION: Members 9 x 2 for refusal contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

REASONS: Members felt that the proposed development would lead to the number of dwellings in the settlement increasing by significantly more than 5%, contrary to Policy HOU4. The proposal would have a negative impact to the landscape and character of the area.

DECISION: REFUSED

32/20APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PLACE (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM10)

Noted.

33/20APPEALS DECISIONS FOR FEBRUARY (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 11)

Noted.

The meeting closed at 2.10 pm

CHAIRMAN

13 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22 June 2020: SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETING RECOMMENDATION REASON FOR DATE FIRST DEFERMENT EXPECTED REPORTED TO TO RETURN TO COMMITTEE 3PL/2018/1150/F: Attleborough: Land off Long Agenda Item 8 24/06/2019 Refusal To allow the applicant the tbc Street: Residential dwelling on existing agricultural opportunity to change the unit to provide housing for Farm Manager design 3PL/2019/0809/O: Beeston: Land off Chapel Lane: 13/01/2020 Refusal To be heard at a later date tbc Residential Development 3PL/2019/1444/O: Banham: Mill Road: Two To allow the applicant and 09/03/2020 Refusal tbc detached two story dwellings Agent to address the comments made by Members in respect of cutting back the hedgerow to improve the visibility splay for highway safety; To submit revised plans to

14 show the two driveways amalgamated into one – one access; and Norfolk County Council Highways to be re-consulted. Agenda Item 8a

Reference: 3PL/2015/1490/O Land off Shipdham Road, Westfield Road and Westfield Lane Residential development for a maximum of 291 dwellings, link roads, open space and recreational space, together with demolition of existing railway bridge at Westfield Lane and construction of a replacement two-way railway bridge.

1 Site History 1.1 This application was last heard at Planning Committee on 26th November 2018, where members resolved to grant planning permission subject to proposed conditions and a S106 Agreement to secure the following: Provision of on-site affordable housing at 40% Contribution to Library Services £21,825 Contribution to Early Years and Primary Education on a pro rata basis £1,210,976 NHS contribution of £91,740 Public Open Space Maintenance Contribution Onsite Open Space totalling 12.63 ha Offsite green space to be reverted to low intensity grazing land totalling 13ha Works to improve the off-site PROW network

1.2 The S106 Agreement has been concluded and has now been signed and completed by all relevant parties. It is considered appropriate, given the significant period that has passed since the previous committee resolution, to bring the application back to Committee. This follows a public re-consultation with all neighbours and statutory consultees. The comments received are reported below. 1.3 The 26th November 2018 report to Committee is appended to this report. 2.0 Consultations responses received since 26th November 2018 Planning Committee Dereham Town Council: A letter from Leathes Prior Solicitors sent on behalf of Dereham Town Council has been received, referring to Counsel advice, which is also attached. In summary, these representations wish to highlight the following: Paragraph 109 of the NPPF acts as a policy bar on applications being refused for highways reasons unless the development will result in severe residual cumulative impacts on the transport network. The correct interpretation of ‘residual cumulative impacts’ is those impacts of the development which will still exist after any identified mitigation measures viewed in the context of existing highways issues. (‘Existing’ here is capable of including committed development, although in theory arguments could be mounted that committed development might not be delivered). This interpretation accords with the normal meaning of the words: it is otherwise difficult to see what ‘cumulative’ impacts could possibly mean. It is also supported by the decision in Bovis Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2052. The transport assessment confirms that the development will cause additional traffic on parts of the road network which are already overcapacity. The assessment considers that because the number of additional movements generated by the

1 15 developments is low, the impact is not significant. This is not the test that the LPA has to apply. The LPA has to consider whether the impacts in the context of the existing situation are severe. Failure by the LPA to apply that test would leave the decision open to challenge. It is reasonably arguable that given NCC’s guidance on what it considers to be a ‘severe’ impact, any development which worsens the situation at an already unacceptable junction will meet the threshold of ‘severe residual cumulative impacts’. This matter has not previously been addressed in earlier reports and if not addressed then any permission is potentially open to challenge. Further comments (dated 08/06/2020 following Highways Authority response below): Cycling Assessment. Welcome news that everybody agrees that there needs to be a cycling assessment carried out as part of the reserved matters application, to ensure that cycling would be a genuine choice of mode of transport. In the NCC letter however which it said that such an assessment would be carried out, there was nothing in the letter to compel the application/developer to actually do any works identified as being needed. Link Road. The indicative layout was originally designed with a 3 ton weight limit bridge meaning that the road would not be so much a link road but an estate road, and looking at the design of the road it is is clear that this is a slow estate road, for low volumes of traffic and low speeds. NCC are now stating that this will be a link road with lorries and the like. For a link road to function and divert traffic it must provide a faster route option than the alternative. This link road will now function more like Shipdham Road than an estate road. this is an issue, because the residential housing is split in half by this link road. To access play areas, schools and friends children are going to have to cross a busy road, which seems like a poor design. Highways Authority: In light of recent correspondence and information submitted, the highway authority has reviewed the information provided throughout the life of the application and in relation to concerns and issues raised by interested parties. The application site is an allocated site within the recently adopted Local Plan. The highway authority acknowledges that some junctions in Dereham are congested particularly around Tavern Lane. The highway authority also acknowledges that the Town Council has undertaken significant work to look at the congestion issues within the town and the highway authority understands that the Town Council considers the Tavern Lane Junction to be its key area of concern. The Town Council is also looking at the potential for delivering better cycling facilities/schemes. The highway authority understands that at present the work required to provide better cycling facilities is ongoing and no potential schemes that can be incorporated into policy have been identified by the Town Council to date. NCC has also undertaken studies looking at the current transport constraints and the transport impact of growth

2 16 in Dereham (Network Improvement Strategy, March 2019) and is working towards implementing some of the findings and recommendations. The development will bring forward a link road between Road and Shipdham Road with an improved railway bridge over the mid Norfolk railway. The link road will be completed including the new bridge prior to the occupation of the 150th dwelling. The impact of the link road on the Tavern Lane junction should be an improvement on the existing situation. The link road will provide a good quality alternative route to using the Tavern Lane junction particularly for those vehicles heading to which would have previously used the Tavern Lane junction to access the slip road for the A47(T) eastbound. There will also be a benefit for vehicles wishing to travel westbound on the A47(T) from Shipdham Road by providing an alternative route to the Tavern Lane junction. The link road will be designed so that it is capable of carrying HGV traffic as well as through traffic, it will not be designed as a residential estate road. Given the information supplied within the documents submitted the highway authority considers that the residual cumulative impact of the development has been assessed by the applicant’s consultant. Since the original decision to approve, subject to conditions and the prior completion of a S106 agreement, at committee, there have been changes to the highway infrastructure within Dereham town centre at Tavern Lane where the highway authority has implemented a scheme which is similar to that identified in the Dereham Transport Study (commissioned by Council). The highway authority considers that the recent improvement works undertaken by NCC to the Tavern Lane junction have led to some improvement in the current operation of the junction. Concerns have been expressed by the Town Council that a detailed cycling assessment was not provided with the application although a walk to school audit was provided which showed that there were pedestrian facilities including crossing facilities on all the routes to both the primary and secondary schools. The applicant has stated that they will provide appropriate cycle links to connect to National Cycle Route 13 as part of the scheme/works for the proposed Shipdham Road roundabout. The highway authority, Town Council and the applicant have agreed that in addition to this cycle connection a condition should be applied to any planning permission granted which requires a full cycling assessment to be undertaken at the reserved matters application stage. In terms of sustainable modes and travel, the development will come forward with a Travel Plan. Travel plans are generally effective in larger residential developments (such as this) as facilities are provided on site (footways/cycleways) and promotions such as cycle vouchers/bus tickets/train tickets are provided which encourage residents to use alternative modes of transport. The county council’s travel planning team which operates at sites around the county is able to demonstrate a reduction in trip generation from residential developments supported by a travel plan. The submitted Transport Assessment does not include any allowance for the impact of a travel plan so represents a worst case scenario. The delivery mechanism of the travel plan will be determined through the S106 agreement. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF states… transport issues should be considered so that…opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued.

3 17 Paragraph 103 states...significant development should be focused on locations which can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. The development site is within walking/cycling distance of all key facilities within the town centre. The TA contained a walk to school audit which demonstrated that there were facilities which enable walking to school. As stated above, the highway authority, Town Council and the applicant have agreed that a condition be applied to any planning permission granted which requires a full cycling assessment to be undertaken at the reserved matters application stage. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. In response to Paragraph 108 the highway authority, Town Council and the applicant have agreed that a condition be applied to any planning permission granted which requires a full cycling assessment to be undertaken at the reserved matters application stage. The travel plan will also encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. The highway authority considers that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users through the provision of the roundabout on Shipdham Road and the provision of a link road with a new bridge over the Mid Norfolk Railway Line, and improved pedestrian/cycle facilities in the area. In terms of paragraph 108c) significant impacts being mitigated, the highway authority considers that whilst the proposed development would impact on what is an already congested network, the impact is not significant. Finally with regard to the Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which states …development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The highway authority considers that the traffic from the proposed development would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would not lead to a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. Therefore the highway authority continues to maintain its original recommendation of no objection subject to conditions and subject to a S106 Agreement being in place which secures the travel plan funding. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA): We previously responded to this application on 12 October 2018, in which we had no objection subject to conditions being attached. The applicant has since submitted information relating to the flood defences and realignment of the River Tud outside of the Red Line Boundary (RLB) of the proposed development. We have reviewed the documentation and after consultation with the agent, we feel the proposed works do not impact on the flood risk or drainage strategy for this site. As such, we maintain our previous findings for this planning application.

4 18 We would however, request that it is again demonstrated at detailed design, that realignment works to the River Tud will not adversely impact the flood risk or drainage scheme for this development. We have previously been unable to impose a condition for this issue due to the realignment works lying outside of the RLB of the site. We request that the advisory note included in our previous response is taken into consideration as part of any future applications. This is to ensure that any alterations to the current proposed layout of either the development or the river realignment are viewed in the context of flood risk to the wider area. 3.0 Assessment Background: 3.1 Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for this proposal in November 2018. 3.2 It is considered, having regard to the time that has passed since this resolution that it is appropriate to consider any material changes in circumstance, which may result in and alternative assessment of the application. It is not intended to revisit all matters, only those which have materially changed since the earlier resolution to grant Planning Permission. 3.3 Material planning considerations can include changes to policy as well as material changes in site characteristics or cumulative development. The relevant material changes have been considered below. 3.4 Since this application was last reported to Planning Committee, the Local Plan for Breckland has been adopted (November 2019) and as per the original report and in accordance with paragraph 74 of the NPPF, the Council can now demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Planning permission has also been granted at Swanton Road, Dereham for 216 houses but development requires further consents in terms of reserved matters and therefore has obviously not commenced. Policy Position: 3.5 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Given the presence of a five year housing land supply, policies in the Local Plan can be afforded full weight in the decision making process. Breckland Local Plan 2019: 3.6 This site is an allocated housing site in the Breckland Local Plan and this has to be given full weight in favour of approving the scheme. 3.7 Policy Dereham Housing Allocation 5 (Land to the east of Shipdham Road), allocates approximately 22.17 hectares for a residential development of approximately 290 dwellings. This effectively establishes the principle of residential development on this site. Members should note that the allocation has been considered by the Local Plan Inspector as part of the examination into the Local Plan. His views, as set out in his report to the Council will be outlined and considered below. 3.8 The policy, whilst establishing the principle of residential development, requires development to comply with adopted Development Plan policies and a number of criteria set out within the policy. It is proposed to assess these point by point.

5 19 1. The principal access to the site will be from Shipdham Road. Secondary access to the site should be provided from Westfield Lane; The scheme is compliant and the main access is via a new roundabout along Shipdham Road. 2. An access link should be provided from Shipdham Road to Westfield Lane; The scheme is compliant and a new link road is provided through the site.

3. Development proposals should include upgrades to the railway bridge over the Mid-Norfolk railway line and the provision of a new footbridge; The scheme is compliant and a legal agreement is in place to allow this to happen.

4. Development should contribute towards required highways improvements in Dereham having regard to the Dereham Transport Study and any subsequent additional transport evidence. Further transport assessments may be required; The scheme is compliant and delivers the new roundabout along Shipdham Road and cycle and footway improvements within and along the routes immediately adjacent the site.

5. Appropriate landscaping to the south of the development. Development should avoid coalescence with Westfield; The scheme is compliant with appropriate landscape enhancements and new tree planting.

6. The scheme will preserve or, where possible, enhance the setting of nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets. Development proposals should have regard to and respect the gateway location of this site, as identified through the Breckland Historic Characterisation Study; The scheme is compliant. The only listed building near the site is the former Jolly Farmers Public House along Yaxham Road that is not visible from the site. At reserved matters stage key views can be protected and landscaping enhanced to protect the setting of this Listed Building. The development has been sited and the indicative layout designed to protect and enhance the gateways into Dereham, this can be further assessed at reserved matters stage. Finally, as set out in the previous Committee report (supplementary report) a Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted to consider and assess the proposal to demolish the railway bridge in context of its non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) status. Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states that the impact of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken account of in the determination of the planning application. In this instance, ‘Bridge 1692’ is of local significance only with limited architectural or aesthetic value. It has also been the subject of several 20th century repairs that are considered unsympathetic. On this basis, it is considered that its loss is acceptable in this instance subject to appropriate mechanisms to evidence and record the bridge prior to its removal. This can be ensured via a planning condition if planning permission is granted.

6 20 7. Provision of open space in accordance with the requirements set out in Policy ENV 04; The scheme is compliant as it seeks to deliver open space well in excess of this standard (by some 8 ha), this is secured in the signed and completed section 106.

8. Development proposals in Dereham should have regard to the findings of the Water Cycle Study which indicates capacity limitations at Dereham Waste Water Treatment Works and within the foul sewerage network. A Utilities Statement will be required to support the planning application to demonstrate how capacity will be made available in time to serve the site; The scheme is compliant and has already been assessed by Anglian Water who have already made provision locally to accommodate the current proposal.

9. Appropriate sustainable surface water attenuation measures are provided within the site, and where possible included as part of the agreed landscaping scheme; The scheme is compliant, as set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement and Flood Alleviation approval from the Environment Agency.

10. Development proposals should respond to the density of the surrounding area. Lower density development would be more appropriate to the south of the site to reflect the rural edge; The scheme is compliant. This can be fully assessed at reserved matters stage, however, the indicative layout shows that the density changes, lowering to the south, with public open space changing to semi-natural only.

11. When assessing development proposals, the Council will have regard to the cumulative impact of development with Dereham Housing Allocation 2. The scheme is compliant and this is further discussed below. However, the Highways Authority have assessed the proposals in this regard and raise no objections.

12. A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for this site to address the risk of flooding due to the sites partial location within the flood plain of the River Tud and to address surface water flooding due to the sites partial location within an area at risk of surface water run-off and due to the increased impermeable area created by the development on site The scheme is compliant and a full Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted. The scheme has been assessed by the LLFA, IDB and a Flood Alleviation Consent from the Environment Agency relating to the works to the River Tud and the new flood plains being created has already been obtained (initially 4-years ago and renewed in 2019). 3.9 The policy also requires development to be compliant with adopted Development Plan policies as well as the criteria listed above. 3.10 Relevant policies within the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) include:

7 21  GEN01, which encourages sustainable development including allocating and facilitating developable land that seeks to provide access to homes, employment, retail, leisure and other facilities; and consideration of the cumulative impact of development, particularly on the environment;  GEN02 which seeks to promote high quality design;  GEN03, which designates Dereham as a .  GEN05, which seeks to direct new development to within settlement boundaries or other sustainable locations, subject to compliance with relevant Development plan policies.  HOU01 and HOU02 which seek to deliver housing and set out how this will be achieved through the settlement hierarchy.  HOU06 sets out the principles for delivering new housing, including optimising density, appropriate to the location.  HOU07 seeks to deliver affordable housing at a level of 25% and  HOU10 requires all new development to meet Building Regulation 110 l/h/d and the Governments Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).  TR01 and TR02 support a sustainable transport network;  ENV01 safeguards and aims to enhance Green Infrastructure;  ENV02 seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity;  ENV04 seeks to provide appropriate open space;  ENV05 seeks to protect and enhance the landscape;  ENV06 seeks to protect trees and hedgerows;  ENV07 seeks to protect the significance of heritage assets;  ENV09 seeks to prevent flood risk.  COM01 seeks high quality design;  COM2 seeks healthy lifestyles and expects new development to avoid potential negative effects on population health and facilitate well-being;  COM03 seeks to protect amenity; and  INF02 seeks to secure developer contributions for appropriate developments.

3.11 The application has been assessed against the above policies and is found to be in broad compliance with them. These policies, with regards to design, highways, landscape, ecology, flooding and amenity are considered to be largely consistent with those in the previous Development Plan so as not to alter the assessment of the scheme, other than those additional matters, which are outlined in this report. 3.12 It should be noted again that this is an allocated site and the principle of residential development in line with policy has already been tested through the Local Plan examination. It is also an outline application and issues around design, density, technical standards etc. will be properly dealt with at the reserved matters stage. 3.13 It is considered, having regard to the criteria set out at policy Dereham Housing Allocation 5 that the scheme complies with that policy. It is also considered that the scheme complies with the Development Plan when assessed as a whole. Neighbourhood Plans: 3.14 The emerging Dereham Neighbourhood Plan is progressing, however, it is at such an early stage, where no draft plan has been prepared. Therefore, it can only be given very limited weight (if any) in the determination of this application at this time. Policy Conclusion:

8 22 3.15 The Local Planning Authority is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Policies within the newly adopted Local Plan are therefore considered to be relevant and up to date and should be given full weight in the decision making process. The application therefore should be considered in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 3.16 The NPPF is one such consideration. The newly adopted Local Plan was considered against the 2012 NPPF and found sound on that basis. It is considered that the relevant policies in the NPPF are broadly complied with, although paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2012) is given particular attention in light of the representations to date. 3.17 This states that: “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” 3.18 Having regard to this it is considered necessary to consider the development in the light of this guidance. 3.19 The Inspectors report into the Local Plan, which is relevant to the consideration of the application.

3.20 He considers the Dereham Transport Study at paragraphs 96-103. He indicates at paragraph 96 and 97 that: “A number of concerns have been raised in relation to transport and the ability of Dereham to accommodate the proposed level of additional houses in the Plan. The Plan is supported by the Local Plan Transport Study: Dereham, 2016 (LP_V_3) (the Dereham Transport Study). The appropriateness and robustness of the study was considered at the hearing sessions. Whilst there were concerns raised in relation to some of the assumptions and the methodology adopted, I am mindful of the strategic nature of the study and the difficulty in accurately predicting traffic flows associated with site allocations which could be implemented much later in the Plan period. It is therefore not an exact science. An interested party noted that traffic associated with the Saturday am peak had not been considered in the Dereham Transport Study. However, the Council provided an addendum dated 7 March 2017 that considered this and other concerns that had been raised when it provided its hearing statement (CS.14) on this matter.

Overall, and bearing in mind the strategic purpose of the study and the need for proportionate evidence, I consider the Dereham Transport Study and its addendum to be a reasonable basis to inform the Plan and consider the likely effects of the site allocations on Dereham. I consider it is relevant to note that Norfolk County Council as highway authority share this view.”

3.21 He also notes at paragraph 98 that the new signalised roundabout at Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction is now not considered deliverable by the highway authority.

3.22 In order to ensure that transport issues in relation to the allocations proposed within Dereham could be properly assessed the Inspector made modifications to ensure that “a further transport assessment is likely to be required to support planning applications for each allocation, in accordance with national policy.”

At paragraph 101 he writes that:

9 23 “I am mindful that three of the five allocations do benefit from a resolution to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement. It has therefore been demonstrated through the development management process that each of these sites can be delivered without having unacceptable impacts on the local highway network.”

At paragraph 102 he writes that:

“Given all of this and the clear need for new housing in the District, I consider that it would be premature and impractical to remove the site allocations from the Plan. However, it is clear that future planning applications on these sites will need to demonstrate that they would not result in unacceptably cumulative impacts on the local highway network and the MMs set out above, along with the requirements of Policy TR 02 (as modified by MM115) will ensure that this is undertaken and properly assessed. Further, Policy TR 01 (as modified by MM114) seeks to ensure that proposals are accessible by sustainable modes of transport and make suitable provision for improved public transport.”

In relation to this specific allocation he sets out main modifications that are reflected in the policy as discussed above. He makes no further reference to highway issues other than to state at paragraph 111 that he considers that:

“Concerns have been expressed that the site (as well as Dereham Allocation 5) is some 2 km away from the town centre. Whilst this is noted, there are suitable footpaths that have street lighting from the site’s entrance to the town centre, which would allow safe access by foot. Further, Shipdham Road is subject to a 30 mph speed limit at the entrance to the sites. Given this and having visited the sites, I consider that cycling is likely to be a feasible option for accessing the town centre for relatively competent cyclists. In addition, whilst the sites are some distance from the town centre it is in close proximity to the schools in Toftwood and the Rashes Green Employment Area. I am satisfied that both Dereham Allocations 2 and 5 offer sufficient access to local services and facilities.”

4.0 Highways

4.1 Dereham Town Council have raised concerns in relation to the highway implications of the scheme and in particular compliance with the guidance set out at paragraph 109 of the NPPF. This has been articulated within a letter from solicitors and Counsels opinion. 4.2 It is worth noting that the guidance within the NPPF with regards to Highways has not significantly changed since members last resolved to grant planning permission. 4.3 The advice in paragraph 109 in the 2019 NPPF is broadly similar to that in paragraph 32 of the NPPF 2012 which stated: “All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: - the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

10 24 - safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and - improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.” It should be noted that the “severe” test has not changed though it is now more specific in relation to the residual cumulative impacts on the road network. 4.4 Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Local Plan support sustainable transport proposals as well as minimising the need to travel, not adversely affecting the strategic road network, improving accessibility and supporting a transition to a low carbon future. 4.5 They also require enhanced access to public rights of way, provision of appropriate car parking and to avoid inappropriate traffic generation and not compromising highway safety. 4.6 Policies TR02 also requires assessment of development on the transport network and where appropriate identify appropriate mitigation, together with a travel plan, where appropriate. 4.7 The application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA), assessing the impacts of the development and appropriate mitigation. Car parking will be assessed at reserved matters stage. 4.8 In response to the concerns raised, further information was provided by the applicant. This has been further assessed and the following conclusions drawn: Severe Residual Cumulative Impact(s) 4.9 The development will bring forward a link road between Yaxham Road and Shipdham Road with an improved railway bridge over the mid Norfolk railway. The link road will be completed including the new bridge prior to the occupation of the 150th dwelling. Also, changes have been made to the highway infrastructure within Dereham town centre at Tavern Lane, where the highway authority has implemented a scheme which is similar to that identified in the Dereham Transport Study (commissioned by Breckland District Council). The highway authority considers that the recent improvement works undertaken by NCC to the Tavern Lane junction have led to some improvement in the current operation of the junction. Finally, conditions of the development include a cycling assessment and a Travel Plan. 4.10 As concurred to by the Highways Authority, it is considered that the residual cumulative impact of the development has been assessed by the applicant’s consultant and on the basis of the improvements and conditions, as outlined above then the cumulative impacts of the development are considered acceptable. 4.11 For these reasons and those, as summarised above in the Highways Authority response, they raise no objections to the application and conclude ‘Finally with regard to Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which states …Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The highway authority considers that the traffic from the proposed development would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would not lead to a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network.’

11 25 4.12 With regards to the further comments raised by the Town Council, the Cycle Assessment will be the subject of a planning condition. 4.13 With regards to the link road the whole point of the road is to provide relief from Tavern Lane and to provide an alternative access route. With the improvement to the MNR bridge and the roundabout the road will become attractive to those wishing to avoid the Tavern Lane signals. Therefore, the road needs to be designed to accommodate not just the residential traffic but also any through traffic including HGV’s. The scheme at the moment is indicative and when the reserved matters applications come in then we will need to ensure that the neighbourhood is not split but the road is designed so that both the road and neighbourhood function appropriately. The road will not be a straight 40mph road but will be 30mph and have side roads etc. It will be designed so that it does not dissect a neighbourhood. It is considered that this can be considered and done adequately at a reserved matters or discharge of condition stage. Obligations: 4.14 Affordable housing is proposed and a section 106 has been signed to deliver 40% affordable housing, in excess of the policy HOU07 requirements. Other obligations include contributions to Library services, to early years and Primary Schools, Health Facilities, Public Open Space Maintenance Contribution and Green infrastructure. As well as the provision of open space, as set out above, well in excess of the requirements of Policy ENV04.

4.15 Please note the River Tud contribution has been removed from the s.106 and replaced by condition 15, which is considered suitable to deliver the required restoration works.

5.0 Conclusion 5.1 The site is considered to be located in a sustainable location, on the edge of Dereham on an allocated site, where housing is supported, in accordance with Policy GEN01, GEN03, HOU01 and HOU02. Matters of design, space standards, amenity and landscaping will all be considered at reserved matters stage. However, the indicative plans submitted with the application, as previously set out show a ‘well designed’ scheme can be achieved within the site. A mix of house types is shown which would not be inappropriate to the character of the wider area’. Also, the site can protect historic assets and the amenity of existing and future occupants in accordance with policies GEN02, HOU10, COM01, COM03, ENV05, ENV06, ENV07, Section 15 of the NPPF and policy ENV02 of the Local Plan. 5.2 Despite the adoption of the latest version of the NPPF and the Local Plan, it is considered that there has been no material change in circumstance to warrant a change in recommendation for this planning application. The policies in the Local Plan remain broadly consistent with those in the previous Development Plan, which were fully assessed in previous reports. For these reasons the proposals are considered in compliance with adopted Development Plan. 5.3 The proposed development has been considered in light of all the applicant’s technical reports, Environmental Statement and statutory consultation responses, including comments from third parties. Any harm from the proposed development is considered to be outweighed by material considerations which justify approval, particularly to enable delivery of this housing allocation and the associated benefits.

12 26 5.4 The Council therefore considers this application is acceptable and recommends approval of planning permission, subject to planning conditions (as set out at the end of the report) and the section 106 agreement, as detailed above. Recommendation Approval subject to planning conditions and the section 106 agreement, as detailed above. Conditions

1. Application for Approval of all Reserved Matters for the first Phase, as defined by Condition 4, must be made not later than the expiration of TWO YEARS beginning with the date of this permission, and the development must be begun within TWO YEARS of the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE RESERVED MATTERS or, in the case of approval at different dates, the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LAST SUCH MATTER to be approved.

Application for Approval of all Reserved Matters for all Phases subsequent to first Phase, as defined by Condition 4, must be made not later than the expiration of THREE YEARS beginning with the date of this permission, and the development must be begun within TWO YEARS of the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE RESERVED MATTERS or, in the case of approval at different dates, the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LAST SUCH MATTER to be approved.

Reason for condition:- As required by section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and in order to ensure the early delivery of housing.

2. No development whatsoever within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, shall take place until the plans and descriptions giving details of the reserved matters relating to that Phase have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these plans and descriptions shall provide details of the appearance, layout, scale and landscaping of the development.

Reason for condition:- The details are not included in the current submission.

3. The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, and approved documents and drawings listed at the bottom of this notice.

Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

4. A Phasing Plan for the whole development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority with the first Reserved Matters application. The Phasing Plan shall include:

- A Phasing Plan detailing the location of the Phases - Timing and Sequence of the Phases - Number of dwellings and amount and type of open space in each phase

13 27 The development shall take place in strict accordance with the approved Phasing Plan unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- As required by section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

5. A Travel Plan for the whole development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority with the first Reserved Matters application. The Travel Plan shall include:

- An analysis of how to best incorporate infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, including desire lines and key connection points. - Evidence of further consultation with local bus service providers including feasibility of buses serving the site internally and along its boundaries.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.

Reason for condition:- To ensure the development creates a healthy, inclusive and safe place and reduce greenhouse gas emissions having regard to paragraphs 91, 103 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

6. The reserved matters applications shall adhere to the internal site measures detailed in the approved Transport Assessment Addendum (dated October 2016) including: - A direct and continuous link road, including a 3m footway/cycle along one side, to be provided within the site between Shipdham Road, Westfield Road and Yaxham Road (via Westfield Lane) - A 3m wide footway/ cycle way to be provided for Westfield Road from where the internal east-west link road meets Westfield Road extending to the northern site boundary. - Where a bus service provider has indicated that a bus service through the site is feasible as detailed by Condition 5, details of number and location of covered bus stops - Provision of lit, covered and secure cycling parking to serve on-site Sports Open Space/ Facilities where proposed within a Phase

Reason for condition: To ensure the development creates a healthy, inclusive and safe place and reduce greenhouse gas emissions having regard to paragraphs 91, 103 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

7. Prior to any development whatsoever within any Phase, as defined by Condition 4, a detailed Phase Delivery Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The Detailed Phase Delivery Plan relating to that Phase shall include:

14 28 - The delivery of open space and landscaping within a Phase linked to the number of dwellings to be occupied and their locations

- The delivery and surfacing of roads, footpaths, cycle paths within a Phase linked to the number of dwellings to be occupied and their locations

- The delivery of street lighting within a Phase linked to the number of dwellings to be occupied and their locations

The development construction works and occupation shall take place in strict accordance with the approved detailed Phase Delivery Plan unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- As required by section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to enable a controlled phased occupation of development within the approved Phases. Required prior to the commencement of the development to ensure a satisfactory form and delivery of development and occupation.

8. Prior to commencement of development within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, in accordance with the submitted FRA 'Proposed Residential Development Land East and West of Westfield Road Toftwood, Dereham, Norfolk' (RLC Reference 41431), detailed designs of a Surface Water Drainage Scheme incorporating the following measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority for that Phase. The scheme shall address the following matters:

I. Provision of surface attenuation storage, sized and designed to accommodate the volume of water generated in all rainfall events up to and including the critical storm duration for the 1% annual probability rainfall event including allowances for climate change. The design of surface attenuation features should incorporate an emergency spillway and appropriate freeboard allowances, set at a minimum of 300mm.

II. Detailed designs, modelling calculations and plans of the of the drainage conveyance network in the: · 3.33% annual probability critical rainfall event to show no above ground flooding on any part of the site. · 1% annual probability critical rainfall plus climate change event to show, if any, the depth, volume and storage location of any above ground flooding from the drainage network ensuring that flooding does not occur in any part of a building or any utility plant susceptible to water (e.g. pumping station or electricity substation) within the development.

III. Finished ground floor levels of properties should be a minimum of 300mm above anticipated flood levels, in 1% annual probability event plus climate change, from all sources of flooding (including the drainage system).

IV. Details of how all surface water management features are to be designed in accordance with The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C753, 2015), including appropriate treatment stages for water quality prior to discharge.

15 29 V. A maintenance and management plan detailing the activities required and details of who will adopt and maintain all the surface water drainage features for the lifetime of the development.

VI. Plans showing the routes for the management of exceedance surface water flow routes that minimise the risk to people and property during rainfall events in excess of 1% annual probability. This will include surface water which may enter the site from elsewhere.

VII.The proposed maximum restricted discharge rate is 45.0l/s (total for all nine land parcels at 5.0l/s for each land parcel) as stated within Section 6.38 of the FRA. However, this should be less than or as close as practicable to the greenfield runoff rates for all events up to and including the 100% annual probability plus climate change rainfall event.

The approved scheme for that phase shall be implemented and completed in full prior to first occupation of any dwelling within that phase or in accordance with a timetable to be first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- Details are required prior to commencement to prevent flooding in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework 2019 paragraph 163,165 and 170 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local sources of flooding, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring the SuDS proposed operates as designed for the lifetime of the development and policy ENV09 Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

9. Prior to the commencement of the development within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that Phase:

A. Desk Study A desk study and risk assessment to determine the risk of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The desk study and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments.

B. Site Investigation A site investigation and risk assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include (i) the same details as in part A above (ii) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination and (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

16 30 C. Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

D Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme for that Phase must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development within each phase, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report for each Phase that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The above must be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason for condition:- The details are required prior to the commencement of the development to ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors from the outset of the development in accordance with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

INFORMATIVE:- Land contamination risk assessment is a step-by-step process. During the course of the risk assessment process set out in the above condition, it may become clear that no further work is necessary to address land contamination risks. Where this is the case the condition may be discharged by the Council without all the steps specified being completed. In all cases written confirmation should be obtained from the Council confirming that the requirements of the condition have been met.

10. Prior to any development commencing above the laying of foundations within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, precise details of the means of foul water disposal relating to that Phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Phase foul water system will be made available and fully functional for each dwelling prior to their occupation.

Reason for condition:- Details are required to prevent risks of flooding in accordance with Section 14 of the NPPF and Policy ENV09 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

11. No works shall commence within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, until such

17 31 time as detailed plans of the roads, footways, cycleways, external street lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that Phase. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for that Phase prior to first occupation of any dwelling within that phase or in accordance with a timetable which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

External lighting shall be kept to a minimum for the purposes of security and site safety, and shall prevent upward and outward light radiation.

Reason for condition:- Details are required prior to commencement to ensure fundamental elements of the development that cannot be retrospectively designed and built are planned for at the earliest possible stage in the development and therefore will not lead to expensive remedial action and adversely impact on the viability of the development in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

12. No development whatsoever shall take place within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, until the plans and descriptions giving details of the landscape reserved matters for that Phase referred to above have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these plans and descriptions shall provide for a landscaping and tree planting scheme, which shall take account of any existing trees or hedges on the site. The landscaping and tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme as approved during the planting season of the November/March immediately following the commencement of the development within that Phase, or within such longer period as may be first agreed in writing, with the Local Planning Authority, and in accordance with the Council's leaflet "Tree pack" (Landscaping advice for applicants).

Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 (five) years from the completion of the landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of the same size and species unless the Local Planning Authority first gives written consent to any variation.

Reason for condition:- Details are required prior to commencement to protect existing trees in accordance with ENV06 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

13. The land to the south of the development site and to the north of the River Tud as defined by drawing Plan 1 reference: 001 Rev B, dated 20.12.2018 as "Off Site Open Green Space", shall be used for grazing land in perpetuity.

Reason for condition:- To provide a landscape buffer for the protection of the appearance and character of the edge of the Market Town of Dereham in accordance with ENV05 and ENV06 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

14. Prior to works progressing above slab level for any of the dwellings hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of at least 50 trees to be planted, including

18 32 their location, species, size and ongoing maintenance and management in the area to the south of the development site and north of the River Tud, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in full prior to occupation of the 150th dwelling, or such other timetable which shall first be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and kept in accordance with the management scheme for the following 5 years.

Reason for condition:- To mitigate the emissions from the development and increase biodiversity value in accordance with Policy ENV06 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

15. Prior to occupation of the 75th dwelling, or such other timetable which shall first be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the flood and ecological works to the River Tud and land to east of the application site as shown on the Masterplan (reference 101; Lanpro; October 2015) shall be completed in full, in accordance with approved plans and documents listed below:

- Restoration of River Tud, Method and Management Statement December 2018 - Wetland restoration proposal at River Tud meadows (Dereham): supporting information (27-05-2018) - Flood Defense Application Drawings September 2015 (references 001, 002, 101 - 105, 201 -220, 301 - 303)

These works shall form part of the first Phase of Development as defined by condition 1 and 4, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- To prevent flooding in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework 2019 paragraphs 163,165 and 170 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local sources of flooding, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events for the lifetime of the development together with the protection of local wildlife and near to the site.

16. No development within a Phase, as defined by condition 4, shall take place (including demolition ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) for that Phase including enhancement areas as shown on the Masterplan (reference 101; Lanpro; October 2015) and section of the River Tud proposed for modification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall be informed by an updated ES Ecology and Nature Chapter or updated surveys. The CEMP shall include the following:

· Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; · Identification of 'biodiversity protection zones'; · Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction; · The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; · The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; · Responsible persons and lines of communication;

19 33 · The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person; · Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP: Biodiversity shall be adhered to and implemented through the construction phases strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason for condition:- Details are required prior to commencement for the protection of local wildlife and near to the site having regard to Policy ENV02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

17. An ecological management plan (EMP) for the site including enhancement areas as shown on the Masterplan (Lanpro; October 2015) and the section of the River Tud proposed for modification informed by an updated ES Ecology and Nature Chapter or updated surveys shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development or in accordance with a timetable to be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the EMP shall include the following.

a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed, b) Ecological constraints on site that might influence management c) Aims and objectives of management d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives including mitigation detailed in the ES submitted with the application namely that for

· creation of new habitats including ponds, woodland and modification of sections of the River Tud, · Enhancement of existing riparian habitats, · protection and enhancement of hedgerows, · Eradication of variegated Yellow Archangel · Creation of long-term opportunities to attract new species and improve the suitability of the enhancement sites for wintering and potentially breeding waters · No. of nest boxes for birds, no. of bat boxes and habitat enhancements

e) Prescriptions for management actions f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period) g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan h) On-going monitoring and remedial measures

The EMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which the long-term implementation of the plan shall be secured by the developer. The plan shall also set out (where the results of monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the EMP are not being met) how remedial action shall be identified, agreed and implemented so the development still delivers the fully function biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

The development shall be carried out and implemented in full accordance with the

20 34 approved EMP for that Phase and each phase then managed and maintained in line with the approved EMP.

Reason for condition:- Details are required prior to commencement for the protection of local wildlife and near to the site having regard to Policy ENV02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

18. Prior to any works progressing above slab level within each Phase, as defined by Condition 4, a scheme for the provision of boundary screening for that phase, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such scheme as may be agreed shall be completed prior to first occupation of the dwelling which the screening adjoins.

Reason for condition:- To safeguard the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

19. No development within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, shall take place until:

A) an archaeological written scheme of investigation for that Phase has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 1) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording, 2) The programme for post investigation assessment, 3) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording, 4) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation, 5) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation and 6) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the written scheme of investigation;

B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the written scheme of investigation approved under Part (A);

C) The development within a Phase shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment for that Phase has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the archaeological written scheme of investigation approved under Part (A) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

Reason for condition:- To ensure the potential archaeological interest of the site is investigated in accordance with policy ENV07 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). These details are required prior to commencement of the development to ensure that any archaeological remains are properly protected and recorded.

20. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works above slab level shall commence on site, unless otherwise first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, until detailed drawings for the off-site highway improvement works as indicated on Drawing No. 141431 RLC-00-00-DR

21 35 SK102 Rev P2 (including Roundabout and Public Rights of Way works) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

21. Prior to first occupation of the 50th unit of the development, or such other timetable, which has been first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the off-site highway improvement works (including Roundabout and Public Rights of Way works) referred to by Condition 20 shall be completed and available for public use.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed having regard to paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

22. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works above slab level shall commence on site, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, until detailed drawings for the off-site highway improvement works as indicated on Drawing No. 141431- SK03-Rev P3 (railway bridge), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). 23. Prior to first occupation of the 150th residential unit of the development, or such other timetable as is first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the off-site highway improvement works (including Public Rights of Way works) referred to by condition 22 shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

24. Development shall not commence within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, until a scheme detailing provision for parking for construction workers for the duration of the construction period for that Phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented throughout the construction period.

22 36 Reason for condition:- To ensure adequate off-street parking during construction in the interests of highway safety in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). This needs to be a pre- commencement condition as it deals with the construction period of the development.

25. Prior to the commencement of any works within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route for that Phase which shall incorporate adequate provision for addressing any abnormal wear and tear to the highway together with wheel cleaning facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are used by construction traffic.

For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with (the construction of) the development shall comply with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan and use only the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF and Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). This needs to be a pre-commencement condition as it deals with safeguards associated with the construction period of the development.

26. Full specification details of fencing to prevent balls from straying onto the railway line adjacent to the sports pitches shall be submitted with the relevant reserved matters application/s which includes proposals for sports pitches. The approved fencing shall be erected prior to the first use of the playing pitch and retained and maintained in that form thereafter.

Reason for condition:- In order to ensure that the use of the recreation open space/playing pitches does not adversely impact on the operation of the adjacent railway, in accordance with Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

27. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, details of any external lighting for that Phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and only lighting so agreed shall be installed on the site. Such lighting shall be kept to a minimum for the purposes of security and site safety, and shall prevent upward and outward light radiation.

Reason for condition:- In the interests of amenity and prevent of pollution in accordance with Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

28. Any works relating to the development shall not take place outside the hours of

23 37 07:30 to 18:30 Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday nor at any time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays unless first agreed in writing by Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

29. Prior to the commencement of any works above slab level within a Phase, as defined by Condition 4, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the provision of fire hydrants (served by mains water supply) serving that Phase of development. No dwelling shall be occupied within that Phase until the approved hydrant(s) for that Phase have been provided in accordance with the approved scheme.

Note - One 90mm main Fire Hydrant shall be required per 50 dwellings rounded up.

Reason for condition:- In order to secure the provision of fire hydrants to serve the development.

