AGENDA

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

Committee - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Date & Time - MONDAY, 9 JANUARY 2006 AT 9.30 A.M.

Venue - THE ANGLIA ROOM, THE

PLEASE CONFERENCE SUITE, NOTE ELIZABETH HOUSE,

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

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

AT THE CHAIRMAN’S PERSONS ATTENDING LUNCH WILL BE DISCRETION, THE ORDER THE MEETING ARE PROVIDED FOR OF THE MEETING MAY REQUESTED TO TURN COMMITTEE MEMBERS VARY FROM THE AGENDA TO ALLOW FOR OFF MOBILE PHONES PUBLIC SPEAKING

Committee Services Elizabeth House, In the event of deferred items appearing Walpole Loke, on the agenda, Ward Representatives will Dereham, , NR19 1EE be notified accordingly in advance.

Date: 22 December 2005

Please ask for Julie Britton (01362) 656343 e-mail: [email protected] Development Control Committee 9 January 2006

PART A – ITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Page(s) herewith 1. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2005. 6 - 15

2. APOLOGIES

To receive apologies for absence.

3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

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

4. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (IF ANY)

5. REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA

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

6. URGENT BUSINESS

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

7. NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING

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

8. PLANNING POLICY NOTE

For information. 16

9. : WEST ACRES, TANNS LANE – REMOVAL OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT RESTRICTING USE OF OUTBUILDING TO HOLIDAY ANNEXE/ACCOMMODATION

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 17 - 18

10. ROUDHAM/LARLING: PROPOSED WHISKEY DISTILLERY – HARLING ROAD

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 19 - 22

agenda20060109 2 Development Control Committee 9 January 2006

Page(s) herewith 11. : UNAUTHORISED SIGNAGE OF LISTED BUILDING – THE WHITE HART INN, LONDON STREET

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 23 - 26

12. : BREACH OF CONDITION – MR ROUF, 17-19 WHITEHART STREET

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 27 - 31

13. BRECKLAND RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRE STUDY – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 32 - 36

14. MEMBERS’ INTERESTS AT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (for information)

Report of the District Solicitor. 37 - 39

15. DEFERR ED APPLICATIONS

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but 40 not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

16. ENFORCEMENT ITEMS

For information. 41 - 46

17. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications. 47

Item No. Applicant Parish

1 Mrs D H Grant North Lopham 48

2 T Scott 49 - 51

3 The Reverend James R Ashill 52 - 53 Skinner

4 Jark Resourcing Plc 54 - 55

5 Mr Robert Webb Dereham 56 - 57

6 Norfolk County Ltd Roudham/Larling 58

7 Mr L Brown 59 - 60

8 West & Childerhouse 61 - 62

9 J W Allen & Sons 63 - 64

agenda20060109 3 Development Control Committee 9 January 2006

Page(s) herewith 10 J W Allen & Sons Great Ellingham 65 - 66

11 George Edward Reay Watton 67 - 68

12 Mr Matthew Bidewell 69 - 70

13 Breckland Council 71 - 72

14 Mr John E Connolly Thetford 73 - 74

15 Mr and Mrs Allen Swaffham 75 - 76

16 Christopher John Edwards Thetford 77 - 78

17 Robert Henry Betts & Weeting 79 - 80 Florence

18 Robert Henry Betts & Betty Weeting 81 - 82

19 Mr T Tugwell 83 - 84

20 Mr P Scott 85 - 86

21 Mr & Mrs J Smith 87 - 88

22 Mr & Mrs Honeybone Bridgham 89 - 90

23 Mr & Mrs Rivett Whinburgh/Westfield 91 - 92

24 Executors of Mrs L Aldridge Banham 93 - 94

25 Banham Poultry Ltd Attleborough 95 - 96

26 Flint Estates Ltd Dereham 97 - 98

27 Mrs J Pyle 99 - 100

28 Executors of Mrs L Aldridge Banham 101 - 102

29 Mr & Mrs R Hendry Mattishall 103

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

Report of the Development Services Manager. 104 - 111

19. APPEALS DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)

Reference No. & Details Decision

agenda20060109 4 Development Control Committee 9 January 2006

Page(s) herewith APP/F2605/A/05/1186376: Dereham: Wesley Dismissed House, Dereham Road, Westfield: Appeal against a refusal to grant outline planning permission for Mr and Mrs W Downes (application reference 3PL/2005/0432/O)