30. No works shall take place to the railway bridge known as 'Bridge 1692' until a detailed report recording the construction methods, materials and architectural details of the bridge has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that an accurate record is made of this non-designated heritage asset in accordance with the advice set out in Paragraph 199 of the NPPF and Policy ENV08 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

31. A cycle assessment shall be submitted with any subsequent reserved matters application.

Reason for condition:-

To promote sustainable transport in accordance with Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

24 38 39 40 Re: BRECKLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL – TRAFFIC POLICY

ADVICE

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1. I am asked to advise Dereham Town Council on the interpretation and application of paragraph 109 of the NPPF by Breckland District Council (‘Breckland’) and Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’). In particular I am asked to consider whether they have correctly interpreted and applied the test in relation to three undecided planning applications, and the merits of any potential challenge.

2. In summary, I consider that: a. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF acts as a policy bar on applications being refused for highways reasons unless the development will result in severe residual cumulative impacts on the transport network. The correct interpretation of ‘residual cumulative impacts’ is those impacts of the development which will still exist after any identified mitigation measures viewed in the context of existing highways issues. (‘Existing’ here is capable of including committed development, although in theory arguments could be mounted that committed development might not be delivered). This interpretation accords with the normal meaning of the words: it is otherwise difficult to see what ‘cumulative’ impacts could possibly mean. It is also supported by the decision in Bovis Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2052. b. In the context of the undecided applications, the transport assessments for each confirm that they will cause additional traffic on parts of the road network which are already overcapacity. The assessments consider that because the number of additional movements generated by the developments is low, the impact is not significant. This is not the test that the LPA has to apply. The LPA has to consider whether the impacts in the context of the existing situation are severe. c. Any failure by the LPA to apply that test would leave the decision open to challenge on the grounds that it had misinterpreted the NPPF, or irrationality.

41 d. It is reasonably arguable that given NCC’s guidance on what it considers to be a ‘severe’ impact, any development which worsens the situation at an already unacceptable junction will meet the threshold of ‘severe residual cumulative impacts’. e. In relation to the applications I have been asked to consider, I consider that the Transport Assessments and Officer Reports in respect of each fail to engage with this issue, and (although I acknowledge that the applications have yet to be determined) if this is not addressed then any permission is potentially open to challenge.

II. BACKGROUND

Breckland Development Plan

3. Dereham is situated within Breckland’s area. Accordingly, Breckland is the local planning authority, whilst NCC is the highways authority.

4. Breckland’s Development Plan is comprised of the Core Strategy (which covers the period to 2026), the Development Control Policies Document, Site Specific Policies and Proposals, and assorted Area Action Plans.

5. A new local plan is being brought forward: I understand that the eLP was submitted for examination on 30 November 2017 and that hearing sessions commenced on 17 April 2018.

Dereham Transport Study

6. As part of the eLP process, Breckland commissioned the DTS in order to provide information on the impact of committed and potential development in Dereham on the transport system.

7. The DTS utilised the following delay benchmarks as indicators that a junction was performing unacceptably: a. >80 seconds per vehicle at signalized junctions;

42 b. >50 seconds per vehicle at priority and roundabout junctions. Such junctions attracted a ‘Level of Service’ rating of F, the lowest rating possible .

8. The DTS identified that the Tavern Lane/South Green Junction would be over- capacity in all growth scenarios, and the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction was already over-capacity at the date of publication.

9. Both junctions required mitigation measures. In the case of the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction, two options were proposed. Details are set out in full at 10.2.9 – 10.2.16 of the DTS (‘Option 1’) and 10.2.17 – 10.2.26 (‘Option 2’). In summary:

a. Option 1 necessitated the introduction of a staggered pedestrian crossing (which could be provided without any significant change to existing kerblines) and signal staging to allow pedestrians to cross Yaxham Road while traffic was kept flowing. b. Option 2 would provide a new signalized roundabout at the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road crossing, signalized pedestrian crossings on all approaches and would require slight widening of Yaxham Road west of the Green Road signals.

10. The DTS confirms that Option 1 will only provide short term relief and ‘a larger scheme would be required in the long term’ (10.2.16).

11. Option 1 has subsequently been funded, in part through receipt of government funding by NCC.

12. The Dereham Network Improvement Strategy (‘DNIS’) confirms that Option 2 is now undeliverable (Chapter 7, p. 29).

NCC transport guidance

13. NCC have published guidance entitled ‘Safe, Sustainable Development’ (‘SSD’). This is not a development plan document and has not been adopted as a supplementary planning document, but it does state that the guidance contained therein will be used by NCC in providing its advice. In my view this is sufficient to create a legitimate

43 expectation that NCC will have regard to SSD when advising on highways issues. That is to say that NCC must consider the guidance set out in SSD when advising. It may (of course) not be the only matter which they need to take into account, but if a decision is based on advice from NCC which on the face of it is contrary to policy and no justification is discernible, then that there may be a reasonable argument that the advice failed to take the policy into account, therefore vitiating any decision.

14. G1.3 of SSD states:

‘In Norfolk, a ‘severe’ impact is deemed to occur when: - - Queue lengths (and blocking back to previous junctions), delay and locational context, the Degree of Saturation, Practical Reserve Capacity, or the Ratio of Flow to Capacity are unacceptable: - Junctions do not conform to modern day standards and improvements cannot be made to bring them up to standard ….’

The Applications

15. There are three undetermined planning applications which Dereham Town Council consider may have severe impacts on the highway network, in relation to which advice is sought.

16. The relevant applications (collectively, ‘the Applications’) are: a. Planning Application 3PL/2010/1361/F – ‘the Yaxham Road application’ b. Planning Application 3PL/2015/1487/O – ‘the Swanton Road application’ c. Planning Application 3PL/2015/1490/O – ‘the Shipdham Road application’

III. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF S. 109

Approach to planning applications 17. S. 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that: (2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle] the authority shall have regard to—

44 (a)the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (aa)any considerations relating to the use of the Welsh language, so far as material to the application; (b)any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c)any other material considerations.

s. 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

18. The effect of the two provisions read together is that applications which do not conflict with the development plan policies should be approved, unless there is some other relevant matter which indicates otherwise.

19. The High Court has provided this summary in Monkhill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin):

’45. The following practical summary may assist practitioners in the field, so long as it is borne in mind that this does not detract from the more detailed analysis set out above: - It is, of course, necessary to apply s. 38(6) in any event; - If the proposal accords with the policies of an up-to-date development plan taken as a whole, then unless other considerations indicate otherwise, planning permission should be granted without delay (paragraph 11(c) of the NPPF); - If the case does not fall within paragraph 11(c) the next step is to consider whether paragraph 11(d) applies. This requires examining whether there are no relevant development plan policies or whether the most important development plan policies for determining the application are out of date;

45 - If paragraph 11(d) does apply, then the next question is whether one or more of the Footnote 6 policies are relevant to the determination of the application or appeal (limb (i)); - If there are no relevant Footnote 6 policies so that limb (i) does not apply, the decision-taker should proceed to limb (ii) and determine the application by applying the tilted balance (and s. 38(6)); - If limb (i) does apply, the decision-taker must consider whether the application of the relevant Footnote 6 policy (or policies) provides a clear reason to refuse permission for the development; - If it does, then permission should be refused (subject to applying s. 38(6) […]). Limb (ii) is irrelevant in this situation and must not be applied; - If it does not, then the decision-taker should proceed to limb (ii) and determine the application by applying the tilted balance (and s. 38(6)).

20. I am asked to consider the relevance of Para 109 to the Applications. I have not therefore considered their overall compliance with the development plan. However, I include the above to make it clear that the approach for the LPA in considering transport issues is to consider: a. Whether the applications are in accordance with the development plan, including transport policies; b. If so, permission should be granted unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This requires consideration of whether the applications are in breach of the SSD guidance applied by Norfolk and paragraph 109 NPPF. c. If not, then permission should be refused. d. If there are no relevant development plan policies, or they are silent, then the ‘tilted balance’ under Paragraph 11 NPPF falls to be applied. This provides that permission should be granted unless (i) any of the policies listed at footnote 6 provide a clear reason for refusal, or (ii) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when taking the policies of the NPPF as a whole. Again, adverse traffic impacts may fall to be considered here.

Interpretation of Paragraph 109

46 21. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF provides that:

‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’

22. In Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and ors v Redhill Aerodrome Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1386 the Court of Appeal observed: ‘there is nothing new in the proposition that such residual cumulative impacts – ie those traffic impacts which would remain after any highway improvement to limit the significant impacts of the development have been carried out – are a material planning consideration which may, in appropriate cases, justify a refusal of planning permission’.

23. The question that arises is whether the consideration of the impact of proposed development is limited to the additional impact of that development as divorced from the underlying circumstances.

24. Both common sense and authority support the view that that cannot be the correct test.

25. The NPPF refers to ‘residual cumulative impacts’. Applying the normal rules of construction, the word cumulative has to mean something. There must be something for the impacts to be cumulative to: that can only be a reference to the underlying situation.

26. This point is made in terms in Bovis Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2052 at §26 – §28:

‘…the Inspector pointed out in paragraph 223 of his report that the Framework refers not simply to the additional impact of the scheme, as had been asserted by the appellants, but to residual "cumulative" effects, implying that it is the cumulative effect of all expected development which must be taken into account in context rather than just the individual contribution of each development in turn which is likely to be, as in the present case, marginal.

47

… Put simply, he was saying that the effects of the proposed development could not be divorced from the existing context into which it was going to be inserted.

The Claimants have not put forward any challenge to paragraphs 221 to 225. It is not suggested that the approach taken by the Inspector in those paragraphs fell outside the ambit of the third bullet point of paragraph 32 of the NPPF. For my part, I do not consider it arguable that any such criticism could be made.’ (emphasis added).

27. I note that Bovis is a decision refusing permission for judicial review: however, I am not aware of any authority contradicting the observations of Holgate J set out above, which in accord with normal principles of interpretation and the ordinary meaning of the words used in the NPPF.

28. I therefore consider that the correct approach to the test in Paragraph 109 is therefore to identify the residual impacts of the scheme proposed following mitigation, and then assess their impact on the existing context of the road network.

Application of Paragraph 109

29. While the interpretation of policy is a matter of law, the application of (properly interpreted) policy is a matter of planning judgment. This can only be challenged on conventional public law principles, including irrationality (i.e. that a decision is so unreasonable that no properly informed decision-maker could have arrived at it): Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983.

30. Given my conclusions on the correct interpretation of Paragraph 109, where the effect of development will be to worsen an already unacceptable situation, that may (and one would expect normally will) be sufficient to overcome the threshold of ‘severe residual cumulative impacts’.

31. Whether the residual impacts are ‘severe’ will be a question of fact for the decision- maker in each case. However, a conclusion that the worsening of an already

48 unacceptable situation is not a ‘severe’ impact would give rise to a prima facie challenge on the grounds of rationality. It is difficult to see how the conclusion that this amounts a ‘severe’ residual cumulative impact could be avoided.

32. This is particularly acute having regard to Norfolk’s transport guidance. This sets out in terms what Norfolk consider a ‘severe’ impact to be, which includes ‘unacceptable delay’ at junctions.

33. The DTS defines ‘unacceptable’ junctions as set out above. Given that the DTS forms part of Breckland’s evidence base for the eLP, Breckland presumably accept it is a robust and up-to-date assessment. It is difficult to see how in the circumstances Breckland could resile from adopting the test for acceptability of performance set out there.

34. In turn, although I accept that the DTS and the SSD are distinct documents, the most natural conclusion is that they should be read together given the common subject matter .

35. I therefore consider that if the residual cumulative impacts of any application meet the thresholds set out in the DTS, it is difficult to see how a conclusion that the residual cumulative impacts are not severe could be justified.

36. On this basis it seems to me strongly arguable that any application which has an adverse impact on the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction will satisfy the test in Paragraph 109.

37. As set out above, any decision which fails to grapple with the existing situation of the road network would be open to challenge on the basis that the decision-maker had misinterpreted the NPPF and/or failed to take account of material consideration. Any decision which takes into account that context but concludes that the impact is not severe would potentially be open to challenge on the basis of irrationality and/or failure to give reasons (if this was not properly explained) and/or breach of a legitimate expectation (having regard to Norfolk’s transport guidance).

49 38. I provide below some observations based on the transport assessments and Officer’s Reports in each case. I acknowledge that no decision has yet been reached on the Applications, and so these comments are necessarily provisional.

IV. THE APPLICATIONS Yaxham Road Application

39. This is an application by Hopkin Homes for 255 new homes on land east of Yaxham Road under reference 3PL/2010/1361/F. A transport assessment prepared by Canham Consulting has been provided in support of the application (fifth revision dated 24 January 2019). There is also an addendum report

40. The PICARDY and ARCADY analysis (pp. 29ff) shows that at some sites the rate of flow to capacity will already be overcapacity without development, and the situation will be exacerbated with development, although the assessment considers the impact of the development itself will be limited. See for instance the comments on the Yaxham Road/Station Road roundabout at p. 34 – 35, including the view that mitigation measures are not necessary as the development has little impact. (The Addendum report contains reassessed figures in relation to this but does not appear to come to a different conclusion, stating that the issues appear to be pre-existing and the impact of the development is minimal p. 12 -13).

41. In relation to the Yaxham Road/Tavern Lane signalled junction, the assessment notes that there is an impact from the development on some movements and that some arms of the junction will be operating over capacity. However ‘the arms operating over capacity are over in the base scenarios’ (p. 39).

42. The assessment concludes that:

‘Several of the junctions examined in the local area are shown to have some capacity issues. In particular the Yaxham Road / Station Road mini- roundabout. These are shown to operate over theoretical capacity in the base scenarios (with committed developments). When considering the impact of the proposed development on these junctions it is considered that the development

50 is not causing a significant impact to the operation of the junctions, especially when considering the historic congestion issues through Dereham‘ (p. 45). ‘Overall it is considered that the proposed development does not significantly impact on the operation of the local highway network and that capacity issues at the junctions are, on the whole, pre-existing issues within the local highway network…’ (p. 46).

43. This conclusion may be defensible in its own terms, but it does not address the residual cumulative impact as set out above. There is no consideration of the acceptability of the underlying base scenario and therefore whether the residual cumulative impact would be severe.

44. The Addendum Report (most recently revised 8 October 2019) goes slightly further towards considering this, noting that:

‘If a junction is operating over its theoretical capacity, it does not mean that the level of operation at the junction is unacceptable. Junctions can operate over capacity and still be operating acceptably. A junction can be operating over capacity in the base situation and can continue to operate over capacity with development traffic, with both scenarios the junctions can be operating at an acceptable level. It is the impact the development has on the operation that is considered within the Transport Assessment.’ (p. 17)

‘We alongside the Highway Authority consider that this increase in traffic and its associated impact is not significant.’ (p. 18)

‘For the reasons stated above we consider that the development traffic would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would not lead to a severe residual impact.’ (p. 19)1

1 I note in passing that the Addendum states in its summary that ‘the findings of the sensitivity test were that the Tavern Lane/A47 slip road junction operates within theoretical capacity when development traffic takes the reassigned route’ but does not address the functioning of the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction in the summary, despite stating that this was a particular focus of the sensitivity tests.

51 45. However, this still does not grapple with the question which the LPA must ask itself when considering Paragraph 109. The question for the LPA is not whether the residual impact of the development is severe. It is whether the residual cumulative impact is severe. This requires the LPA to have regard to the relevant context. It is quite possible that the impact of a development in its own terms may be limited, but the residual cumulative impacts still be severe.

46. The most recent Officers Report (22 July 2019) also fails to grapple with this. It states ‘new development can only be required to mitigate its impacts and not those of a pre- existing situation. On this basis the application is recommended for approval’. This fails to recognise that the pre-existing situation is nonetheless a relevant matter, and one that falls to be considered by the LPA when considering the severity of residual cumulative impacts.

Swanton Road Application

47. This is an application for up to 216 dwellings at land off Swanton Road under reference 3PL/2015/1487/O.

48. The Transport Assessment concludes that in 2020 only the Road / Station Road Mini-Roundabout and the Tavern Lane / Yaxham Road Traffic Signal controlled junction would be over capacity. The assessment states that even in the absence of development it would be expected that the highway authority would seek to intervene at the junctions to aid their future operation. (p. 32)

49. Mitigation is considered: there was a proposal that (in effect) the DNIS Option 1 scheme be brought forward.

50. There are again a number of ORs in relation to this application; however the comments on transport issues are identical in each.

51. The OR that NCC initially objected to the development on highways grounds, but subsequently considered that the impact of the development would not be ‘severe’ in accordance with NPPF. As the scheme mitigated its impact and delivered network improvements in line with DTS, they raised no objection.

52

52. In passing, it is not clear from this that NCC considered the point that the DTS identifies the scheme proposed as providing relief only in short term.

53. At §4.3 the OR sets out the test (then in para 32 of NPPF) and at §4.4 refers to the DTS and the two options. It does not address the comments in the DTS that Option 1 ‘could be implemented to provide some short term relief provided that it is recognised that a larger scheme would be required in the long term’ (DTS 10.2.16).

54. §4.6 states that developments can only be required to mitigate own impacts and concludes at§ 4.7 that the appliucation does this. Accordingly ‘the impact of the development is not likely to be ‘severe’ and is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the NPPF’.

55. This is not the test. Although the OR recites the test correctly there are clear indications that it has been misinterpreted (to leave out any reference to ‘cumulative’ impacts).

Shipdham Road Application 56. This application relates to Land off Westfield Road, East Dereham (application reference Planning Application 3PL/2015/1490/O)

57. The Transport Assessment dated December 2015 was prepared by Clewlow Consulting

58. This notes at §2.19 that ‘Shipdham Road leads northwards to a key point on the East Dereham highway network, the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction. This junction is signal-controlled and is presently operating at capacity for much of the morning and evening peak hours’.

59. The effects of the development on this junction are considered as ‘wider network effects’ at §7.22. This comments that ‘the flows at this junction will increase primarily as a result of forecast growth and also as a result of the development flows’. It does not however assess in terms the impact of the development on this junction, or its severity.

53

60. It also notes that there may be impacts at local junctions, i.e. Shipdham Road/School Lane, where ‘it will however be more difficult for vehicles to enter and leave Shipdham Road unless traffic slows and/or drivers cede priority to turning traffic’ (§7.17). Again, there is no assessment of the impact of this or its severity.

61. In the absence of any such analysis, it is difficult to see how the assessment reaches its conclusion that there will be limited impact from the development. In addition, there is no consideration of the severity of the ‘cumulative’ effects.

62. An Addendum Report was provided in October 2016. This records at 2.16 that the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction ‘represents a major consideration within the highway network of Dereham for any developments coming forward and not just this application’, and refers to the DTS. It also recites agreed highways contributions at §2.17.

63. It does not however carry out any modelling in respect of this junction, and so there remains no information about the likely effect of the development.

64. Again, there are a number of ORs. These do not engage with the issues identified above.

65. The Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction is mentioned only in the context of the DTS Options, but there is no discussion of these in relation to the proposed development. All that is said is that ‘in terms of the impact of the development on the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction the applicant has considered this in the context of the [DTS] and refers to an approach which was discussed with the Council of providing a contribution towards the measures contained within the Dereham Transport study’ (§4.8). There is no consideration of the impact of the scheme or whether the residual cumulative impacts could be severe.

66. It is said at §4.14 that ‘the proposed development mitigates its impact at the adjacent junctions’ but it is unclear whether this includes the Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road junction, and if so what the basis for this conclusion.

54 V. CONCLUSION

67. My conclusions on the operative questions are set out at §2 above. In particular, I consider that Paragraph 109 of the NPPF must be interpreted as requiring consideration of the cumulative impact of the residual impact of development (after mitigation) and the existing transport situation. Any decision which fails to grapple with this is likely to be open to challenge.

68. If there is any further way in which I can assist please do not hesitate to ask.

RACHEL SULLIVAN 39 CHAMBERS

5 November 2019

55 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

ITEM: 1 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL REF NO: 3PL/2015/1490/O CASE OFFICER Debi Sherman

LOCATION: DEREHAM APPNTYPE: Outline Land off Shipdham Road, POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Westfield Road and Westfield Lane ALLOCATION: N CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Glavenhill Strategic Land (Number 1) LB GRADE: N Limited C/O Lanpro Services Limited Brettingham House AGENT: Lanpro Services Ltd TPO: N Brettingham House 98 Pottergate PROPOSAL: Residential development for a minimum of 291 dwellings,link roads, open space and recreational space. AMENDED PROPOSAL to include demolition of existing railway bridge at Westfield Lane and construction of a replacement two-way railway bridge (instead of traffic signalling works at the junction of South Green and Tavern Lane).

DEFERRED REASON INTRODUCTION

This application was considered t the Planning Committee meeting of 15th January 2018 where it was resolved to refused planning permission. An extract of the minutes is set out below:

DECISION: Members voted 7 x 4 not to accept the Officer's recommendation of approval.

REASONS: 1. the intrusion of built development into the open countryside and the creation of a hard edge to the Town of Dereham; and

2. significant visual impact and harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape.

DECISION: Members voted 5 x 5 (plus one abstention) not to accept the Officer's recommendation of approval and refuse the application.

The vote was tied 5 x 5. The Chairman was entitled to his casting vote and voted that the application be refused on the above stated two grounds together with a highway ground, including the impact of the junction on a 'C' Class road being used as an entrance/access point to the development. It was agreed that the final wording for the decision of refusal would be drafted by Officers in consultation with the Chairman

The scheme has been the under consideration since that time with a view to seeking to address concerns raised by Members.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 56 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal has altered by referencing up to a maximum of 291 dwellings, incorporates details of a proposed roundabout within the site and the demolition of the existing single-track bridge over the railway line and erection of a replacement bridge in a similar location to enable two-way traffic to pass over the bridge with no waiting restrictions.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

NPPF published in July 2018 with particular reference to Paragraphs 11, 14, 72, 86, 89, 108, 109, 110, 163, 175,-176, 189-190 & 197.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

DEREHAM TOWN COUNCIL

1. With regards to the visual intrusion into open countryside and the creation of a hard edge to the Town:

The revised application, although it is an outline application, the indicative layout will often be used as the basis for the detailed application.

The Town Council still objects to this application on the grounds that it would create a hard edge to the Town, impacting on the character and appearance of the site, it objects to the indicative layout on this basis. if Breckland are minded to approve the application then, it should be done on the basis that the indicative layout is not acceptable and the detailed design should give considerable consideration to how the development would minimise the potential visual impact and harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape.

2. With regards highway's matters, including the impact the single-track railway bridge.

In the applicants Addendum to the Planning Statement dated September 2018, the applicant places great emphasis on the fact that this site is allocated in the local plan and the Local Plan is at such an advanced stage that emerging policies should be considered. In the applicant wishes for Local Plan polices to be used to judge this application than then all local the Local Plan policies should be applied, not just the policies that are favourable to the applicant. The Breckland Transport Study carried out by White Young Green (WYG) forms part of the evidence base for the Local Plan and is a material consideration for any application.

2.1 Westfield Road.

The WYG study stated at 8.6.5 that; "for developments in the south of Dereham no additional traffic should be placed on Westfield Road". There are no measures in the indicative layout of the link road preventing additional traffic traveling along Westfield Road.

- The indicative layout therefore is not compliant with the Local Plan evidence base, because there are no measures preventing vehicular access onto Westfield Road.

2.2 Cycle Links.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 57 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

The WYG Study at 12.4.2 also stated that for developments to the south of Dereham, there should be good cycle links. Good cycling links are also required as part of Local Plan Policies GEN 2 and TR01. The NPPF is very explicit on the need that sustainable transport is a real option, this is reflected in the Planning Practice Guidance's for Travel Plans and Transport Statements.

To meet the requirements of Breckland Policy GEN 02 and TRO1, the NPPF and PPGs, the developer should have 1. identified desire lines for cyclists accessing specific destinations, from the development site, including the high schools and town centre 2. carried out a review using a standard methodology such as the Cycling level of Service tool kit 3. identified any factors which may make the routes unattractive to cyclists. 4. Proposed improvements to the network which would enable residents from the development site to safely and conveniently access services.

There is a particular issue in Dereham with traffic volumes and congestion (See LTN 2/08) many routes have critical factors that would make them unattractive to cyclists (see the Cycling Level of Service tool). With regards to cyclists, highway safety is not simply a matter of reviewing the accident data and saying there have not been many accidents therefore the roads are safe for cyclists (as some applications have got away with). LTN 2/08 along with other guidance such as the Cycle Level of Service, are very clear that it is the perceptions of danger that deter people from cycling. This is especially true for female cyclists; a lot of research has identified perceptions of danger as the biggest single barrier to women cycling on a regular basis.

The application is not compliant with Breckland Policy GEN 02 and TRO1, the NPPF and PPGs with regard to sustainable transport. The Application should be refused until a clear review of cycling is carried out.

It is well established that perceptions of danger is the biggest single barrier to women cycling on a regular basis. This is; therefore, an equality issues for which Breckland Council have a duty to consider. The application proposes a roundabout but does not include details of how the roundabout can be safely used by cyclists.

If a roundabout is to be included, it must be designed to accommodate cyclists and follow design guidance for roundabouts.

2.3 Impact on the road network.

The Local Plan Policy 'Dereham Housing Allocation 2' stipulated that development on this site will be permitted 'subject to the development contributing towards required highways improvements in Dereham having regard to the Dereham Transport Study'. The Dereham Transport Study identified three road improvement schemes (listed below) that would be required to make the highway function effectively with the additional growth proposed in the Local Plan. South Green / Tavern Lane Junction. The Dereham Transport Study identified that this junction would soon be over capacity and a new signalised junction would be required. The Applicant recognised that a signalised junction would be required to mitigate the impact this development would have on the Highway. The applicant included such a scheme in its original application. So a signalised junction at South Green was identified as being needed in the Dereham Transport Study and accepted as such by the applicant. The Planning Committee identified that the railway bridge at Westfield Lane also required improving, for the application to be acceptable.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 58 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

The applicant is proposing construct the railway bridge on Westfield Lane rather than the signalised junction at South Green. Such a proposal is contrary to the Dereham Transport Study and the Local Plan. Both a new railway bridge on Westfield Lane and a signalised junction at South Green are required to make the development acceptable. Two schemes have been identified as being needed - two schemes should be delivered. The application should be refused on the grounds that it will not mitigate its impact on the highway network.

The proposed new railway bridge.

The proposed bridge is to be welcomed, given that we were previously told it was impossible.

To be acceptable the bridge needs to be wider to accommodate two footways and a cycle lane to link to potential cycle infrastructure on Yaxham Road. The bridge must also be able to accommodate bus services.

Tavern Lane / Yaxham Road Junction.

The Dereham Transport Study (that forms the evidence for the Local Plan) identified that significant improvements would be required at this junction, to accommodate the projected traffic growth. These improvements were split into short-term small-scale improvements and improvements to take account of all the local plan growth. The short-term improvements were to change the timings of the lights and reconfigure the pedestrian crossing. These works have now been completed. The long-term solution was a signalised roundabout at Tavern Lane, this will cost in excess of £3million, but Breckland Council have not secured any developer contribution towards this roundabout nor has Norfolk County Council allocated any funding towards it or even included it in any of its strategic road improvement plans. Both authorities endorsed the Dereham Transport Study, so its recommendations should not be ignored.

The signalised roundabout has been identified as being needed within the next 8 years - but neither authority have identified how it will be funded. No further development in Dereham should be approved until funding has been secured to deliver the road infrastructure identified by Breckland Council and Norfolk County Council as being needed.

2.4 Link Road.

If the proposal is for a link road, then a link road should be constructed. The proposal in the outline application, is not configured as a link road, but as a residential estate road, designed to reduce vehicle speeds. If a link road is needed then it should be designed as a link road, link roads only function as such if they are a quicker alternative route. If they are designed to be slow, as is the case here, then they do not function as a link road and little traffic is diverted.

If Breckland Council are minded to approve the application, then it must be subject to the indicative link road is unacceptable and the final link road being designed to maximise its effectiveness in moving traffic between Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road.

WINBURGH & WESTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL

My Council has already made its objections to this application clear as part of the original consultation. Rebuilding the bridge will help alleviate the pinch-point on Westfield Road, but does nothing to meet the many other objections. Indeed, by delivering traffic to the B1135 more easily it will in fact make the problems

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 59 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - here even greater. To summarise, my Council's concerns include: -The impact of the additional dwellings on the traffic and availability of services in Dereham. -Traffic surveys presented appear to have taken place at times avoiding the busiest periods in Dereham. - From this development traffic heading to Shipdham, Watton and Thetford will take the single-track road through Westfield to get to the A1075, which will become a rat run. Similarly, traffic heading to will use the B1135 southwards through Whinburgh, which also involves crossing a narrow bridge with a sharp bend on either side. Traffic heading for Norwich will try to use the B1135 to access the A47. At peak times the roundabout is already blocked solid (the attempt to re-phase the traffic lights having had no discernible effect) with queues stretching south well past the Westfield Road junction. - Construction of a new bridge will do nothing to lessen the impact of the intrusion of built development into the open countryside. - Similarly, this change will not lessen the significant visual impact and harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape in any way.

My Council continues to object strongly to this application and asks that Breckland Planning Committee listen to the electorate, and refuses permission, and thus remove this sword hanging over our residents.

SHIPDHAM PARISH COUNCIL

Issues with traffic going onto Tesco roundabout, which is already very congested. Not happy with demolition of Westfield Road bridge, which has only recently been renovated.

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY

Further to my formal response on the 17 January 2017, additional information has been submitted by the applicant and an amendment consultation dated 25 September 2018 has been undertaken.

The applicant is now in a position to provide a full road and pedestrian bridge over the mid Norfolk railway. The scheme submitted is purely indicative and will be subject to detailed design and consultation. In addition, the applicant has proposed the delivery of a roundabout on the A1075 Shipdham Road. This is instead of the signalisation of South Green/Tavern Lane.

Whilst previously the highway authority had accepted that the signalisation of South Green/Tavern Lane was an important piece of mitigation, the highway authority also considers that the provision of a roundabout will also bring significant benefits to that section of the A1075 in that not only will it provide a gateway feature for the town but will also act as a speed reducing feature. Therefore, on balance the highway authority is happy to accept the delivery of a roundabout in lieu of signalising the South Green/Tavern Lane junction.

In light of the above and in accordance with the earlier recommendation, the highway authority recommends no objection subject to conditions relating to the following -

-Management and maintenance of streets -Details of roads, footways, cycleways, lighting, foul & surface water drainage -Footways/cycleways constructed prior to occupation of dwellings -Phasing plan to be agreed for footways and cycleways -On site parking for construction workers -Agreement of construction traffic management plan and access route -Agreement of details of proposed roundabout at 50th occupation -Agreement of details of proposed replacement two-way bridge at 150th occupation

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 60 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY No additional comments to make.

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No further comments, previous comments apply.

AIR QUALITY Previous comments apply.

STRATEGIC HOUSING The scheme offers 40% affordable housing, no objections are raised on this basis.

RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION Previous comments remain relevant apart form the section relating to Bradley Moor.

NORFOLK RIVERS DRAINAGE BOARD Recommend that the application to discharge is made prior to the determination of the planning application.

NATURAL ENGLAND No comments to add.

LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY No objections subject to proposed conditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION No objections.

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND Unlikely to have any further impact on the strategic road network.

LETTERS OF REPRESENTATION

A further 35 letters of representation have been received, the majority of the issues raised have been addressed elsewhere in the main report, but the following additional issues raised are summarised below:

-Railway bridge has a blind summit, necessary because of clearance required for operational railway underneath. Pedestrians generally walking on Yaxham Road to catch a bus or walk to school - normally on the North side of the bridge. Plans show footway on South side of the bridge only. Pedestrians will have to cross on both ends to use the footway. Insufficient pedestrian visibility - just 500mm on the North side of the bridge. Pedestrians may try to stay on the North side and become compromised. Footway should either be on the North side or even better, on both sides. -Who will maintain the proposed bridge? -Will create a 'rat run' along School Lane and Westfield Lane -Schools traffic blocks up the area which the bridge will not help -Not going to be safe turning right into another roundabout at Yaxham Road/Westifeld Lane junction (Hopkins Homes - Dumpling Green). -Coalescence of Dereham and Westifeld should be resisted - Ugrading the estate road to a distributor road changes the proposed layout, no indication of the proposed

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 61 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - priorities at the new junctions, no capacities provided of the proposed bridge are provided, need to know extent of proposed parking restrictions. No updated transport Assessment review has been provided and no consideration of the effects on traffic flows through Shipdam and Yaxham. -Distributor road defined as 'low to moderate capacity road which serves to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads'. There will an increase in commercial vehicle loadings which could require the upgrading of surface water treatment and disposal. -Inadequate provision for cyclists as bridge width only 5.5m and footpaths only 1 m in width. -Concerns about siting of football pitches next to the railway line. -Should be removed from the Breckland Local Plan and refer instead to the Dereham Town Plan which incudes the Dumpling Green development -New bridge is welcomed but removal of the improvements to Tavern Lane are irrational and will lead to congestion -New traffic survey data required because of recent works to lights at Tavern Lane junction -Impacts on the areas of ecological interest have not been considered, Potters Fen and Fen. -No approach made to the Mid Norfolk Railway regarding the proposed bridge -Traffic impacts require a bypass of Shipdham -Tavern Lane junction and impacts on the A47 remain an issue -Widening of the bridge removes a traffic calming measure -How will 500-600 additional cars be accommodated? -Crime on the increase in Dereham already will add to this -Amended proposal will result in the loss of a historic and characterful bridge that is part of the railway heritage -Assurances wanted regarding impacts on property closest to the bridge

ASSESSMENT NOTES

EMERGING LOCAL PLAN

The current application, when debated previously by Members in January of this year, was identified as a preferred allocation for 290 dwellings in the Emerging Local Plan (ELP). The assessment undertaken as part of the site allocation process has been ongoing since 2014 when the 'Issues and Options' document was produced by the Council which was the subject of public consultation. This was followed by the 'Preferred Directions Consultation' and a number of Local Plan Working Groups to consider the sites put forward during the earlier consultation process. The identified sites have also been subject to Sustainability Appraisal (inc Strategic Environmental Assessment) process to ensure that the allocations accord with the principles of sustainable development.

The site is identified in the 'Breckland Local Plan Preferred Site Options and Settlement Boundaries 2016' as a 'Preferred' site. The 'Key Development Considerations' referenced in this document relating to this site are identified as follows:

-The site is proposed as a preferred allocation for 290 dwellings -The principle access to the site will be from Shipdham Road -An access link should be provided from Shipdham Road to Yaxham Road -Appropriate landscaping to the south of the development -On-site open space should be secured through the application -Development should contribute towards required highways improvements in Dereham having regard to the Dereham Transport Study

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 62 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Since that time, the EIP has been the subject of a number of Examination in Public (EIP) hearing sessions during which the District's housing allocations have been examined and assessed. This site was discussed during those sessions.

In the case of this site, the EIP Inspector took the view that the matters raised during the EIP session were specific to the planning application rather than the principle of the allocation. At the time of writing this update report, there is no information from the EIP Inspector that any changes are proposed to this site or the other housing allocations in Dereham. It therefore follows that the principle of this site coming forward for development has been accepted and the weight which can be attributed to the allocation for residential development is greater than at the time the application was previously considered by Members. This represents a material consideration in the determination of the application.

VISUAL IMPACT/CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

It was acknowledged and examined in Paragraph 3.2 of the main report (see below) that the development of the site is acceptable and can be adequately accommodated within the site. Further to this, following the amendment to the description of development incorporating an upper limit of 291 no. dwellings, there is now certainty over the maximum number of units that would come forward. On this basis, the scheme would have an overall gross density of no more than 11.37 dwellings per hectare (dph). The indicative layout proposes significant open space 'buffer zones' towards the south and east of the development site. The net developable areas identified on the indicative parameter plans are shown to range in density from 27-29 dph to 33-35 dph. These density ranges are appropriate in an edge of town location. Further, the built development element of the scheme would be seen with the back drop of existing residential and commercial development, which currently forms the southern edge of Dereham.

The applicant has referenced significant mitigation measures on land to the south of the application site, incorporating restoration of the River Tud and the re-introduction of grazing land along its northern banks. Further, there are measures proposed on land to the east for various ecological mitigation measures that would represent overall improvements to the biodiversity of the area. Officers are advised that these measures would be delivered via a Unilateral Undertaking, the details of which are being prepared at the time of writing this report.

HIGHWAYS MATTERS

The resolution to refuse planning permission also focussed on the use of the 'C' class road being utilised as an access/egress from the development site. In response to these concerns, the applicant has offered a package of alternative highways measures.

The application has been subject to three main revisions which have the subject of re-consultation.

1.A new two-way road bridge crossing the Mid Norfolk Railway line (previously it was proposed to provide priority signalisation for single file traffic and erect a separate footbridge to provide access for pedestrians). This solution would improve the use of Westfield Lane onto/from Yaxham Road. The proposed revision involves the demolition of the existing narrow 19th century railway bridge (explored in the section below) and the erection of a new bridge that would have a carriageway width of 5.5m and a 1.8m wide footpath on its southern side, thus providing a combined vehicular and pedestrian bridge. 2.A new roundabout has been proposed within the site at its junction with A1075 Shipdham Road to provide an improved junction on the western boundary of the site. 3.The previously proposed off site highway works involving the signalisation of South Green/Tavern Lane has been removed from the development proposal.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 63 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

The Highway Authority have been consulted and assessed the impact of the removal of the proposed signalisation works at the Green Lane/Tavern Lane junction against the proposal for the roundabout and new two-way bridge. They have acknowledged that the revised scheme in the form of the roundabout will provide significant benefits to that section of the A1075 as a gateway feature and as a speed reducing measure. It is on this basis that the requirement to carry out the signalisation at Green Lane/Tavern Lane can be removed and no objections are raised by the Highway Authority on this basis.

The proposed two-way bridge over the railway has been assessed by the Highway Authority and considered acceptable subject to a detailed design coming forward via planning conditions. It is noted that concerns are expressed regarding the design of the bridge, but the design specification would be subject of full detailed design approval by the Highway Authority. No objections are raised on this basis. The agent advises that the Mid Norfolk Railway has been fully consulted during this process and would also be involved at design specification stage.

Concerns continue to be raised regarding the cycling routes and connections with the wider cycle network. No objections have been raised by the Highway Authority to this aspect of the scheme and it is considered that the opportunities for cycle connections facilitated by the development are acceptable in context of the wider development proposal.

LOSS OF NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSET

The railway bridge has been identified in the Environmental Statement as a non-designated heritage asset. Its loss there has to be assessed, in accordance with Paragraph 197 of the NPPF and a balanced judgement made regarding its loss in context of its significance. A statement of significance is currently being prepared to address these aspects, but the agent has advised that their own heritage consultant has assessed the bridge and confirmed that much of the original structure has been replaced or is in a poor state of repair. It is also understood that Mid Norfolk Railway are seeking replacement of the bridge. An update will be provided on the Supplementary Agenda.

OTHER MATTERS

The majority of the issues raised by third parties have been raised and addressed previously or assessed as part of this update report. There are updates to the contribution requirements from Norfolk County Council (NCC) which the agent has acknowledged are acceptable without affecting viability. A request that has come forward from NCC to extend the existing Public Rights of Way Network in the locality, which would come forward as part of the mitigation package and can secured via the S106 agreement and potentially the Unilateral Undertaking (UU).

CONCLUSIONS

The scheme has been amended with a view to addressing the resolution to refuse at the Committee on 15th January 2018. The amendments relate to changes to the highway infrastructure associated with the development and the clarification of the upper limit on the number of dwellings that would come forward as a result of the scheme.

There has been no new specific information to address Members concerns regarding potential intrusion into the open countryside or creation of a hard edge of the development but the scheme is in outline form with matters such as layout, scale and appearance being reserved for future consideration. Officers remain of the

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 64 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - view that these aspects can be dealt with under a Reserved Matters submission in the event that outline permission is forthcoming.

The inclusion of the proposed roundabout and new two-way combined pedestrian/vehicular bridge over the railway at Westfield Lane is considered to represent an improvement, although the omission of signalisation of the Green Lane/Tavern Lane signalisation works must be balanced against these improvements.

In carrying out the planning balancing exercise, regard has also been paid to the advanced status of the Emerging Local Plan and continued allocation of the site for 290 dwellings which represents a change in circumstances since the application was last before Members and a material consideration.

Overall, taking into account the above and advice set out in the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 11, it is acknowledged that the Council does not currently have a five year housing land supply, and the adopted development plan policies are out of date. As such, weighing up the various elements of the scheme it is considered the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assess against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. It is on this basis that the proposal remains recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommend APPROVAL subject the following S106 and UU obligations and conditions as set out in the CONDITIONS section at the end of the main report.

-Provision of on-site affordable housing at 40% -Contribution to Library Services 21,825 pounds sterling -Contribution to Early Years and Primary Education on a pro rata basis 1,210,976 pounds sterling -NHS contribution of 91,740 pounds sterling -Public Open Space Maintenance Contribution -Off site works associated with he restoration of the River Tud circa 182,5500 pounds sterling -Onsite Open Space totalling 12.63 ha -Offsite green space to be reverted to low intensity grazing land totalling 13ha -Works to improve the off-site PROW network

The previous reports are set out in full below.