20. APPLICATION DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION

3CM/2005/0031/F: Narborough: Narborough Conditional Approval Community Centre, Chalk Lane: Extension to existing community composting site to provide sorting area & 5 additional compost bins for Forward Day Centre Ltd, Kettlewell House, Austin Fields, Kings Lynn.

3CM/2005/0011/F: : Field South of Beetley Conditional Approval Common: Extraction of sand and gravel with continued processing mineral for Barker Bros Aggregates Ltd, The Green, Downham Market.

3CM/2005/0032/F: Necton: Necton Middle School: Conditional Approval Extensions to existing building providing 2 no. classbases and staff facilities for Norfolk County Council Childrens Services.

3CM/2005/0035/F: Dereham: Northgate High Conditional Approval School, Cemetary Road: Alteration of position of artificial pitch previously approved & erection of 3 tennis courts (unlit) for The Headteacher on behalf of Director of Education, Northgate High School.

agenda20060109 5 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

BRECKLAND COUNCIL

At a Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Held on Monday, 12 December 2005 at 9.30 a.m. in the Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

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

ALSO PRESENT Askew, Mr S Jordan, Mr C

In Attendance Britton, Mr G. - Principal Planning Officer Britton, Mrs J - Committee Officer Burlingham, Mrs H - Assistant Development Control Officer Chinnery, Mr J - Solicitor Daines, Mr P. - Development Services Manager Moys, Mr N - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) Neave, Miss L - Customer Contact Officer

Action By

233/05 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2005 were confirmed as correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

1) Non-Members Wishing to Address the Meeting (Minute No. 224/05)

Mr Bambridge spoke on behalf of the Ward Member for item 25 of the Schedule of Applications and not as a Norfolk County Councillor. The reason for this was that the Ward Member had declared an interest in this particular item.

2) Minute No. 229/05: 3PL/2005/1519/F

To amend ‘County Councillor’ to ‘Councillor’.

234/05 APOLOGIES

6 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By

There were no apologies for absence.

235/05 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 3)

Mr A Paines declared an interest in items 9, 10 and 14 of the Schedule of Applications and left the room whilst these items were being discussed.

236/05 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)

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

2) Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 22, 23 and 28 of the Schedule of Applications had been withdrawn.

3) In the light of amended designs being received for items 20 and 24 of the Schedule of Applications, the recommendations had accordingly been amended to approvals.

237/05 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM 7)

Mr Askew – Ward Member for item 20 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Jordan – Ward Member for item 17 of the Schedule of Applications.

238/05 THETFORD: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – BROOM COVERT, PARK (AGENDA ITEM 9)

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report which concerned revised proposals for residential development by Ashwell Developments at Kilverstone Park. It was recommended that approval be granted.

Outline planning permission had been granted in 1999 and had been renewed in 2002. Reserved matters approval had been granted for 51 dwellings at Broom Covert in July 2003 and permission for 2 further dwellings had since been granted in February 2004.

The area of Broom Covert, covered by the current application, had approval for 43 houses; the remaining 10 dwellings previously approved in this phase of development would not be affected by the current proposal.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) informed the Committee that the access arrangements had remained the same; the only difference was the type of accommodation that was being proposed. Whilst the latest proposals represented a significant increase in housing density in terms of unit numbers, this had been achieved without an increase in ground coverage. Much of the increase in dwelling numbers had resulted in the substitution of flats in place of town houses within the ‘landmark building’. The houses around the ‘landmark building’ were fairly simple with a mixture of 2

7 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By and 2½ storey properties proposed. He then displayed the elevations.

The principal planning issues raised by the proposed development related to: i) its design quality; ii) the retention of preserved trees; and iii) the adequacy of parking arrangements.

The new proposals had previously been discussed with Thetford Town Council which was in support. The Highway Authority had made comment on issues of parking provision and road layout details and two letters of objections had been received.

On the issue of visual character and density, the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) explained that the current proposal was for 83 dwellings plus 10 which had already been given planning permission, giving a total of 93 dwellings; however, most of them would be incorporated as 48 flats within the ‘landmark building’. The original character of the layout would largely be retained.

On the second issue, the retention of preserved trees, Members were informed that the current proposal meant that other trees which would have been lost would now be retained. A significant number of trees would be planted in the new development of which detailed proposals had been submitted. The proposals detailed the landscaping around the ‘landmark building’ and on land to the rear of the site. The trees to be planted would be of heavy and extra heavy standard together with hedge planting and iron railings.

Referring to the third and final issue, parking and access, the concerns raised by the Highway Authority had been resolved as the applicant had proposed visitor parking spaces around the ‘landmark building’.

Mr Butler Finbow, the applicant’s planning director was present and conveyed his thanks to Thetford Town Council and the Planning Officers of Breckland Council for working closely on this application. He felt that as the Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) had covered the various points of issue he would be more than happy to answer Members’ questions.

A number of questions were asked including:

1) “What was classed as adequate parking?”;

2) “Concern with regard to the green spaces being parked on”;

3) “Concern with regard to turning the previous town houses into flats, as they could turn into a ‘ghetto’”;

4) “Concern for the remaining trees being damaged during construction”;

5) “Would all the dwellings be available on the open market or would a number of dwellings be kept for social housing?”

In response to the first question, Mr Butler Finbow informed the Committee that the houses would have a range of 2, 3 and 4 parking 8 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By spaces, depending on the size of the house. The ‘landmark building’ would have a total of 57 parking spaces which was one less than standard. He felt that the parking was more than sufficient.

Responding to the second question, iron railings would be installed around the green spaces prohibiting cars being parked upon it, and there would be an area of visitor parking around the ‘landmark building’ which would be on a first come first served basis.

With regard to the third question, Mr Butler Finbow explained that the flats, being of a smaller unit, would now meet the affordable housing need in the area. Ornate lighting columns would also be provided around the whole of the new development, subject to Norfolk County Council’s approval, as well as wrought iron railings and cycle sheds.

In response to the fourth question, Members were advised that all the works carried out so far at Kilverstone Park had been done in accordance with the permissions. Mr Butler Finbow advised that a considerable amount of money had already been spent by Ashwell Developments on environmental issues.

Responding to the fourth and final issue, the Development Services Manager advised that the Broom Covert phase was one of a number of phases that related to Aswell Developments and that there was an element of affordable social housing being developed on another site. It was further advised that the handover of the affordable housing element would be completed in the new year. A Member felt that it would have made better sense to spread the number of social dwellings over the whole of the development. In response, the Development Services Manager reminded the Committee that the original permission had been granted in 1999 where at the time there had been a 10% land provision for affordable housing which had since been re-negotiated as built units. Members felt that as the number of dwellings on the site had been increased so should the element of social housing. The Development Services Manager advised that the legal agreement could not be changed at the reserved matters stage. This comment was supported by the Council’s Solicitor.