15th JANUARY 2018

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 3rd February 2017 for further highway information in consultation with Highways England and their technical advisors AECOM.

This update report provides details of the historical highway context of the site and the negotiations that have taken place since the deferral between the transport consultants representing the Applicant and Highways England/AECOM, together with the conclusions reached at this stage.

An update is also included on policy matters that have changed since the original report was last presented to Members.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 65 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Access/Highways

Back in 2015, following a scoping exercise, it was agreed between the Applicant and Norfolk County Council that the local impact of scheme, in terms of Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road as well as Westfield Lane, would be assessed as part of the Transport Assessment submitted with the planning application, whilst the wider network effects would be assessed as part of the Dereham Transport Study (DTS), which was just being commissioned. The application site was included as a preferred option for housing in the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan and this resulted in it also being included as part of modelled transport options in the Dereham Transport Study.

The Base Case findings in the 2015 Dereham Transport Study showed that Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road was already operating at capacity. The Applicant therefore contends that is an issue for Norfolk County Council as the highway authority to resolve, dating back to that time. The initial findings of the Dereham Transport Study also showed that background traffic growth has had a far more dominating impact on the operation of the local road network than the number of vehicles associated with new housing. Therefore, in order to better understand effect of housing growth, the Dereham Transport Study also assessed traffic effects of housing growth against base traffic flows only. Furthermore, a 2026 scenario was also tested which included assumed traffic growth.

Data produced for the Dereham Transport Study in August 2016 demonstrates that only when background traffic growth is included does demand exceed capacity at any junction other than Tavern Lane/Yaxham Road in the town. With mid or high growth levels of new housing (defined as being in excess of 1000 new homes or in excess of 1600 new homes respectively) the junction which is most affected is South Green/Tavern Lane. The suggested improvement to the South Green/Tavern Lane junction is the installation of traffic signals. This is likely to be relatively straightforward to implement if needed. However, careful analysis is needed as the modelling in the Dereham Transport Study shows that there are a number of thresholds which must be met before a requirement for this particular intervention can be justified. Nevertheless, the Applicant agreed with Norfolk County Council in January 2017 that there would be a contribution exclusively to the improvement of the South Green/Tavern Lane junction such that this could be delivered in its entirety once/if needed.

Since the February meeting of the Planning Committee Highways England has been consulted and it has been noted that the A47 slip roads junction with Tavern Lane was not included in the scope of the Dereham Transport Study. There was no information available to assess impact of the recommendations in the Transport Study on the A47, such as if the South Green/Tavern Lane junction is signalised. In considering this scenario on behalf of Highways England, AECOM enquired about the possibility of an effect on the A47 slip roads junction. The Applicant was therefore asked by Highways England to address this issue. In subsequent discussions between the parties it has been resolved that, provided there would be no impact on eastbound through traffic due to vehicles queuing on the slip road, Highways England would raise no objection to the planning application since most concerns have arisen as a result of the findings of the Dereham Transport Study instead. A submission presented to Highways England in October 2017 showed that modifying the capacity assessment to represent a more limited A47 slip roads junction would not reduce capacity and so queuing on to the A47 eastbound would not occur. Highways England has accordingly confirmed no objection while noting that development of any improvements to the South Green/Tavern Lane junction should properly take in to account any effect on the A47 slip roads junction.

The application has now been referred back to the Norfolk County Council Highway Authority which also raises no objections as, on balance, the scheme is judged to accord with the highway policies identified in the original report below. On the basis of this progress it is recommended to Members that the application should not be refused on highways grounds.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 66 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Policy Matters

The application site continues to be identified as a preferred option for housing allocation in the Local Plan which was formally submitted for examination to the Secretary of state on the 30th November 2017. On adoption of the Local Plan this site would form part of the Council's forward looking housing land supply.

A Statement of Five Year Housing Land Supply was presented to the Planning Committee on 31st July 2017 and since this application was last considered by Members. Breckland's current situation is that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. In order to boost the supply of housing in the short term, in addition to the new Local Plan, the Council will need to have regard to this position when considering applications for development on sustainable sites which fall immediately adjacent to settlement boundaries. Whilst this will only apply where sites meet all other relevant requirements of the Development Plan, the current circumstances are a material factor weighing in favour of the principle of the proposals set out in this application. The five year land supply statement is reviewed on at least an annual basis, using the base date of 31st March each year.

The Yaxham Neighbourhood Development Plan has now been made but this does not directly affect the application site.

The previous report is reproduced in full below. The recommendation is that the application is approved subject to conditions (a fully updated schedule will be included in the supplemental report to be presented to Members at the meeting) and a Section 106 Agreement to cover the heads of terms set out in paragraph 9.1 below.

REASON FOR COMMITEE CONSIDERATION The application is referred to Committee as a major development proposal.

KEY ISSUES Principle of development and policy matters. Local character, amenity and trees. Access. Ecology. Other matters

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Outline permission is sought for residential development of 25.6 hectares of land to the South of Dereham situated between Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road.

Whilst permission is sought for access only with all other matters reserved indicative layout drawings have been submitted which show 291 houses together with road and public open space.

The proposed houses would be accessed from a new priority junction onto Shipdham Road, Westfield Road and Westfield Lane.

The application constitutes EIA development and is accompanied by an environmental statement which

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 67 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - encompasses a number of documents and technical reports, including a Baseline Ecological Survey and Mitigation Strategy, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Contaminated Land Assessment, Noise Survey, Transport Assessment, Utilities / Services Appraisal, Archaeological Evaluation and Flood Risk Assessment

The application is also supported by a Design & Access Statement, Planning Statement and a Statement of Community Involvement.

SITE AND LOCATION The application site is located to the southern side of Dereham between Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road, Straddling Westfield Lane south of Westfield Road and Boyd Avenue / School Road. Existing residential development lies to the north of the site on Westfield Road and Boyd Avenue. The site is bounded to the south by the River Tud and to the east by the Mid Norfolk Railway. The site extends to around 25.6 hectares in total and is presently comprised of greenfield agricultural land.

The site is host to a large number of mature and semi mature trees as well as hedgerows to field boundaries.

EIA REQUIRED Yes - the application is supported by an Environmental Statement

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY No relevant site history

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy and Development Control Policies and the adopted Site Specific Policies and Proposals Document, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate The following policies of the adopted Breckland Core Strategy and Development Control Policies and the adopted Site Specific Policies and Proposals Document, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate.

SS1 Spatial Strategy CP.01 Housing CP.04 Infrastructure CP.05 Developer Obligations CP.08 Natural Resources CP.10 Natural Environment DC.01 Protection of Amenity DC.02 Principles of New Housing DC.04 Affordable Housing Principles DC.12 Trees and Landscape DC.16 Design

NPPF With particular reference to paragraphs 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 49, 103 & 118

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 68 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

NPPG National Planning Practise Guidance

'Manual for Streets' 2007

Dereham Draft Neighbourhood Plan, (Draft only - given the stage it is at it is considered to carry no weight)

Preferred Site Options and Settlement Boundaries consultation document September 2016

OBLIGATIONS/CIL Not Applicable

CONSULTATIONS

PHILLIP DUIGAN This application does have merit in how it deals with the provision of Open Space and Recreational Facilities. There is currently a deficit of both south of the A47. There are concerns though on the effects on Traffic. The development would put extra pressure on the Westfield Lane Railway Bridge but does not offer a solution which is in the control of the developer. The effects of the extra traffic at the Tavern Lane Lights needs to be assessed. This development would be long way from the centre of the town and many of its facilities. Sites to the north and east of the town would be better related to the town centre the landscape to the south of Dereham is attractive and of quality; this development should not compromise this. CLLR KATE MILLBANK Traffic is the main issue and this will not easily be solved. A whole new road to the south taking traffic straight to the A47 would help but at some cost. Lack of Doctors surgeries and a lack of doctors Dereham and Breckland do need and will get more housing, the neighbourhood plan will allow Dereham residents a say in where new housing is allocated.

Of the three large housing applications that have been made in the Toftwood area I feel that this one has had the most thought and consideration given to it. The developers have consulted with local councillors and residents and taken on board the need for more open space and play areas in the area as well as the type of housing, spacing and landscaping needed to help it blend into the countryside to the south.

I have reservations about any housing because of the added strain on Dereham's traffic system in this area but would support this scheme in favour of the others that have been put forward. CLLR LYNDA TURNER Support this application because of the need for open space and recreational facilities in the Toftwood area.

Pleased to see a relief road included, to alleviate the pressure on Shipdham Road and School Lane, Toftwood.

My only suggestion at this stage of Outline Planning Permission would be to suggest a linking footpath, cyclepath, between the edge of the proposed development and Shipdham village itself. To enable residents from Shipdham to access the open space/recreational facilities via foot or cycle, rather than cars.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 69 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

There will be questions about school places and doctors surgery capacity etc. but in principle I support this application in its outline format. DEREHAM T C No indication of what maximum number of dwellings will be, not possible to assess sustainability without this

Applicant has not demonstrated the proposal will be delivered within five years and contribute to the five year housing land supply and should be refused.

While there are some services in walking distance most are not, there is no assessment to demonstrate that cycling could be encouraged.

Transport Assessment, (TA), does not consider Saturdays, congestion at weekends is worse and TA needs to address this.

TA does not analyse impact of Tavern Lane junction which operates at capacity for much of the peak and no measures are put forward to mitigate this.

TA does not address width of Westfield Lane, Westfield Road and School lane.

TA shows that traffic flow on Shipdham Road will exceed that which requires cycle lanes.

Query cycle parking arrangements

Lights over railway could affect cyclists, the bridge is a significant barrier and a better solution should be found.

Walk to school audit only considers secondary schools, most houses are outside of the 3km distance which most children will walk.

Review of transport network should be undertaken to encourage sustainable transport solutions including cycling.

Applicant has not demonstrated site is sustainable.

Issues turning right into Shipdham Road will be made worse, especially for cyclists.

No evidence link road will have a positive impact.

TA contains assumptions not supported by facts.

Will cause unacceptable intrusion into the countryside, causing coalescence of the two settlements of Dereham and Westfield.

76% of site is grade 2 and 3a, moving soil into gardens will not support food production for the future generations.

Limitations of foul water system in Dereham are well known, any solution will take at least three years to resolve. Needs to be a clear understanding how this will be dealt with.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 70 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Surface water system requires maintenance by individuals. Infiltration into the ground should be considered.

Key location for Southern and Central Green Infrastructure corridor.

Consideration should be given to bats, nesting birds and hedgehogs. SHIPDHAM PARISH COUNCIL Object on the following grounds;

- Increased traffic on already gridlocked roads and junctions. - GP surgeries / schools / infrastructure unable to cope with increased demands. WHINBURGH & WESTFIELD P C Objects on the following grounds:

Sustainability - Concerned that Westfield will simply become part of the outskirts of Dereham.

Drainage River Tudd flows downstream through this parish, which will put dwellings in this parish at risk.

Employment - Majority of residents in the new development would need to join the A47 commuter run to Norwich, which would have to be done by car.

Traffic - Roads leading to the A47 junction roundabout are at capacity, with all the surrounding minor roads being used extensively as rat-runs. Adding the extra vehicles from this development will render the major roads impassable, leading to even more traffic using back streets and a resultant unacceptable risk to local residents and other road users.

Railway Bridge - It appears that a large proportion of the traffic leaving the development would be directed over the narrow hump-backed railway bridge, which does not have the capacity to take it.

Supporting infrastructure - Insufficient infrastructure in terms of services like schools, doctors surgeries, emergency services, etc., in Dereham and the surrounding villages. Development will therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact on the existing residents. My Council accepts that the developer would have to provide a contribution towards expanding schools and some other services, but this assumes that the capacity for expansion exists. Further distances travelled to schools will create a greater pressure on roads from the school run.

Loss of agricultural land.

Footpaths - The plans show the development of a number of footways across the development, but these appear to have been put in with little or no reference to the existing footpaths across the site and the adjacent land. My Council assumes that NCC will be commenting on any impact on existing public rights of way. YAXHAM P C Objects to this application on the following grounds:

- Yaxham wishes to remain a small rural village and fear that this development will simply render Yaxham the outskirts of Dereham;

- The green gap between settlements should be maintained to preserve the identity of Yaxham as a small rural community;

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 71 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- Drainage - Concerns about the flood mitigation risk and the legality of the proposals to influence the flow of the River Tudd, lack of filter beds and the effect the proposals will have on the surrounding land, which includes the like of Badley Moor which is a SSSI.

- The assumption that the run off from houses, walkways and roads will be the same as the current green field site is concerning. We have seen many flooded developments across the country in the last few years, many of which were no doubt built on flood plains.

- The current user of the land has previously commented on the unfavourable effect of much smaller developments into the River Tudd. The presence of Bullhead fish, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Reed Bunting and Lapwing amongst others has been noted on the land directly affected by this proposed development;

- Lack of employment - Dereham does not have a shortage of people to fill local jobs. The majority of people who will reside in the new development will therefore have to commute to Norwich or elsewhere which will increase local vehicular traffic;

- Lack of capacity of supporting infrastructure - Schools, Doctors Surgeries and Emergency Services in Dereham and the surrounding areas are already stretched and do not have the capacity to support a large development.

- A development of the size proposed would require a massive new provision in this area, which in the current climate is unlikely to happen.

- Traffic - the proposed new road is a feeder road which will simply add to the congestion on existing roads. Many local roads, particularly those leading to the A47 are at capacity which leads to the surrounding minor roads being used as rat-runs. The addition of the extra vehicles from this development will render the major roads impassable leading to a further increase in traffic on our small local roads which leads to an unacceptable level of risk to local residents and other road users;

- Railway Bridge - the narrow hump-backed railway bridge already operates beyond its ideal capacity. The council is concerned that a large proportion of the traffic from the proposed development would be directed over the bridge.

- Loss of agricultural land

- Landscape Impact

- Footpaths - the footpaths proposed as part of this development seem to have been proposed with little regard to the existing footpaths on this and the surrounding / adjacent land. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 72 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

A method of foul drainage is shown as unknown. The mains sewer runs along Westfield Road. We will object to this application if connection to the mains is not proposed.

The site is located above a Secondary Aquifer. However, we do not consider this proposal to be High Risk. Therefore, we will not be providing detailed site-specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for this site.

The developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Environment Agency Guiding Principles for Land Contamination MID NORFOLK RAILWAY PRESERVATION TRUST Neither approve or opposed to the principle of the application.

Westfield Lane bridge - This is a single track bridge with a 3ton weight limit. It is already heavily used. If it is to become one of the exits / entrances to this development, particularly if the proposed relief road is built, it will need significant improvement including;

- Mitigation to manage the risk of accidents occurring on top of the structure. - High containment kerbing and barriers on both approaches to the bridge to both limit access by large vehicles and to remove the risk of vehicle incursion onto the railway. - Given increased traffic onto the structure, pedestrians will be exposed to a higher level of risk due to the narrow deck and footpath provision, recommend that the development incorporates a separate footbridge. - Norfolk Highways will need to consult with MNR on any proposed alteration to the bridge which could affect its structural integrity. - Future maintenance costs relating to much increased use of this bridge must be covered by funding from a source other than MNR.

The sports pitch and proposed public access land is angled towards the railway. It is essential that suitable high fencing bordering the pitch is installed to prevent balls coming onto the line.

The general trespass risk will need managing and this will involve upgrading the boundary fence and considering possible situations at the station interface.

Drainage Buried services, (water), pass under the railway parallel to the bridge on the south side. Railway drainage runs on both sides of the line south towards the River Tud. It discharges into a ditch on the applicants side of the boundary. This will need to be protected with the new development and consideration given to access for maintenance. Run-off from the development must not be directed towards the railway.

Yaxham Road Level Crossing

291 dwellings plus a relief road leading from Shipdham Road will create extra traffic on Yaxham Road. This road is already extremely busy for much of the day with traffic backing up across the automatic crossing under the A47 bridge. It is vital that this crossing be upgraded, and a minimum requirement will be the provision of LED traffic lights to improve visibility and safety. This will need to be done in conjunction with the linked crossing on Greens Road. Breckland has15,000 pounds earmarked for this, towards a likely cost of 75,000 pounds.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 73 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

We would also ask that a traffic assessment be undertaken to cover the wider context of the adjacent junctions to reduce the risk of blocking back over the crossing. Improved signage to raise awareness of the crossing, traffic camera enforcement of the crossing and box junction offences should also be considered. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER The environmental statement contains a desk based assessment and magnetometer survey report, which adequately describe the known heritage assets on site. As noted in the environmental statement, an archaeological field evaluation by trial trenching is currently underway, and the results will be submitted as an addendum to the environmental statement.

Further comments 24/5/16;

The Historic Environment Service have seen a draft of the trial trenching report, and based on those reports, while there are heritage assets of archaeological interest on site, none are of sufficient significance to affect the principle of development.

Further details of these assets will be presented in the evaluation report.

If planning permission is granted, we request that it be subject to conditions, in accordance with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF to secure a written scheme of investigation. THE RAMBLERS Scheme does not deliver a significant amount of open and recreation space and strongly doubt the extent of public access which will materialise.

The main access route through the housing is the spine road, with two additional pedestrian secondary routes, isolated from each other and connected only by the spine road; the tertiary pedestrian routes do not link them.

No paths run through the semi public area, which would be where access to the green space might have been expected. Routes through here could also have offered a connection between Whinburgh FP1, (which runs south east from Dereham Road in the centre of the site) and Shipdham FP1, (which runs west from a point just beyond the south western corner of the site).

For these reasons, The Ramblers opposes this application

Further comments 16/5/16;

Ecology Technical Note incorrect in relation to "Recreation at Badley Moor This land is a s193 Common designated under the Law of Property Act 1925: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/193.

The land is not closed to the public, though the access provided by the landowner, (the applicant in their case), is less than satisfactory, by virtue of its being a stile, rather than the existing gate which would provide full access but is kept locked. NATURAL ENGLAND Internationally and nationally designated sites

Due to the fact that detailed information on potential effects to the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC has not been

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 74 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - provided in relation to the enhancement site, recreation and air quality and it is not clear whether this development can be accommodated in the area, (in terms of abstraction and foul drainage), there is currently insufficient information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out. Therefore we consider your authority will need to carry out an appropriate assessment to consider effects to both the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and the SAC.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Objection

This application is in close proximity to Badley Moor and Potting and Scarning Fens SSSIs. Natural England objects to this development on the grounds that the application, as submitted, has potential to damage or destroy the interest features for which the above sites have been notified. If the foul drainage infrastructure at Dereham is not available and agreement is not reached with the Environment Agency concerning abstraction levels, this also has potential to affect SSSIs further afield, such as Moor SSSI, (linked by a drain to the river Tud) and the river Wensum SSSI.

Protected Species

Advised to apply standing Advice

Other advice

We would expect the Local Planning Authority, (LPA), to assess and consider impact upon;

- local sites, (biodiversity and geodiversity) - local landscape character - local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.

Further comments 8/7/16;

Internationally designated sites - No objection

Anglian Water have produced an addendum detailing a proposed solution to mitigate the impact of the proposals on the sewerage network and provide a feasible and functional foul drainage system through increasing the capacity of the system. We strongly recommend that a suitably worded planning condition is implemented to ensure that no development is brought forward until the foul drainage solution is agreed and implemented, and an agreement is reached with the Environment Agency regarding abstraction.

- Recreational disturbance impacts

On the basis of the additional supporting information, Natural England agrees that recreational disturbance impacts to designated sites can now be ruled out.

- Air quality impacts

Agree that impacts from both the residential and enhancement aspects of the development to the designated sites appear unlikely.

Nationally designated sites

No objection with conditions

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 75 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

This application is in close proximity to Mattishall Moor, Badley Moor, Potter and Scarning Fens and the River Wensum Sites of Special Scientific Interest, (SSSIs). However, for the reasons given in the above advice, (i.e. on recreational disturbance, hydrology and air quality), Natural England is satisfied that there are unlikely to be adverse effects on these sites as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted, and with the inclusion of our recommended condition below. We therefore advise your authority that these SSSIs do not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. We have considered the details and can see a number of potentially positive aspects in relation to County Wildlife Sites and the River Tud. However, Natural England has a number of concerns and that they have asked for further information.

Further comments 11/7/16;

Have no reason to disagree with the assessment made by NE. However, we fully support their view that a strong condition is put in place to ensure that no development is brought forward until foul drainage is agreed and implemented and an agreement reached with EA regarding abstraction. We also agree with the view of NE that recreational impacts on Badley Moor and on NWT Potter and can be ruled out.

In addition to enhancement proposals with regard to Badley Moor SSSI, some elements of the river and wetland restoration proposals relate to County Wildlife Sites, (CWS), along the River Tud. There are a number of proposals and a report from independent ecologists that provides an ecological and hydrological assessment of the proposals which concludes that the proposals will enhance the ecological value of the CWS.

Have some concerns regarding recreational impacts on County Wildlife Site, which is a Norfolk Wildlife Trust reserve and directly accessible by car and foot from the proposed development.

If the development is approved this should be on condition that enhancement relating to Badley Moor and CWS 2168 and 2170 is put in place, as proposed. In addition measure should be put in place to mitigate for recreational impacts on Lolly Moor CWS. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Expressed concern that the application had been submitted in advance of the Dereham Transport Study.

Concerns were raised regarding the following:

- specification of the proposed link road; - provision of appropriate visibility splays; - the need for any new link road be the priority route across the southern side of Dereham connecting Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road. - lack of information on pedestrian / cycle access - There is no information provided as to how pedestrian / cycle facilities can be improved; - lack of information on public transport serving the site; - further assessment and modelling of trip distribution and assignment and impact on surrounding junctions;

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 76 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- lack of assessment of the impact of signals over the bridge on Westfield Lane, on the distribution of traffic and feasibility of providing the signals.

Therefore, the Highway Authority recommend refusal due to insufficient highways and transport information to demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the satisfactory functioning of the highway. Contrary to Development Plan Policies NPPF Paragraph 32.

Revised Comments dated 17/1/17;

The proposals would provide an upgrade to the bridge over the Mid Norfolk railway line, including signals together with a footbridge adjacent to the existing railway bridge. The development will also provide a new link from Yaxham Road to Shipdham Road and this will involve changing the priority of Westfield Lane and Westfield Road.

The applicant proposes to provide land at the junction of the new link road and Shipdham Road for the future provision of a roundabout. The extent of the land dedication is yet to be agreed but needs to ensure that an appropriately sized roundabout with footways and cycleways can be delivered. The future roundabout will also serve as an entry feature into Dereham and will help facilitate reductions in speed.

The Dereham Transport Study identifies that this development will have the most significant impact on the South Green / Tavern lane junction. A scheme has been devised as part of the study to minimises the impact of this application, (Figure 13 of the Dereham Transport Study), which this application should deliver.

Given the evidence provided in the Dereham Transport Study and that contained within the applicants submission, the Highway Authority does not consider that the impact of the development will be severe in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The development mitigates its impact at the adjacent junctions and delivers network improvements in line with the Dereham Transport Study. The off-site works, (the signalization of the railway bridge and of South Green / Tavern Lane), will be delivered by a Section 278 Agreement. Therefore, the Highway Authority has no objection subject to conditions. OBLIGATIONS OFFICER, NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL Education Provision

Total education contributions of 980,089. The contributions will be put towards the following projects to increase school capacity: - Toftwood Infant School to contribute to extension to increase capacity of school (419,184 pounds); - Toftwood Junior School to contribute to extension to increase capacity of school (465,760 pounds); - Dereham 6th Form Centre to contribute to extension to increase capacity (95,145 pounds).

Library Provision

A development of 291 dwellings would place increased pressure on the existing library service particularly in relation to library stock, such as books and information technology. It has been calculated that a development of this scale would require a total contribution of17,460 pounds, (60 pounds per dwelling). This contribution would be spent on a specific project towards the provision of library equipment / furniture e.g. book shelves; tables; computer desk at Dereham library.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 77 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Fire Hydrant Provision

One hydrant per 50 dwellings.

Green Infrastructure Provision

Connections into the local Green Infrastructure, (GI), network, including Public Rights of Way and ecological features, should be considered alongside the potential impacts of development. Mitigation should therefore be included within the site proposal. Maintenance / mitigation for new and existing GI features may require a contribution or commuted sum, in order to allow the local GI network to facilitate the development without receiving negative impact and equally, allow the development to integrate and enhance the existing network. ANGLIAN WATER There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site.

The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Dereham Rushmeadow Water Recycling Centre, which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows from your development site. Anglian Water are obligated to accept the foul flows from your development with the benefit of planning consent and would therefore take the necessary steps to ensure that there is sufficient treatment capacity should the planning authority grant planning permission.

Development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. However, a development impact assessment has been prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine a feasible mitigation solution.

Request a condition requiring compliance with the agreed drainage strategy.

The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board regarding proposed surface water disposal. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage system directly or indirectly involves the discharge of water into a watercourse. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS No objections subject to conditions to alleviate environmental concerns. CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER Recommend approval providing the development proceeds in line with the application details and the implementation of the recommendations of the contamination report and subject to conditions to alleviate environmental concerns. LAWSON PLANNING PARTNERSHIP LTD ON BEHALF OF THE NHS Request contribution of 91,740 pounds towards extension, refurbishment and reconfiguration or relocation of existing practices. FLOOD & WATER MANAGEMENT TEAM No objection subject to conditions. ASSET MANAGEMENT The proposals show that as part of the Open Space provision it is intended to provide play areas, a sports pitch and the planting of hedges, trees & woodland.

The S106 Agreement should provide an opportunity for the Council to decline to take on the open space if it

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 78 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - chooses and for the developer to make other arrangements for the management of these areas.

In addition, the proposals indicate that some drainage features will occupy the open space and refers specifically to swales and retention ponds. The Council is not a drainage authority and would not consider adopting any part of the drainage infrastructure. ECOLOGICAL AND BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANT Comments awaited. AIR QUALITY OFFICER Breckland Council must meet the requirements of the Local Air Quality Management, (LAQM), process as set out in Part IV of the Environment Act,(1995), the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 2007 and the relevant Policy and Technical Guidance documents. The LAQM process places an obligation on all local authorities to regularly review and assess air quality in their areas and to determine whether or not the air quality objectives are likely to be achieved.

There is no consideration of the impact on the town centre. There will be traffic from the development passing through the town and this will likely lead to an increase of traffic related nitrogen dioxide, (NO2). There also appears to be potential for new bottlenecks and associated elevated concentration of NO2 but there may be measures under discussion with other Agencies to mitigate this, (eg.widening of the bridge at Westfield Road).

Ask for further Air Quality assessment using the latest measured concentrations for Dereham town centre available on the Breckland website.

Given the uncertainty inherent in modelling, we would ask that the modelling be validated, post development, by actual measurement to be agreed with Breckland Council Air Quality officers. NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT No comments to make. NORFOLK RIVERS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD The site is close to the boundary of the Norfolk Rivers IDB throughout and passes into the IDB district on its Eastern edge. Although we welcome the proposed restoration of the EA managed River Tudd in this location, we would like to draw attention that this discharges into our district and IDB managed system.

An understanding of the likely increases in rate and / or volume of flow into the district is therefore required, along with the impacts to downstream system. This may require hydraulic modelling of the system and as such an allowance for this should be made by the developer.

Any increases in flow to the IDB system will also require a surface water discharge payment and land drainage consent. THE OPEN SPACES SOCIETY The Open Spaces Society objects most strongly to the proposed development of 291+ houses in open countryside south of Dereham. We note that it is claimed that the development will deliver a significant amount of open and recreational space. However we strongly doubt that this will be of any benefit to the public since it does not link with the existing public rights-of-way network and therefore has not been thought through strategically. We note that the same landowner is refusing to allow public access to Badley Moor common, despite the land being subject to legal rights to walk and ride, and therefore have no confidence that the current application will deliver public access. We fear that the result will be that the public will be prevented from enjoying these areas. We therefore urge you to reject this application.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 79 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

GARVESTONE, & PARISH COUNCIL Object to on the following grounds; -Negative effects on the surrounding villages -Undue pressure on infrastructure such as schools, GPs, roads, sewerage and on the Westfield and Whinburgh road bridges over the railway. DAN SELF ON BEHALF OF BRECKLAND ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY. The design of any necessary lighting can and should be done so that no light directly shines above the horizontal.

TREE AND COUNTRYSIDE CONSULTANT No Comments Received ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING No Comments Received

REPRESENTATIONS 172 letters of objection received, comments as follows;

-Necessary infrastructure not in place -Inaccuracies in application submission -Westfield Road needs to be widened and railway bridge improved -Parking in street -Highway and pedestrian safety -Flooding -Loss of agricultural land -Loss of Greenfield land -Question population density of new development -Lack of investment in / impact on shops -Lack of infrastructure -Doctors / Dentist / Hospital / Schools will not cope -Traffic impact / congestion -Lack of sewer capacity -Impact on wildlife / protected / endangered species -Brownfield sites should be developed instead -Development should be to North of Dereham -Football pitch should not be sited next to railway cutting -Lack of open space / play facilities -Impact on amenity / peaceful environment -Unsustainable -Loss of village identity -Lack of employment in Dereham for new people

-Size / scale / overdevelopment -DATA ERROR!!!

ASSESSMENT NOTES 1.0 This application is referred to Committee as a major development proposal.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 80 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

2.0 Principle of development and policy matters.

2.1 The site is located adjacent to Dereham and is bound on the northern side by existing housing. The site straddles Westfield Road and would be served by a priority junction formed onto Shipdham Road to the west and another to Westfield Lane to the east as well as access onto Westfield Road in the centre of the site. The Council has recently confirmed that it has a five year housing land supply which means that it's policies relevant to the supply of housing land can be considered up to date and that the Council is in a strong position to resist proposals for housing in inappropriate locations which would not be sustainable. Whilst the application site is outside of the current settlement boundary for Dereham the site is allocated as a preferred location for development in the Preferred Site Options and Settlement Boundaries consultation document which acknowledges that it is in a sustainable location for housing development. The site is well located and due to the number of houses proposed would represent an exceptional material consideration for Members to take into account given that they would represent the early release of a preferred site providing a significant contribution to the 5 Year HLS

2.2 The NPPF defines sustainable development in broad terms by reference to economic, social and environmental considerations and indicates that planning should seek gains in relation to each element. The provision of housing to meet local needs is identified as a key component of sustainable development and in this respect the NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing.

2.3 The site in question is currently in agricultural use and as such is Greenfield. Whilst the loss of Greenfield land is regrettable it is inevitable if the Council is to achieve its housing growth aspirations. The land is shown on Natural England's Agricultural land classification maps as being Grade 3 - moderate quality agricultural land, however the applicant's own assessment clarifies that 42.4% of the site is grade 2, (very good) and 34.5% grade 3a, (good) to which policy CP08 and paragraph 112 of the NPPF apply. Policy CP08 states that development should avoid the unnecessary loss of high grade agricultural land, however, all of the draft allocations for Dereham are on grade 2 or grade 3 agricultural land and the loss of some higher grade agricultural land would thus appear inevitable to deliver the planned level of growth for Dereham. Whilst the area of land to be lost exceeds the threshold for consultation with Natural England at 20 HA this has not raised any comment or objection.

2.4 Whilst the application is submitted in outline the indicative layout plans show that the development would be consistent with the predominantly residential character of the area and its design and layout would be compatible with its surroundings. The proposal would make a significant contribution to the supply of housing in the area and the construction of the development would provide some economic benefits, albeit short-term. These considerations weigh in favour of the proposal.

2.5 In terms of affordable housing the applicant is fully compliant with the requirement to provide 40% affordable housing which, together with the other necessary contributions towards education, healthcare facilities, library facilities and open space should be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.

3.0 Effects on local character, amenity and trees

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 81 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

3.1 Whilst the application has been submitted in outline with access only included at this stage the applicant has submitted an indicative layout plan from which some conclusions can be drawn regarding the possible impacts of the development of the land.

3.2 The proposal site is currently in use as agricultural land, the supporting Landscape Environmental Impact Assessment, (LVIA), within the environmental statement identifies the landscape as 'landscape character type 'B6 Wensum and Tud Settled Tributary Farmland' under the 'Breckland Landscape Character Assessment' 2007 which is characterised by a gently undulating arable landscape interspersed with tributaries.

The LVIA considers that in close views from Boyd Avenue the development would have a moderate adverse impact, rising to a major adverse impact for views from Dowling Close and Mill Court at the western edge of the application site.

Further afield the impact of the proposal would be reduced as intervening features interrupt views of the site and the impact of the development is seen in a broader context with the LVIA identifying variable views to the site from distances of around 200 and 500 metres from nearby footpaths and roads and filtered glimpsed views from distances over 1000 metres.

The LVIA identifies mitigation of any potential negative impacts through the quality of design, primarily taking account of Density, built form and Green Infrastructure. The overall scheme has been prepared with a very strong landscape design philosophy and notably a deep buffer zone is included to the River Tud. The LVIA identifies that whilst the proposed development would fundamentally alter the landscape character within the development site itself, the design and layout of the development is of a high standard and the resulting townscape and associated green infrastructure would have a strong, distinct and positive character.

It is to be expected that the development would result in some landscape impact but these are well managed and appropriate mitigation has been identified. Given the imperative to deliver additional housing in Dereham the landscape impacts which do arise from the development are considered to be justified by the need for the proposal.

3.3 It is considered that the submitted indicative site layout shows that a well designed scheme can be achieved within the site. A mix of house types is shown which would not be inappropriate to the character of the wider area which is comprised of a mix of detached, semi detached and terraced dwellings.

3.4 The submitted tree survey identifies 117 individual trees, 7 groups of trees and 6 distinctive hedgerows comprised of a mix of category A, (high value), B, (moderate value), C ,(low value) and U, (unclassified). The indicative layout and arboricultural impact assessment identify 2 category A trees would be removed as well as 7 category B, 9 category C and 3 category U, together with 3 groups of category C trees and 3 hedges.

3.5 Whilst this level of loss would be considered significant on a smaller site given the scale of the proposals within this application and the significant space available for quality landscaping and replacement planting is also shown within the indicative layout for additional tree planting and landscaping.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 82 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

3.6 Whilst development of the scale proposed would inevitably have some impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents in terms of placing dwellings where there was previously an agricultural field this is not an unusual situation and it is considered that an acceptable layout and design can be achieved which would avoid any significant harm. The submitted indicative plan shows good separation distances could be maintained between existing and proposed dwellings to help reduce overlooking, together with the retention of existing vegetation and the scope for planting of new boundary screening. It is possible that some disturbance would be caused due to the increased activity and traffic, but given the scale of the development, this would not be considered excessive.

3.7 It is considered that a reserved matters scheme could be designed which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would not be likely to result in any significant adverse effects on residential amenity. The proposal would thus accord with Core Strategy Policies,DC01, DC02, DC12 and DC16, and with relevant guidance in the NPPF.

4.0 Access / Highways

4.1 Access to the development would be gained via a new priority junction formed onto Shipdham Road to the west and another to Westfield Lane to the west as well as access onto Westfield Road in the centre of the site.

4.2 The application site is in a relatively sustainable transport location for housing development with the centre of the site being located approximately 3km from the Town centre, 1.26 km from the nearest doctors surgery, 4km from Dereham hospital, 600m to Toftwood Junior School, 3km to Dereham 6th Form College and 3.75km to Dereham Neatherd High School.

4.3 A number of concerns have been raised in relation to traffic generation from the proposed development both in this application and in relation to the sites status as a preferred option for housing in the Preferred Site Options and Settlement Boundaries consultation document September 2016. The application is supported by a Transport Assessment, (TA) and likely levels of growth in Dereham and the surrounding area have been assessed in the 'Dereham Transport Study'. In relation to traffic generation NPPF paragraph 32 states that 'development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe'.

4.5 In terms of understanding the traffic impacts of possible future housing growth in Dereham and the surrounding area the Council commissioned the Dereham Transport study which was published in August 2016. The Dereham Transport study identifies three areas of improvement works which it states are required to accommodate additional anticipated growth in Dereham;

1 Tavern Lane / Yaxham Road Signals

Option 1 - Upgrades to the existing signalised junction including signal staging and improvements for pedestrians. or

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 83 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Option 2 - Signalised Roundabout

2 Tavern Lane / South Green - Widening of South Green on southern side, signalised pedestrian crossing, Re - alignment of merge from A47 slip road onto Tavern Lane Westbound.

3 A47 / Yaxham Road Roundabout - Widening of A47 slip Road to allow 2 lanes, approach lanes and markings to balance queues.

4.6 The TA, submitted with this application identifies that there would be no adverse residual affects resulting from the development and that roads that could be considered sensitive in the vicinity of the site will be largely unaffected by the proposed development, provided appropriate mitigation regarding traffic routing is in place during the development.

4.6 The principal mitigation identified in the applicants TA consists of the link road which the applicant argues has the ability to make a significant contribution by forming part of a relief road to the south of Toftwood. The applicant also Identifies the bridge over the railway on Westfield Lane as this has to be shared by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. In order to assist with this the applicant proposes that traffic signals is introduced to make the bridge one way at a time. The applicant has also stated that they are willing to contribute to a separate pedestrian bridge over the railway adjacent to the existing to take pedestrians out of the carriageway.

4.7 NCC Highways initially expressed concerns that the application had been submitted in advance of the Dereham Transport Study together with concerns regarding the visibility onto Shipdham Road as well as a lack of information regarding how the link road would tie in with Yaxham Road and existing roads / junctions. Highways also had concerns regarding how pedestrian / cycle access was to be improved and how the development would tie into public transport. Further work was also required to demonstrate the impact of the development on both adjacent junctions and the Tavern lane / Yaxham Road junction and detail of how the introduction of traffic signals over the bridge on Westfield Lane would operate and whether this would have any impact on the distribution of traffic.

4.8 Further to these concerns the applicant has submitted an addendum report to the TA which contains a response to the Highway authorities comments and an update in relation to the Dereham Transport Study together with;

- updated cycle lane specification - speed survey and revised visibility splays to Shipdham Road, (other junctions upgraded to same specification) - Link road redesigned to provide continuous link between Shipdham Road and Yaxham Road - Connectivity plan produced and clarification that walking and cycling will be further addressed in the travel plan - Summary of discussions with the bus operator 'Konectbus' who is keen to explore options for extending services into the site - Westfield Lane / Yaxham Road junction modelling undertaken

In terms of the impact of the development on the Tavern Lane / Yaxham Road junction the applicant has considered this in the context of the Dereham transport study and refers to an approach which was

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 84 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - discussed with the Council of providing a contribution towards the measures contained within the Dereham Transport study.

4.9 The Highway Authority subsequently issued a revised response in January 2017 stating that they had no objection subject to conditions and provided that the following mitigation was provided;

- Upgrade to the bridge over the Mid Norfolk railway line, complemented by a footbridge which would be adjacent to the existing railway bridge. - New link from Yaxham Road to Shipdham Road, changing the priority of Westfield Lane and Westfield Road as shown with a 2m verge and 3m footway / carriageway on one side and a 2m verge and 2m footway on the other side. - Provision of land at the junction of the new link road and Shipdham Road for the future provision of a roundabout.

4.10 Further to the above mitigation measures which are offered by the applicant Highways also requested that due to the impact of the development on the South Green / Tavern Lane junction the mitigation scheme identified in figure 13 of the Dereham Transport study should also be provided as opposed to a contribution towards the cost of all of the measures within the Dereham Transport study. Following discussions with the applicant they have indicated that they are willing to provide this scheme.

4.11 Given the evidence provided in the Dereham Transport Study and that contained within the applicant's submission, the Highway Authority does not consider that the impact of the development will be 'severe' in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework provided the identified mitigation measures are secured and the development mitigates its impact at the adjacent junctions and delivers network improvements in line with the Dereham Transport Study.

4.12 The off-site works, (the signalization of the railway bridge and of South Green / Tavern Lane), can be conditioned as these will have to be delivered by a Section 278 Agreement. The precise delivery mechanism of which of these and the pedestrian bridge over the railway, the cost of which may be shared with the Yaxham Road application 3PL/2010/1361, if this is forthcoming, will then be determined as the works are brought forward.

4.13 The Council can only require development to mitigate its own impacts, the applicant has identified the need to upgrade to the bridge over the Mid Norfolk railway line, together with provision of a footbridge. The new link from Yaxham Road to Shipdham Road and changing the priority of Westfield Lane and Westfield Road together with provision of land at the junction of the new link road and Shipdham Road for the future provision of a roundabout would also assist in mitigating the impact of the development. It is, however, clear from the Dereham Transport Study that the development would have an impact upon the South Green / Tavern Lane junction and that the mitigation measures on this junction identified in the Dereham Transport study are required.

4.14 The proposed development mitigates its impact at the adjacent junctions and delivers network improvements in line with the Dereham Transport Study. The impact of the development is not likely to be 'severe' and is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 85 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

4.15 In light of the above it is considered that the proposal would not be likely to have a severe traffic impact or lead to a situation which is prejudicial to Highways safety and on balance, the proposal is acceptable on the grounds of Highway Safety and the proposed development would comply with policy CP4(e) of the adopted Core Strategy DPD and paragraphs 17, 32, 34 and 35 of the NPPF.