A Member asked whether the Committee was able to turn down the extra forty dwellings. The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) advised that the Committee did have that choice; however, Members could only base their decision on the reserved matters which was one of design, layout, and level of development and not on the social housing element. With this in mind, a Member felt that the applicant should be made to stick to the design and every minute detail should be looked at; as in his experience he felt that Ashwells had not always adhered to design issues on past developments. He also reminded the Committee that the land had formerly been reserved for a school which was subsequently not required and that the trees (the covert) were apparently lost due to past storms. In response, it was noted that the land had been allocated for a school; however, Norfolk County Council had decided against the idea, and Ashwell Developments had instead made a financial contribution to Norfolk County Council towards existing schools in the area.

9 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By

Although it was unfortunate that the Housing Policy had changed since 1999 when permission was first given, Members were once again reminded that the social housing element was not negotiable; however, there was still much concern with regard to this issue. Mr Butler Finbow offered to investigate whether any affordable housing could be provided, in the light of Members’ concerns.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for further discussion regarding the affordable housing element. It was agreed, however, that subject to minor design revisions, the proposals were generally acceptable in all other respects.

239/05 : LITTLE HALE ROAD – BREACH OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE (AGENDA ITEM 10)

In presenting this report, the Principal Planning Officer explained the history of the site and informed Members that authority was being sought to prosecute the owners/occupiers of the site which was also subject to an existing enforcement notice.

A Member felt that the Committee should show some compassion as the gentleman in question was of advanced years and was a local person. He suggested that the owner of the land be given a two year temporary permission. However, given the history of the site and that complaints were being received because no action had been taken, it was

RESOLVED that prosecution be authorised for breaching the existing enforcement notice.

240/05 : BARROWS HOLE LANE – UNAUTHORISED MOBILE HOMES (AGENDA ITEM 11)

The Principal Planning Officer presented this report and informed the Committee that as an application for temporary permission to retain the mobile homes had recently been submitted it was felt that the enforcement action should be held in abeyance for another two to three months.

RESOLVED that enforcement action be authorised but the Enforcement Notice should not be served until the application had been dealt with.

241/05 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 12)

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

Members recalled that this application had been deferred on two occasions to allow the applicant to provide a business justification for the residential occupancy of the site and his gypsy status.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that whilst personal circumstances could sometimes justify a departure from policy, these were not in this instance considered sufficient to outweigh the policy constraints. The application was therefore recommended for refusal

10 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By and enforcement action requested to seek the removal of the caravans from the land.

Mr Russell, the applicant, was present to speak to his application and quoted references from Policy HOU.6. He advised that he had spoken to the site manager at Splashes, a registered travellers’ site in Swaffham, where he had been informed that provision could not be made for the keeping of his livestock and that there was a waiting list. Mr Russell was also reluctant to move his two youngest children from full time education at Primary School. A letter had been provided from the head teacher supporting this application.

A Member felt that the Committee was in an awkward position as, on the one hand, the applicant had not caused any trouble in the community, he had a sound business and the children were being provided with an education, yet on the other hand, the Committee shouldn’t be seen to be setting a precedent. He was of the opinion that Members should follow the Officer’s recommendation of refusal but allow a suitably long period of time for the applicant to vacate the site.

After further discussion, Members felt that a sympathetic approach should be considered.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the following conditions:

1) the permission be on a 5 year temporary basis;

2) the permission be personal to the applicants; and

3) the permission be limited to accommodate one mobile home and two touring caravans for the applicants’ residential use.

242/05 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 13)

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

Reference & Details Decision

3PL/2005/0990/F: (item 1): This item was withdrawn at the Shipdham: Shipdham request of the applicant. Aerodrome: Change of use for aerodrome & erection of 3 small hangars, 1 storage building & associated landscaping work for AHC Aerospace Ltd.

11 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By

3PL/2005/1402/F: (item 2): This item was withdrawn at the Dereham: 34 – 36 Swaffham request of the applicant. Road: Demolition of extg buildings, conversion of extg building into 2 dwellings & erection of 8 new 3 storey dwellings for Mr & Mrs Meek.

3PL/2005/1473/D: (item 4): This item was considered in Thetford: Phase 2, Kilverstone conjunction with Agenda item 9 Park: Residential development (Minute No. 238/05 above comprising 83 units (mix 1,2,3 refers). and 4 bed), public open space & assoc. infrastructure for Ashwell Developments Ltd.

3PL/2005/1488/F: (item 5): This item was withdrawn at the Roudham/Larling: Feralands, request of the applicant. Roudham Road: Replacement of present staff accommodation with purpose built dwelling closer to cattery and offices for The Cat & Rabbit Rescue Centre.

3PL/2005/1500/O: (item 6): This item was withdrawn at the : The Norfolk Golf & request of the applicant. Country Club, Shipdham Road, Reymerstone: Erection of 12 holiday cabins & associated works for Norfolk Golf & Country Club.

3PL/2005/1541/F: (item 7): Approved, as recommended, Scarning: Euroview Coaching, subject to an amendment to the Garage Depot, Dereham Road: Section 106 Agreement Construction of six dwellings and requiring the payment of garages for B & L Properties. £50,000 as an affordable housing contribution and not £45,000 as previously discussed with the applicant.

3PL/2005/1549/A: (item 10): Refused as recommended and Enforcement Thetford: Kwik Save Store, enforcement action be Officers Minstergate Street: Erection of authorised for the removal of the illuminated totem pole sign for sign. Somerfield Stores Ltd.

3PL/2005/1551/O: (item 12): Members were reminded that Mattishall: Thynne House, this land was brownfield and that Thynnes Lane: Erection of one, one extra dwelling would not two storey dwelling for Mr G V exacerbate the existing highway Moore & Mrs J A Willsea. conditions to such a degree that refusal could be justified. However, the application was refused, contrary to the recommendation,on the grounds 12 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By that the proposal would represent overdevelopment and that Thynnes Lane was inadequate to serve a further dwelling.

3PL/2005/1562/CU: (item 13): Although this application had Banham: Rosary Farm, been withdrawn at the request of Road: Continue the applicant enforcement action change of use of an agricultural was requested as the current part ground floor building to a use was unauthorised and there car/lorry workshop/office had been breaches of planning

(renewal) for R Hancy and Sons. conditions.

Agreed, that enforcement action be authorised for the Enforcement unauthorised use and for Officers breaches of planning conditions.

3PL/2005/1569/A: (item 14): Refused as recommended and Enforcement Thetford: Kwik Save Store, enforcement action authorised Officers Minstergate Street: Erection of for the removal of the sign. pole sign for Somerfield Stores Ltd.

3PL/2005/1609/F: (item 18): East Refused as recommended. Tuddenham: The Beeches, Note: Mr B Rose abstained from Common Road: Sub division of voting on this matter. cartilage & erection of one dwelling for Mrs E Tibrook.

3PL/2005/1615/F: (item 20): The Principal Planning Officer Banham: Littlemoor farm, The reported that, since the Moor: Erection of conservatory publication of the report, a for Mr & Mrs P Woolerton. revised design had been received. Accordingly, the recommendation had changed to one of approval, to which the Members agreed.

3PL/2005/1624/O: (item 22): This item was withdrawn at the : Abbotts Farm, request of the applicant. Mill Road: Erection of cottage style farm workers dwelling adjacent to livestock unit for R J Smith.

3PL/2005/1626/F: (item 23): This item was withdrawn at the : Land at White House, request of the applicant. Dereham Road: Erection of 4 dwellings for Mr A Furnell.

3PL/2005/1632/CU: (item 24): Members were informed that the Attleborough: Wood Farm, applicant had since withdrawn Deopham Road: Change of use the element of retail sales and

13 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By from light commercial storage to accordingly the recommendation sui generic to allow trade & retail had been changed to one of sales of bathrooms for Mr C approval to which the Members Hawes. agreed.