5.0 Ecology

5.1 The application site is located in close proximity to the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and the river Wensum SAC as well as Badley Moor and Potting and Scarning Fens SSSIs. The site is also upstream of Mattishall Moor SSSI, (linked by a drain to the river Tud) and the river Wensum SSSI.

5.2 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application identifies a 75m wide corridor associated with the River Tud to provide a buffer to the proposed new built environment together with retention of key habitats and habitat creation as mitigation and enhancement measures to be implemented with the proposed development. The applicant concludes that the proposals would not be likely to result in a significant effect on the SAC's and that the development could proceed with minimal impact on the local conservation status of any protected, principally important or rare species within the area.

5.3 The Council's Ecologist has been consulted and comments are awaited and will be reported to Members at the meeting.

5.4 Following submission of further information Natural England have no objection to the proposals on the basis of any impact on statutory nature conservation sites including Mattishall Moor, Badley Moor, Potter and Scarning Fens and the River Wensum Sites of Special Scientific Interest, (SSSIs), provided the development is carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted and with the inclusion of recommended conditions.

5.5 Subject to appropriate conditions to secure a landscape environmental management plan the proposal would not be likely to have an adverse effect upon matters of ecological interest and the proposal is thus in accord with policies CP10 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

6.0 Flood Risk / Drainage

6.1 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted which identifies that the site contains flood zones 1, 2 and 3. This is, however, to be expected as the southern part of the site is occupied by the River Tud and all of the proposed residential development is located in flood zone 1 with the lowest risk of flooding.

6.2 As part of the development proposals the applicant includes mitigation measures which include watercourse improvement works consisting of channel widening and debris clearance as well as forming open ponds along the length of the river and realignment of part of the river channel to alleviate the constriction caused by 2no. existing 90 degree bends the river. Neither the Environment Agency or the NCC

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 86 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - flood risk team object to the application subject to conditions.

6.3 The proposed development will create foul flows and it is proposed that these foul flows should be discharged to the local public foul sewer network. However, a desktop study undertaken by Anglian Water, (AW), has indicated that a direct connection to the public foul sewerage system is likely to have a detrimental effect on the existing sewerage network in the local area as Dereham Water Recycling Centre currently does not have capacity to treat the flows from this development site. Anglian Water are obligated to accept the foul flows from development with the benefit of planning consent and we would therefore take the necessary steps to ensure that there is sufficient treatment capacity, should the planning authority grant planning permission.

6.4 Anglian Water have indicated to the Council that they have a strategy in place to deal with the anticipated increase in flows from development in Dereham by 2019 which includes utilising increased capacity at . As such by the time the current proposed development is likely to be occupied Anglian Water should have addressed the issues regarding foul sewage capacity in Dereham. Anglian Water request a foul drainage condition to ensure the necessary mitigation measures are agreed and implemented before the commencement of development.

6.5 Whilst foul drainage provision remains a concern it appears that Anglian Water are working to resolve this issue and use of conditions will prevent the commencement of the development until a scheme has been agreed and prevent any development above slab level until adequate drainage arrangements are in place.

7.0 Other Matters

7.1 Local infrastructure - concerns have been raised about the ability of the general infrastructure to cope with additional housing. However, no objections have been raised by statutory consultees in this respect. Financial contributions can be secured by way of a S106 Agreement to the expansion / improvement of local school accommodation, as well as to local library services and health services.

7.2 In terms of the potential for contaminated land on site the Council's Contaminated Land Officer has no objections subject to appropriate survey and mitigation measures. Given the use of the site is agricultural rather than industrial it is considered that there is a low probability of contamination and that it would be reasonable to apply conditions in this instance.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 Whilst the Council can now demonstrate a five year housing land supply the Council must continue to support those applications which represent sustainable development in appropriate locations. The site is acknowledged to be in a location which is both sustainable and suitable for housing development, hence it's allocation as a preferred site in the 'Preferred Site Options and Settlement Boundaries' consultation document dated September 2016. Whilst local concerns are acknowledged, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on local infrastructure, highway safety and convenience or residential amenity.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 87 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Permit subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement to secure;

Provision of on site affordable housing at 40%,(116 dwellings) Contributions to Library services £17,460 Contributions to local Primary Schools on a pro rata basis £980,089 Public Open Space Contribution NHS contribution £91,740

Offsite works involved with the restoration of the River Tud, (£182,500)

Onsite open Space totalling 12.63ha

Offsite green space to be reverted to low intensity grazing land totalling 13ha

Land to be safeguarded for a potential roundabout on Shipdham Road if deemed necessary in the future

An offsite highway improvement scheme to Westfield Lane comprising the signalisation of the bridge and a new footbridge.

CONDITIONS 1 Outline Time Limit (3 years) Application for Approval of Reserved Matters must be made not later than the expiration of THREE YEARS beginning with the date of this permission, and the development must be begun within TWO YEARS of the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE RESERVED MATTERS or, in the case of approval at different dates, the FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LAST SUCH MATTER to be approved. Reason for condition:- As required by section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2 In accordance with submitted The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, and approved documents and drawings. Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site. 3 Standard Outline Condition No development whatsoever shall take place until the plans and descriptions giving details of the reserved matters referred to above shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these plans and descriptions shall provide details of the appearance, layout, scale, access and landscaping of the development. Reason for condition:- The details are not included in the current submission. 4 Non-standard condition

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 88 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Prior to commencement of development, in accordance with the submitted FRA 'Proposed Residential Development Land East and West of Westfield Road Toftwood, Dereham, Norfolk' (RLC Reference 41431), detailed designs of a Surface Water Drainage Scheme incorporating the following measures shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The approved scheme will be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. The scheme shall address the following matters: I. Provision of surface attenuation storage, sized and designed to accommodate the volume of water generated in all rainfall events up to and including the critical storm duration for the 1% annual probability rainfall event including allowances for climate change. The design of surface attenuation features should incorporate an emergency spillway and appropriate freeboard allowances, set at a minimum of 300mm. II. Detailed designs, modelling calculations and plans of the of the drainage conveyance network in the: · 3.33% annual probability critical rainfall event to show no above ground flooding on any part of the site. · 1% annual probability critical rainfall plus climate change event to show, if any, the depth, volume and storage location of any above ground flooding from the drainage network ensuring that flooding does not occur in any part of a building or any utility plant susceptible to water (e.g. pumping station or electricity substation) within the development. III. Finished ground floor levels of properties should be a minimum of 300mm above anticipated flood levels, in 1% annual probability event plus climate change, from all sources of flooding (including the drainage system). IV. Details of how all surface water management features are to be designed in accordance with The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C753, 2015), including appropriate treatment stages for water quality prior to discharge. V. A maintenance and management plan detailing the activities required and details of who will adopt and maintain all the surface water drainage features for the lifetime of the development VI. Plans showing the routes for the management of exceedance surface water flow routes that minimise the risk to people and property during rainfall events in excess of 1% annual probability. This will include surface water which may enter the site from elsewhere. VII.The proposed maximum restricted discharge rate is 45.0l/s (total for all nine land parcels at 5.0l/s for each land parcel) as stated within Section 6.38 of the FRA. However, this should be less than or as close as practicable to the greenfield runoff rates for all events up to and including the 100% annual probability plus climate change rainfall event.

Reason:

To prevent flooding in accordance with NPPF paragraph 163,165 and 170 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local sources of flooding, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring the SuDS proposed operates as designed for the lifetime of the development. 5 Non-standard condition No dwelling shall be occupied until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 89 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Highways Act (1980) or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established.

Reason:

To ensure safe, suitable and satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable standard. 6 Non-standard condition No works shall commence on the site until such time as detailed plans of the roads, footways, cycleways, street lighting, foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: This needs to be a pre-commencement condition to ensure fundamental elements of the development that cannot be retrospectively designed and built are planned for at the earliest possible stage in the development and therefore will not lead to expensive remedial action and adversely impact on the viability of the development. 7 Non-standard condition Prior to the occupation of the final dwelling all works shall be carried out on roads/footways/cycleways/street lighting/foul and surface water sewers in accordance with the approved specification to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are constructed to a standard suitable for adoption as public highway. 8 Non-standard condition All footway(s) and cycleway(s) shall be fully surfaced in accordance with a phasing plan to be approved in writing prior to the commencement of development by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition: - In order to ensure the provision of satisfactory roads, access, parking and turning areas on site, in the interests of highway safety. In accordance with policy CP4 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the policies within the NPPF. 9 Non-standard condition Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works above slab level shall commence on site unless otherwise agreed in writing until detailed drawings for the off- site highway improvement works as indicated on Drawing No. 141431 RLC-00-00-DR SK102 Rev P2 (roundabout) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor. 10 Non-standard condition Prior to the 50th occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway improvement works (including Public Rights of Way works) referred to in Part A of this condition shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 90 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

proposed. 11 Non-standard condition Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works above slab level shall commence on site unless otherwise agreed in writing until detailed drawings for the off- site highway improvement works as indicated on Drawing No. 141431-SK03-Rev P3. have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor. 12 Non-standard condition Prior to the 150th occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway improvement works (including Public Rights of Way works) referred to in Part C of this condition shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed. 13 Non-standard condition Full specification details of fencing to prevent balls from straying onto the railway line adjacent to the sports pitches shall be provided with reserved matters application. The approved fencing shall be erected prior to the first use of the playing pitch and retained and maintained in that form thereafter.

Reason for condition - In order to ensure that the use of the recreation open space/playing pitches does not adversely impact on the operation of the adjacent railway, in accordance with Policy DC1 of the of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the policies within the NPPF.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 91 Agenda Item 8a

AGENDA ITEM 8

DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

Item 8 (a): Dereham/ Toftwood (pages 17-52)

Location: Land off Shipdham Road, Dereham

Proposal: Residential development for a minimum of 291 dwellings,link roads, open space and recreational space. AMENDED PROPOSAL to include demolition of existing railway bridge at Westfield Lane and construction of a replacement two-way railway bridge (instead of traffic signalling works at the junction of South Green and Tavern Lane). REFERENCE: 3PL/2015/1490/O

Applicant: Glavenhill Strategic Land Limited

Author: Simon Wood

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

DEREHAM TOWN COUNCIL The Clewlow consulting on behalf of the Applicant submitted a response added to the Breckland web-site on the 2/11/18 in response to the Town Council’s most recent comments.

The following is in respect to these new comments from Clewlow:

Clewlow have not addressed the issues of the ‘link road’ being designed in the proposal as an estate road. If as, as the applicant claims, the link road is required, then it should be designed as a link road. The indicative layout as proposed has not been designed as a link road, it has been designed to keep vehicles to a low speed. The road will not function as a link road in its current layout.

At paragraph 7, it is stated that traffic calming measures will be put in place to make access to Westfield Road less attractive. – can this be clearly stated in the conditions?

At paragraph 10, it is also stated that there will be a shared use walking and cycling link across the new railway bridge – I don’t believe that this was specified in the plans submitted for the bridge. The plans submitted show a footway of 1.8m, LTN 1/12 clearly states that a shared use facility should be a minimum of 3m and more if there is a physical barrier on one side. The proposed shared use does not therefore meet the minimum standards for a shared use walking and cycling path. It is also only on one side of the road and will therefore only benefit travel in one direction, without multiple crossing.

The footway/cycle path proposed over the railway bridge is the wrong side of the road. Placing the foot/cycle route on the northside of the bridge would reduce the number of people crossing the road and therefore make it safer.

The proposed footway/cycle path appears to end on the east side of the bridge – shouldn’t all footways link to footways not just end in the highway? There will be a situation where existing foot traffic will tend to keep to the northside and not use the footway.

165 92 Cycling. With regard to GEN 2. When this policy was being discussed by the Local Plan Inspector alongside TR01 – it was clear that when these policies were taken together the meaning was that developments must show a safe and convenient cycle route to likely destinations, hence the wording “maximise connectivity within and through a development and to surrounding areas, including the provision of high quality and safe pedestrian and cycle routes.” [emphasis added].

It is self-evident that a high proportion of trips from this development will be to the town centre, high schools and employment sites. It is not expected that this development provides cycling links to all parts of the town, it should however make an assessment of cycling from the site to likely destinations to show that the site is or can be made sustainable. This is justified by the following:

 NPPF 102 c) - states that with regard to development proposals that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued.

 NPPF 103 - states that “Significant developments should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes” [emphasis added]. Without a proper assessment of whether resident from this development can access services such as town centre, employment sites and schools by cycle they have not met the requirements of NPPF 103.

 NPPF 108 - states that it should be ensured that “appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be or have been taken up”. The applicant has not done this.

 NPPF 110 a)– Applications should “give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas”.

Simply saying that there are good cycle lanes on the development site and to the wider network does not meet the key sustainability requirement in the NPPF of “offering a genuine choice of transport modes”

Clewlow state in their report at paragraph 13 that a review of cycling facilities is the remit of the Highway Authority. This is clearly not the case given the NPPF references above and Guidance for Transport Assessments states

 Para 006 ID:42-006-20140306 – states that TAs can positively contribute to encouraging sustainable travel, and enable the development to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.  Para 14 ID: 42-014-20140306 – states that TA may include an assessment of public transport capacity, walking/cycling capacity and road network capacity.

Carrying out a review of cycling facilities. Clewlow seem to be saying that the scope for carrying out a review of cycle routes is beyond the remit of developers and the job of the Highway Authority, Clewlow have described a review process which would look at the whole town. There are simpler review methods for situations such as this, for the avoidance of doubt, nobody is expecting this development to address any existing issues with the cycling network within the town. The expectation and the national policies state that this development must be able to show that cycling is a ‘genuine transport choice’ this can be done quite simply by.

93 166 1) Decided on likely destinations (say town centre, high schools, employment areas and link to cycle route 13) 2) Plot desire lines to these destinations – this can be done using apps such as ‘cycle streets’ and ‘Google maps route planner’. There may then need to view the routes on the ground and amend accordingly. 3) Use the Cycle Level of Service to asses each route 4) Identify any critical factors such as safety (perceptions of safety) 5) Identify how these critical factors can be resolved then compare the proposed with the existing.

This is not a complicated or costly process, it is for the developer to demonstrate that this site is sustainable, and that cycling is a genuine mode of transport choice. It is felt that Clewlow are being deliberately obtuse by suggesting that the only way to carrying out this work is by using a highly complex methodology. There are simpler methodologies such as a Review of Cycling Routes.

The only real reason the developer does not want to carry out such a route analysis is not that it is complicated or expensive it is because it may identify that the development does not offer residents a genuine choice over modes of transport.

In 2016 the Town Council gave a comprehensive response to this application. In that response it commented that no assessment of likely cycle routes had been made which was contrary to the NPPF which requires developments to be located where sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

The Town Council has repeatedly request that a cycling assessment should be carried out but the applicant has continually refused.

Because the applicant has not commissioned this work, the Town Council has commissioned consultants to carry out an assessment of the likely routes cyclists would wish to take. This work will be completed by the end of December 2018. The Town Council is therefore requesting that the decision on this application is deferred until this work has been completed and considered.

Until this work has been completed it is not possible for the Planning Committee to decide one way or another whether the development is maximising sustainable modes of transport as required in the NPPF.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS ADVISOR No objections to removal of bridge, given the extent of inappropriate post-build repair and adaptation works.

LETTERS OF REPRESENTATION A further 9 letters of representation have been received. The issues raised have been reported in earlier reports except for the following: - Should not be building on a floodplain - New bridge will not stop clogging up of this part of the town - Pressure of drainage needs from new houses - Does not accord with what is set out in the draft Dereham Neighbourhood Plan which reflects local opinion and should not be disregarded

167 94 - Traffic flows bad enough already, priority should be given to the Yaxham Road entry as the first route of choice - Concerned that the development could facilitate development to the rear of Boyd Avenue - Loss of productive farmland - Land designated in 2008 and should not be built on

AGENT SUPPORTING INFORMATION The agent has submitted further information setting out the Heads of Terms for the proposed mitigation measures on land to the south of the site as follows: (1) River Tud restoration, flood plain creation works and planting/seeding as outlined in the Flood Defence Application Drawings and Method Statement Rev A dated October 2015 approved by the Environment Agency (note this is now direct delivery by the developer using the Norfolk Rivers Trust as a contractor as opposed to paying the sum of £182,550 to the LPA as previously proposed) to be delivered in full prior to the occupation of the 250th dwelling unit; (2) Additional tree planting around the edge of the site in the land under the control of the applicant that is outside the current red line boundary and north of the river Tud that is currently shown as grazing land in the application drawings to be delivered prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling unit; and (3) The delivery of new footway links between the application red line area boundary through or adjacent the land identified as new grazing to the highway edge along Dereham Road/Westfield Road adjacent Public Footpath Whinburgh 1 and the highway edge along Shipdham Road in proximity to Herne Lane and Public Footpath Shipdham 1. The aim as requested by David White is to deliver the missing link in the footway network surrounding the site for the benefit of all Dereham residents. We will fix the exact footpath routing, surfacing, protection specifications and provide a construction method statement prior to the commencement of development and deliver the rights of way in full back to the highway edge prior to the occupation of the 50th dwelling unit. These routes will be dedicated and maintained thereafter by Norfolk County Council.

Regarding impact during construction, the County Council has recommended a condition which states that, “For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with (the construction of) the development will comply with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and use only the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.” Therefore all information will be submitted and approved by the Council and the Highway Authority before construction commences. Until such time as the new railway bridge is in operation it seems likely that the approved construction traffic access route will not include the section of Westfield Lane between Yaxham Road and the railway bridge adjoining the respondent’s property.

In respect of air quality, it is accepted that slow moving or stationary traffic produces much higher concentrations of air pollutants than traffic moving at a constant and reasonable speed. The removal of the delays to traffic proceeding over the railway bridge and in particular the need for these vehicles to move off from a standing start on an incline will have a beneficial effect on air quality.

As part of the design for the new railway bridge the forward sightlines will need to meet appropriate highway design standards – to seek to meet these standards the constraints of the vertical alignment of the existing bridge can be mitigated by a combination of adopting a thinner deck for the bridge through the use of stronger materials and structural engineering techniques as well as some re-

95 168 profiling of the approach slopes (where possible). This will all be determined at the time that the detailed bridge design is prepared. This will be required as part of the proposed Highway Authority condition which requires details of the bridge to be submitted and approved.

Regarding the use by pedestrians of the new bridge, those needing to catch a bus will benefit from the introduction of bus services along the new spine road of the development and should not therefore need to walk to/from Yaxham Road. In future there will be community attractions to the south of Westfield Lane and the new spine road which do not presently exist, e.g., sports pitches and access to the public open space. The location of the footway to the south of the proposed bridge is accordingly intended to facilitate future provision to these attractions. The extent of the highway boundary only permits such a provision to the south along this section of road.

As stated above, visibility for vehicle drivers and of vehicles by pedestrians and cyclists will be improved with the new bridge and accordingly crossing Westfield Lane will be safer in this respect. Appropriate crossing points to both the east and the west of the bridge will be identified as part of the detailed design of the new bridge and spine road to meet highway design standards.

Town Council – Cycle comments The town centre (and from there to the secondary schools) by cycle would be most safely and appropriately achieved by using Route 13. This runs at its closest to the site along Stone Road and Orchid Avenue to the west of Shipdham Road. Accordingly, since a S278 Agreement will be required to build the new roundabout on Shipdham Road, its remit could be extended to include as yet to be agreed measures to link the new cycle facilities at this roundabout (which are obviously well connected with the cycle facilities on the site) to the closest point on NCN Route 13.

ASSESSMENT

HERITAGE A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted to consider and assess the proposal to demolish the railway bridge in context of its non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) status. Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states that the impact of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken account of in the determination of the planning application. In this instance, ‘Bridge 1692’ is of local significance only with limited architectural or aesthetic value. It has also been subject of several 20th century repairs that are considered unsympathetic. On this basis, it is considered that its loss is acceptable in this instance subject to appropriate mechanisms to evidence and record the bridge prior to its removal. This can be ensured via a planning condition if planning permission is granted.

ECOLOGY The ecological mitigation measures are considered appropriate in context of the impacts of the development and have taken account of the requests of the Public Rights of Way officer to provide improvements to the Public Rights of Way network. It is considered that subject to legal advice regarding the detailed wording of the Unilateral Undertaking that the measures offered above are adequate to provide appropriate ecological enhancement measures in connection with this development.

HIGHWAY MATTERS

169 96 Concerns have been raised regarding the purpose and value of the revised highway works incorporating the roundabout off Shipdham Road and the replacement two-way bridge. The proposed reconfiguration of the vehicular access arrangements would facilitate the provision of a link road that would assist in removing traffic heading into Norwich via the A47 away from the Tavern Lane junction by directing them onto the A47 via Shipdham Road. The link road would need to be of sufficient carriageway width to accommodate the anticipated traffic levels but these matters would be determined at reserved matters stage. This is considered to represent a benefit of the scheme and to the wider area, and it is on this basis that the removal of the requirement for the offsite highway works at the Green Lane/Tavern Lane junction have been accepted in this case.

Issues have also been raised regarding cycle links and the contribution the development should make to the wider cycle network in the southern section of Dereham. The details of the cycle links would come forward as part of the reserved matters application and the agent has acknowledged that the offsite highway works required in connection with the scheme could also include improved connections to the existing National Cycle Network Route 13 which currently runs in proximity to Shipdham Road. There would be scope to incorporate such linkages into the detailed design of the highway works, which is considered to represent a positive benefit along with the 2.2km of cycle routes that would be provided within the site.

CONCLUSION It is considered that the issues explored in this updated report relating to heritage impacts have been adequately addressed. There is scope to achieve ecological improvements associated with the scheme that can be ensured via a S106 Unilateral Undertaking. The improvements to the vehicular and cycle network represent significant potential benefits and it is on this basis that the scheme remains recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVAL is recommended subject to: - the removal of the requirement for a payment of £182,550 for the restoration works to the River Tud as these works would be undertaken as part of the scheme agreed via the Unilateral Undertaking. - and subject to the additional following condition:

No works shall take place to the railway bridge known as ‘Bridge 1692’ until a detailed report recording the construction methods, materials and architectural details of the bridge has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason – To ensure that an accurate record is made of this non-designated heritage asset in accordance with the advice set out in Paragraph 199 of the NPPF.

97 170 AGENDA ITEM 8

DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

Item. 8(a)

Location: Westfield Road, Dereham

Proposal: Residential development for a maximum of 291 dwellings, link roads, open space and recreational space, together with demolition of existing railway bridge at Westfield Lane and construction of a replacement two-way railway bridge

REFERENCE: 3PL/2015/1490/O

Applicant: Lanpro Services Ltd

Author: Rebecca Collins

Representations

Nine further letters of representation have been received, their comments are summarised as follows:

 The land is outside the settlement boundary of Dereham.  The site is green belt and prime agricultural land.  This is an important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife including Bats which are protected in law and forms part of a wildlife corridor.  The area was well used by local people, and this loss of amenity is a concern.  Archaeology has never been researched.  The application is an over development of the site.  Although facilities for recreation are very under developed in Dereham as a whole and therefore needed generally placing them in this location is totally wrong.  There is insufficient infrastructure in Dereham including doctors, schools and nurseries.  There is no capacity of the roads to take additional traffic.  The proposals destroy an historic railway bridge  The road survey was carried out during the early weeks of lockdown, and therefore the data collected is completely inaccurate.  The area around School Lane, Boyd Avenue and the corner of Westfield Road and Westfield Lane are all subject to flooding and building additional houses will only worsen the situation.

Officer comments

These matters are covered in the Officer Committee report of 26th November 2018 and appended to the deferred officer report. For clarity however, the site lies within the Dereham settlement boundary and on an allocated site, as set out in the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). The site is therefore identified for housing despite its previous land use and the principle of development established.

Matters of ecology, flood risk, heritage and archaeology and highways impacts have been adequately addressed in the officer committee reports. Concerns with regards to layout and design can be adequately addressed at reserved matters stage. The proposal is significantly overproviding

98 on open space to meet local needs. The section 106 provides contributions in terms of education and health, as well as libraries and open space to address local infrastructure requirements.

99 BRECKLAND COUNCILAgenda - PLANNINGItem 9a COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

ITEM: RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL REF NO: 3PL/2019/1091/F CASE OFFICER Fiona Hunter

LOCATION: ROCKLANDS APPNTYPE: Full Peels Farm Whitings Lane POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Rocklands CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Mr Graham Shadrack LB GRADE: N Peels Farm, Whitings Lane Whitings Lane AGENT: Ian Pick Associates Ltd TPO: N Station Farm Offices Wansford Road PROPOSAL: Retrospective full planning permission for erecting a agricultural storage building

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Adjacent to a valid application by the same applicant which is EIA development.

KEY ISSUES Principal of Development Visual Impact Residential Amenity Ecology and Biodiversity Contamination and Drainage

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Application seeks retrospective full planning permission for the erection of an agricultural storage building with no livestock. The building is 61m in length, 15.6m in width and 6.1m in height. The building is steel framed construction with concrete panels to 2m and gale breaker curtains above for the walls. The roof materials is fibre cement sheeting.

SITE AND LOCATION Peels Farm is located within the countryside midway between the villages of Rocklands and Lower . The farm extends to some 500 hectares, and includes a complex of traditional and modern farm buildings. The modern buildings are divided into pig finishing pens with a capacity of 3,200 over 30 kg pig places in addition to the 4 units erected under 3PL/2016/0748/F which have capacity for 4,000 pigs and for which there is a retrospective application 3PL/2019/1058/VAR seeking to regularise their siting. A range of outdoor framed buildings, with capacity of 8,200 places, accommodate piglets on arrival at the farm.

The site is accessed off Whitings Lane, an informally surfaced road which links Rocklands Road to the north

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 100 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 and Sandy Lane to the south. There is a County Wildlife Site (CWS), (North of Lower Stow Bedon ref 847), just to the west of the application site, and a further CWS some 200 metres to the south, (Lower Stow Bedon ref 811).

EIA REQUIRED No. Whilst the retrospective application for the adjacent site (3PL/2019/1058/VAR) falls under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as amended, there is no essential link between this application and the Variation application and it is considered the two projects could come forward separately.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY Breckland District Council granted full planning permission (3PL/2016/0748/F) for 5 pig rearing units at Peels Farm on the 20th January 2017. The applicant proceeded to erect the 5 units in the approved site, however, the units were incorrectly sited in more southerly positions than approved. This application seeks to regularise the most southern unit, unit 5, in terms of position and also seeks to change it's use from pig rearing to agricultural storage.

A separate application is submitted for units 1 to 4 (3PL/2019/1058/VAR). A list of relevant planning applications is provided below:

3SO/2015/0003/SCO - Expansion of pig farm (scoping opinion) 3PL/2016/0748/F - Proposed expansion to existing pig rearing unit to provide 5 additional pig rearing sheds - Approved 20 Jan 2017 3DC/2017/0047/DOC - Discharge conditions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 3PL/2016/0748/F Conditions - Part and Full Approval, bar condition 11 - 1 June 2017 3PL/2019/0885/VAR - Amendment to condition 2 to 3PL/2016/0748/F - withdrawn 3PL/2019/1058/VAR - Variation of Condition 2 on pp 3PL/2016/0748/F - to regularise the as built development as it differs from approved plans - valid application

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the Breckland Local Plan, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate

COM01 Design COM03 Protection of Amenity EC04 Employment Development Outside General Employment Areas ENV02 Biodiversity protection and enhancement ENV05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape ENV06 Trees, Hedgerows and Development

OBLIGATIONS/CIL N/A

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 101 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

CONSULTATIONS

FLOOD & WATER MANAGEMENT TEAM No application specific comments as the development falls below their current threshold. NATURAL ENGLAND No comments. ECOLOGICAL AND BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANT The mitigation and enhancement measures will still need to be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) (Norfolk Wildlife Services; March 2017) submitted to discharge condition 13 (ref - 3DC/2017/0047/DOC). CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objection recommend conditions for unexpected contamination and asbestos. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS No objection, but due to proximity to residential properties recommend a night time noise condition to control the potential for night time noise & sleep disturbance and ensure that noise levels at the domestic premises do not exceed current guidance. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Provided the building is used in connection with the adjacent holding and is not let or sold separately, I would not wish to raise a highway objection. NORFOLK RIVERS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD This site is not within our jurisdiction but is close to the boundary of the Internal Drainage Board.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY No Comments Received NATURAL ENGLAND No Comments Received ROCKLANDS P C No Comments Received NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST No Comments Received

REPRESENTATIONS No representations have been received. However, a comment has been submitted under associated application 3PL/2019/1058/VAR which raised the visual impact of the unit being sited closer to the road than was permitted under 3PL/2016/0748/F.

ASSESSMENT NOTES 1.0 Principal of Development

1.1 The storage building for which retrospective permission is sought is sited within Peels Farm which extends to 500 hectares and is an established pig rearing enterprise. The development is in accordance with Policy EC 04 Employment Development Outside General Employment Areas which supports the expansion of existing agricultural business. The development is considered acceptable in principal.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 102 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

2.0 Visual Impact

2.1 The building is sited to the south of 4 pig rearing units of the same design which are seeking permission for re-sited locations under 3PL/2019/1058/VAR. Due to the bund and land levels approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F the majority of the building is screened from Sandy Lane and to the east of the street only the building's roof is visible. Due to its placement in a group of agricultural buildings (whether there approved or actual positions) the building does not appear out of context or detrimental to the character of the countryside in this location.

2.2 The development is considered to comply with Policy ENV 05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape and paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2019.

3.0 Residential Amenity

3.1 Subject to limiting the maximum noise levels generated from using the building during night time hours as advised by the Environmental Health Officer, the use of the building for storage should not have an unacceptable impact to residential amenity and accords with Policy COM 03 Protection of Amenity and paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019.

4.0 Ecology and Biodiversity

4.1 In accordance with the Council's Ecology Consultant, the Construction Environmental Management Plan approved under approval of details permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC should be required and controlled by way of condition to ensure compliance with Policy ENV 02 Biodiversity protection and enhancement and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

4.2 Natural England have no development specific comments on this application and nor has the Council's Ecology Consultant raised issue with the developments impact to the two County Wildlife Site's in proximity.

5.0 Contamination and Drainage

5.0 The site is in flood risk zone 1 which has the lowest risk of flooding from rivers and seas. The LLFA have not provided specific comment on this application. The gross internal floor area is less than 1,000sqm and no detailed drainage strategy has been submitted in support of this application. A drainage strategy will be required and therefore it is recommended that the details submitted under variation application for the 4 units immediately to the north is conditioned.

5.1 The Council's Environmental Health Officer has not raised an objection in respect to contamination subject to precautionary conditions for unexpected contamination.

5.2 Subject to the recommended conditions the development is considered to accord with Policy COM 03 Protection of Amenity and paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019.

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 The development of an agricultural storage building for an existing farming business is considered acceptable in principal and accords with Policy EC 04.

6.2 The unit is visually agricultural in nature and is seen in the context of a collection of agricultral buildings

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 103 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 and benefits from screening from site bunding and as land levels fall. The impact to the landscape and this area of the countryside is considered nominal and complies with Policy ENV 05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape and paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2019.

6.3 No issues have been identified for residential amenity, ecology and biodiversity, contamination or drainage subject to securing appropriate conditions.

6.4 For the foregoing reasons, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS 1 In accordance with submitted plans NEW 2017 The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, and approved documents and drawings as set out in the table at the end of this notice and completed within 3 months from the date of this decision notice.

Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019. 2 Restriction of Use The development will be used for agricultural storage for Peels Farm only and shall at no time be used for the keeping, rearing or processing of agricultural live stock. Nor at any time shall the building be let or sold to another business or land owner.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours and business' and highways safety and free flow of traffic, having regard to Policies COM 03, GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraphs 170 and 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 3 Night time use restriction The development hereby permitted shall not generate a noise level measured at the nearest affected residential boundary greater than 5dBA, measured as a 15 minute Laeq, above the existing background level, measured as a 15 minute L90, between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. Measurements to be taken using the methodology of BS4142: 2014.. All measurements to be taken with a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1, standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response.

This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 2014 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 104 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Framework 2019. 4 Visibility Splay Visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 43 metres shall be provided to each side of the access where it meets Whitings Lane within 6 weeks from the date of this decision notice. The splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement having regard to Policies GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 5 Non-standard drainage condition Within 3 months of this permission, unless an alternative time frame is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the drainage scheme as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment & Surface Water Drainage Strategy Revision 0, August 2019 approved under planning permission 3PL/2019/1058/VAR, shall be installed and made fully functional. Thereafter surface water shall be dealt with in accordance with the approved details.

Reason for condition:- This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy ENV 09 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 6 Ecological mitigation All development will take place in full accordance with the e CEMP (Construction Environment Management Plan) for Peels Farm Whitings Lane Rockland All Saints, prepared by Norfolk Wildlife Services, dated March 2017 first approved under Approval of Details Permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC.

Reason for condition:- In the interests of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecological value of the site and surrounding area. In accordance with Policy ENV 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 7 Soft landscaping scheme Where any landscaping or planting has not been completed in accordance with the details approved under Approval of Details Permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC, it shall be completed within 6 months of the date of this planning permission or within the next planting season. The approved landscaping details are listed below:

- Landscape Specification, prepared by Broom Lynne dated, 16th February 2017; - Landscape Plan, drwg no 2016-249-005B, prepared by Broom Lynne. - Correspondence dated 31st May 2017 confirms that the landscaping will be implemented between October 2017 and end of March 2018.

Reason for condition:- In the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance policy DC12 of the Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 105 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Document 2009 and paragraphs 127 and 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 8 Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for condition:- To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. This condition is applied having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 106 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 Agenda Item 9b

ITEM: RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL REF NO: 3PL/2019/1058/VAR CASE OFFICER Fiona Hunter

LOCATION: ROCKLANDS APPNTYPE: Variation of Cond's Peels Farm POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Whitings Lane Rockland All Saints Rocklands CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Mr Graham Shadrack LB GRADE: N Peels Farm, Whitings Lane AGENT: Mr Ian Pick TPO: N Station Farm Offices Wansford Road PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 2 on pp 3PL/2016/0748/F - to regularise the as built development as it differs from approved plans

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Application is for EIA development.

KEY ISSUES Whether the amendments are acceptable, whether the amendments would result in a significant environmental impact and whether mitigation and/ or monitoring is required.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Retrospective variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference 3PL/2016/0748/F "Proposed expansion to existing pig rearing unit to provide additional pig rearing shed". The permitted development was for 5 pig rearing units each able to accommodate 1,000 pigs. Each unit was 61m in length, 15.6m in width and 6.1m in height. The development increased the indoor pig 30kg and above rearing capacity of the Peels Farm from 3,200 to 8,200 pigs.

This application seeks to vary the above described consent to the provision of 4 units opposed to 5, in different positions and with the addition of 6m flues.

The fifth unit not forming part of this application has been erected 30m to the south-south-east of it's approved permission. Under a separate planning application reference 3PL/2019/1091/F it is proposed that this unit is retained but is use changed to agricultural storage building with no live stock.

SITE AND LOCATION Peels Farm is located within the countryside midway between the villages of Rocklands and Lower Stow Bedon. The farm extends to some 500 hectares, and includes a complex of traditional and modern farm

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 107 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 buildings. The modern buildings are divided into pig finishing pens with a capacity of 3,200 over 30 kg pig places in addition to the 4 units erected under 3PL/2016/0748 which have capacity for 4,000 pigs. A range of outdoor framed buildings, with capacity of 8,200 places, accommodate piglets on arrival at the farm.

The site is accessed off Whitings Lane, an informally surfaced road which links Rocklands Road to the north and Sandy Lane to the south. There is a County Wildlife Site (CWS), (North of Lower Stow Bedon ref 847), just to the west of the application site, and a further CWS some 200 metres to the south, (Lower Stow Bedon ref 811).

EIA REQUIRED The proposed development falls within Schedule 1, article 17(b) of the The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as amended, hereafter referred to as The EIA Regulations. Spefically, the development is an Installation for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 3,000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg). The development therefore is EIA development where an Environmental Statement is required. Due to potential odour, emissions, noise and visual implications from the variations, the applicant has submitted a new Environmental Statement rather than rely on that submitted under the original permission (3PL/2016/0748/F).

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 3SO/2015/0003/SCO - Expansion of pig farm (scoping opinion) 3PL/2016/0748/F - Proposed expansion to existing pig rearing unit to provide 5 additional pig rearing sheds - Approved 20 Jan 2017 3DC/2017/0047/DOC - Discharge conditions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 3PL/2016/0748/F Conditions - Part and Full Approval, bar condition 11 - 1 June 2017 3PL/2019/0885/VAR - Amendment to condition 2 to 3PL/2016/0748/F - withdrawn 3PL/2019/1091/F - Retrospective full planning permission for erecting a agricultural storage building - valid application

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the Breckland Local Plan, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate

COM01 Design COM03 Protection of Amenity EC01 Economic Development ENV02 Biodiversity protection and enhancement ENV05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape ENV09 Flood Risk & Surface Water Drainage GEN02 Promoting High Quality Design

OBLIGATIONS/CIL Not Applicable

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 108 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

CONSULTATIONS

ROCKLANDS PARISH COUNCIL This application was discussed at a meeting held on 2 September 2019. Rocklands Parish Council are all too aware of the problems that have been associated with this installation at Peels Farm and the upset that has been caused to the near neighbours.

We are fully in support of this application which seeks to regularise the Sheds 1-4, (Shed 5 being now out of production and the subject of a further application). Whilst we feel that this will not solve all the difficulties, it will correct the mistake that was made in the positioning of the unit and the fact that there will also be 20% less livestock/movements etc can only be helpful in mitigating some noise and odours associated with the livestock.

The Parish Council are still not able to definitively assess whether the amendments being carried out to the remaining sheds will be effective in tackling the odour problems suffered by the neighbouring residents and businesses.

We are sorry that the Applicant has had so many problems too, and trust that Breckland will also support this application. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY No objection, however, reminds the applicant that if noise complaints are received post permission which are substantiated outside the site boundary by an EA Officer this could constitute a permit breach and the requirement to include additional appropriate measures in the operator's Permit Noise Management Plan.

In respect of odour, the introduction of increased fan stack height the submitted modelling shows an improvement. However, modelling has limitations. As such, de-stocking could be required to enable compliance with the Environmental Permit.

The extent and position of the 1m earth bund and any acoustic fence/noise attenuation features should be reviewed so as to achieve the most effective outcome for the nearest residents. FLOOD & WATER MANAGEMENT TEAM No comments to make on this application. NATURAL ENGLAND No comments to make on this application. ECOLOGICAL AND BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANT No objection subject to the implementation of the mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in the approved Construction Environment Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS Deficiencies in the provided reports. Recommended conditions for noise, odour and pests to cover the event that the development is not covered by an EA permit in the future. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection, recommends conditions. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SERVICE

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 109 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Unlikely to have any significant impact on the historic environment and we do not wish to make any recommendations for archaeological work.

NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST No Comments Received NORFOLK RIVERS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD No Comments Received NATURAL ENGLAND No Comments Received

REPRESENTATIONS Two local representations have been received and summarised below:

A resident living 1/2 mile from the site experienced an odour issue, however in the last 6 months (comment Feb 2020) there has been no problem and noting when living in the countryside there will be the occasional smell. CASE OFFICER NOTE: distance is 0.2miles/ 360m.

A further resident raised the following:

- Operator should not have been put into a position where it may not be possible to meet the noise and odour limits. Issues at the Full Application stage not properly considered - Concern is for the protection of businesses and amenity of neighbours - The information for this application show acceptable levels of noise and odour cannot be achieved - Visual harm from incorrect building siting - Visual harm from proposed introduction of 6m chimneys - Screening incomplete and ineffective, soil bund should be extended to screen 4th shed - Red line has moved - Noise and odour assessment inadequate - Buildings are not sealed which will reduce effectiveness of the chimneys - Noise and odour levels for nearest receptors remain unacceptable - The acoustic fence is missing from the application - Errors in Environmental Statement

ASSESSMENT NOTES 1.0 Introduction

1.1 The proposed variation would result in the reduction of 1 pig rearing unit and a reduced capacity from 5,000 to 4,000 30kg and above pig places. In addition the remaining 4 units would be positioned 8.8m to the south of the positions approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F, together with the introduction of 6m flues.

1.2 The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES), which scope has been reduced from that approved under Scoping Opinion reference: 3SO/2015/0003/SCO, as agreed during pre-application discussion, to cover those aspects affected by the variation as follows: Landscape and Visual Amenity, Flood Risk and Drainage, Amenity, Noise and Emissions.