3PL/2005/1643/F: (item 26): Refused as recommended. Twyford: Barn at Chop Lodge Members asked for it to be Farm: Conversion of barn to noted that the application was residential dwelling for Mr Caruth refused purely on design issues. and Ms Sewell.

3PL/2005/1650/F: (item 28): This item was withdrawn at the Swanton Morley: 19 Farrow request of the applicant. Close: Erection of 1st floor extension to side for Mr and Mrs N Doye.

3PL/2005/1675/F: (item 30): Deferred, contrary to the Swaffham: Pedlars Home recommendation; however, the Stables, Norwich Road: Proposed Development Services Manager conversion of existing barn to 2 be authorised to grant no. holiday lest and garage for permission subject to a Section Miss Pam Brackley. 106 Agreement ensuring that the properties remained as holiday accommodation. In making this decision the Committee thought it inappropriate to have a commercial concern on this site.

Notes to the Schedule of Planning Applications:

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

Schedule Item No. Speaker(s)

Agenda item 9/item 4 - Mr Butler Finbow – Applicant’s Thetford Planning Director

Agenda item 13 - Billingford Mr Russell - Applicant

7 Mr Parker – Applicant’s Agent

8 Mr Anscombe - Supporter

12 Mr Moore – Applicant Dr. Maule – Objector Mr Rodger – Parish Council, spoke against the application

15 Mr Rand - Objector

16 Mrs Gorrell – on behalf of the applicant

14 Development Control Committee 12 December 2005

Action By

17 Mrs Hill – supporter Mr Jordan – Ward Member, spoke in support of the application Mrs Wylie – Objector Mr Garrod - Applicant

18 Ms Thatcher – Supporter Mr Holmes – Supporter Mr Tilbrook – For Applicant Mr Moore – Applicant’s Agent

20 Mr Askew – Ward Member, spoke in support of the application

29 Mrs Peters - Applicant

30 Mr Butters – Town Council, in support Mr Phillips – Applicant’s Agent

31 Mrs Taylor Roberts - Applicant

Written representations taken into account Reference No. No. of Representations 3PL/2005/1402/F 7 3PL/2005/1473/D 3 3PL/2005/1500/O 5 3PL/2005/1541/F 1 3PL/2005/1546/F 1 3PL/2005/1551/O 3 3PL/2005/1582/F 1 3PL/2005/1589/O 3 3PL/2005/1594/O 5 3PL/2005/1609/F 1 3PL/2005/1623/O 1 3PL/2005/1632/CU 2 3PL/2005/1637/F 1 3PL/2005/1677/O 1 243/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (AGENDA ITEM 14)

The report was noted.

244/05 APPEALS DECISIONS (AGENDA ITEM 15)

This item was noted.

245/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (AGENDA ITEM 16)

The item was noted.

The meeting closed at 3.40 p.m.

CHAIRMAN 15 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

PLANNING POLICY NOTE

THE STRENGTH OF PLANNING POLICY IN DETERMINING PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Planning process is set up, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, to protect the public from the unacceptable planning activities of private individuals and development companies. Planning is primarily concerned to deal with issues of land use and the way they affect the environment.

The Council has a DUTY, through the Town & Planning Acts, to prepare a “District Wide” Local Plan to provide a statutory framework for planning decisions.

Breckland’s Plan contains the Council’s planning policies, which must be consistent with Government guidance, particularly with the Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs). The Local Plan now carries significant weight as it was adopted in September 1999.

The full public scrutiny of the Council’s proposals will give the Plan an exceptional weight when dealing with planning applications.

This shift towards a “Plan-led” planning system is a major feature of recent planning legislation. Under s54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the policies of the Plan, unless material considerations which are relevant to planning indicate otherwise.

PPG1 summarises the objectives of the “plan-led” system as:- • achieving greater certainty; • ensuring rational & consistent decisions; • securing public involvement in shaping local planning policies; • facilitating quicker planning decision; and • reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals. Unless there are special reasons to do otherwise, planning permissions “run with the land”, and are NOT personal licences.