1.3 A neighbour has raised objection before and during the course of the application with particular regard to odour and noise from the development as built and as this application seeks to regularise. This is of particular importance for this application.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 110 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

2.0 Odour, Emissions and Noise

2.1 The ES details that in respect of odour/ emissions that the sought variation would result in baseline of 9.84 European Odour Units, to a maximum 4.63 European Odour Units which represents a 53% improvement in odour conditions at the nearest dwelling unconnected with the farm. The Council's Environmental Health Officer has raised a missing table in the Odour Report and that both the full permission and this variation exceed recommended guidance levels for odour.

2.2 In respect of Noise, the ES details that the proposal results in a 20% reduction in noise generating activities. The Council's Environmental Health Officer has raised that noise should be assessed in accordance with BS4142 (2014) which it has not been, and if it had would exceed the 5dB above background levels. The Environment Agency (EA) have not raised objection and agreed that the reports modelling has concluded the level of noise at the site boundary and nearest residential receptor is below the acceptable daytime limit (43dB). However, the EA also raise that as the noise has been calculated rather than measured that the complaints may still be received and if these are substantiated outside the site boundary by an EA Officer, this could constitute a EA permit breach and the requirement to include appropriate measures in the operator's Noise Management Plan. Furthermore, they recommended that options are explored for the eastern boundary to ensure the greatest level of noise reduction can be achieved. To this end, it is recommended that a condition is applied requiring a further Noise Assessment to be submitted to the LPA with 6 weeks of the decision which assess' whether the eastern boundary 1m bund should be increased to 2m and should it provide a useful decrease in noise to receptors for the bund to be increased accordingly within 3 months of such Approval of Details Decision. This is considered reasonable as permission 3PL/2016/0748/F included a condition for acoustic fencing along this boundary and the submitted Noise Report is based on calculations opposed to measured on site. A bund is considered to incorporate more seamlessly with the current landscape opposed to an acoustic fence.

2.3 The Environment Health Officer has recommended that if the application be approved that conditions are applied which cover the event of the development no longer being covered by an Environmental Permitting Regime including a Noise Management Plan, Odour Management Plan and Pests. These are considered reasonable and in the interest of amenity to local residents and businesses.

2.4 The EA concluded that the de-stocking of 1000 pigs from the 5th and most southern unit, closest to Sandy Lane and the nearest residential receptor should have a positive impact for residents from odour and noise. This conclusion is concurred with, and that a 20% reduction of pigs on site together with installation of flues will reduce odour, emissions and noise and will therefore result in an improvement against that permitted under 3PL/2016/0748/F. For this reasons the variation is considered to comply with Policy COM 03 Protection of Amenity and paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019.

3.0 Landscape and Visual Amenity

3.1 The 4 units are positioned 8.8m to the south of the positions approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F, together with the introduction of 6m flues. This will increase the visual presence of these buildings from Sandy Lane, Whitings Lane and surrounding fields. The 5th building outside of the scope of this permission will be considered under application 3PL/2019/1091/F.

3.2 The site is not in a protected landscape areas such as a Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is screened by a grassed bund approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F. From where Sandy Lane meets Whiting Lane, only the roof of unit 5 and the tanks of units 4 and 5 can be seen as existing. Immediately to the south of the site the development is not visible. To the south-east of the site along Sandy Lane, the buildings can

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 111 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 be seen in part, with the bund and the fall of the land screening over half of the massing of the buildings.

3.3 The bund has already been deemed to be acceptable by the Council under the full planning permission, and this provides extensive visual screening to the development which this application seeks to regularise. Where the buildings, flues and tanks can be seen from the public realm, their appearance is agricultural in nature in muted greens and greys and do not appear out of character for the rural location or offensive to the eye.

3.4 As demonstrated by the photographs in the Landscape Study, the units can also be seen to the north and from this perspective they are visually sitting within the wider Peels Farm estate buildings group and due to distance between the highways and buildings are not significant features within the vista.

3.5 The flues are 6m above the ridge lines, and these are likely to be visible from longer vistas such as south-east of the development along Sandy Lane. However, as these are tall slim structures in a muted grey and appear agricultural in nature, the impact is considered minimal to the landscape. The variation is considered to comply with Policy ENV 05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape and paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2019.

4.0 Flood Risk and Drainage

4.1 The site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 and the ES includes an updated drainage strategy. The LLFA have responded to the application advising that they have no comments to make on this application. The proposed drainage principles remain the same as approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F, however, has been adapted due to building positions and increased hardstanding. Water from roofs and clean impermeable hard standing is directed to an infiltration basin to the south of the site. The basin is designed to deal with 1:100 year flood event. Dirty water from hardstandings and muck pads would be directed to underground storage tanks to minimise pollution risks.

4.2 The drainage system and flood risk is considered to be in accordance with Policy ENV 09 Flood Risk & Surface Water Drainage and Section 14 of the NPPF 2019.

5.0 Highways

5.1 The reduction of pigs on site by 20% will reduce the traffic associated with the development previously found to be acceptable under 3PL/2016/0748/F, The Highways Officer advised that the off-site highways works previously conditioned, other than for the re-grading of Whitings Lane, have been complete and therefore it is not necessary to re-condition these works.

5.2 They have recommended that the Whitings Lane regrading is conditioned together with securing visibility splays in perpetuity. These are considered reasonable and necessary. Subject to the application of these conditions to the decision notice the variation is in accordance with Policy GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 and paragraph 108 of the NPPF 2019.

6.0 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.1 The development has been considered under EIA Regulations due to falling within Schedule 1 article 17(b). More specifically, the application is a variation to an EIA development permitted under 3PL/2016/0748/F, and continues to exceed the threshold of 3,000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg). The variation has impact to: odour, noise and emissions; flood risk and drainage; and landscape and visual amenity and the ES submitted with this application addresses these matters.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 112 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

6.2 The ES has been prepared by competent experts and having examined the document it is considered adequate and contains the information required by regulation 18(3) and (4) of the EIA Regulations.

6.3 The individual topics have been discussed in the preceding Sections and the development has been found to not have a significant environmental impact subject to the mitigation measures proposed in the ES and listed below:

- Bunding, native tree and hedgerow planting to mitigate against visual impact, odour, emissions and noise - Installation of a 6m ventilation chimneys for odour dispersal - Drainage system including separate system for dirty water to be tankered off-site

6.4 Imposition of monitoring in respect of odour, emissions and noise has been considered, however, as the site/ development is covered by an Environmental Permit in this instance it would be considered duplication having regard to EIA Regulation 26(3)(c). More specifically, the Environment Agency will investigate complaints from residents or businesses and if the Permit is evidenced by their officers to be breached then further mitigation will be required and as a last resort de-stocking of the maximum number of pigs.

7.0 Other Matters

7.1 A resident has raised that the red line has changed from the full application (3PL/2016/0748/F), this has been checked and the red line remains the same.

7.2 The resident also raised that as the buildings are not sealed that this will reduce the effectiveness of the flues. However, the Council's Environmental Health Officer and the EA have not found the submitted calculations to be incorrect due to this.

7.3 In accordance with the Council's Ecology Consultant, the Construction Environmental Management Plan approved under approval of details permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC should be required and controlled by way of condition.

7.4 A updated landscaping condition is applied to ensure this mitigation continues to be provided.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The variation will reduce emissions, odour and noise from the development and will therefore have a positive impact and is therefore in accordance with Policy COM 03 Protection of Amenity.

8.2 Having regard to the submitted Landscape Study including site photographs from key vistas, the re- positioned buildings will have a negligible impact on the Landscape and character of the area due to the bund approved under 3PL/2016/0748/F. The installation of 4 x 6m chimneys will have a minor negative visual impact which is not considered environmentally significant and is considered acceptable as it will improve the development in terms of odour reduction together with not being out of character in the context of Peels Farm.

8.3 The proposed drainage proposals are also found to be acceptable, neither increasing flood risk nor polluting groundwater in accordance with Policy ENV 09.

8.4 As detailed in Section 6.0 of this report the variation is not found to give rise to a significant environmental impact subjection to the mitigation listed and which should be imposed as conditions.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 113 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to conditions.

CONDITIONS 1 In accordance with submitted plans NEW 2017 The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, and approved documents and drawings as set out in the table at the end of this notice and completed within 3 months from the date of this decision notice.

Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019. 2 Whitings Lane Upgrade Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision notice Whitings Lane shall be upgraded in accordance with a scheme to be first submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority from its junction with C130 Rocklands Road to the site access.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement having regard to Policies GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 3 Visibility Splay Visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 43 metres shall be provided to each side of the access where it meets Whitings Lane within 6 weeks from the date of this decision notice. The splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway

Reason for condition:- In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement having regard to Policies GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 4 Vehicle Access Provision Within 6 weeks from the date of this decision notice the vehicular access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the approved plan block plan drawing number 1249 sheet 4 rev b in accordance with a scheme to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Arrangements shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

Reason for condition:- To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policies GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019. 5 Traffic Route

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 114 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

All traffic shall enter and leave the site from/to the north west via C130 Rocklands Road. There shall be no direct access from the site onto the unclassified road 33032 Sandy Lane.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement having regard to Policies GEN 02, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 6 Eastern Boundary Bund An noise assessment shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 6 weeks of the date of this decision notice. The assessment shall provide noise calculations for increasing the eastern boundary bund 1m section as detailed in the Noise Impact Assessment dated 21 October 2019 to 2m. The assessment must include calculations for increasing the full length of the 1m eastern bund to 2m, however, may also include calculations for increasing part of the 1m eastern boundary bund to 2m.

Should the assessment identify a reduction in noise levels which would provide a noticeable improvement to any residential properties or buisness' on Sandy Lane then the eastern boundary 1m bund will be extended either in part or full in accordance with the LPA approval of details decision, within 3 months of such decision.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours and business' having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 7 Non-standard drainage condition Within 3 months of this permission, unless an alternative time frame is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the drainage scheme as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment & Surface Water Drainage Strategy Revision 0, August 2019 will be installed and made fully functional. Thereafter surface water will be dealt with in accordance with the approved details.

Reason for condition:- This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy ENV 09 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 8 Odour management plan Should the development cease to fall within the scope of the Environment Agency permitting regulations, the use of the buildings hereby permitted for pig rearing shall cease unless and until an odour management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that odour from the development will not exceed the Environment Agency recommended guidance benchmark of 3ouE/m3 at the boundary with the nearest affected domestic property. The odour management plan shall identify all odour sources and detail how they are to be managed and monitored to prevent odours from exceeding 3ouE/m3, it shall also detail the establishment of a formal system for recording and dealing with complaints. The development shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the agreed odour management plan. The monitoring records associated with the scheme shall be made available, together with associated documentation, upon request from the Local Planning Authority.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 115 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours and business' having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 9 Noise management plan Should the development cease to fall within the scope of the Environment Agency permitting regulations, the use of the buildings hereby permitted for pig rearing shall cease unless and until a Noise Management plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Noise Management Plan shall ensure that the development hereby permitted shall not generate a noise level measured at the boundary of the site greater than 5dBA above the background levels of: 38dBA, LA90(60mins) during day time hours (07.00 - 23.00) 25dBA, LA90(15mins) during night time hours (23.00 - 07.00) All measurements to be taken with a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1, standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response. Measurements should be taken in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 2014 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). It shall also include the following:

- Restrictions on the timings of deliveries and dispatches of livestock to and from the site - Restrictions on the timings of deliveries of feed, the loading of silos or feed hoppers on site - Restrictions on the timings of operation of mechanical equipment for the use of cleaning and mucking out of buildings - The development hereby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours and business' having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 10 Pest management condition Should the development cease to fall within the scope of the Environment Agency permitting regulations, fly numbers within all of the sheds must be monitored twice weekly between April and October and once weekly at all other times. Records should be kept of between April and October and once weekly at all other times. Records should be kept of all fly control activities including monitoring records and treatment details and made available to Environmental Protection Officers in the event of a complaint. Any increase in fly numbers should be addressed immediately in line with current best industry practice.

Reason for condition:- In the interest of the amenity of residential neighbours and business' having regard to Policy COM 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 11 Ecological mitigation All development will take place in full accordance with the e CEMP (Construction Environment Management Plan) for Peels Farm Whitings Lane Rockland All Saints, prepared by Norfolk Wildlife Services, dated March 2017 first approved under Approval of Details Permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 116 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Reason for condition:- In the interests of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecological value of the site and surrounding area. In accordance with Policy ENV 02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2019 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 12 Soft landscaping scheme Where any landscaping or planting has not been completed in accordance with the details approved under Approval of Details Permission reference: 3DC/2017/0047/DOC, they shall be completed within 6 months of the date of this planning permission or within the next planting season. The approved landscaping details are listed below:

- Landscape Specification, prepared by Broom Lynne dated, 16th February 2017; - Landscape Plan, drwg no 2016-249-005B, prepared by Broom Lynne. - Correspondence dated 31st May 2017 confirms that the landscaping will be implemented between October 2017 and end of March 2018.

Should the eastern boundary bund be required to be increased from 1m to 2m under the requirements of Condition 6 of this decision notice then the planting should be replaced or provided on the bund within 6 months of the date of this planning permission or within the next planting season.

Reason for condition:- In the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance policy DC12 of the Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2009 and paragraphs 127 and 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 117 BRECKLAND COUNCILAgenda - PLANNINGItem 9c COMMITTEE -

ITEM: RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL REF NO: 3PL/2019/0189/F CASE OFFICER Rebecca Collins

LOCATION: WEETING APPNTYPE: Full land at Brandon Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Weeting CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Dignity Funerals ltd LB GRADE: N 4 King Edwards Court King Edwards Square AGENT: Mr John Williams TPO: N The Studio White Cottage PROPOSAL: Full Planning Application for a crematorium including memorial gardens, car parking, a new vehicle access onto Harling Drove and ancillary works.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The application site and proposal is considered to be sensitive and is therefore referred to Planning Committee for these reasons.

KEY ISSUES - Principle of development in the countryside - Access, Highway Safety and Car Parking - Layout, Design and Landscape impact - Impact on Amenity, Contamination and Air Quality - Impact on Heritage assets - Impact on Ecology - Flood Risk and Drainage - Impact on Trees and Hedgerows

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The proposal is for development of a crematorium, car parking, memorial gardens and associated infrastructure. The development will comprise a single-storey building with an area of approximately 500 sqm which will accommodate a chapel, a crematorium and administrative space. The chapel will seat around 100 people.

Car parking for 98 vehicles will be provided within the development site and vehicle access will be from Brandon Road, to the west of the application site.

SITE AND LOCATION

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 118 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

The application site is located to the south of Weeting and to the east of Brandon Road and to the south of the junction of Peppers Close, Peppers Hill Road and Brandon Road. The site is currently open agricultural land, surrounded by high dense vegetation and trees.

Weeting Road is a busy road leading south to Brandon, North to Weeting, with the A1065 and A11 accessed to the south.

EIA REQUIRED Yes - the application was previously screened and scoped for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and it was determined that it would be on the grounds that the development could have a detrimental environmental impact on the following: a. Thetford Forest SSSI b. Breckland SPA, SSSI, SSSI, SSSI, Grime's Graves SSSI and Wangford Warren & Carr SSSI c. Populations of SPA birds - namely stone curlew, woodlark and nightjar.

The relevant EIA information has been provided and the application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2017).

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

3SO/2018/0003/SCO Permission 18-12-18 EIA scoping opinion for proposed crematorium facility 3SR/2018/0005/SCR Withdrawn INVALID 21-08-18 Proposed Crematorium

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the Breckland Local Plan, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate

COM01 Design COM03 Protection of Amenity COM04 Community Facilities EC01 Economic Development EC03 General Employment Areas EC04 Employment Development Outside General Employment Areas EC06 Farm Diversification ENV01 Green Infrastructure ENV02 Biodiversity protection and enhancement

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 119 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

ENV03 The Brecks Protected Habitats & Species ENV05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape ENV06 Trees, Hedgerows and Development ENV07 Designated Heritage Assets ENV09 Flood Risk & Surface Water Drainage GEN01 Sustainable Development in Breckland GEN02 Promoting High Quality Design GEN03 Settlement Hierarchy LBC Planning(Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance TR01 Sustainable Transport Network TR02 Transport Requirements

OBLIGATIONS/CIL Not applicable

CONSULTATIONS

NATURAL ENGLAND No objection, based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. We are aware that the proposal now falls within the Breckland SPA constraint zone but are still happy for the proposal to proceed. However, we would recommend that a condition is secured to either avoid works during the bird breeding season or to carry out a nightjar/woodlark survey to locate the birds prior to works.

As you will be aware our main concern within this zone is residential applications, largely due to issues relating to recreation and pets. In our view both the crematorium and the access road are sufficiently far from the SPA to avoid any direct issues such as habitat loss or indirect issues such as changes in air quality relating to traffic or to the crematorium. CRIME REDUCTION & ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON OFFICER I am delighted to see that the Design and Access Statement has stipulated its security intentions having clearly considered Designing out Crime principles from Secured by Design guidance and I would actively welcome an SBD application for this development. Norfolk Constabulary has seen some recent spikes in rural crime, where by machinery and tools specifically relating to grounds keeping are targeted. With this in mind I strongly urge the developers to ensure that the appropriate physical security and surveillance are installed at the point of construction. In addition to this it is imperative that all tools and machinery are property marked both covertly and overtly (forensic property solutions). NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Thanks for the updated drawing which I can confirm now shows the correct required visibility splays at the A1065 junction.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 120 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

I am satisfied that the scheme of works outlined on drawing BRW-BWB-HML-XX-DR-TR-101 S2 Rev P14 is suitable for planning purposes and agrees in principle an indicative scheme for the required highway mitigation. As previously advised, there are still a few issues with regard to the scheme of off-site highway works however these can be addressed through the S278.

In light of the above, I can confirm that our previous concerns have now been addressed and I would be happy to withdraw our holding objection to the proposals. Should you be minded to approve the application, I would be grateful for the inclusion of highways conditions suggested. FLOOD & WATER MANAGEMENT TEAM No objection subject to a condition with regards to a detailed surface water drainage scheme.

We would also strongly advise that seasonally high groundwater levels are obtained and confirmed prior to commencement of the development as the stated levels were obtained in July 2018 when levels likely to have been below average due to the exceptionally dry period at the time. TREE AND COUNTRYSIDE CONSULTANT Whilst this additional loss of trees/hedges is unfortunate I cannot see that there is anything there which cannot be compensated for by means of additional planting. I would consider that the planting scheme shown provides adequate mitigation. ECOLOGICAL AND BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANT A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report (Red Kite; December 2018), Environment Statement dated February 2019, Clarification for screening in relation to Breeding Birds and Breckland SPA & SAC screening letter (Red Kite; August 2019), Ground Level Tree Assessment Report for Bats & Breeding Birds (Red Kite; September 2019) and Phase 2 botany report (Red Kite; September 2019) has been submitted in support of this planning application.

The PEA report highlights the potential for bats, badgers, breeding birds, amphibians, hedgehogs and reptiles to be present on the site. A veteran black poplar tree record located on the site was returned in the NBIS data search, which is a rare species in the UK and is often listed as a BAP species for most counties, including Norfolk. Suitable protection measures should be implemented to prevent damage/disturbance during construction phases, ensuring that adequate root protection zones are maintained during and after construction.

The botanical report highlights the presence of a Near Threatened Red Listed plant species associated with the northern arable field margin. An ecological management plan must outline measures to retain, protect and enhance arable field margins on site to protect Hound s-tongue. This should be in place and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. The management plan should seek to maintain and protect this species on site for the foreseeable future.

Ecological enhancement measures need to be included within the site s design to provide net gains for biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

In our opinion, for the reasons provided in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report (Red Kite; December 2018), Environment Statement and clarification for screening in relation to Breeding Birds and Breckland SPA & SAC screening letter (Red Kite; August 2019), including the prevailing habitats on the site being sub- optimal for stone curlew, the findings of the air quality assessment and given that the type of development is unlikely to lead to increased recreational pressure or predation from pets that would lead to significant impacts on Nature 2000 sites, a full AA is not needed and so Breckland DC as the competent authority (as defined by the Habs Regs) can screen out the need for an AA.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 121 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

If you are minded to approve this application, we recommend and Ecological Management Plan condition. CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objections or comments on the grounds of Environmental Protection - contamination, providing the development proceeds in line with the application details. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS No objections or comments on the grounds of Environmental Protection - pollution, providing the development proceeds in line with the application details. The proposed development will require an Environmental Permit administered and regulated by Breckland Councils Environmental Protection Team under The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, and I am satisfied that air quality issues will be controlled by the Permit. AIR QUALITY OFFICER No objections or comments on the grounds of Environmental Protection - air quality, providing the development proceeds in line with the application details. The applicant should refer to the DEFRA Guidance on Crematoria so that the appropriate controls and provisions are in place. This site will need an Environmental Permit to operate. P A BOND Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service will require either a fire hydrant to be installed capable of delivering a minimum of 20L of water per second, or where no piped water supply is available or there is insufficient pressure and flow in the water main, or an alternative arrangement is proposed. HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSULTANT No objection HISTORIC ENGLAND No objection to the application on heritage grounds. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SERVICE The proposed development site lies close to a Scheduled Bronze Age burial mound to the east and another possible one to the south. The planning application was accompanied by a geophysical survey report which identified another possible ploughed-out Bronze Age burial mound within the development area. If this anomaly is a ploughed-out burial mound, there is a strong possibility that there will be Bronze Age and Early Saxon burials within the development area, which will be affected by the proposed development.

If planning permission is granted, we therefore ask that this be subject to a programme of archaeological mitigatory work in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para. 199 is conditioned.

NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT No Comments Received NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST No Comments Received ANGLIAN WATER SERVICE No Comments Received

REPRESENTATIONS Approximately 73 letters of objection have been received, their comments have been summarised as follows:

-Too near the school, homes and the village. Crematoriums are usually built in isolated areas and nowhere

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 122 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - near homes, schools, businesses. - The location is not suitable for such a business. - Not good for the local community. - The proposed site is very indiscreet for a crematorium. - We have three crematoria within approximately 30 -40 minutes drive from Weeting. - There is a crematorium at and this has been extended recently. The new crematorium at is only 25 mins away. The"Need" for a Crematorium has not been made. Risby is within 30 minutes travelling time and has recently been expanded. The Cremetorium at Scoulton has not even been considered in the needs submission. Additionally, Mintlynn is within forty minutes travelling time as is City with Earlham being a little over sixty minutes travelling time. There is adequate cover in this area without the addition of one at Weeting. - Concerned about the high volume of traffic, there are still no signs of the bypass and traffic will only increase. - Not needed in a small village. - Concerned about the risk of pollution & the effect on people's health as the crematorium is within a village - i.e. the cremation process emits pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide, mercury, dioxin, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, cadmium and chromium. There is also a danger of releasing radiation. Although we have been told that the filters are checked once a year there are no guarantees in life that this will be adhered to. - Although Peppers High Hill (denoted as Harling Drove on the plans) is being widened, concerns about the lack of development of the existing infrastructure to help with increased level of traffic and the effect the increase will have on Weeting and the immediate surrounding areas, particularly on Harling Drove which narrows to a single lane at one point. In addition, traffic around Weeting and Brandon areas already creates bad congestion at peak times and when the level crossing barriers are down. The junction of Brandon road with Harling Drove and Peppers Close is already dangerous with the current level of traffic. - Anything which disrupts the flow of traffic adds to air pollution as well as causing frustration and delays to those travelling. - There will only be one entrance for cars wanting to go into and out of the site - surely this will create a bottleneck on Peppers Hill. - No actual traffic surveys have been carried out in support of this application. - Serious road traffic accidents that have occurred in the last six weeks, two on the Brandon to Rd, very close to the Peppers High Hill junction that has been referred to in this application. - The village has an existing planning permission for 56 new houses. These at some point in time will be built adding further traffic to the village. - It should also be considered that the illustrated road improvements require significant works in land that is not included within the ownership of the applicant. - A public access walking footpath exists through the farmland immediately adjacent to the proposed new entrance for this development. No consideration has been made as to how access to this route will be maintained or indeed improved with the proposed road improvements along Peppers High Hill. - There are a number of historical burial mounds. - The proposed location is far too close to private residences and would be visible from upstairs windows. - If this development were to go ahead, it would likely snowball the "linking" of Weeting to Brandon, destroying the identity of Weeting as a separate village. - Devaluation of property's. - An unwanted gift to the younger generation. - There is so much more can be done with this land in the future if money can be secured to build a community center or swimming pool / fitness center. - It would be much better suited at the other end of Peppers Hill Rd, on the Mundford Rd. Where it is proposed, the Brandon Road is the main route to the village. - I'd rather not have to drive into Weeting and be reminded of death everyday.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 123 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- It will affect wildlife, close to the SPA and the SSSI. There are various birds that are protected that nest on this site. The area chosen is a known wildlife corridor. - We object on the grounds that the site is a flood plain, the site will still be within a Zone 3 Risk area. Should a large concrete car park be constructed where will large amounts of water drain to and is there a risk that this will cause flooding issues for residents in the village or highways. - Cremation is extremely environmentally unfriendly. - This will affect the residents of Brandon and Hockwold also. - The site would not lend itself to the solemnity the services demand as it will be flanked by two busy roads and there will be significant intrusive noise generated by traffic and by aircraft operating out of RAF Lakenheath. - Where they want to put the entrance, the road is too narrow and will cause congestion. there are already two, having another will hurt their business. - Cremations are expected from Ely and that area. This is not local to this area. - The judgement in the recent legal case for Scoulton highlighted reasons why Weeting was an unsuitable site for a crematorium. - It wouldn't look right in this location as crematoriums are tucked away but this one will be where everyone can see it so may get vandalised.

Six letters of support have been received, their comments have been summarised as follows: - I would rather have somewhere to pay respects to loved ones, without having to drive to Bury St Edmunds or Kings Lynn. - Although crematoriums are associated with being a sad place, they are also a place for remembrance and recollection. We have a cemetery, you bury bodies there, near the school and in the village. What's the difference? - Possibly create more local employment, traffic shouldn't be a problem if they close Peppers High Hill to large vehicles. - The site has parking for 100 cars so that won't be a problem either. - It will make good use of poor land. - It should go ahead on the provision that if they need to run a gas pipeline to the crematorium that it is also run in to the village so we could benefit and not have to pay extortionate prices that we do now for gas or oil. - I would much rather see a crematorium built there than houses.

A letter from the planning hub on behalf of Westerleigh Group Ltd and from Howes Percival on behalf of Breckland Crematorium at Scoulton have also been received, their comments have been summarised within the relevant sections of the report.

ASSESSMENT NOTES 1.0 Principle of development in the countryside

1.1 Policy GEN01 seeks to enable development that improves the economic, social and environmental objectives through the application of the following principles:

- Mitigate and adapt to climate change; - Protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment; - Allocate and facilitate developable land that seeks to provide access to homes, employment, retail, leisure and other facilities; - Assist in the creation and maintenance of inclusive, environmentally sustainable communities making the best and most efficient use of previously developed land, buildings and natural resources;

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 124 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- Support Breckland's wider rural economy helping to sustain local services and assist in helping rural communities adapt and grow proportionately to enhance their social and economic sustainability; - Direct jobs and growth towards the most sustainable locations contributing towards the economy and jobs in rural areas, helping to achieve the right balance throughout the District; - Co-ordinate development with transport provision ensuring good access to existing community facilities, services and open space, together with new facilities and services where necessary; - Consideration of the cumulative impact of development, in particular, the impact on the environment.

1.2 Arguably this proposal provides access locally to a facility (i.e. crematorium) but it is also arguable that suitable accessibility to similar facilities already exists, this is further set out below. Consideration of the qualitative and quantitative need for the facility, its proposed location and any cumulative impacts, is also set out below. The proposal is not considered to comply with any other of the points, as set out above (i.e. it will not assist with climate change, given the proximity of other facilities; it will not protect and enhance that natural, built or historic environments; and not make use of previously developed land).

1.3 Policy GEN01 goes on to state 'Where there are no development plan policies relevant to the application, or the policies of most importance are out of date, the Council will grant permission, unless taking into account whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, or if policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed'. This has been taken into consideration in the determination of this application.

1.4 Policy GEN02 and COM01 seek to promote high quality design. This is further discussed below.

1.5 Policy GEN03 identifies a settlement hierarchy for the delivery of sustainable development. Weeting is designated as a Local Service Centre, the third tier of the settlement hierarchy. Policy GEN03 states 'The hierarchy is based upon the utilisation of existing infrastructure and resources, the prioritisation of new infrastructure and allowing jobs, homes and other facilities to provide for choice'. It is considered that the scale and type of development proposed would be more appropriate to a higher tier of settlement hierarchy. However, Weeting is considered a sustainable location, given its position in the settlement hierarchy, where development is considered acceptable.

1.6 Policy GEN05 seeks to direct all new development to sites within settlement boundaries. Outside settlement boundaries, development is restricted to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside. The policy provides a list of policies for which development could comply with development outside of settlements boundaries. This includes Policy EC04 which permits proposals for employment uses outside of Identified General Employment Areas (which this is being open countryside). These can be permitted whereby: a. It is demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites available on identified or allocated employment sites; and/or b. There are particular reasons for the development not being located on an established or allocated employment site including:

1. The expansion of an existing business; 2. Businesses that are based on agriculture, forestry or other industry where there are sustainability advantages to being located in close proximity to the market they serve; or 3. Industries and / or businesses which would be detrimental to local amenity if located in settlements, including general employment areas.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 125 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - c. The development of the site would not adversely affect the type and volume of traffic generated.

1.7 As far as the need for a countryside location is concerned, the requirements of the Cremation Act 1902 are directly relevant insofar as they stipulate that a crematorium should be a least 200 yards, (around 183 metres), from any dwelling and at least 50 yards (43 metres) from a public highway. Published Government guidance entitled The Siting and Planning of Crematoria (DoE, 1978) is also of relevance. This says that sufficient land should be available to provide an appropriate setting for a crematorium, adequate internal access roads, car parking and space for the disposal of ashes. Reference is made to sites of two to four hectares in size and larger, although no minimum is stated. The reasonable expectation of mourners and visitors to gardens of remembrance for a place of quiet contemplation is also an important consideration in relation to site selection.

1.8 Given these particular site selection and locational requirements, it is considered to be most unlikely that suitable land would be found within a defined settlement boundary. This is due to the more or less continuously built up nature of towns and villages in the District. Larger sites that are remote from housing are perhaps more likely to be found within existing and allocated employment areas, but such sites can be discounted due to the busy commercial nature of such areas and the likelihood of conflicting activities. It can reasonably be concluded therefore that a rural location outside a defined settlement is likely to be required for the development of a crematorium. The proposal is therefore considered in accordance with part 3 of EC04, subject to it being demonstrated that the proposal 'would not adversely affect the type and volume of traffic generated' and this is also further discussed in detail below.

1.9 Section 6, Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states planning policies and decisions should enable: a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside; and d) the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.

1.10 Paragraph 84 of the NPPF states 'Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs (own emphasis) in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist'.

1.11 It could be argued that this proposal would provide a local service or facility, which this is considered to be, in reasonably proximity to Weeting and the station and other public transport nodes at Brandon, and that Section 6 does support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas. However, paragraph 84 requires local business and community 'needs' to be met. In addition, it is well established through planning decisions and appeals that for proposed crematoria developments to depart from policies within the development plan, weight must be attributed to a strong proven need for the development in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

1.12 Whilst the proposal would provide a public service, it would be operated on a commercial basis and would generate some employment. Both the provision of services and employment is supported by Section

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 126 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

6 of the NPPF and policies GEN05 and EC04 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). However, Section 6 permits this on the basis that these sites would meet local business and community 'needs' in rural areas. Also, the landscape impacts of development would need to be weighed against the needs for the development, as required by Sections 12 and 15 of the NPPF and Policies GEN05 and ENV05 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

1.13 The applicants have also provided further information demonstrating their site selection principles. They set out that they are volunteering the information, despite there being no policy requirement to provide. This, is not consider true as the recently adopted Local Plan, Policy GEN03, seeks to direct development to sustainable locations through its settlement hierarchy and whilst rural economic investment is supported by the NPPF. However, only where a proposal necessitates a site to address a local community need can a less accessible rural location be considered. The site is located in the Countryside in a rural location. In order to satisfy the aims and objectives of the NPPF, as well as a departure from the restrictive countryside policies of the Local Plan the Local Planning Authority consider the appellant has insufficiently justified this rural location. They state in August 2016 that they set out to find opportunities for potential crematorium sites within a target area to include; 8-10 acres; tranquil setting; capable of being 200 yards from existing residential and 50 yards from a public highway; good links and access to main roads; close to public transport. Six potential sites were identified (five to the north of Thetford and the application site). The five Thetford sites were all in the ownership of Estate. Due to the proximity of these sites to Thetford and the relative housing opportunities in this location, the land values ended up as prohibitive in taking forward the most appropriate of these sites.

1.14 In conclusion, it is considered that the development of a crematorium in the open countryside is capable of being acceptable in principle. However, it remains to be considered whether it would protect the intrinsic beauty and character of the Countryside and whether this site is required to meet local business and community 'needs' in rural areas. These matters are further considered below.

The overall need for a crematorium in this location?

1.14 The development proposed comprises a single storey building of approximately 500 sqm accommodating a chapel, crematorium and administrative space. The site will also accommodate a dedicated car park and landscaping.

1.15 The crematorium is proposed to be open 09:00-17:00 Monday to Friday (i.e. 40 hours a week). The applicants state core hours, when the crematorium is expected to be predominantly used, are between 10:00-16:00. This means that there is a theoretical capacity for 40 slots per week, and 30 hours during core periods. Weekend services will be made available although the applicants state that in their experience such slots are rarely used.

1.16 The size of the chapel and car park will enable the proposed crematorium at Weeting to accommodate approximately 100-110 mourners.

1.17 It is noted in the assessment of need submitted with the application for this site, that existing crematoria facilities include the new Crematorium at Scoulton (Breckland Crematorium - approximately 20 miles from this site) and in the wider area at Norwich (Earlham and Horsham St Faiths), Kings Lynn, Bury St Edmunds (West Crematorium), and Beccles (Waveney Crematorium).

1.18 The applicants have submitted information in support of their application, including a Need Statement (February 2017) and further supporting information following representations. In summary, these documents set out the following in support of the application:

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 127 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- The site is well related to the primary road network and will have suitable parking to meet the needs of mourners, separated from the main building.

- The development will result in a significant number of people being within 30 minutes' drive time of a crematorium for the first time. It will offer long slots to enable unrushed services to be held. By expanding the capacity of the network of crematoria, the development will yield qualitative benefits at existing facilities also.

- To meet a local need, any new crematorium should normally operate at around 80% of Factored Capacity when mature to ensure appropriate service lengths whilst having sufficient time at a cremation to mourn the deceased, and pay respects to them. Other factors include travel times to facilities and getting an appropriate/convenient slot.

- Drive time to Bury St Edmunds and Scoulton taking account of cortege speed (60% of normal driving speed) is 47 and 50 minutes respectively. The industry standard is 30 minute drive-time to a crematorium at cortege speed.

- Existing crematoria are between 27-62km from Brandon Road. Travel times, at cortege speed, are between 43-92 minutes.

Through mapping a 30 minute drive time from each existing facilities, the applicants state they have identified two 'gaps' where residents live beyond a 30 minute catchment from any existing facility (one to the north of Weeting and the other to the north of Ely).

- There is a Natural Catchment Area population of circa 88,026 based on a 30 minute drive. This is based on a conservative and robust approach.

- The submitted needs statements set out the latest position in terms of trading, taking account of the extended crematorium at Bury St Edmunds in terms of capacity. Due to their significant distances from the site facilities at Beccles, , Cromer and St Faiths, Norwich are not considered to be relevant to the assessment of need for this site.

- Bury St Edmunds and Kings Lynn crematoria are overtrading to a considerable extent, and suffering from consequential qualitative deficiencies. Both of these sites will continue to operate at an acceptable level, and there is scope for further trade to be diverted to the Weeting site from the Kings Lynn site due to its current trading performance, which will provide an alternative option to Kings Lynn (and Bury St Edmunds), particularly for those living in the north of Brandon. The facility will have a relieving factor at Kings Lynn, although it will still be operating at above 80% capacity in an average month.

- In 2018 the seven chapels of the five local crematoria were operating at a combined 78% factored capacity, with 78% of core slots taken during the peak month. All facilities apart from Cambridge were operating at above 80% capacity, which is the generally accepted limit for a crematorium to be able to provide a consistent and qualitatively acceptable level of service. Excluding Cambridge (outside of the catchment area of the Weeting facility), on average in 2018 the four other crematoria operated at 100% of Factored Capacity. I.e. every peak hour slot was used and King's Lynn operated at 133% capacity, which means a high proportion of non-core slots were used.

- Scoulton - The 2019 directory does not provide data on number of cremations taking place at Scoulton. However, the additional facility at Scoulton merely takes up the additional demand for cremations generated over the next 10 years. The natural catchment area of the proposed crematorium will bound the catchment

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 128 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - area of King's Lynn, Scoulton, Bury St Edmunds and March. King's Lynn and Bury St. Edmunds are both forecast to be operating at above 100% factored capacity during the peak month in 2028, with March at 90%. These are levels well above the 80% threshold. Whilst the newly-established Scoulton facility is forecast to be operating at 76%, this is only marginally below the 80% threshold.

1.19 The applicants needs statement states:

On 11 September 2018 Public Health England published a research and analysis paper "Population Change and Trends in Life Expectancy"1. Section 1, the Main Message, states that the population of England is both growing and, as a result increased life expectancy, is ageing. It states:

"With England's population both increasing and ageing, it was inevitable that the downward trend in number of deaths, seen since the late 1980s, could not continue indefinitely. Since 2011, when there were just over 450,000 deaths in England, the numbers have been generally increasing. By 2017 there were almost 500,000 deaths.

The number of deaths will increase considerably in the next few years if the population continues to experience recent rates of mortality. If this is the case, it is anticipated that in the year 2023 there will be around 550,000 deaths. That is just over 50,000 more deaths than in 2017, a 10% increase".

The ONS National Population Projections 2016 show a similar picture for the UK as a whole. ONS forecasts show that there will be 592,000 deaths in 2017-18 increasing to 637,000 in 2027-28 and then to 718,000 in 2037-38. This is a 7.6% increase in the number of deaths over the next 10 years and a 21.3% increase over the next 20 years.

The forecast increase in the number of deaths throughout the UK means that, even if the proportion of funerals with a cremation were to level off, the demand for cremations will increase substantially. Notwithstanding this, it is also likely that the number of cremations, as a proportion of funerals, will continue to increase. One reason for the growth in the proportion of cremations, rather than burials, is the relative costs of them. Evidence from SunLife is that the "Cost of Dying" (2018) was £832 for a cremation compared to £2,174 for burials.

At the local level, the projected increase in deaths is higher than the national figure, due to the age structure of the population being skewed towards older groups compared with the national average. Within Breckland alone, it is projected that there will be 225 additional deaths in 2028 compared with 2018, which equates to an additional 13.3%. Across the wider Three Counties area the number of deaths is expected to increase by 11%, materially higher than the 8.3% for England as a whole.

1.20 There are numerous objections to the proposal (as set out in the representation section this report). Of particular note with regards to these concerns raised, are the following points:

- The Lamberley Appeal sets out that drive times of up to 45 minutes, whilst not ideal, would not normally cause distress or hardship. Therefore, there are existing facilities within an acceptable drive time. - Appeal decisions have generally accepted that need for new crematorium may exist if it would serve a population in excess of 150,000 people - the proposed development is only serving 88,026. - Assumptions have been made within the submitted information but are not supported by evidence or fact i.e. there is no assessment of the existing crematorium facilities as to whether they are suitable for the needs of the population they serve or why? - The impacts and alleviation of capacity from Scoulton have not been quantified. - There is less than 18.5 miles between Scoulton and Bury St Edmunds, which the proposal is to be in-

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 129 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - between. - There will be six crematorium in Norfolk which equates to 143,233 average capita per facility, which is below 150,000 population justification for a new facility, without this proposal. This would be further lowered when taking into consideration the new chapel at Bury St Edmunds and Beccles crematoriums. - There is no quantitative need for another crematorium in Weeting with operating capacities as follows - Breckland 29%; Bury 46% and Kings Lynn 57%. - A second chapel has been opened at Bury and has a higher operating capacity than the industry standard of 80%. - The proposal is serving the same catchment areas as Kings Lynn and Bury - the gap that would be served in population numbers is limited and not material. - A full assessment of all local crematorium (capacity and impact of recent changes) has not been made (Scoulton, the new chapel at Bury St Edmunds, Kings Lynn, Cromer and Cam Valley, Cambridge). - The data used is out of date; and - The predicted increase in death rates is not substantiated.

1.21 Taking into consideration the points raised by the applicant and the objectors and weighing those against industry standards, it is considered that the applicant has failed to substantiate, through submission of any independent evidence or customer feedback, that the quality of service offered by neighbouring crematorium, including funeral delays and service length, is unduly suffering as a result of its perceived operation above practical capacity. Also, that there is a an additional need to have such a facility within 30 minutes drive time or that, given the sites fairly rural location there is sufficient population to warrant the justification that there is a need to have a facility within 30 minutes drive time. In the absence of robust evidence of need, the applicant has failed to justify either that local business and community 'needs' would be met or a departure from the otherwise restrictive policies set out in the Breckland Local Plan which seek to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside and protect it would be justified.

1.22 Although there are no set standards, other than those as set out in the requirements of the Cremation Act 1902. It is noted that Planning Appeals do set some industry benchmarks/standards for quantitative needs including a minimum drive time catchment population of 120,000-150,000 people and within a 45 minute drive time of the site. The applicants have set out that they meet the required 45 minute drive time but the target Natural Catchment Area population is of circa 88,026 based on a 30 minute catchment area, this is obviously well below the industry standard/benchmark, without taking account of other existing facilities operating below the industry standard, as set out by the objectors. The applicants state that this is a suitable catchment for this facility, which will serve the catchment/gap in this area and although it may draw trade from fringe areas, it will primarily serve the 'gap' catchment identified. It is not considered that the population in this gap would be sufficient alone to require a new facility, especially given its rural nature. Also, there is insufficient catchment population, taking account of the new facilities, to warrant a need for a new crematorium in this location.

1.23 This facility is said to be expected to generate well below 80% of its practical capacity. The applicants state that anything above this would have a knock on effect on quality of service. The information submitted by Breckland Crematorium demonstrates that there is capacity at surrounding crematorium well below the 80% standard. However, no such further information has been submitted such as independent evidence or customer feedback that the quality of service offered by neighbouring crematorium, including funeral delays and service length, is unduly suffering as a result of its perceived operation above practical capacity.

1.24 The applicants submitted needs assessments recognises the opening of Scoulton Crematorium (2019) and the creation of a second chapel at the Crematorium at Bury St Edmunds (March 2018), although their usage is not taken account of with in the latest crematorium figures which date from 2019.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 130 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

1.25 Despite this the applicants state that their geographical relationship and 30 catchment areas have been considered and none of the existing facilities can be reached within 30 minutes at cortage speed from the application site. The applicants state that this is an indication that there is an area around the application site that is under-served, as well as having under-served areas around Ely and Weeting. The applicants have sought to predict (based on 75% operation capacity (explained below)) what the cremations and impacts these new chapels would have on crematorium figures for forthcoming years.

1.26 Every crematorium has a theoretical maximum capacity which can be calculated as the total number of slots on any given day within the facility's opening hours, multiplied by the number of days per annum that the facility is in operation. However, in practice, not all of these slots will or can be used. This was recognised in the Camborne appeal, that it was not realistic to expect that every available time slot, especially those in the early mornings or late afternoons, could or would be utilised. The applicants have therefore sought to use a 75% operation capacity, despite 80% appearing to be industry standard and the objectors stating the new facility can often operate at higher levels.

1.27 The applicants state that the proposed Scoulton site is a 46 minute unconstrained drive time from Bury St Edmunds, 47 minutes from Kings Lynn and 75 minutes from March. The proposal will therefore help to relieve the pressure on Norwich Earlham (27 minute unconstrained drive time), but will have limited effect on either Kings Lynn and Bury St Edmunds, both of which are also shown to be trading well above 80% of their factored capacity in Peak months, meaning that the need to relieve these facilities remains.

1.28 The applicants state that this new facility will relieve Bury St Edmunds to an extent where it will be trading below the 80% threshold in 2027 and although there will be some relief on Kings Lynn, this facility is still expected to be trading well in excess of its Factored Capacity. In addition to relieving pressure on existing Crematoria, the proposal will also provide a facility for a number of under-served area.

1.29 Objectors state that an 80% operating benchmark should be used and although this may be an industry standard that new crematoria are designed to operate at higher levels of capacity. They also state that the figures cannot be relied upon for analysing future capacity (due to the opening of new Crematorium at Scoulton and Bury as well as Cromer and Cam Valley) and a 5% increase in death rates can not be substantiated. They do consider that the new facility at Scoulton will impact on cremations at Bury St Edmunds and that the applicant fails to recognise the relieving factor Scoulton has had on Kings Lynn to date without the need for another.

1.30 Although the applicants additional comments are noted in this regard, given that initial need assessments largely pre-date the opening of the Breckland Crematorium, Scoulton, even the most recent needs assessment fails to properly take this into consideration. It is considered that given the latest information that Scoulton will take up demand for the next 10 years, and is therefore having a relieving factor and therefore as submitted, the justified need for this development, even with the additional comments is still not based on the most up to date evidence. It is not considered that this new facility has been properly taken into consideration in the submitted needs assessments, nor the proximity of the two crematoria.

1.31 The applicants state that death rates are rising, especially in Breckland. However, it is widely considered that death rates can vary and therefore, this is not specific justification for a new facility in this location, nor is there any specific evidence provided to demonstrate that the existing facilities would not cope with these rising death rates.

1.32 For these reasons it is considered that the information provided to demonstrate this site is suitable or required to meet local business and community needs, is insufficient and not robust enough to demonstrate that there is either a quantitative or qualitative need for the proposal, which is therefore considered contrary

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 131 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - to Section 6 of the NPPF and GEN01 and GEN05 of the Breckland Local Plan.

2.0 Impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside

2.1 Policy GEN05 permits development outside of settlement boundaries where it can be demonstrated that it does not affect the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside. Section 12 of the NPPF and GEN02 and COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seek to achieve a high quality design and Section 12 of the NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development'. Policy ENV05 states that new development will be expected to contribute to, and where possible enhance, the local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, having regard to the findings of the Councils Landscape Character Assessment 2007 (LCA). Policy ENV06 seeks to protect important trees and hedgerows in the landscape. Section 15 of the NPPF seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

2.2 The proposal includes a large area of landscaping adjacent to Brandon Road to provide soft landscaping and memorial gardens to the east of Brandon Road. A single storey building to house the chapel, crematorium and administrative space is located towards the south eastern boundaries of the site, a good distance from Brandon Road. The proposed access has been amended and is now proposed off Mundford Road to the east of the site, with 98 car parking spaces proposed behind the building to the east of the site. There is existing vegetation to the north and west boundaries of the site and further landscaping proposed as part of the proposals.

2.3 The proposed building is single storey with a low key appearance of a brick plinth, clad with limited fenestration and low pitched roof. The main building is linked to a smaller building comprising of the waiting area with a covered canopy. A spire is proposed for the chapel. Given the distances involved and the intervening screening the proposed building, is modest and unlikely to be clearly visible from Brandon Road with only glimpsed views available on the approach to the site, most prominently from the south, where vegetation is currently less dense.

2.4 Peppers Hill Road/Harling Drove/Mundford Road, have a very rural character. Obviously, when in use for a funeral, the comings and goings to the site will make the access off Brandon Road and the site visible, especially for busy funerals. Also, the application has been amended to include a wider access, highways works and visibility splays which involve the removal of significant sections of trees and hedgerows. Despite the applicants stating this can be replanted, it is considered that the nature of Peppers Hill Road/Harling Drove/Mundford Road will change significantly, especially when a busy funeral is taking place.

2.5 The site is existing agricultural land, it has low landscape value, although sits well in the context. The site is located within The Brecks of Thetford Forest Landscape Character Area (LCA). The key characteristics of this LCA include:

- A gently undulating landscape with sparsely deposited glacial drift material including overlying the chalk solid geology; - Views are intermittent and generally contained by the dense mixed mature plantation woodland cover; - Mixed plantation woodland dominates the landscape resulting in relatively few areas of open land; - Strips of mature broadleaf trees and woodland define both former field and parkland estate boundaries with Contorted historic Scots Pine windbreak hedgerows are apparent throughout the character area, and are a distinctive feature; - Large number of Historic sites include the nationally significant Neolithic flint mines at Grimes Graves; - A network of straight rural roads traverses the character area, with distinctive right angled junctions; - Intimate, small scale and contained landscape; and

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 132 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

- Recreational opportunities are afforded by a network of way marked routes and rights of way across the character area.

2.6 The proposals will undeniably change the character of this site and have a wider landscape impact through the removal of vegetation and creation of access, comings and goings to the application site and access road and introducing built form in an otherwise open setting. That said the landscaping proposals are significant and could counter any urbanising impacts, although in themselves will change the character of this site from open countryside land to formal landscaping/memorial gardens. The built development is minimal and low lying so is likely to shielded by the proposed landscaping when established.

2.7 The applicants state local historic references (Grime's Graves - see Figure 1) and natural associations (Thetford Forest) have informed the landscape design proposals so that a strong contextual relationship between the site and the wider landscape would be achieved. Also, the applicants state that existing elements of the site are retained and enhanced with the introduction of landscape typologies designed to reflect local character, including:

- areas of wooded vegetation reflecting the character of the nearby SSSI of Thetford Forest; - the retention and enhancement of existing trees and hedgerows; - creation of native hedgerows and coppice planting; - introduction of areas of wildflower meadow; - tree planting in natural groups in scrub/grass areas and more formal in memorial gardens and access routes; and - informal pond water features with marginal planting.

2.8 Plans and a landscape assessment have been submitted to demonstrate that retained planting would be supplemented with new hedgerows, new tree belts, new specimen tree planting and shrub and wild flower meadow planting, a tree palette with both a strong natural character and amenity value added using a mixture of native and exotic species and further hedgerow planting. The applicants EIA concludes that:

'the strong rural character and amenity of views from surrounding residential properties, including housing in the southern part of Weeting, would be conserved with the enclosure provided by intervening layers of existing and proposed tree/shrub vegetation. There would be no adverse effects on the visual amenity of Thetford Forest (SSSI and SPA) or on the visual setting on local heritage resources (i.e. Weeting Castle Moated Site, Pepper Hill Bowl Barrow and Grime's Graves), again due to the enclosure provided by the existing and proposed vegetation structure'.

2.9 Although, it is agreed that the proposed landscaping strategy for the site could have positive landscape impacts and could be considered acceptable. It is considered that this proposal will impact the landscape and change its character and nature both by the use and the development proposed, this would be compounded by required highway improvements, road widening, visibility splays, vegetation clearance, hard and soft landscaping - including through the formality of the landscaped setting and memorial gardens in contrast with the current open agricultural setting. Although, it is considered that the landscape proposals could mitigate the harm caused by additional movements to the site and new built form, the significant impact of the development which is not substantiated by a robust community or business needs case, is considered contrary to Policies GEN02, GEN05 and ENV05 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) and Section 15 of the NPPF.

3.0 Economic effects

3.1 Section 6 of the NPPF supports economic growth. It is understood that the proposed crematorium would

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 133 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - employ approximately 10 full time staff. Indirect economic benefits would also be likely to arise due to the increases in the use of local eateries, function facilities and hotel accommodation by funeral parties likely at Brandon or further afield. Local funeral businesses would also derive some economic benefit. The generation of employment and indirect economic benefits are considered to weigh in favour of the proposal. They are not considered to outweigh the potential detrimental impact of the proposal on the open countryside and the lack of need for the proposal, which is therefore considered unacceptable and recommended for refusal.

4.0 Access, Highway Safety and Car Parking

4.1 Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Local Plan seek to promote sustainable transport. Policy TR01 requires development to minimise the need to travel; promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes; not adversely impact on the operation or safety of the strategic road network; improve accessibility to services; and support the transition to a low carbon future. Policy TR02 requires development to integrate into existing transport networks; mitigate highways impacts; protect and enhance access to public rights of way; provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all users, including appropriate parking; and avoid inappropriate traffic generation and do not compromise highway safety. Major development proposals should include an assessment of the impacts of new development on the existing transport network.

4.2 This application has been assessed by the Highways Authority who initially raised concerns with the proposed access for the application site, particularly with the provision of suitable visibility splays to ensure safe access and egress onto the public highway. The applicants have been working with the Highways Authority to address these concerns and have submitted amended plans, moving access to the site off Mundford Road to the east. The result is the highway access has been moved to accommodate the Highways Authorities required visibility splays and subject to the imposition of conditions then it is considered a suitable highway solution can be achieved. On this basis the Highways Authority have removed their objection and the proposal is considered to accord with Policy TR01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

4.3 Policy TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seeks to ensure appropriate on site car parking provision. Car parking is proposed at 98 spaces which is considered sufficient to serve a development of this size and scale. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy TR02 of the Local Plan also.

5.0 Impact on Amenity, Contamination and Air Quality

5.1 Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seeks all new development to protect the amenity of the area, neighbouring and future occupants.

5.2 The proposed building is significantly set back from Brandon Road with a significant amount of landscaping proposed to the front of the site adjacent to Brandon Road. Access to the site is off Pepper Hill Road and car parking is concentrated to the rear of the building. The proposed building is single storey and the development is sufficiently spaced from existing residential properties so as not to impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties from overshadowing, overlooking or overbearing.

5.3 A number of concerns have been raised about noise and disturbance from the development. However, due to the aspect of the building, its distance from neighbouring properties, separated by a busy road, and the significant landscaping and space between the building and the majority of residential properties then the proposal is unlikely to cause significant amenity impacts in this regard. Given the proposed use of the building, which is unlikely to generate significant noise, albeit there may at times be significant movement to and from the site, this will be largely distanced from neighbouring properties, especially now being off

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 134 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Mundford Road. The proposal is therefore unlikely to have significant amenity impacts from noise and disturbance and no objection has been raised by Environmental Health in this regard.

5.4 Section 15 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should take account of ground conditions and contamination risk.

5.5 No objections have been received from our Environmental Health Service, in terms of contamination, noise, pollution and air quality. The proposed development will require an Environmental Permit administered and regulated by Breckland Councils Environmental Protection Team under The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and this will satisfactorily deal with matters of air quality issues. Therefore, further conditions in this regard are not considered necessary or reasonable and the proposal is not considered to have amenity impact in this regard.

5.6 The proposal is therefore considered in accordance with Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

6.0 Impact on Heritage assets

6.1 Section 16 of the NPPF and ENV07 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seek to protect the special interest and significance of heritage assets and their settings.

6.2 The Scheduled Monument of Pepper Hill Bowl Barrow lies 400m north east of Mill Farm. This is a prehistoric bowl barrow located on a slight ridge on the western edge of the Breckland. The monument survives well, and although there is evidence of an antiquarian investigation, the disturbance is limited in relation to the monument as a whole. The mound and deposits beneath it and in the fill of the ditch will retain archaeological information relating to the construction of the barrow, the manner and duration of its use and the local environment at that time, and evidence for earlier land use is likely to be preserved in soils buried beneath the mound. The barrow is one of several which survive in the vicinity of the prehistoric flint mines of Grimes Graves and which, as a group, are of interest for the study of the general character and development of prehistoric settlement in this area of the Breckland region.

6.3 The NPPF in particular identifies protection and enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of sustainable development and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system (paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11). The core planning principles of the NPPF are observed in paragraphs 8 and 11 which propose a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This includes the need to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life for this and future generations as set out in Section 16 of the NPPF.

6.4 The current trees along the road screen the development site from the Scheduled Barrow heritage asset. It is also noted that the proposed development proposes additional planting. Historic England consider that appropriate provision has been made to mitigate the impact of the development on the Scheduled Monument, ensuring that the harm would be less than substantial in policy terms (NPPF, paragraph 134). Breckland's own Historic Buildings officer also raises no objection. Given that less than substantial harm has been identified, Section 16 of the NPPF requires this to be outweighed by public benefit. Obviously, the end user, if acceptable would provide a public service and this proposal would generate employment and indirect employment, as identified above, which could outweigh the less than substantial harm Historic England have identified.

6.5 The Historic Environment Service (HES) has also been consulted and set out that the proposed development site lies close to a Scheduled Bronze Age burial mound to the east and another possible one to

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 135 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - the south. The planning application is accompanied by a poor geophysical survey report which interpreted an anomaly which could very well be another ploughed-out Bronze Age burial mound within the development area as a natural or modern feature. If this anomaly is a ploughed-out burial mound, there is a strong possibility that there will be Bronze Age and Early Saxon burials within the development area, which will be affected by the proposed development. Initially the HES required further work to be carried out prior to the granting of planning permission. However, in conversation with the applicant they are now satisfied instead that this could be dealt with by an appropriately worded condition, if planning permission was to be granted.

6.6 Despite the less than substantial harm identified from the proposals to heritage assets it is considered that this could be outweighed by public benefit if the proposal was considered to be acceptable and conditions could be imposed to mitigate the development, in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the NPPF. For these reasons the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on heritage assets and is considered in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF and ENV07 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

7.0 Impact on Ecology

7.1 Section 15 of the NPPF and Policy ENV02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seeks to preserve and enhance ecology and ecological enhancement measures need to be included within the sites design to provide net gains for biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 170 of this section of the NPPF. Policy ENV03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment is undertaken on all proposals for development which are likely to have significant affect on the SPA.

7.2 The application site lies to the west of the SPA and SSSI and within the Breckland SPA buffer.

7.3 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report, Environmental Statement in relation to Breeding Birds and Breckland SPA & SAC screening letter, Ground Level Tree Assessment Report for Bats & Breeding Birds and Phase 2 botany report has been submitted in support of this planning application. The PEA report highlights the potential for bats, badgers, breeding birds, amphibians, hedgehogs and reptiles to be present on the site.

7.4 Natural England and our own ecologist has been consulted with regards to the site. Both parties raise no objections to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions and the protection of a veteran black poplar tree a Near Threatened Red Listed plant species associated with the northern arable field margin. These can be protected via appropriately worded condition(s).

7.5 For the reasons provided in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report (Red Kite; December 2018), Environment Statement and clarification for screening in relation to Breeding Birds and Breckland SPA & SAC screening letter (Red Kite; August 2019), including the prevailing habitats on the site being sub-optimal for stone curlew, the findings of the air quality assessment and given that the type of development is unlikely to lead to increased recreational pressure or predation from pets that would lead to significant impacts on Nature 2000 sites, a full Appropriate Assessment (AA) is not needed and Breckland District Council as the competent authority have screened out the need for an AA.

7.6 Subject to the imposition of conditions for an ecological management plan and tree protection the proposal is considered to protect and enhance ecology in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF and Policy ENV03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

8.0 Flood Risk and Drainage

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 136 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

8.1 Section 14 of the NPPF and Policy ENV09 of the Breckland Local Plan seeks to direct new development away from areas at highest risk of flooding and for new development to not increase flood risk elsewhere. Flood Zones 2 and 3 cross the application site. These are flood zones at the highest risk of flooding, where development should be avoided.

8.2 The applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with the application. The FRA demonstrates that the site is located outside the fluvial floodplain and mitigation measures have been employed including raising of floor levels, safe access and egress to the north and surface water attenuation and storage.

8.3 The Lead Local Flood Authority have assessed the application and raise no objection subject to a condition with regards to a detailed surface water drainage scheme needing to be submitted. They also advise that seasonally high groundwater levels are obtained and confirmed prior to commencement of the development. These matters they feel can be covered by appropriately worded planning conditions and therefore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Section 14 of the NPPF and Policy ENV09 of the Breckland Local Plan.

9.0 Impact on Trees and Hedgerows

9.1 The retention of trees and hedgerows is supported by Policy ENV06 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

9.2 As set out above, due to the Highways Authority concerns with regards to access and visibility, the location and type of access have been moved and the visibility splays increased. This has resulted in further vegetation removal. The tree officer previously raised concerns with tree/hedgerow removal to create visibility splays and stated further information would be required to assess the impacts. Now an acceptable highways solution has been found, the Tree Officer has been re-consulted with regards to extent of tree removal. The tree officer has set out 'Whilst this additional loss of trees/hedges is unfortunate I cannot see that there is anything there which cannot be compensated for by means of additional planting. I would consider that the planting scheme shown provides adequate mitigation'. On this basis, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy ENV06 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

10.0 Other matters

10.1 Norfolk Fire Service have requested a fire hydrant be installed, this can be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition, if the proposal is considered acceptable.

10.2 Norfolk Constabulary have also commented on the application, their comments can also be taken into consideration and added to any subsequent permission as a note, in the event the application is approved.

10.3 Reference is made to the public footpath to the north of the application site running near to the access to and this not being taken into consideration. As the access has been relocated, so any concerns about impact mitigated. In addition, it is not considered that visitors to this type of use are likely to stray much further from the application site itself and therefore no upgrades to this footpath are likely to be reasonable from this development.

11.0 Environmental Impact Assessment

11.1 The development has been considered under Schedule 2 (11b) "Installation for the disposal of waste" EIA Regulations in terms of ecology.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 137 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

11.2 The ES has been prepared by competent experts and having examined the document it is considered adequate and contains the information required by the Regulations.

11.3 The individual topics have been discussed in the preceding Sections and the development has been found to not have a significant environmental impact.

12.0 Conclusion/Planning Balance

12.1 Despite the in principle support for a use of this kind to be located in an open countryside location such as this insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate a robust case for the 'need' for a crematorium in this location to outweigh the landscape impacts of the development and therefore this site is not considered to be a sustainable solution for development, as required by paragraph 83 of NPPF in terms of a sustainable rural business and is also considered contrary to Sections 12 and 15 of the NPPF and Policies GEN02, GEN05, ENV05 and COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

RECOMMENDATION The application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons given below.

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL 1 Need Insufficient and out of date information has been submitted to robustly demonstrate a qualitative or quantitative 'need' for a crematorium in this location. Therefore, the site would have unacceptable landscape and community impact and is not considered to be a sustainable rural location for development, as required by Section 6, paragraph 84 of NPPF in terms of a sustainable rural business and is also considered contrary to Sections 12 and 15 of the NPPF and Policies GEN02, GEN05, ENV05 and COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). 2 landscape impact It is considered that this proposal will have a negative impact on the landscape through increasing activity and highway works (including vegetation removal) in this location, changing the form and layout of the area (from open agricultural land to landscaped memorial gardens). Although, it is considered that the landscape proposals could help to mitigate the harm caused by movements to and from the site and new built form, as there is no demonstrable need for this facility in this location then the landscape impacts identified are not considered to be outweighed and would harm the intrinsic beauty and character of the open countryside. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Sections 6 (specifically paragraph 84), 12 and 15 of the NPPF and Policies GEN02, GEN05, ENV05 and COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). 3 Application Refused Following Discussion - No Way Forward The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application within as timely a manner as possible, having engaged with the Applicant and by identifying matters of concern with the application and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory solution and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 138 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Copies of all documentation submitted in connection with this application can be viewed online at http://www.breckland.gov.uk/content/planning-search-0 4 Criterion E - Planning Apps Where Refused Appeals against planning decisions

If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

If you want to appeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice.

Appeals can be made online at: https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate. If you are unable to access the online appeal form, please contact the Planning Inspectorate to obtain a paper copy of the appeal form on tel: 0303 444 5000.

The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.

If you intend to submit an appeal that you would like examined by inquiry then you must notify the Local Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate ([email protected]) at least 10 days before submitting the appeal. Further details are on GOV.UK

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 139

AGENDA ITEM 9

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Item. 9(c)

Location: Weeting, land at Brandon Road

Proposal: Full Planning Application for a crematorium including memorial gardens, car parking, a new vehicle access onto Harling Drove and ancillary works.

REFERENCE: 3PL/2019/0189/F

Applicant: Dignity Funerals Ltd

Author: Rebecca Collins

Representations

One further letters of representation have been received, their comments are summarised as follows:

I feel this will be detrimental to the village due to not just the increase in traffic but also the proximity to the village primary school.

Officer Comments

These matters are covered in the officer committee report.

140 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 Agenda Item 9d

ITEM: RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL REF NO: 3PL/2020/0117/PIP CASE OFFICER Rebecca Collins

LOCATION: OLD BUCKENHAM APPNTYPE: Permission Principle Land to the west of 49 Hargham Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Mr Stephen Askew LB GRADE: N The Barn Scales Farm AGENT: Brown & Co TPO: N The Atrium St Georges Street PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for the erection of 4 dwellings (Town and Country Planning) Permission in Principle (amendment) Order 2017

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This application is being put forward for committee consideration as the applicant is a Councillor.

KEY ISSUES Location of development Land Use Amount of Development

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application is for permission in principle for the development of 4 dwellings.

Applications for Permission in Principle (PIP) must only consider the location of development, the proposed land use and the amount of development

Local Planning Authority's cannot list the information they require for applications for permission in principle in the same way they can for applications for planning permission but as the application type suggests assess only the 'principles' of the proposed development with all details subject to a further application if the 'PIP' is approved.

SITE AND LOCATION The site is located to the south of Hargham Road, west of 49 Hargham Road, Old Buckenham. The site measures just under 0.5 hectares and sits outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary.

The site is part of a larger arable field.

EIA REQUIRED

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 141 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

No

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

3PL/2012/0252/O Refusal 14-05-12 Erection of five new homes 3PL/2015/1495/F Withdrawn 11-03-16 Erection of five dwellings and garages 3PL/2019/1164/PIP Withdrawn 31-01-20 Permission in principle for erection of four detached dwellings

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the Breckland Local Plan, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate

COM01 Design COM02 Healthy Lifestyles COM03 Protection of Amenity ENV01 Green Infrastructure ENV02 Biodiversity protection and enhancement ENV05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape ENV06 Trees, Hedgerows and Development GEN02 Promoting High Quality Design GEN03 Settlement Hierarchy GEN05 Settlement Boundaries HOU01 Development Requirements (Minimum) HOU03 Development Outside of the Boundaries of Local Service Centres HOU06 Principle of New Housing HOU10 Technical Design Standards for New Homes NP Neighbourhood Plan NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance TH1 National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development TR01 Sustainable Transport Network TR02 Transport Requirements

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 142 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

OBLIGATIONS/CIL None

CONSULTATIONS

OLD BUCKENHAM P C Old Buckenham Parish Council do not feel that the application includes enough information and detail in order for them to come to an informed decision. There is no information about the proposed size of the houses or where their approximate location will be.

The Parish Council believes that the proposed footpath should be approved before hand and built prior to any building work being completed on site, to ensure it is actually completed.

The Parish Council would also seek a transport plan from the applicant to avoid the parking/delivery issues we are currently experiencing with other builds within the village. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS Having considered the information submitted, it is noted that in an attempt to overcome the previous highway objection the applicant seeks to provide a continuous footway (albeit of minimal width in part) from the site to link into the existing provision some 110 metres to the east.

It is acknowledged that such a facility would benefit, not only residents of the proposed development but also to adjoining residents who would no longer have walk in the live carriageway of Hargham Road. We do however have concerns that such a facility would incur a number of additional costs which may be considered excessive by a developer, for example the relocation of telegraph poles, and may lead to the developer claiming viability issues in the future.

Under normal circumstances this Authority would require sight of a fully costed scheme, for consideration, so the cost implications can be understood by the both the Highway Authority and Planning Authority and so that we can have the surety that the scheme will be deliverable. However I understand that this is not possible when considering Permission in Principle proposals which are not subject to the usual conditions and obligations.

It must therefore be made clear that the proposed development would only be acceptable to this Authority subject to satisfactory mitigation, in the form of a surfaced footway, being provided across the site frontage to link into the existing provision to the east. Such scheme to be provided entirely within land either in the applicants control or in the adopted highway verge and without reducing the width of the existing carriageway. The scheme will also require the carriageway to achieve a minimum width of 4.8m across the site frontage.

If you are minded to grant approval, any detailed submission will need to be accompanied by a fully costed, detailed scheme of off-site works. The applicant should be made aware that without this, this Authority will maintain its original objection.

In addition, we will require details of access arrangements (including visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 59 metres to either side of each access), satisfactory parking arrangements and on-site turning provision.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 143 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER I recommend approval providing the development proceeds in line with the application details and subject to a contaminated land condition to alleviate environmental concerns.

PRINCIPAL PLANNER MINERAL & WASTE POLICY No Comments Received

REPRESENTATIONS Four letters of representation have been received, their comments are summerised as follows:

- This is an unsafe proposal in highway terms. - A footpath must be the required and to the required highway width, which isn't possible without reducing the width of this already narrow part of the road, therefore leaving a substandard footpath and road, which would be unsafe to use, especially at night. - Road safety is paramount and the proposed site is along a section of road that has become increasingly busy since the building of Chapel Green School, this will add to the traffic in this location leading to further highway safety issues. - The application will destroy this green area. - No new dwellings are required in the village.

ASSESSMENT NOTES Applications for Permission in Principal (PIP) must only consider the location of development, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

1.0 Location of Development

1.1 The application site is located outside of but immediately adjacent to the Old Buckenham Settlement Boundary, as designated by the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). Old Buckenham is identified as a Local Service Centre through the locational strategy and Policy HOU03 advises that development outside of the Local Service Centres will normally be resisted where the housing target identified in Policy HOU02 has been met. Policy HOU02 indicates that Old Buckenham has a need for 73 additional homes. Initial monitoring indicates approximate commitments and completions for the village of 67 and is therefore close to but not exceeding its housing target.

1.2 Policy HOU 03 states that any development outside of the boundaries of the Local Service Centres will normally be resisted where the Local Plan housing target (as set in Policy HOU 02) is provided for unless supported by other policies within the Local Plan. Where the Local Plan does not identify sufficient sites to achieve the housing target, then further development will be allowed subject to being supported by relevant policies within the Development Plan and meeting all of the following criteria:

1. It is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary; 2. It would not lead to the number of dwellings in the settlement significantly exceeding the identified housing target; 3. The design contributes to conserving, and where possible enhancing, the historic nature and connectivity of communities; and 4. The development avoids coalescence of settlements.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 144 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

Where it has not been possible to identify a suitable, available and deliverable allocation for a settlement defined as a Local Service Centre, development that meets the criteria outlined in Policy HOU 03 will be permitted in order to meet the identified housing target for the plan period (2036). The policy enables an element of flexibility in the housing delivery for the larger rural settlements and helps to support and sustain their services and facilities.

1.3 The Council does have a published 5 year land housing supply as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, which provides national planning guidance for local planning authorities and is a strong material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

1.4 An earlier PIP application for this site was withdrawn (3PL/2019/1164/PIP), after being recommended for refusal at Planning Committee for highway safety reasons. However, further information has been submitted in this regard and this has been assessed below.

1.5 The proposed site lies immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Old Buckenham, would not lead to the number of dwellings in the settlement significantly exceeding the identified housing target and would meet the criteria as set out in Policy HOU 03. Therefore, the location of the development is considered acceptable.

2.0 Land Use

2.1 Policy GEN 02 and COM 01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) requires all new development to achieve the highest standard of design. As part of this, all design proposals must preserve or enhance the existing character of an area. Consideration will also be given to the density of buildings in a particular area and the landscape/townscape effect of any increased density.

2.2 The proposal seeks to provide four detached dwellings on the application site. The site would be adjacent to residential development to the east which is linear in form along Hargham Road. Residential development also sits to the north of Hargham Road also linear in form. The plot would be able to site four dwellings and be consistent with similar plot sizes in the vicinity, therefore the introduction of these dwellings are not considered likely to have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the area in this instance. In light of these factors, the proposal is considered to have due regard to Policy GEN 02 and COM 01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

2.3 Policy TR 01 (Sustainable Transport Network) seeks to promote a safe, efficient and convenient sustainable transport system. Development should seek to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, not adversely impact on the operation or safety of the strategic road network , improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future.

2.4 Policy TR 02 (Transport Requirements) seeks to ensure that developments should be of high quality, sustainable in design, construction and layout as well as offering maximum flexibility in the choice of travel modes for all potential users. Proposals will be permitted that integrate satisfactorily into existing transport networks, mitigate impacts on the local or strategic highway networks arising from the development itself, or the cumulative effects of development, through the provision of, or contributions towards, any relevant transport improvement deemed to be necessary, including those secured by legal agreement, protect, and where possible enhance, access to public rights of way, provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all users, including appropriate parking and servicing provision in terms of amount, design and layout and avoid inappropriate traffic generation and do not compromise highway safety.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 145 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020

2.5 The Highways Authority have been consulted and have stated the following:

'Having considered the information submitted, it is noted that in an attempt to overcome the previous highway objection the applicant seeks to provide a continuous footway (albeit of minimal width in part) from the site to link into the existing provision some 110 metres to the east.

It is acknowledged that such a facility would benefit, not only residents of the proposed development but also to adjoining residents who would no longer have walk in the live carriageway of Hargham Road. We do however have concerns that such a facility would incur a number of additional costs which may be considered excessive by a developer, for example the relocation of telegraph poles, and may lead to the developer claiming viability issues in the future.

Under normal circumstances this Authority would require sight of a fully costed scheme, for consideration, so the cost implications can be understood by the both the Highway Authority and Planning Authority and so that we can have the surety that the scheme will be deliverable. However I understand that this is not possible when considering Permission in Principle proposals which are not subject to the usual conditions and obligations.

It must therefore be made clear that the proposed development would only be acceptable to this Authority subject to satisfactory mitigation, in the form of a surfaced footway, being provided across the site frontage to link into the existing provision to the east. Such scheme to be provided entirely within land either in the applicants control or in the adopted highway verge and without reducing the width of the existing carriageway. The scheme will also require the carriageway to achieve a minimum width of 4.8m across the site frontage.

If you are minded to grant approval, any detailed submission will need to be accompanied by a fully costed, detailed scheme of off-site works. The applicant should be made aware that without this, this Authority will maintain its original objection.

In addition, we will require details of access arrangements (including visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 59 metres to either side of each access), satisfactory parking arrangements and on-site turning provision.'

2.6 Given the Highway Authority latest response and change of position since the previous application, which was refused on Highway Safety grounds, it is considered that these matters could be adequately dealt with via appropriate notes applied to this permission and conditions on the detailed permission, once submitted. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with Policies COM 03, TR 01 and TR 02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted).

2.7 Environmental Health have also suggested the imposition of condition, this can also be added at technical detailed consent stage.

3.0 Amount of development

3.1 The proposal is for the erection of four dwellings which would be considered consistent with plot sizes in the vicinity, the density is therefore considered acceptable in this location.

4.0 Conclusion/ Planning Balance

4.1 The scope of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. Issues relevant to these 'in principle' matters should be considered at the permission in principle stage. Other

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 146 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 22nd June 2020 matters should be considered at the technical details consent stage.

4.2 There are no technical restraints on the land other than the location of the site, the type of development and the amount of development the site has applied for permission in principle for. Also, in line with the PIP legislation, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle as its terms may only include the site location, the type of development and amount of development.

4.3 It is considered that the application as submitted is acceptable and that matters of highway safety can adequately be addressed at detailed application stage. Therefore, the proposal is considered to accord with the Development Plan and relevant sections of the NPPF and is therefore recommended to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION The Council in pursuance of powers under this Act GRANTS PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE for the development referred to above in accordance with the details on the application form and subject to the following NOTE(S):-

- An application for Technical Details needs to be Submitted and Approved within 3 years following the date of this notice.

- Technical Details consent will be subject to satisfactory mitigation, in the form of a surfaced footway, being provided across the site frontage to link into the existing provision to the east, to be provided entirely within land either in the applicants control or in the adopted highway verge and without reducing the width of the existing carriageway. The scheme will also require the carriageway to achieve a minimum width of 4.8m across the site frontage. Any detailed submission will need to be accompanied by a fully costed, detailed scheme of off-site works and detailed access arrangements (including visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 59 metres to either side of each access), satisfactory parking arrangements and on-site turning provision.

CONDITIONS

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 147 BRECKLAND COUNCILAgenda - PLANNINGItem 9e COMMITTEE -

ITEM: RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL REF NO: 3PL/2020/0309/O CASE OFFICER Tom Donnelly

LOCATION: SNETTERTON APPNTYPE: Outline Land south of Snetterton Speed Shop POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Snetterton Business Park CONS AREA: N

APPLICANT: Snetterton Park Ltd c/o Dovetail LB GRADE: N Architects Limited c/o Agent AGENT: Dovetail Architects Ltd TPO: N Suite 4, First Floor Clock Tower House PROPOSAL: Outine application for erection of two dwellings (bungalows)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The application is brought before the committee as it is considered to be a significant policy consideration by the Chairman's Panel.

KEY ISSUES Principle of development Impact on character and appearance Impact on amenities Impact on highway safety

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The proposal seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of two dwellings to allow the relocation of two existing residential units currently on the site.

SITE AND LOCATION The application site is at Land south of Snetterton Speed Shop on Snetterton Business Park. The site forms part of the wider business park and is in close proximity to the eastern boundary of the site.

EIA REQUIRED No

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 148 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

3PL/2018/0116/F Permission 10-04-19 Change of Use from Shops, Cafes and Storage (A1/A3/B8) to Offices, General Industrial, Storage and Distribution and Assembly and Leisure (B1a/B2/B8/ D2), together with external alterations.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies of the Breckland Local Plan, including the Proposals Maps, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance have also been taken into account, where appropriate

COM01 Design COM03 Protection of Amenity ENV05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape GEN01 Sustainable Development in Breckland GEN02 Promoting High Quality Design GEN03 Settlement Hierarchy HOU05 Small Villages and Hamlets Outside of Settlement Boundaries NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance TR02 Transport Requirements

OBLIGATIONS/CIL Not Applicable

CONSULTATIONS

SNETTERTON P C No objection NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS No objection CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER No objection subject to conditions

REPRESENTATIONS The neighbour consultation period expired on 05-05-20. Additionally, a site notice and press notice were posted which expired on 02-06-20 and 29-04-20 respectively.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 149 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

No responses were received.

ASSESSMENT NOTES 1.0 Principle of development

1.1 The application site is situated in the parish of Snetterton, a village without a boundary as defined by the Breckland Local Plan (Adopted). As this is the case, Policy HOU05 is relevant to the principle of development. This policy allows for development in HOU05 parishes where the following criteria are met:

1. The development comprises of sensitive infilling and rounding off of a cluster of dwellings with access to an existing highway; 2. It is of an appropriate scale and design to the settlement; 3. The design contributes to enhancing the historic nature and connectivity of communities; and 4. The proposal does not harm or undermine a visually important gap that contributes to the character and distinctiveness of the rural scene.

1.2 In this instance, it is not considered that any of these criteria are satisfied and therefore this weighs against the proposal. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that this proposal is to relocate two existing residential dwellings and allow the existing units to be converted into additional office space. The creation of employment in this location is supported by Snetterton Allocation(s) Policy 2 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). Also, the purpose of the relocation is to allow for better amenities for the occupiers of the dwellings.

1.3 When weighing up the material considerations associated with the proposal, whilst the principle of the development is contrary to Policy, it is considered that given the proposals are merely relocating the existing dwellings and they are creating office space, which is supported by policy in this location. A condition can be applied requiring the residential use of the existing properties to cease on first occupation of the units hereby approved. Therefore, the material considerations in favour of the proposal outweigh the harm caused by the location of the development.

1.4 On balance, it is therefore considered that the principle of development is established through the repositioning of two existing residential dwellings on-site and is therefore considered acceptable on this basis.

2.0 Impact on character and appearance

2.1 Section 12 of the NPPF and GEN02 and COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seek to promote high quality design. Policy ENV05 seeks new development to contribute to and where possible enhance the local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

2.2 As the application is submitted in outline form with all matters reserved, no detailed designs have been submitted at this stage. However, it is not considered that the indicative location of the development would result in a detrimental landscape impact given the backdrop against which the site is set, that being a large commercial and industrial site. Given this backdrop of development, it is considered that any views of the site would tie in with the existing development and not result in any detrimental impacts. It is also noted that the indicative footprint of the dwellings would match that of the existing dwellings to be lost. It is therefore considered that a suitable detailed scheme could be designed so as to have appropriate regard to Policies

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 150 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

GEN02, COM01 and ENV05 of the Breckland Local Plan (Adopted).

3.0 Impact on amenities

3.1 Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) seeks to avoid unacceptable effects on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants, or development which does not provide for adequate levels of amenity for future occupants. As previously stated, the purpose of relocating the residential units on site is to offer better amenity space provision for the occupiers of the dwellings. The site area indicated on the location plan indicates that two dwellings could be comfortably accommodated on the site whilst providing sufficient amenity space provision and without causing detrimental amenity impacts, that would not be experienced by the existing dwellings onsite, elsewhere. It is considered that these matters could be considered more fully at reserved matters stage. However, it is considered at this stage that the proposal has appropriate regard to Policy COM03 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted) in terms of the preservation of amenities.

4.0 Impact on highway safety

4.1 Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Local Plan seek to promote sustainable transport. The proposal would utilise an existing highway network and access, which could be utilised by the existing residential dwellings. The highway authority have raised no objections to the proposal. However, full consideration to the highway safety impacts would be required at reserved matters stage when full details of parking and access are provided. Based on the indicative plans submitted, it is considered that appropriate parking provision could be provided so as not to result in any detrimental highway safety impacts. The proposal is therefore considered to have appropriate regard to Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan (Adopted) and Paragraphs 108 & 109 of the NPPF (2019).

5.0 Planning Balance/Conclusion

5.1 Whilst it is considered that the principle of development is contrary to Policy in this instance, it is acknowledged that there are significant material considerations that weigh in favour of the development, namely, the presence of two existing dwellings on site, which will effectively relocate to the application site. This is considered a significant material planning consideration which on balance outweighs the harm caused by the development in terms of its location. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and is accordingly recommended for approval, subject to conditions, including requiring the residential use of the existing properties to cease on first occupation of the units hereby approved.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application is APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed below.