The factors to be used in determining applications will relate to the effect on the “public at large” and will NOT be those that refer to private interests.

Personal circumstances of applicants “will rarely” be an influencing factor, and then, only when the planning issues are “finely balanced”.

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

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

LOCAL COUNCILS

OCCASIONALLY, THERE ARE CONFLICTS WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PARISH OR TOWN COUNCIL. WHY IS THIS?

We ask local parish and town councils to recognise that all comments received are taken into account. In 2001, about 90% of cases had agreement.

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

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

BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE – 9TH JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Liz Daniels – Development Control Officer)

NORTH LOPHAM: WEST ACRES, TANNS LANE - REMOVAL OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT RESTRICTING USE OF OUTBUILDING TO HOLIDAY/ANNEXE ACCOMMODATION 3OB/2005/0004/OB - APPLICANT: MRS D H GRANT

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 This report relates to the removal of a Section 106 Agreement imposed on an outbuilding within the curtilage of the applicant’s property to restrict its use from holiday/temporary annexe accommodation to a permanent residential dwelling.

1.2 The applicant states the need to sell the property and move to a smaller property due to changing circumstances, as the reason for the request to remove the S106 agreement.

2. KEY DECISION

This is not a key decision.

3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES

3.1 The matters(s) raised in this report fall(s) within the following Council priority(ies):

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

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission was granted in 1995 for the conversion of an outbuilding adjacent to the applicants dwelling to create a self-contained holiday unit and temporary annexe accommodation for use by visiting family members (Ref: 3OB/2005/0004/OB). The use of the building was subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

5. RELEVANT POLICY

5.1 Given that the site lies outside the designated settlement boundary for North Lopham, the following Breckland Local Plan Policies are relevant to this application;

HOU.6 – Housing in the Countryside

HOU.11 – Conversion of Outbuildings to Residential Dwellings

HOU.18 – Conversion of Outbuildings to Residential Annexes

6. CONSULTATIONS

6.1 The Parish Council strongly objects to the scheme and recommends that the original condition remains.

17

7. ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

7.1 The main issue for consideration in this case relates to whether the conversion of this outbuilding would have been acceptable at the time permission was granted in 1995. Given that the S106 Agreement specifically states that the building should only be occupied as annexe or holiday accommodation, its use as a separate dwelling was not deemed acceptable at the time of the original permission being granted.

7.2 Furthermore, under current Local Plan Policy, the applicant’s property lies in an area outside the designated settlement boundary of the village where Policy HOU.6 restricts new residential development, and Policy HOU.11 only allows the conversion of buildings to residential use in certain instances.

7.3 In this case, it is considered that the close proximity of the building to the main dwelling would make the building unsuitable for use as a separate dwelling, and would result in an unsatisfactory relationship between the properties.

8. RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That the application be refused, and the S106 Agreement upheld.

18 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 9th JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)

ROUDHAM/LARLING: PROPOSED WHISKY DISTILLERY, HARLING ROAD: NORFOLK COUNTY LTD: 3PL/2005/1586/F

SUMMARY – This report concerns proposals for a new whisky distillery and associated visitor facilities at Roudham. It is recommended that permission is refused.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report concerns a planning application for the development of a malt whisky distillery on land at Harling Road, Roudham. The scheme includes the proposed distillery and associated bonded warehousing, visitor facilities, shop and manager’s flat. The application site forms part of an agricultural field to the south-east of the built up area of Harling Road/Roudham Heath. The site lies outside the Settlement Boundary for Harling Road and within an Area of Important Landscape Quality, as defined in the Local Plan.

2. KEY DECISION

2.1 This is not a key decision.

3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES

3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report:

• A safe and healthy environment • A well planned place to live and work • A prosperous place to live and work

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Roudham & Larling Parish Council has raised objections to the proposal. Concerns raised include the location of the site outside the Settlement Boundary, the visual impact of the development, flooding risk, pollution and increased traffic.