CONDITIONS 1 Outline permission -time limit Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of any building to be erected together with precise details of the type and colour of the materials, means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (herein after called 'reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiry of TWO YEARS from the date of this permission.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 151 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

Reason for condition:- The application is for Outline permission only and gives insufficient details for the proposed development and to comply with Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1999 (as amended). 2 Standard Outline Condition No development whatsoever shall take place until the plans and descriptions giving details of the reserved matters referred to above shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these plans and descriptions shall provide details of the appearance, layout, scale, access and landscaping of the development. Reason for condition:- The details are not included in the current submission, in accordance with Policy COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). 3 In accordance with submitted plans NEW 2017 The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, and approved documents and drawings as set out in the table at the end of this notice. Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy COM01 of the Adopted Local Plan (2019). 4 Occupation to cease The residential use of the existing properties namely (Snetterton Park Lodge) shall cease on first occupation of either of the units hereby approved. Reason for condition:- To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy HOU05 of the Adopted Breckland Local Plan (2019). 5 External wall and roof materials to be agreed No development beyond slab level shall take place until precise details, (including samples where required), of the materials used in the construction of the external walls and roof(s) of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indication as to these matters that have been given in the current application. The materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved details. Reason for condition:- To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the colour, tone, texture and appearance of the materials used to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, as required by Policies COM3, GEN2 and COM1 of the Adopted Local Plan (2019). This condition will require to be discharged 6 Desk study/ site investigation Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved: A. Desk Study A desk study and risk assessment to determine the risk of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The desk study and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 152 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE -

service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments. B. Site Investigation A site investigation and risk assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include (i) the same details as in part A above (ii) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination and (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). C. Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. D Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The above must be undertaken in accordance with Defra and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason for condition:- To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy COM01 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted). This condition will require to be discharged 7 Variation of approved plans Any variation from the approved plans following commencement of the development, irrespective of the degree of variation, will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You or your agent or any person responsible for implementing this permission should inform the Development Control Section immediately of any proposed variation from the approved plans and ask to be advised to the best method to resolve the matter. Most proposals for variation to the approved plans will require the submission of a new application.

COMREPORT (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda/Officer report) 153 Agenda Item 10

APPEALS SUMMARY MARCH / APRIL/ MAY 2020

1 - 3PL/2019/1331/Hou (129 Shipdham Road) New porch and Car port - APPEAL DISMISSED IN RESPECT OF CAR PORT 29th May.

2 - 3PL/2019/1019/F (magpie Yard, ) - Rear extension to provide additional storage - APPEAL ALLOWED 27th May.

3 - 3PL/2019/1308/Var (The Old Waggon and Horses, chapel Street) - The application sought planning permission for demolition of old Public House, central garage and retail units. Erection of convenience store, retail units and flats without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 3PL/2016/0655/F, dated 31st March 2017 - APPEAL DISMISSED 20th May. An Application for costs was also DISMISSED

4 - 3PL/2019/0257/0- Land East of Station Road (Erection of 3 dwellings) - APPEAL DISMISSED 20th May

5 - 3PL/2019/1010/F (Neatherd Moor, Dereham) - Erection of a dwelling - APPEAL DISMISSED 19th May

6 - 3PL/2019/0812/F (The Vines, the Street, Great Gressingham) - Erection of dwelling - APPEAL DISMISSED 18th May

7- 3PL/2019/0098/F- (Land adjacent to the cottage, ) - Erection of dwelling - APPEAL DISMISSED 12th May

8 - 3PL/2019/0726/F (Whitehouse Farm, Mere Road, Stow Bedon) - Proposed dwelling - APPEAL DISMISSED 12th May

154 Agenda Item 11

Date of list - 11th June 2020

BRECKLAND COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE List of decisions made by Breckland Council under the agreed terms of delegation.

______

DOC - COMPLETE

3DC/2020/0052/DOC Wellington Construction Ltd ATTLEBOROUGH Discharge of Condition No 22 Land NW of Chapel on 3PL/2017/0342/F Road School

3DC/2020/0005/DOC Newall Plant Ltd BESTHORPE Discharge of condition 8 to Newall Plant Ltd, 3PL/2018/1262/F Land adj. to The Barn Heron Farm Bunwell Road Besthorpe

3DC/2020/0031/DOC Peerless Properties (Norfolk) BESTHORPE Discharge of Conditions on Ltd White House Farm, No's: 3, 4, 8 & 10 on White House Lane 3PL/2018/1105/F Besthorpe

3DC/2020/0059/DOC Clear House Developments BESTHORPE Discharge of Condition No 11 Oakland Lane on 3PL/2020/0026/VAR -the Norwich Road Erection of 3 dwellings

3DC/2020/0029/DOC Mrs Clare Brahimi BILLINGFORD Discharge of Conditions 3 and 7 Open Field to 3PL/2017/1613/F accessed to the west of Road BILLINGFORD

3DC/2020/0034/DOC Mrs D Bales BILLINGFORD Discharge of Conditions No15 Billingford Lakes on 3PL/2016/-533/H Road

3DC/2020/0066/DOC Mr & Mrs R Salmon BRADENHAM Discharge of Condition No's 4, Top Farm, New 6, 9 & 10 on 3PL/2019/1351/F Lane Proposed conversion and extension of redundant barn to

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 155 dwelling.

3DC/2020/0042/DOC Mrs Woolley Discharge of Condition No's 4, Development Site At 6, 7 & 8 on 3PL/2019/0596/F The Crown House, Meadow Lane

3DC/2020/0051/DOC Westmere Homes Limited CARBROOKE Part Discharge of Condition No Lancaster Avenue 3 on 3PL/2016/0084/F Plots 48-62, 75-86 (27 units)

3DC/2020/0070/DOC Geoffrey Reeve Architect CARBROOKE Discharge of Condition No 4 on Meadow View, 3PL/2020/0112/VAR Watton Green Consent to carry out works that affect an Ordinary Watercourse.

3DC/2020/0038/DOC Mr & Mrs J Brand Discharge of Condition No 4 on Church Farm House, 3PL/2019/1438/HOU Woodrising Road

3DC/2020/0041/DOC Hopkins Homes Limited CROXTON Discharge of Condition 27 to Land North of Red 3PL/2011/0805/O House Norwich Road Croxton

3DC/2020/0006/DOC Pellamay Limited DEREHAM Discharge of Conditions 12c & Land adjacent 12 d on 3PL/2017/0314/F Stanfield House Lynn Road

3DC/2020/0035/DOC Mr & Mrs T Burdess DEREHAM Discharge of Condition No 5 on Land Adj Garden 3PL/2019/1280/F House, Stanton Prior To Commencement of Close Works on Site, Details of Ground Gas Protection Measures.

3DC/2020/0036/DOC Focus Washrooms DEREHAM Discharge of Condition Nos 5, 6 15-17 Rash's Green & 7 on 3PL/2019/1319/VAR

3DC/2020/0007/DOC Mr James Discharge of Conditions 9, 11, Curds Hall Barn 13, 14, to 3PL/2018/1297/F Moor Lane Little Fransham

3DC/2020/0014/DOC Mr Mark Tarsey FRANSHAM Discharge of Conditions 5,4, On

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 156 Lane Farm Main 3PL/2007/2062/F Road

3DC/2020/0022/DOC Mr R Povey Discharge of part of Condition Park Lane 10 - (B - Remediation Scheme) Reymerston to 3PL/2018/0753/F Garveston

3DC/2020/0056/DOC Mrs M Jennings GARVESTONE Discharge of Condition No's 3, Land off Dereham 6, 7 & 8 on 3PL/2020/0088/D Road

3DC/2020/0072/DOC C Black GARVESTONE Discharge of Condition No's 4 & Land adjacent 5 on 3PL/2018/1309/O Thuxton Grange, Station Road

3DC/2020/0078/DOC C Black GARVESTONE Discharge of Condition No's 5 & Land adjacent 8 on 3PL/2019/1542/D Thuxton Grange, Access Plan with Trad 4 Station Road vehicular access submitted for approval. Tree protection fencing ready for inspection on site

3DC/2020/0062/DOC SV Harvey & Son GREAT Discharge of Condition No's 9 & ELLINGHAM 11 on 3PL/2018/1395/VAR Misty Dawn, Deopham Road

3DC/2020/0067/DOC Prestantia Properties Ltd GREAT Discharge of Condition No's 3, ELLINGHAM 9 & 11 on 3PL/2019/0561/F Development Site At Alder Carr House, Attleborough Road

3DC/2020/0057/DOC Sara Rootham Discharge of Condition No's 3, 18 Rougholme Close 6, 7 on 3PL/2019/1112/VAR

3DC/2020/0033/DOC Norfolk Land Development Discharge of Condition No 5 & Ltd Quantrill Structural 6 on 3PL/2017/0773/D Engineers Ltd, Church Road

3DC/2020/0061/DOC S & A Jones Developments HARLING Discharge of Condition No 15 Ltd Land North of Lime on 3PL/2020/0055/F Kiln House Eccles Road

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 157 3DC/2020/0027/DOC Mrs Sandra Eastoll Discharge of Conditions 8 on Manor Farm Barn 3PL/2012/0499/F Vicarage Road

3DC/2020/0011/DOC Miss Yasmin Kurimbokus Discharge of Condition No13 on Bliss Barn Cook 3PL/2016/1164/F Road

3DC/2019/0154/DOC hall Hotel LYNFORD Discharge of Conditions Nos Park, 4,6,7,12,14,15 on Lynford Hall Hotel 3PL/2016/0631/F Lynford

3DC/2020/0040/DOC Mr & Mrs Johnson NECTON Discharge of Condition Number 13 Oaks Drive 5 on 3PL/2019/1460/HOU Tree Protection Plan Ref: 2823.5E

3DC/2020/0024/DOC Mr Michael Clare NORTH ELMHAM Discharge of Conditions No3,& Worthing Mill 4 on 3PL/2019/0754/HOU Bricks 65mm 1 metre flint panel

3DC/2020/0015/DOC Mr & Mrs Jonathan Sutton NORTH Discharge of Condition No 4 PICKENHAM 3PL/2017/1501/O Site adjacent to Orchard House Hillside

3DC/2020/0060/DOC Danco NORTH Discharge of Condition No's 3, PICKENHAM 4, 10 & 13 on 3PL/2018/0795/F Land adjacent to The Blue Lion Pub, Houghton Lane

3DC/2020/0026/DOC Norfolk Holdings Limited NORTH Discharge of Condition 3 TUDDENHAM 3PL/2019/1082/VAR The Lodge Public House Main Road

3DC/2020/0039/DOC Mr Paul Blaber OLD BUCKENHAM Discharge of Condition No 3 on Manor Corner, The 3PL/2019/1259/HOU Green 2 Storey Side Extension.

3DC/2020/0063/DOC Mrs Karen Ironmonger OLD BUCKENHAM Discharge of Condition No5 on Buckenham Priory 3PL/2018/0103/F Abbey Road

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 158 3DC/2020/0081/DOC Wooddland Meadows Part Discharge of Condition No Woodland Meadows, 4 on 3PL/2017/0499/F Oxborough Road

3DC/2020/0032/DOC Paul Rackham Limited Discharge of Condition No 3 on Lodge Farm Estate 3PL/2019/0892/F Lodge Lane

3DC/2020/0017/DOC Garioch Property Holdings SAHAM TONEY Discharge of Condition Nos Ltd Saham Tythe Barn 8,9,&10 on 3PL/2018/1583/O Chequers Lane

3DC/2020/0018/DOC Mr N Garioch SAHAM TONEY Discharge of Conditions5,9,10 Saham Tythe Barn on 3PL/2019/0808/D Land off Chequers Lane

3DC/2020/0047/DOC NR20 Developments SCARNING Discharge of Condition No 4 on Development Site at 3PL/2018/0308/VAR The Woodlands Landscaping Plan Is Submitted for Approval.

3DC/2020/0009/DOC Bowbridge Homes SHIPDHAM Discharge of Conditions (Shipdham) Ltd D D Dodd And Sons 3,18,20,24,& 25 on Chapel Street 3PL/2016/0655/F Demolition of old public house, central garage and retail units. Erection of convenience store, retail units and flats

3DC/2020/0012/DOC Clayland Estates Ltd SHIPDHAM Discharge of Conditions Street Farm High No3,7,8,10,12,13 on Street 3PL/2019/1395/F

3DC/2020/0025/DOC Mr Darren Cramp SHIPDHAM Discharge of Condition No 7 on Herne Cottage 3PL/2019/0232/HOU Herne Lane

3DC/2020/0077/DOC Clayland Estates Ltd SHIPDHAM Discharge of Condition No 13 Street Farm, High on 3PL/2019/1395/F Street Phase II Contamination Report

3DC/2014/0004/DOC Ben Bailey Homes Discharge of condition numbers Land East of 8,10,17,18, 20 & 21 for Brandon Road 3PL/2011/0868/F

3DC/2019/0275/DOC Persimmon Homes SWAFFHAM Discharge of Condition No's

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 159 Land to the North of 4,6,7,8,9,11,13,15,21 Norwich Road 3PL/2015/0550/O

3DC/2020/0028/DOC Mrs G McMurray SWAFFHAM Discharge of condition 19 on Redstow 3PL/2019/0152/VAR Renewables AD Plant, Great Friars Farm, Silver Draft

3DC/2020/0030/DOC Mr Matthew Harmsworth SWAFFHAM Discharge of Condition 9 to Land to the North of 3PL/2019/0270/D Norwich Road Swaffham

3DC/2020/0037/DOC Persimmon Homes SWAFFHAM Discharge of Condition No's 10 Land to the North of & 17 on 3PL/2015/0550/O Norwich Road

3DC/2020/0055/DOC Abel Homes Ltd SWAFFHAM Discharge of Condition No's 17 Land West of Watton & 18 on 3PL/2016/0068/O Road

3DC/2020/0071/DOC Abel Homes Ltd SWAFFHAM Discharge of Condition No 14 Land West of Watton on 3PL/2016/0068/O Up to 175 Road, Swaffham dwellings including affordable housing and open space

3DC/2018/0139/DOC Hopkins Homes Ltd THETFORD Discharge of Conditions 23- Land North of Red Maintenance and Management House of Roads, Condition 24- Roads Norwich Road, Details & Condition 25- Junction Thetford, Croxton & 10b Details on Kilverstone 3PL/2011/0805/O

3DC/2020/0043/DOC Mr R Laws THETFORD Discharge of Condition No 5 on Thetford Cottage 3PL/2019/1344/F Hospital, Earls Street

3DC/2020/0049/DOC Anglian Water Services THETFORD Discharge of Condition No 4 on Barrow Hill Water 3PL/2019/1573/F Reservoir, Barrow Confirmation that the tree Hill Plantation, Off protection fencing is as per AIA A11 and TPP

3DC/2019/0273/DOC Barratt David Wilson Homes WATTON Discharge of Conditions Nos Land at Thetford 6,7,9,11,15,19,22,24. on Road 3PL/2018/0952/O

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 160 3DC/2019/0274/DOC Barrett David Wilson Homes WATTON Discharge of Conditions 16,17, Land at Thetford 18 on 3PL/2018/0952/O Road

3DC/2020/0048/DOC Abel Homes Ltd WATTON Discharge of Condition No 4 on Land West of Watton 3PL/2019/0713/D Road

3DC/2020/0054/DOC Mrs Jenna Geddes-Green WEETING Discharge of Conditions 12 on Land to the East of 3PL/2019/0551/F Construction New Lodge Lynn of two dwellings Road

3DC/2020/0073/DOC Mr Bruce Duffy Discharge of Condition No's 4 & Lower Farm, New 10 on 3PL/2017/1041/F Road

No Prior Approval

3PN/2020/0013/PNE Mrs Sue Semrau Proposed Single Storey Flat 27 Beech Road Roofed Rear Extension forming Orangery

3PN/2020/0011/PNE Mr Paul Flowers BRADENHAM Single Storey Oak Framed 15 Southend Orangery Extension to rear

3PN/2020/0007/PNE Mr Mathew Laver SWAFFHAM Single storey flat roof rear 40 Mill Farm extension (permitted Nurseries development)

Permission

3PL/2020/0233/HOU Mr Barrett ASHILL Proposed single storey rear 2 Holmere Cottages, extension and porch canopy to The Green front entrance.

3OB/2019/0040/OB Bowbridge Homes ATTLEBOROUGH Discharge of S106 Conditions Land North of on 3PL/2013/1161/O Norwich Road

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 161 3OB/2019/0043/OB Orbit Homes(2020) Limited ATTLEBOROUGH 3PL/2016/0325/F -Schedule 6 Land at Haverscroft 1-2 Exchanged unconditional House Farm London contract of sale to a provider Road 1.4 we do not believe this is applicable as tenure is either affordable rented or shared ownership and these fall outside the scope of the clause

3PL/2019/1493/F Mr Colin Gipson ATTLEBOROUGH Removal of Existing Timber The Piggeries Crows workshop building and replace Hall Lane with a new Steel Framed portal building & change of use from Class B1/B2 to Sui Generis (car adaption ) (retrospective)

3PL/2019/1560/VAR Breckland Bridge ATTLEBOROUGH Removal of Conditions 20,21 on Land at Chapel 3PL/2017/0342/F - Tree has Road School already been removed

3PL/2020/0015/F EW Becker & Sons ATTLEBOROUGH Change of Use from 2 no. Properties Limited 22 Connaught Road Studio Flats (C3 dwellinghouse) Attleborough to 2 no. Studio Flats to Provide Residential Accommodation by Persons with Learning Disabilities (C2 Residential Care)

3PL/2020/0075/HOU Mr Daniel Raisborough ATTLEBOROUGH Conversion and extension of 29 Rye Lane existing garage to create two bedrooms, en-suite, bathroom and hallway

3PL/2020/0155/HOU Mr & Mrs Goodwin ATTLEBOROUGH Proposed Two Storey Side 2 Cyprus Road, Extension Attleborough

3PL/2020/0247/HOU Mr Bryan Jordan ATTLEBOROUGH Demolition of existing garage 144 Ollands Road and proposed extension to be built to the side and rear of the property.The extension would encompass a new garage to be sited nearer the boundary line; a utility room; re- positioning/enlarging of the kitchen and bedrooms.

3PL/2020/0318/LU Mr Andy Hunt ATTLEBOROUGH Single-storey extension to the 1 Kenan Drive rear of the existing detached

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 162 two-storey dwelling.

3PL/2020/0353/VAR Mr Larry Gray ATTLEBOROUGH Variation of Condition No2 on Building Plot Leys 3PL/2019/0632/D - move Lane property 3m forward

3PL/2020/0400/LU Emma Williams ATTLEBOROUGH Single storey extension to the 158 Ollands Road rear of the property (certificate of lawfulness)

3SR/2020/0001/SCR Anglia Water Services ATTLEBOROUGH Proposed Installation of a New Limited Land Off Fowlers Rising Main between Lane Attleborough Sewerage Treatment works and land off Fowlers Lane

3NM/2020/0031/NMA John Marsh BANHAM Amendment For Garden Of Eden, 3PL/2018/0557/HOU Hunts Corner 1) Reduction in size to the single-story extension. 2) Changes necessary to correct the original application roof line. 3) Approval for the balustrading materials to be used on the roof terrace.

3PL/2020/0070/HOU Mr & Mrs A Calton BANHAM Proposed demolition of Rainbow Cottage garage/store and erection of Mill Road replacement 2 storey side extension.

3PL/2020/0166/HOU Mrs Bridget Bobb BANHAM Demolition of single storey Fuchsia Cottage uPVC conservatory and Road erection of single storey oak framed sun room

3OB/2020/0009/OB Abel Homes Limited Approval of affordable housing Land off Hall Road scheme under terms of the S106 Agreement on 3PL/2018/0993/F

3PL/2019/1051/F Mrs Lindsay Abel BAWDESWELL Timber Built and Timber 34 Reepham Road Cladded Kennel Block Bawdeswell (Retrospective)

3PL/2020/0273/HOU Joanna Varela-Hughes & BAWDESWELL New Porch / Roof Conversion Matt Atherton 1 Chaucer Close With Dormer Window &

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 163 Alterations and boundary fencing

3PL/2019/1586/HOU Mr T Sanderson Single storey rear/side 4 St Johns Lane extension & alterations and double garage

3PL/2020/0372/HOU Mr & Mrs Arabin BEACHAMWELL Erection of single storey side The Woodlands, 4 and rear extensions. Drymere

3PL/2019/0619/F Payne Pallet Inverters BEESTON Erection of Single Storey Payne Pallet Industrial Unit Inverters Dereham Road Beeston

3PL/2019/1559/VAR Mr Murrell BEESTON Variation of condition (2) of Ref Land to the north of :3PL/2018/0584/D - Revised Herne Lane site layout for plots 3, 4, & 5 Beeston due to AW sewer easement requirements

3PL/2020/0135/VAR Mr & Mrs Gary Rowland BEESTON Variation of Condition No2 on Development Site At 3PL/2018/0043/F Altered/varied Roehampton Syers design to plot 3 and adjacent Lane fencing

3PL/2020/0188/HOU Mr & Mrs Drew BEESTON Removal of Existing Timber Cross Winds, 2 Studio. Construction of Self Gouch Close Contained Annexe to Rear of Existing Attached Double Garage.

3PL/2020/0375/HOU Mr Wales BEESTON Extensions (inc. new porch) and Primrose Farm, alterations to dwelling. Water End Lane

3PL/2020/0024/VAR Dr. & Dr. Garland BEETLEY Variation of Condition 2 of Vale Farm Barns 3PL/2009/0207/F - Stoney Lane Amendments to fenestration Beetley

3PL/2020/0234/VAR Mr Lewis Glover BEETLEY Variation of Condition No 1 on Hall Farm Barn, 3PL/2018/1547/D to allow for a Road, variation in the design of the East Bilney approved dwelling

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 164 3NM/2020/0016/NMA Mr J Dingle BESTHORPE Non material amendment to Land Off Norwich 3PL/2017/0002/F Condition 2 - Road Amend porch design of plot 3 and 4 from flat to pitched roof

3PL/2020/0279/VAR Mr J Dingle BESTHORPE Variation of Condition No 2 on Land Off Norwich 3PL/2018/1220/VAR Road Amend The Approved Brick Type for Plots 03 & 04 (House Type B) Amend The Approved Window/Door Frame Colour for Plot 5 (House Type A)

3PL/2020/0208/HOU Mr & Mrs E Raker BRADENHAM Single Storey Extension to Huntingfield Farm North Elevation Mill Street

3PL/2020/0209/LB Mr & Mrs E Raker BRADENHAM Single Storey Extension to Huntingfield Farm North Elevation Mill Street

3PL/2020/0246/HOU Ms Joanne Barchi BRADENHAM Demolish Single Story Structure 11 Southend & Erection of Two Storey Rear Extension.

3PL/2019/1484/HOU Mrs Lydia Turner BRETTENHAM Demolition of existing attached Brookfield Cottage double garage and erection of Rushford two storey side extension (garage and annex) to existing dwelling

3PL/2020/0331/HOU Mr & Mrs King BRETTENHAM Single storey infill extension. Cherrydale, Arlington Way

3PL/2020/0138/HOU Mr Gareth Graham Two storey side extension, 45 The Street single storey rear extension & replacement garage.

3PL/2020/0301/HOU Mrs Katie Neale Rear extension to bungalow. Highfields, School Road

3PL/2020/0036/VAR Mr Adam Guerin Variation of Condition 2 of P.P Lavender House ref 3PL/2019/0176/F to include Lane new garage.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 165 3PL/2020/0237/HOU Mr Mark Wright CARBROOKE Erection of 1.35m fence along Anoka, Church boundary with the road Street

3PL/2020/0418/VAR Mr Vincent Somers CARBROOKE Variation of Condition No 3 on Meadow View, 3PL/2020/0112/VAR - Watton Green Change of Materials

3NM/2020/0027/NMA Cherry Tree Developments Amendment to (E.A.) The Pightle, 3PL/2020/0044/F : Enclosed Gormans Lane Porches, Internal Layout Amendments & Amendments To Rear Doors.

3PL/2020/0044/F Cherry Tree Developments COLKIRK Demolition of existing bungalow (E.A. The Pightle and erection of a pair of semi- Gormans Lane detached dwellings.

3PL/2020/0227/O David and Emma McCarthy COLKIRK Demolition of existing and James The Oaks, agricultural building and Whissonsett Road proposed erection of temporary dwelling (Custom Built) in association with the existing camping business on site

3PL/2019/1491/F Mr & Mrs Mason CRANWORTH Conversion of two farm Manor Farm Pittocks buildings for visitor(holiday) Lane accommodation

3PL/2019/1492/LB Mr & Mrs Mason CRANWORTH Conversion of two farm Manor Farm Pittocks buildings for visitor (holiday) Lane accommodation

3PL/2020/0390/HOU Mr and Mrs Wilson CRANWORTH Single storey side extensions, Red Hall, Red Hall first floor side extension & new Lane boundary wall.

3PL/2020/0391/LB Mr and Mrs Wilson CRANWORTH Listed Building Consent for Red Hall, Red Hall Extensions and Alterations to Lane, Southburgh Red Hall Red Hall Lane Southburgh Thetford Norfolk IP25 7TG.

3PL/2020/0424/HOU Ms. M. Molenaar & Ms. W. CRANWORTH Proposed single storey side Hitch Wood Farm, extension. Southburgh Road, Southburgh

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 166 3NM/2020/0008/NMA Orbit Homes (2020) Limited DEREHAM Amendment to Greenfields Road 3PL/2016/1397/F - Substitution of Brick types on Phase 1a Plots 85-89 100 to 103 112-117 and 125 to 126 from Wienerberger Eton Buff to Camtech Anglian Cream Handmade plus all remaining plots using Wienerberger Eton Buff to be changed to Wienerberger Smoket Yellow Multi Gilt

3NM/2020/0013/NMA Mr & Mrs T Burdess DEREHAM Second Floor Room Now Land Adj Garden Removed C/W Access Stairs, House, Stanton New Room To Be Built In Roof Close Space Above Carport. Additional Velux Roof Lights Added To Roof Over Carport NMA to 3PL/2019/1280/F

3PL/2019/1569/VAR Mr Obee DEREHAM Alterations to approved scheme Development Of under 3PL/2016/0385/F Water Tower

3PL/2020/0021/VAR Mr Stephen Litten DEREHAM Variation of condition 2 to 24 Market Place 3PL/2019/1063/F Dereham

3PL/2020/0034/D Mrs Mary Hall DEREHAM Reserved matters application Humbletoft Farm for detached dwelling house Sandy Lane and separate garage/car port following outline application 3PL/2017/1319/O

3PL/2020/0062/LB Mr Obee DEREHAM Alterations to approved scheme Development Of under 3PL/2016/0386/LB Water Tower Northgate

3PL/2020/0063/D CNC Property Development DEREHAM Erection of 5 dwellings following Limited Land at Old Hall outline planning permission Dumpling Green 3PL/2019/1045/O

3PL/2020/0065/HOU Mr Roger Watson DEREHAM Change of use of existing 34 Swanton Drive workshop to treatment studio for reiki and breathing therapy (internal works only)

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 167 3PL/2020/0074/F Mr ALI Rasul DEREHAM Change of use of commercial E O E Yard, Unit 4 retail unit/office to two one bed Wellington Road apartments.

3PL/2020/0094/F Dereham Coachways Limited DEREHAM Erection of 3 industrial units Dereham (revised scheme following grant Coachways 20 of permission 3PL/2018/1524/F Rashs Green for 2 units)

3PL/2020/0097/F Mr ALI RASUL DEREHAM Change of use from A1 retail Unit 3 Wellington unit to form four apartments. Road

3PL/2020/0116/LB Mr Stephen Litten DEREHAM Refurbishment, extension and 24 Market Place part change of use of existing Dereham Grade II Listed Building from A1/A2 retail and professional services establishment to 3 no. residential properties to rear, first and second floors. Part retention and refurbishment of retail/commercial usage at ground floor - Amended scheme

3PL/2020/0122/HOU Mr & Mrs J Jackson DEREHAM Demolish existing conservatory 16 Laburnum to rear and erect single storey Crescent extension to rear

3PL/2020/0126/VAR Ms J Sutton DEREHAM Variation of Condition No2 on 2a Middlemarch 3PL/2014/0675/D - Amend Road Toftwood Vehicle Access Point

3PL/2020/0146/HOU Miss Nina Simmons DEREHAM Raising of roof height to create 32 Stone Road new pitched roof with first floor accommodation including rear extension element as well as new front porch

3PL/2020/0149/LB Dereham Town Council DEREHAM Repairs & Redecoration Works Bishop Bonners Cottage Museum St Withburga Lane

3PL/2020/0153/HOU J Burton DEREHAM Demolish Small Lean to 52 Yaxham Road Extension to Front. Construct Ground Floor Extension (To Create Entrance) And First

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 168 Floor Extension to Create Bedroom, En-suite and Stairwell

3PL/2020/0172/HOU Ms Simpson DEREHAM Demolition of existing 2 Gwersylt Villas conservatory and erection of Cowper Road ground floor extension to the rear of existing property.

3PL/2020/0174/HOU Mr & Mrs Fred & Dawn Marsh DEREHAM Front porch 2D De Narde Road Dereham

3PL/2020/0292/HOU Mr J S Staples DEREHAM Change of Use of Outbuilding 6 Wordsworth Drive (Detached Studio/Guest Bedroom) To Self Contained Annex.

3PL/2020/0302/HOU Mr & Mrs Starling DEREHAM Proposed Orangery to rear 238 Norwich Road

3PL/2020/0311/A MCDONALD'S DEREHAM The Installation of 4 No. New RESTAURANTS LTD McDonald's Digital Freestanding Signs & 1 Restaurant, Napier No. 15" Digital Booth Screen. Way

3PL/2020/0335/F P Sneddon Planning & DEREHAM Change of use of vacant first Property E O E Yard, Unit 1, floor commercial office/shop Wellington Road A1/B1 to residential use C3.

3PL/2020/0339/F DEREHAM Removal of 4 existing chimney Dereham C Of E Va stacks to below roof line. First School, St Rebuild dormer cheeks and Withburga Lane new Brett Martin Cascade cast iron style gutters (retrospective)

3PL/2020/0347/HOU Mr & Mrs S Jackson DEREHAM Single Storey Extension 9 George Elliot Way Toftwood

3PL/2020/0348/F Mr N Vithlani DEREHAM Proposed 2 storey side Links House, Sandy extension providing additional Lane East rooms to residential home.

3PL/2020/0359/HOU Mr P Sims DEREHAM Proposed porch to principal 35 Andrew Goodall elevation. Close

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 169 3PL/2020/0404/HOU Mr & Mrs Van-Der-Merwe DEREHAM Proposed two storey side 100 Sandy Lane extension, front single storey porch extension and forming lean-to pitched roof over existing flat roof bay window.

3PL/2020/0423/HOU Mr & Mrs Kiel DEREHAM Proposed single storey rear 25 De Narde Road extensions and associated alterations.

3PL/2019/1595/D Mr Neil Alston EAST TUDDENHAM Reserved matters for erection Well Green Farm of 3 dwellings following outline Mattishall Road approval 3PL/2016/0905/O

3PL/2020/0045/LB Mr & Mrs Philip & Cairistine EAST TUDDENHAM Alterations to 2 no. ground floor Buttery The Old Hall window openings on west Mattishall Road elevation and insertion of new timber flush casement windows. Internal alterations, repairs and replacement limecrete slab to kitchen and utility room. Form new ground floor cloakroom off utility room within existing store.

3PL/2020/0118/LU Mr Steven Barton EAST TUDDENHAM Certificate of Lawfulness in Church Cottages respect of an area of Church Lane hardstanding and associated new access onto Church Lane, East Tuddenham, Norfolk under Schedule 2 Parts 1 and 2 of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)

3PL/2020/0120/D Mr Eden EAST TUDDENHAM Reserved matters application Land between for one dwelling following Felgate Farm and outline permission Willow Cottage 3PL/2018/1492/O Rotten Row

3PL/2020/0115/F Mr R Johns FOULDEN Conversion of barn to single Cold Harbour Barn dwelling

3PL/2020/0241/VAR Mr & Mrs Leech FOULDEN Variation of Condition 2 Tallon House Tallon 3PL/2019/0876/VAR - new Street bedroom added at first floor

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 170 3PL/2019/1371/F Floranova Ltd Biomass boiler house & wood Vegetalis Norwich pellet storage ( Retrospective) Road Foxley

3PL/2020/0184/VAR Clerks Well Developments FOXLEY Variation of Condition No 2 on Ltd Development Site 3PL/2018/0931/F - Changes to Off The Street house types

3PL/2020/0357/HOU Mrs Sargeant FRANSHAM Internal alterations including 3 Station Drive, changes and additions to existing fenestration and new fenestration as well as roof lights.

3PL/2019/1404/HOU Mr Timothy Taylor Single Storey Extensions to Pine Deep Fen Lane North and to West of Existing bungalow

3PL/2020/0223/HOU Mr Ian Halls GARBOLDISHAM First floor extension, front Theydon Lodge, porch, bay window and ground Manor Road floor single storey rear extension.

3PL/2019/1542/D Mr Cameron Black GARVESTONE Reserved matter application for Land adjacent single dwelling following outline Thuxton Grange permission - 3PL/2018/1309/O Station Road

3PL/2019/1581/HOU Mr & Mrs S Thompson GARVESTONE Alterations and rear extension North Green Farm of dwelling House North Green Reymerston Garvestone

3PL/2020/0088/D Mrs M Jennings GARVESTONE Submission of reserved matters Land off Dereham for the proposed dwelling and Road garage following outline approval 3PL/2019/0762/O - one dwelling and detached garage

3PL/2020/0102/HOU Mr & Mrs Liverton GARVESTONE Proposed conversion of existing Church Farm garden room to habitable Dereham Road kitchen and dining areas, internal alterations, removal of dormer and insertion of conservation style rooflights

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 171 (amended scheme)

3PL/2020/0103/LB Mr & Mrs Liverton GARVESTONE Proposed conversion of existing Church Farm garden room to habitable Dereham Road kitchen and dining areas, internal alterations, removal of dormer and insertion of conservation style rooflights (amended scheme)

3PL/2020/0362/HOU Mr & Mrs Nugent GARVESTONE Single storey Hill House extension/alterations Tanners Green

3PL/2020/0363/HOU Mr & Mrs Blake GARVESTONE Single storey Meadowbank extension/alterations Tanners Green

3PL/2020/0366/F Mr & Mrs Hosking GARVESTONE Erection of Self-Build Dwelling Land at Rectory with Associated Works, Barn, Tinkers Lane Including; Alterations to Existing Vehicular Access and Provision of Landscaping.

3PL/2019/1452/F Mr NA & PA Cater Construction of Agricultural Old Farm The Street Building (Grain Store)

3PL/2020/0127/HOU Mr Fuller GOODERSTONE Single storey side extension The Stables Elm Place Gooderstone

3PL/2020/0258/VAR Mrs T Wachter GOODERSTONE Variation of Condition No 2 on 43 Saw Mill 3PL/2019/0626/HOU - Cottages, Additional window to side Oxborough Road elevation and change byfold doors to French doors

3PL/2020/0050/HOU Mr PETER TAYLOR Build a wooden Holly House workshop/storage building in North Street Great the rear garden Dunham

3NM/2020/0028/NMA Prestantia Properties Ltd GREAT Non-material amendment ELLINGHAM planning permission Development Site At 3PL/2019/0561/F Alder Carr House, Plots 1 & 3:Porch, Bi-Folding Attleborough Road Doors, Thermo Dynamic Panel

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 172 & Water Cylinder. Plot 2:Porch, Bi-Folding Doors, Thermo Dynamic Panel, Water Cylinder, Move Utility Door & New Utility Window.

3PL/2020/0002/F Mr & Mrs Price GREAT Proposed Single Dwelling ELLINGHAM Hollytree House 80 Long Street

3PL/2020/0137/HOU Mr Stephen Layton GREAT Garage conversion & extension ELLINGHAM to form an annex. Prospect House Construction of dormers to the 20 Long Street, rear elevation at first and second floor.

3PL/2020/0181/HOU Mr Mick Berry GREAT First floor front/side extension & ELLINGHAM two storey rear and single 42 Long Street storey rear extensions and attached car port

3PL/2020/0191/HOU Mr Ivan Thompsett GREAT Erection of double garage ELLINGHAM The Arrows, Bow Street,

3PL/2020/0232/F Mr Dean Osbon GREAT Change of use of building from ELLINGHAM light engineering to dwelling Greenpiece, including alterations and front Attleborough Road porch

3PL/2020/0066/F G.T Bunning & Sons Ltd GRESSENHALL A two-storey pre-fabricated Smithy House The office building Green

3PL/2020/0098/F Mr Luke Bentley GRESSENHALL Replacement dwelling with Sunninghill attached garage Common Drift

3PL/2020/0344/HOU Ms. P. Hudson & Mr. P. GRESSENHALL Partial demolition of existing Coram Willow Cottage dwelling, construction of single Taylors Lane storey and two storey extensions, associated alterations and refurbishment

3PL/2020/0396/F MSM Safety Management GRESSENHALL Temporary timber office Services Camomile House building (three years)

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 173 Swan Drive

3PL/2020/0014/HOU Mr Joe Bell Two Storey Side Extension and Hazelwood Norwich Alterations Road

3PL/2020/0257/HOU Mr & Mrs Alden GUIST Proposed Timber Cart Lodge at Mulberry, Bridge front Road

3OB/2020/0005/OB Mr Colin Arnold To discharge Condition 1.1 (not Land Adjacent Ketts to commence the development Cottage Low Street until the affordable housing scheme has been approved by the council) on pp 3PL/2016/0946/F - to enable transfer to provider

3PL/2020/0252/F Mrs P & T Hawkshaw HARDINGHAM Horse Walker 11.18m . Private Danemoor House, use only Norwich Road

3PL/2019/1500/LB Miss Emma Phipps HARLING Change of materials to existing Cheniston, Market glazed link (from timber to Street powder coated aluminium) Harling

3PL/2019/1518/D Mr & Mrs Fossey HARLING Reserved matters for one Mauley's Meadow dwelling following outline West Harling Road permission 3PL/2018/0880/O (one plot)

3PL/2020/0055/F S & A Jones Developments HARLING Full planning permission for the Ltd Land North of Lime erection of four dwellings, Kiln House Eccles garages and creation of 1 new Road vehicular access

3PL/2020/0067/VAR Mr & Mrs J Underwood HARLING Variation of Condition No 2 on Fen Cottage Fen 3PL/2019/1021/VAR- To make Lane minor amendment bring front wall slightly forward to enlarge hall way and to infill open carport of the garage

3PL/2020/0090/LB Miss K Anderson HARLING New studwork walls at first floor 1 The Crescent level to create a bathroom, the Lopham Road original w/c removed. Additional studwork required to

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 174 ground floor to create a Utility room, studwork provided internally behind existing side door and window, creating the same view externally

3PL/2020/0091/F Traditional English Properties HARLING Proposed 3 new residential The Nags Head units Market Street

3PL/2020/0145/HOU Mr & Mrs Graham HARLING Single Storey Rear Extension 58 Kerridges Harling

3PL/2020/0221/HOU Mr & Mrs Kester HARLING Erection of Balcony to Rear 3 West Harling Road Bedroom to form double door opening

3PL/2020/0222/LU Mr John Dean HARLING New flat roof single storey 10 Hamblings Piece extension to rear of existing garage for utility & store

3PL/2020/0235/HOU Miss Victoria Neal HARLING Two storey side & rear 9 Drakes Close extensions

3PL/2020/0287/HOU Ms Becky Allsop HARLING Side & Front Extension. 64 Kerridges

3PL/2020/0289/HOU Mr P Warren & Mrs R Warren HARLING Proposed Front Porch & 10 Road Cladding To Front Elevation & Dormer Cheeks

3PL/2020/0385/HOU Mr B Allen & Elsa Rachel HARLING Removal of first floor front Allen Sunnyside, dormer, raising walls to main Garboldisham Road eaves height & provision of new gabled roof.

3PL/2020/0025/VAR Mr J Gunns Variation of Condition (2) to Hill House 3PL/2017/1301 Hou Park Lane Hockering

3PL/2020/0049/VAR Gunns HOCKERING Variation of Condition 2 to Hill House 3PL/2016/1552/F. Park Lane Hockering

3PL/2020/0110/LB Mr & Mrs Andrews HOCKERING Replacement of windows to

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 175 The Manor House side and rear of property. The Street Hockering

3PL/2020/0186/HOU Mr Edwin Hollingsbee HOCKERING Two storey extension with 18 Bishop Herbert 'granny annex' disabled Close, Hockering accessible living area and bedroom to ground floor including en-suite wet-room and additional WC. Extended first floor master bedroom and dressing area accessed via existing first floor bedroom. Conservatory to rear of property with access from both annex and existing property.

3PL/2020/0288/HOU Mr Dave Swanton HOCKERING Single Storey Rear Extension. 1 Meadow View

3NM/2020/0014/NMA Mr & Mrs Lambert HOCKHAM Amendment to The Eagle Public 3PL/2019/0965/F - Change to House, The Street windows

3NM/2020/0023/NMA Mr & Mrs Lambert HOCKHAM Amendment to The Eagle Public 3PL/2019/0965/F - House The Street (i) removal of downstairs kitchen window (ii) Relocation of first floor bathroom window

3PL/2020/0124/F Mason and Powles HOCKHAM Residential Development, 4no. Land off Watton detached dwellings, associated Road driveway & private drive.

3PL/2020/0207/HOU Mr & Mrs Mcloughlin HOCKHAM Proposed 2 storey rear 6 Scotgate Close extension (following demolition of existing conservatory); Proposed side extension over existing garage and Replacement of existing cladding

3PL/2019/1379/HOU Mr & Mrs Leggett HOE & WORTHING Convert barn adjoining the Hoe Lodge Road house from storage into From Northall Green accommodation to provide To Back Lane habitable space in the form of Dereham an annexe ancillary to the main dwelling.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 176 3PL/2020/0204/F Mrs Karolina Barnes HOE & WORTHING Erection of replacement 2 Oaklands, Gorgate storey dwellinghouse Road

3PL/2020/0175/HOU Ms Emma Steele HOLME HALE Demolition of existing sun room 20 Cook Road and construction of kitchen/dining room extension, bedroom/study extension, enlarged balcony and extension of existing garage for domestic use.

3PL/2020/0352/F Mr William Dickerson HOLME HALE New menage area with field Hunters Lodge, Hale shelters. Road

3PL/2020/0010/VAR Alfred Charles Homes Variation of condition 2 on The Old Rectory 3PL/2018/1215/VAR to change Ashburton Road house types of plot 4 and 5 and Ickburgh removal of conditions 10, 11 and 14.

3PL/2020/0037/F Mr Ian Copeman KENNINGHALL Construction of one new Land at the Garden dwelling House Quidenham Road

3PL/2020/0411/HOU Stephen & Martin Turner KENNINGHALL Raise roof height of bungalow Sunrise, Back Lane to create two additional attic bedrooms Full height side extension & conservatory to rear Cart-shed addition to garage.

3NM/2020/0029/NMA Mr Michael Pavey Amendment to Evergreen, Butt 3PL/2018/0770/HOU: Reduce Lane dimensions of double cart shed (formally Glenshea ) to 6.5m x 5.5m and reduce the height of the rear elevation.

3PL/2019/1496/LU Mrs K Green Proposed stationing of a Anchor Farm Wood Caravan on the land for Lane purposes ancillary to the use of the dwelling at Anchor Farm, Wood Lane, Little Ellingham, NR17 1JZ (Certificate of Lawfulness)

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 177 3PL/2020/0345/HOU Mr D Moulting LYNFORD Demolition of Existing Sheds Woodfield House and Garage & Single Storey/Front and side Extension and Demolition of Existing Conservatory 2 Storey Side Extension

3PL/2020/0133/HOU Mr & Mrs Hedger LYNG Garage conversion/alterations River View Port Row Lyng

3PL/2020/0156/VAR Lyng & District Community LYNG Variation of Condition No 6 on Hall Village Hall, 3PL/2017/0963/F (Replacement Richmond Place of grass infill with gravel in the Ecogrid carpark system.)

3PL/2020/0299/HOU Youngs LYNG Front entrance porch 16 Richmond Place

3PL/2019/1295/F Lodge House Ltd MATTISHALL AMENDED scheme - Land at South Green conversion and extension of Mattishall existing building on site to dwelling with new garage/cartshed.

3PL/2019/1585/VAR Mr P Whitman MATTISHALL Variation of Condition No 2 of Land Adjacent Daryl 3PL/2018/0252/F - Alteration to Farm Mill Road approved garage design

3PL/2020/0152/F Mr & Mrs T Green MATTISHALL Erection of polytunnel and The Acorn Hut Farm timber farm shop with concrete Shop And Plant base (Retrospective), change of Nursery Watercress use of land to mixed use of Lane agricultural and retail farm shop and erection of two polytunnels

3PL/2020/0178/HOU Ms Kay Zantis MATTISHALL Proposed two storey side 29 South Green extension with front and rear dormer windows. Re-roofing and new porch to front. Demolition of existing garage, erection of single storey extension forming enlarged lounge and kitchen, new annex and garage.

3PL/2020/0282/HOU Mrs Rackham MATTISHALL Two storey side extension. 2 Robert Key Drive

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 178 3PL/2020/0383/HOU Mr & Mrs T Bond MATTISHALL Single Storey Extension to Ashleigh, 117 Front, Side and Rear of Existing Dereham Road Bungalow.

3PL/2020/0387/HOU Mr and Mrs D Fowler MATTISHALL Two Storey and Single Storey Welgate House, Extensions to Rear Welgate

3PL/2019/1534/HOU Mr Elliott Front/side extension & garage Achalay conversion to habitable room. Road Mileham

3PL/2020/0030/HOU Mr R Munro MILEHAM Single storey extension to north Meadow Cottage elevation

3PL/2020/0170/O Mr John Heaton MILEHAM Outline application for three Land North of the detached houses, street

3PL/2020/0286/HOU Mr & Mrs M. Cottrell MILEHAM Proposed Front & Rear 22 Claxton Close Extensions to dwelling including conversion of garage to habitable room and extension of garage.

3NM/2020/0018/NMA Mr Paul Collings MUNDFORD Omit one set of sliding/folding 21 Adeane doors and replacement with a Meadows window Mundford

3PL/2020/0360/HOU Mr & Mrs Biddlecombe MUNDFORD Erection of conservatory to the 35 Fir Close side of the property Mundford

3PL/2020/0373/HOU Mrs Jacquie Johnson MUNDFORD Erect 1.8M fence to right side 37 Malsters Close of property, enclosing garden with boarding under (to replace existing fence)

3PL/2020/0431/HOU Mr K O'Brien MUNDFORD Single Storey extension to side 35 Swaffham Road and rear of property.

3PL/2020/0147/HOU Mr & Mrs Taylor NARBOROUGH Single storey front and side 28 Westfields extension forming new lounge area, dining and utility

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 179 3PL/2020/0198/HOU Mr B Allen NARBOROUGH Single storey side extension 59 Old Vicarage Park

3PL/2019/1384/D Mr R Johns NECTON Reserved Matters for 32 Hale Road submission for proposed single Necton dwelling following outline permission 3PL/2018/0730/O

3PL/2020/0167/HOU Ms Angela Lynch NECTON Demolition of existing side 16 Mill Street porch and garage and new side extension including a full new roof

3PL/2020/0169/HOU L Grimwood NECTON Proposed Single Storey 27 Elizabeth Drive, Extension Necton

3PL/2020/0268/HOU Ceri Orwin NECTON Proposed garage conversion to 9 Treasure Grove ancillary accommodation including rear extension and all associated works.

3PL/2020/0041/HOU Mr & Mrs Chris & Catarina Demolition of Existing Sams Teasel Cottage Conservatory to be replaced Chapel Street with new single storey rear extension with proposed new single storey outbuildings to rear of garden

3PL/2020/0100/LB Mr & Mrs John & Nichola NEW BUCKENHAM Creation Of En-Suite Within King The Beams Existing Bedroom 3 King Street

3PL/2020/0294/HOU Mr Shaun Knight NEW BUCKENHAM Single Storey Rear Extension. Maple Cottage, Marsh Lane

3PL/2020/0297/VAR Mr Darking NEWTON BY C. Variation of Condition No2 on ACRE 3PL/2006/1336/F -two roof Church Farm Road lights to annexe From Swaffham To

3PL/2020/0142/HOU Mrs Hazel Gibbons NORTH ELMHAM Proposed front extension 11 Brookside

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 180 3PL/2020/0143/F Mr & Mrs Jaggard NORTH ELMHAM Conversion of existing building 101 The Old to annex Homestead Eastgate Street

3PL/2020/0242/F Mr & Mrs Grainger NORTH ELMHAM Erection of dwelling and garage The Post Office, 62 Holt Road

3PL/2019/1133/F Mrs Rebecca Vine Erection of 4 bay cart lodge with Meadowhurst Pound store room above and external Lane stair case. North Lopham

3PL/2020/0028/LB Mrs Bethan Hensser NORTH LOPHAM To install an en suite bathroom 26 The Street in bedroom. North Lopham

3PL/2020/0129/VAR Mr S Richards NORTH LOPHAM Variation of Condition 2 of Willow Tree Farm 3PL/2019/0290/F - to allow Kenninghall Road accommodation in roof by North Lopham raising the roof height

3PL/2020/0016/HOU Mr Jonathan Kemp OLD BUCKENHAM Two storey side extension, Bramble House single storey rear extension, (formerly Karmel) garage extension and change The Green Old of roof direction Buckenham

3PL/2020/0071/F Poplar Pigs (Buckenham) Ltd OLD BUCKENHAM Erection of new poultry shed The Farm Doe Lane adjacent to poultry shed no. 7 and erection of associated 3 feed silos and removal of existing outbuilding. Provision of new steel shed adjacent to poultry shed No. 1

3PL/2020/0113/HOU Mr Graham Turner OLD BUCKENHAM Proposed Front Entrance hall Nivelles Fen Street extension and alterations

3PL/2020/0150/HOU Mr & Mrs Anon OLD BUCKENHAM Demolition of west side lean to. Apple Tree House, Demolition of front wall to the Church Lane front porch to create open fronted canopy. Construction of a single-storey flat roof extension to the rear and small canopy porch to the east.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 181 Installation of ground source heating.

3PL/2020/0189/HOU Mr & Mrs Greenwood OLD BUCKENHAM 1st floor extension and ground 17 Hargham Road floor infill creating a 1.1/2 storey dwelling with annex accommodation.

3PL/2020/0379/HOU Mr James Alexander OLD BUCKENHAM Removal of garage; new side 5 Oaklands and rear extension.

3PL/2020/0089/F National Trust OXBOROUGH Change of use of 6 rooms on Oxburgh Hall Stoke the first floor of Oxburgh Hall Ferry Road from accommodation C3(a) to an office and meeting rooms B1.

3PL/2020/0321/HOU Susie Emmett OXBOROUGH Construction of garden room Whitehouse Farm, and minor related alterations to Oxborough Road existing house.

3PL/2020/0322/LB Susie Emmett OXBOROUGH Construction of garden room Whitehouse Farm and minor related alterations to Oxborough Road existing house.

3PL/2020/0338/LB Aurora Eccles School QUIDENHAM 1.Removal of 2 sets of existing New Eccles Hall staircases corroded cast iron, School Harling Road non-compliant staircases to rear of Victorian building and RHS flank of main building. 2.Installation of a new stainless- steel fire escape exit staircase to rear of Victorian building. 3.Removal of dormer to RHS flank elevation and reinstating of the roof pitch to match existing, 4.RHS front elevation reconstruction gable rebuild gable. 5.Reconstruction of an additional rear gable facing the courtyard to match existing due to it being found be structurally failing. 6.Chimney repairs including taking down of existing RHS flank stack and reconstructing to match existing.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 182 7.Change to approved roof construction build up to incorporate ventilated plywood deck throughout to provide structural rigidity. 8.Light refurbishment of the internal classroom areas and existing WCs. 9.Installation of lighting protection system throughout the external envelope of the building

3PL/2019/1472/F Mr Blackledge RIDDLESWORTH Proposed change of use from The Old Pool House Pool House to Residential Hall Lane Dwelling Riddlesworth

3PL/2020/0013/HOU Mr Tim Schaay ROCKLANDS Single storey side extensions Sherwood Anchor and associated carport / garage Corner Rockland All Saints Rocklands

3PL/2020/0219/HOU Mr & Mrs L Ridgeway ROCKLANDS Demolition of rear and single Post House, 57 The storey side extensions, replace Street, Rockland All flat roof on rear 2 storey Saints extension with 2 pitched roofs and erection of a single storey lean-to extension, new side porch and 1st floor window to south and new door and sidelight and 2 new 1st floor windows to the north elevations

3PL/2019/0720/F Mr A Nelstrop /LARLIN Retrospective application for G staff and overflow car park St Georges Distillery, Harling Road Roudham

3PL/2020/0020/F Mr & Mrs Barrrett ROUDHAM/LARLIN Erection of domestic stable G building Stablecroft Roudham Road Roudham

3PL/2020/0125/VAR Mr & Mrs G Jones ROUDHAM/LARLIN Removal of Conditions

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 183 G 3,4,5,8,14,15,16,17,18,on Stablecroft 3PL/2008/0779/F work completed conditions above not discharged

3PL/2020/0277/LB Mr Ian Drury ROUDHAM/LARLIN Proposed internal door opening G at first floor level. House Proposed replacement vehicular gates.

3PL/2019/1080/F Mcdow SAHAM TONEY repositioning of access road Meadows Farm approved under Chequers Lane 3PL/2019/0011/F Saham Toney

3PL/2020/0040/HOU Mr Ian Street SAHAM TONEY Conversion of outbuilding to Lilac Cottage annex Coburg Lane

3PL/2020/0083/HOU Mr & Mrs Martin SAHAM TONEY Single storey rear/side Cranford extension with balcony above, Ovington Road proposed new front entrance Saham Toney and internal reconfigurations throughout.

3PL/2020/0119/F Norfolk Colonial Homes SAHAM TONEY Proposed residential Land to the rear of development for 5 dwellings Meadow View Ploughboy Lane

3PL/2020/0240/HOU Mr & Mrs Darkin SAHAM TONEY Proposed Rear Extension 1 Hunts Farm Close

3PL/2020/0249/F Mr & Mrs M Cocks SAHAM TONEY Proposed Garage/Office Holly Lodge, The Drove, Saham Hills

3PL/2020/0280/F Mr I Puttock SAHAM TONEY New dwelling to Plot 2 Plot 2, Land off Ploughboy Lane

3PL/2020/0313/VAR Mr Gerry Grant SAHAM TONEY Variation of Condition No 2 on Plot 5, Ploughboy 3PL/2018/1203/D Lane Internal changes & changes to window and doors and single garage

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 184 3PL/2020/0419/D Mrs Anne Bowes SAHAM TONEY Demolition of existing out Land adjacent buildings and erection of 3no. Stanway Farm, residential dwellings reserved Chequers Lane matters, following outline permission 3PL/2017/1423/O

3PL/2020/0179/HOU Mr Stuart Walpole SCARNING Conversion of existing garage Willow Croft to ancillary accommodation in Rushmeadow Road conjunction to existing house.

3PL/2020/0251/EU Mrs Heather Hudson SCARNING Occupation of dwelling in Fen Acre, Fen Road breach of agricultural occupancy condition on ML2934

3PL/2020/0308/HOU Mr & Mrs Kirton SCARNING Demolish Existing single storey 19 Park Lane extension to rear and rebuild, single storey garage extension to side and porch to front

3PL/2019/1182/LB Mrs Holly Blunt SHIPDHAM Renovate current workshop into Bulwers Cottage habitable room. Chapel Street Shipdham

3PL/2020/0035/VAR Bowbridge Homes SHIPDHAM Variation of conditions 8, 9, 14, (Shipdham) Limited D D Dodd And Sons 15, 19 & 21 3PL/2016/0655/F - Chapel Street revised wording of conditions.

3PL/2020/0199/HOU Mr & Mrs Mees SHIPDHAM Proposed single storey side 8 Henry Cross Close extension

3PL/2020/0216/HOU Mr & Mrs R Scarfe SHIPDHAM Refurbishment and extensions Owlswood, Dereham & erection of new entrance Road gates

3PL/2020/0254/F Mr G Lebbon SHIPDHAM Conversion of existing building Park Grange, High and proposed rear extensions Street to create four self contained residential units.

3PL/2020/0420/LB Mr Elliott Stevens SHIPDHAM Replacement of courtyard Old Plough Inn, gates. Church Close

3PL/2020/0068/HOU Mr Hannah Nicholls SHROPHAM Removal of garden room and 1 Claypit Cottages erection of two storey side

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 185 Hockham Road extension and associated porch

3PL/2020/0096/F Richard Johnston Ltd SNETTERTON New two storey office and Richard Johnston separate plant room Ltd Harling Road

3PL/2020/0176/HOU Mr Stephen Clements Erection of residential annexe Nimbus Low and all associated works. Common

3PL/2019/1558/HOU Mr & Mrs P Clough Conversion and extension of Holly House existing garage to provide Lyng Road annex. Alteration of access Sparham arrangements.

3PL/2020/0130/LB Stephen Pitcher SPORLE Replacement Roof Wolferton House tiles/guttering The Street Sporle

3PL/2020/0144/D Mr S. Clark SPORLE Reserved matters for erection The Bays 10 The of 1 dwelling - 1 and 1/2 storey Street and associated access following outline approval ( 3PL/2018/0299/0)

3PL/2020/0158/HOU P Walker SPORLE Alterations to cart lodge to 3 The Riding include insertion of 2 ground floor windows and first floor gable window with Juliet balcony (south elevation) and first floor window (north elevation) and infill part of existing cart bay.

3PL/2020/0380/HOU S Lay & S Richardson SPORLE Proposed demolition of existing 71 The Street conservatory and construction of new single storey rear extension.

3PL/2020/0401/F Mr M. Aynsley SPORLE Proposed Replacement Mill Cottage, Love Dwelling. Lane

3PL/2020/0194/HOU Mr & Mrs P Walker STANFIELD Rear Two Storey Extension. Lillie Cottage (formerly 2 Rose Cottage) Church Lane,

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 186 Stanfield

3PL/2020/0370/HOU Gooch STANFIELD New roof light/s proposed in The Cottage, Church single storey to rear on East Lane and West facing sloping roof pitch (retrospective)

3PL/2019/1363/F Mr Derek Burdett STOW Erection of 2 No. Dwellings with BEDON/BRECKLES Associated Works, Including; Land North of Mere Provision of Internal Access House Road and Landscaping. Mere Road Stow Bedon

3PL/2020/0212/HOU Mr Kenneth Price STOW Double Garage BEDON/BRECKLES Woodfield, Mere Road, Stow Bedon

3NM/2020/0026/NMA Abel Homes SWAFFHAM Amendment to Land West of Watton 3PL/2019/0713/D - Addition of Road, Swaffham, two single garages. One garage known as Swan's for each plot: Plot 355 & 356 Nest

3NM/2020/0032/NMA Mr Matt Owen SWAFFHAM Amendments on 22 Haspalls Road 3PL/2020/0019/HOU: Change of external finish. Extension to be block and render finish, existing dwelling to be clad in rendering above damp proof course.

3OB/2020/0003/OB Persimmon Homes SWAFFHAM Modification to second schedule Land North of - Affordable Housing Part1 Para Norwich Road 1-1 Affordable Housing Scheme Schedule 3 Recreation and open space Part 1 Para 1-1 Open space works Specification Schedule 5 Convants with County Council para 5.2 Footpath scheme of pp 3PL2015/0550/O

3PL/2020/0077/F CVS Group plc SWAFFHAM Replacement of windows and 17 Lynn Street doors. Swaffham

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 187 3PL/2020/0087/D Mr Joe Marenghi SWAFFHAM Reserved matters following Sunset Princes outline planning permission Street 3PL/2017/0460/O - One dwelling and detached garage

3PL/2020/0093/HOU Mr Tony Liddle SWAFFHAM Rear and side extension. 16 Northfield Road

3PL/2020/0168/EU Birch's Park Homes Ltd. SWAFFHAM Certificate of Lawfulness for Breckland Meadows existing use for non-compliance Touring Park Lynn with condition 3 of 3/84/0015 Road

3PL/2020/0180/LU Mr Paul Howard SWAFFHAM Install a wooden decked area 28 Pollywiggle Drive on sloping garden (Certificate of Lawfulness)

3PL/2020/0196/F Mr A. Martin SWAFFHAM Conversion of First Floor 91 Market Place Restaurant to 1 Bedroom Flat

3PL/2020/0197/LB Mr A. Martin SWAFFHAM Conversion of First Floor 91 Market Place Restaurant to 1 Bedroom Flat.

3PL/2020/0229/F Draper Ventilation Limited SWAFFHAM Retrospective application for Breckland Edge the retention of 975kw biomass Poultry Farm boiler, 1 flue, 2 fuel storage silos and associated equipment Road

3PL/2020/0306/A McDonald's Restaurants SWAFFHAM The Installation of 4 No. New Limited McDonald's Digital Freestanding Signs & 1 Restaurant, Filling No. 15" Digital Booth Screen Station (Internally Illuminated)

3PL/2020/0343/F Motor Fuel Group LTD SWAFFHAM Removal of existing car wash BP Petrol Filling building and installation of 2no. Station, A47, new jet wash bays and Norwich Road installation of new air water and vacuum machines

3NM/2020/0009/NMA Mr Thomas Rutterford SWANTON NMA to 3PL/2018/0014/D -Vary MORLEY Boundary Treatment to 10 Blenheim Drive southern boundary and erection Swanton Morley of Post / 4 panel fencing with trellis (total height 1.8m)

3PL/2020/0018/F Mr James Keith SWANTON To demolish the four existing

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 188 MORLEY residential units, which Primrose Hill comprise two pairs of semi- detached bungalows, and replace with four detached dwellings.

3PL/2020/0275/F Swanton Morley Parish SWANTON Erection of 6m flagpole Council MORLEY On The Junction of Rectory Road & Town Street Opposite The Church

3PL/2020/0350/F Mr Adam Chapman SWANTON Erection of a small storage barn MORLEY / animal shelter to house Land To The East of agricultural equipment. Woodgate Lane

3NM/2020/0017/NMA Developments THETFORD Amendment to Ltd Thetford Cottage 3PL/2019/1344/F Hospital, Earls Demolition of Former Cottage Street Hospital & Redevelopment of Site for Construction of Nine Terraced Dwellings & Provision of Additional Car Park for Doctors Surgery.

3PL/2018/1497/LB Mr ruben Osie THETFORD Retain and refurbish the Kings 23-27 The Kings Head. Head Conversion of upper floors to 6 White Hart Street no. one bed flats. Convert outhouse building at the rear to a two storey 3 bedroom town house.

3PL/2018/1499/F Mr Ruben Osie THETFORD Retain and refurbish the Kings 23 -27 The Kings Head. Head Conversion of upper floors to 6 White Hart Street no. one bed flats. Convert outhouse building at the rear to a two storey 3 bedroom town house.

3PL/2019/1291/F Multimatic THETFORD Change of Use from Class Use Wyatt Road B8 to Class Use B2 (car part Thetford manufacturing) and minor external alteration to the fenestration of the existing

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 189 building, internal alterations to the existing building and re- arrangement of on-site parking arrangements

3PL/2019/1486/EU Miss Nicholas THETFORD Ground Source Heat Pumps 1-37 Hanover Court fitted to individual flat therefore Canterbury Way Class C. The Borehole array including excavations are less than 0.5 hectares and are within the curtilage of the flats.

3PL/2020/0057/F Mr Edward Elliott THETFORD Change the use of the premises 34 Magdalen Street from a Tattoo parlour(Sui Generis) to a Barber Shop (A1) (Retrospective)

3PL/2020/0073/HOU Mr & Mrs DAVIS THETFORD Replacement Roof and Frames 37 Bracken Road to Existing Rear Conservatory Thetford

3PL/2020/0101/VAR Swan-Horton THETFORD Variation of Condition No 2 of 16 Brunel Business 3PL/2019/0400/F to allow 24hrs Court Brunel Way opening 7 days a week

3PL/2020/0104/F Thetford Grammar School THETFORD Demolish and rebuild unstable Thetford Grammar wall School Bridge Street

3PL/2020/0105/LB Thetford Gramma School THETFORD Demolish and rebuild unstable Thetford Gramma wall School Bridge Street

3PL/2020/0123/LB Ms Thurlow THETFORD Alterations to Kitchen area. 11 Melford Common Thetford

3PL/2020/0134/HOU Chris Riches THETFORD Change to the roof of the 40A Mackenzie carport to create a new games Road room and gym, to include 4 dormer windows overlooking the front & rear of the property

3PL/2020/0148/A Multimatic THETFORD Tray Sign Over the Entrance to Wyatt Way the Building, West Elevation Aluminium Lettering and Logo Fixed to Cladding, West Side Road Sign: New Graphics to

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 190 Existing Sign, Replacing illumination with new LED illumination, Entrance Block Sign: New Graphics to Existing Sign

3PL/2020/0177/F Multimatic THETFORD External dust extraction system Wyatt Road unit with acoustic enclosure and security fence surround.

3PL/2020/0182/HOU Mr Kevin Hemming THETFORD Single storey rear extension 5 Jellicoe Place with a flat roof, convert the garage to a study this means raising the roof of the flat roof garage

3PL/2020/0183/LU Garmet THETFORD Use of building to also include 45 St Helens Court steel welding (Certificate of Thetford Lawfulness)

3PL/2020/0371/HOU Mr David Sleight THETFORD Erection of a single-storey rear 11 Wagtail Way extension

3PL/2020/0392/HOU Mr Augustine Paul THETFORD One and a half storey extension 78 Bury Road to rear of dwelling, front porch and 1.52m high fence to rear boundary.

3PL/2020/0393/A McDonald's Restaurants THETFORD The Installation of 4 No. New Limited McDonald's Digital Freestanding Signs and Restaurant, 6 Forest 1 No. 15" Digital Booth Screen. Retail Park, London Road

3PL/2020/0236/LB Mr & Mrs Martin Hayman THOMPSON Installation of Charging Pod for Silver Dell Low an e-car involing screwing on a Common Lane unit measuring 300m by 160mm to a garage wall and connecting cable from room above

3PL/2020/0271/HOU Mr & Mrs Darrell and Sylvia THOMPSON Alterations and rear extension. Harris Quaker Cottage, 30 Pockthorpe Lane

3PL/2020/0278/HOU Mr & Mrs Youngs THOMPSON Single Storey Side Extension Oak Tree Cottage, Replacing Attached Garage. Church Farm

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 191 3NM/2020/0015/NMA Mr E Poole WATTON Amendment to 67 Dereham Road 3PL/2019/0981/VAR - Change of Facing Brick from Buff Facing Brick to IbstocK Claygate Red Multi Facings

3PL/2020/0060/F Mrs Christine Webster WATTON Reinstatement first floor as two Amys bed flat 33 High Street

3PL/2020/0061/LB Mrs Christine Webster WATTON Reinstate first floor as two bed Amys 33 High Street flat.

3PL/2020/0081/VAR Mr S Monument WATTON Variation of Condition 2 to 82 High Street 3PL/2018/0842/F - to raise cill Watton heights of ground floor front elevation windows and simplify new stairwell to rear

3PL/2020/0112/VAR Mr Vincent Somers WATTON Variation of Condition No2 on AND CARBROOKE 3PL/2016/1092/F Design Meadow View changes and Larger side extension

3PL/2020/0160/O Mr & Mrs K A Davis WATTON Erection of Dwelling House and 30 Thetford Road revised vehicle pedestrian access

3PL/2020/0161/HOU Mr& Mrs R Butler WATTON Demolition of existing Redhill Farm Redhill conservatory and erection of Lane garden room, lobby & utility room

3PL/2020/0220/HOU Mr Robert Barnes WATTON Conversion of existing garage 13 Wayland Avenue to residential annex ancillary to the main dwelling.

3PL/2020/0351/HOU Mr Wootten WATTON Front and rear extension 36 Akrotiri Square

3PL/2020/0428/HOU Mr & Mrs Jason Rodwell WATTON Proposed 1.5 storey rear 13 Swaffham Road extension to include demolition of existing conservatory and replacement of section of existing flat roof with new pitched roof.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 192 3PL/2019/1508/LU Abellio East Anglia Limited WEETING Lawful development certificate Railway Station for upgrading/increasing Mundford Road parking facilities, additional lighting and CCTV and drainage installed, new anti vandal shelters installed on both platforms & new bat roost

3PL/2020/0079/F Mr MARTIN MONK WEETING Reinstatement and extension of BLACKCURRANT building to form dwelling and COTTAGE erection of cart lodge FENGATE DROVE WEETING

3PL/2020/0111/D Childerhouse Lodge Farms WEETING Reserved matters for New Beeches submission for Erection of Weeting Single storey dwelling and Access Road From garage following outline Lynn Road To permission 3PL/2017/1433/O Angerstein Close

3PL/2020/0304/HOU Mr Stuart Window WEETING Two storey side extension and 6 Park View erection of attached double garage.

3NM/2020/0019/NMA Mr & Mrs Futter & Smith WENDLING Amendment to High House Cottage, 3PL/2019/0803/F : Change of Hulver Street Roof Space Over Utility Room & Downstairs Bathroom to Storage Space. Addition of Window to Gable & 2no Roof Lights In Rear Roof. Change of Render To Slate Grey Weatherboarding.

3PL/2020/0403/F Mr and Mrs B Newbery WENDLING Demolition of existing single Longview, Dickfools storey extension to rear, Lane erection of single storey extension to side and rear, detached building for garage and home gymnasium to ground floor with annex to first floor for Airbnb use.

3PL/2019/1181/D Mr Dave Greenwood WHINBURGH&WES Reserved matters for TFIELD submission for proposed 3 Northfields Lane, dwellings with detached WhinburghWestfield garages following outline permission 3PL/2017/1162/0

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 193 3PL/2020/0022/VAR Mr James Daniels WHISSONSETT Variation of Condition 2 to Meadow House 3PL/2018/1415/D Mill Lane Whissonsett

3PL/2020/0114/HOU Mr Ivan Newton WHISSONSETT Demolition of existing garage 1 Primrose Cottage and erection of detached annex London Street

3PL/2020/0329/HOU Dr Tim Harris Replacement of 6 no. 1st floor Wretham Manor, windows Church Road

3PL/2020/0330/LB Dr Tim Harris WRETHAM Replacement of 6 no. 1st floor Wretham Manor, windows Church Road

3PL/2019/1346/D Scarletts Homes YAXHAM Reserved matter application for Land north of 25 dwellings with new access Norwich Road, point and associated Yaxham landscaping, open space and car parking following outline permission 3PL/2016/1499/O

3PL/2020/0033/HOU Mr & Mrs J Green YAXHAM Remove Existing Conservatory Field House Station and Construct Two Storey Road Extension to rear

3PL/2020/0095/HOU Mr Whadcoat YAXHAM Proposed removal of existing Mukinge Well Hill garden workshop and erection of replacement garden workshop for storage and hobby use.

Prior Approval Given

3PN/2019/0068/UC Mr Stephen Mills GARBOLDISHAM Prior approval for Conversion of Agricultural Building Agricultural building to two to rear of dwellings ( Town and Country Puddledock Planning ( General Permitted Puddledock Development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q.

3PN/2020/0042/UC George J Goff Limited HOE & WORTHING Prior approval for change of use

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 194 Worthing Barn of Agricultural building to 3 Church Road dwelling houses ( Town and Country Planning ( General Permitted Development Order) 2015 Class Q

3PN/2020/0005/UC Mr John Raker THOMPSON Prior Approval for change of Barn at Redbrick use of Agricultural building to Farm Marlpit Road four dwellings (class C3) residential dwellings. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted) England Order 2015 (as amended) schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q

Prior Approval Refusal

3PN/2020/0009/PNE Mr Aaron Fisher DEREHAM Single Storey Rear Extension 4 Elm Street

Refusal

3PL/2019/0397/F Mr John Gaskin ATTLEBOROUGH Proposed Erection of Five Land Adjacent to the Detached two storey dwellings paddocks Leys Lane with garages and associated Attleborough parking

3PL/2020/0008/LU Mrs Caroline Tosh ATTLEBOROUGH Erect a non boundary wall from 7 Circlet Place back of house to enclose Attleborough existing patio approx 9.1m long and 2.4m high. Erect a slatted fence onto existing wall to height of 2.4m .

3PL/2020/0108/HOU simon hazelby ATTLEBOROUGH Joint rear single storey 100 & 102 Station extensions to the properties of Road 100 & 102 station Rd. Attleborough

3PL/2020/0378/O Mr Neville Middleton BAWDESWELL Development of three detached Land adjacent self-build properties with

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 195 Meadowbank & garages. Loran Dereham Road

3PL/2020/0205/O MG Properties Ltd BEACHAMWELL Outline planning permission for Site to the rear of 1- 5 dwellings with all matters 10 The Street reserved except access

3PL/2019/0239/O Mr Martin Wales BEESTON New Detached Dwelling and Primrose Farm Garage Water End Lane Beeston

3PL/2019/1597/F Mr I. Webster and Mr. R. BEETLEY Erection of one dwelling and Sturman Plot Adjacent detached garage Redroofs (resubmission) 73 Fakenham Road, Beetley

3PL/2020/0076/F Mr Tony Westwood BEETLEY Two self-build bungalows and Land at Beetley garages Grange Beetley Grange

3PL/2020/0210/F Mr Luke Derbyshire BESTHORPE Proposed Residential Heron Farm Development Consisting of 3 Cottage, Bunwell Dwellings With Garages. Road

3PL/2020/0284/F Mr Sam Booker BINTREE Erection of dwelling Land to the rear (East) of Sandstone, 33 The Street, Bintree

3PL/2020/0274/F Mr David Sawyer Proposed Detached House & School Lodge, The Garage / Workshop To Garden Green Plot. (Re-Submission)

3PL/2020/0164/F Cynthia Della Hoy Croxton CROXTON Change of Use to existing Charity 3 White Lion property from business to Cottages residential

3PL/2020/0128/F Mr Karl Fitt DEREHAM Demolition of existing Walcot outbuildings. Extension to 53 Yaxham Road existing dwelling and erection of Dereham linked dwelling

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 196 3PL/2020/0140/F Mr & Mrs P Reavey DEREHAM Erection of new dwelling opp. 1 Dowling Close Toftwood

3PL/2020/0295/F Mr & Mrs J Smith DEREHAM Erection of one dwelling with Land adjacent 3 attached cart lodge (Self build Smithson Loke bungalow)

3PL/2020/0185/F R S Baker & Sons Ltd ELSING Proposed cottage style dwelling Holly Cottage on garden plot adjacent to Holly Fustyweed Cottage

3PL/2020/0248/F Mrs Gillian Wilson GARBOLDISHAM To erect a timber log cabin for Marlborough the use of a garden yoga Cottage, Smallworth studio. Common

3PL/2020/0328/O Mr & Mrs Ivan and Heather GARVESTONE Erection of 3 no. dwellings Garrod Land south of Dereham Road

3PL/2020/0106/F Mr Graham Waite GREAT Single storey dwelling ELLINGHAM Land at The Hollies Swamp Lane

3PL/2020/0228/F Mrs Snowling GREAT Erection of one 2 storey ELLINGHAM dwelling 21 Hingham Road

3PL/2020/0064/O Sworders HOLME HALE Erection of 3 dwellinghouses Land East of 34 Station Road

3PL/2020/0072/F Mr & Mrs Sharland KENNINGHALL Demolition of Barn 3 and Dam Green Farm replacement with a single new Fersfield Road dwelling

3PL/2020/0058/F Mr N Olesen Occupation of existing annexe Old School House independent from main dwelling 20 Hall Lane - 20 Hall Lane

3NM/2020/0024/NMA Leisure and Bowls NARBOROUGH Amendment Sought: Removal Club Caravan Site And of the following from the Bridge, Pentney description of development of Road 3PL/2018/0154/F '..(for three year period)...'.

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 197 3PL/2019/0312/F K Bell NARBOROUGH Erection of a dwelling Land adjacent to the Cabin Swaffham Road Narborough

3PL/2020/0171/F Talbot and Muir (re G OLD BUCKENHAM Revised access location to Webster) Talbot and Muir (re Land adjacent dwelling approved under ref G Webster Caldcleugh 3PL/2018/1014/VAR dwelling under construction at

3PL/2020/0032/VAR Mr Everett OVINGTON Removal of condition (12) use Land adjacent to of properties as holiday Pole Barn accommodation to Dereham Road 3PL/2009/0366/F Ovington

3PL/2020/0086/O Robert, Marie-Ana, Blitzy, OVINGTON Erection of 6 no. self-build James, Claire and Laura Land at Church residential dwellings, with Cave Farm access and associated Church Road development Ovington

3PL/2020/0154/F Mr Boswell OXBOROUGH Conversion and enlargement of Oxborough Lakes the existing barn structure to House, Oxborough form a new residential dwelling Lakes, Oxborough with new access, formation of Road rubble spits and extension of the Oxborough Lakes Management Plan to 2036

3PL/2019/1599/O Mr Tweed SAHAM TONEY Residential development of Richmond Hall three, 3 and 4 bedroomed self- 96 Richmond Road build detached dwellings with garages and gardens. Demolition of small commercial unit.

3PL/2020/0334/F Mr Alan Buckingham SCARNING Erection of two detached Land at Scarning dwellings and associated Fen garages

3PL/2020/0052/O Mrs Patricia Jones SHIPDHAM Demolition of The Beeches and The Beeches subsequent residential Mill Road development of the site (all matters reserved).

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 198 3PL/2020/0080/F Mr Stephen Price SHIPDHAM Change of use of the car Alma Mater The Old parking space to the rear of the School House property from, "a communal Chapel Street area" to a "private domestic Shipdham area".

3PL/2020/0195/LB Mr Elliott Stevens SHIPDHAM Replacement of 3 external Old Plough Inn doors to property and Church Close replacement of external gates. Shipdham

3PL/2019/1600/D Hazelby-Evans SHROPHAM Reserved matters erection of Developments Ltd Rose Cottage two dwellings following outline Low Road, permission 3PL/2018/1466/O Shropham

3PL/2020/0296/LU Mr Barry Seville SHROPHAM Replacement garage 15 Watton Road

3PL/2020/0069/F MG Property Developments SWAFFHAM Change of use from domestic Ltd. Site adjoining 20 garage to a two bedroom Cateryne Court dwelling. accessed off Spinners Lane

3PL/2019/0068/F Brenntag Inorganic THETFORD Construction of new Sodium Chemicals 90 Brunel Way Hypochlorite production building Thetford and erection of associated tanks, plant, services and machinery.

3PL/2019/0146/F Weco Engineering Limited WATTON Change of use from storage to Weco Engineering industrial and extension to Limited New Green existing unit erection of Business Park detached industrial unit Norwich Roa Watton

3PL/2020/0132/HOU Mr David Green WATTON Two storey rear extension, 6 Spencer Court extending existing bathroom, Watton bedroom and kitchen.

3PL/2019/0595/O Mrs A Coke WEASENHAM ALL Erection of 6 dwellings, SAINTS including 2 for affordable Land South off housing Church Lane Weasenham All Saints

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 199 3PL/2020/0107/F Mrs T. Rand and Mr P. Lowe WHISSONSETT Two new 3 bedroom dwellings 1 & 2 Sunnyside London Street Whissonsett

3PL/2020/0190/F Mrs Diane Vary WRETHAM Erection of 3 bed single storey 4 Manor Cottages, detached dwelling with attached Church Road, double garage & detached Wretham tractor port

3PL/2020/0139/O Mr William Cheetham YAXHAM Outline planning application for Land to the west of the erection of one self-build Spring Lane dwelling

Withdrawn INVALID

3NM/2020/0021/NMA Mr Gray ATTLEBOROUGH Amendment to approved plans Building Plot, Leys on pp 3PL/2019/0632/D - Siting Lane of bungalow 3m forward on plot ATTLEBOROUGH

3PL/2020/0163/LU Parochial Church Council, St BANHAM Resurface of Church Footpath Mary the Virgin Church, St Mary the Virgin (Certificate of Lawful use) Banham Church Church Lane, opposite The Green,

3PL/2020/0492/HOU Mr & Mrs Hurst BLO' NORTON Proposed extension & Fen Farm Barn, Fen alterations to existing dwelling Road and the erection of proposed cart lodge with accommodation over.

3PL/2020/0281/VAR Mr David Taylor HARLING Variation of Condition No 2 on Plots 7, 8 & 9 Taylor 3PL/2011/1071/F (plots 7, 8 & Drift 9)

3PL/2020/0245/VAR Pentney Leisure and Bowls NARBOROUGH Removal of Condition Number 1 Club Caravan Site And and vary condition 3 on Bridge, Pentney 3PL/2018/0154/F - to enable Road the permanent use of the site for caravans to be occupied for residential purposes

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 200 3PL/2020/0354/F Aurora Eccles School QUIDENHAM Conversion of the ground floor New Eccles Hall and external refurbishment of School, Harling The Stables Building to create Road, Eccles 4No. classrooms, WCs and accessible WCs , along with isolated external repairs to the roof and elevations and adaptations to the external access to provide wheelchair accessibility.

3PL/2020/0206/F Thetford Golf Club THETFORD Erection of Marquee Thetford Golf Club Brandon Road

3PL/2020/0319/LU Miss Mia Bambury THETFORD Replacement of timber 92 Magdalen Street constructed front door with a composite/UPVC front door and fittings.

3PL/2020/0214/HOU Mr Mark Simons WATTON Garage Conversion 4 Queensway

PLAGDEL (ODB-Ocella One Click Agenda) 201