4.2 The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the design of the proposed access and the provision of adequate turning space.

19

4.3 The Environment Agency has objected to the application on the grounds that insufficient consideration has been given to the risks of flooding and the pollution of local water resources. The East Harling IDB has raised no objection to the proposal subject to foul sewage being treated on site and there being no direct discharge of surface water to the Board’s maintained watercourse.

4.4 One letter of objection has been received raising concerns about the visual impact of the development, increased traffic and noise/smell problems. A letter of support has been received from the editor of ‘Whisky Magazine’.

5. POLICY

5.1 Relevant Local Plan policies include Policies ECO.5, ENV.1 and TOR.3. Policy ECO.5 states that new commercial developments in the countryside will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Policy ENV.1 indicates that high priority will be given to protection of Areas of Important Landscape Quality. Policy TOR.3 provides that new tourist attractions may be permitted provided that criteria relating to environmental impact and traffic are addressed.

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal planning issues raised by the proposed development relate to: i) Local Plan policy matters, ii) the likely impact of the development on the existing rural landscape, and iii) potential flooding/pollution problems.

6.2 The application site is located outside an area allocated for development in the Local Plan. The proposal therefore falls to be considered in the context of Local Plan Policy ECO.5. This policy states that new commercial developments in the countryside will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that there are particular reasons for a development not being located on an allocated or established industrial site and where development would not conflict with landscape and amenity considerations.

6.3 In support of the proposed proposal, the applicant has indicated that the site at Harling Road has been chosen because of its attractive rural location, its isolation from sources of pollution, the high quality of local groundwater and the low lying nature of the land providing relatively high humidity. It is contended that the proposal will create a unique visitor attraction and make a significant contribution to the local tourism economy.

6.4 On the basis of the information provided, it is considered that a convincing case for development in this rural location has not been made. The proposal would thus be contrary to Local Plan Policy ECO.5. Whilst a location on an established industrial estate may not be appropriate due to the particular nature of the proposal, it is considered that the use could potentially be accommodated in an established rural settlement or within an existing group of redundant buildings in the countryside. Whilst the applicant has stated that alternative locations have been considered and rejected, no further details have been provided.

20 6.5 As far as the impact of the proposed development on its immediate surroundings is concerned, it should be noted that the site lies within an Area of Important Landscape Quality, as defined in the Local Plan. Although immediately adjacent to existing commercial development to the north, the application site is situated within an attractive river valley landscape, parts of which are designated for their wildlife value. Whilst not unattractive in its own right, the proposed distillery building would nevertheless result in a significant extension of the built up area of Harling Road into the open countryside to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

6.6 Turning to the drainage issues raised, the Environment Agency has objected to the application on the grounds that an appropriate assessment of the risk of flooding has not been made. Part of the site lies within the 1:100 year fluvial floodplain, but no indication has been given as to how the land at risk of flooding will be protected or of what mitigation might be offered for the loss of flood plain. In addition, it should be noted that the application site lies over a major aquifer. Objections have been raised by the Environment Agency on the grounds that insufficient information has been provided about foul and surface water drainage arrangements and pollution prevention measures to demonstrate that contamination of groundwater would not result.

6.7 Finally, concerns have been raised locally about the likely impact of the proposed distillery on local traffic conditions and residential amenities. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged, it is not considered that the proposal would be likely to give rise to significant problems. The Highway Authority has indicated that it is satisfied that the development would not place an undue burden on the local road network. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be refused on grounds of conflict with Local Plan Policy ECO.5, harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape and potential flooding/pollution problems.

21 22 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE: 9 JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Sue Bloomfield: Enforcement Assistant)

UNAUTHORISED SIGNAGE ON A LISTED BUILDING THE WHITE HART INN, LONDON STREET, SWAFFHAM

Summary: This report concerns unauthorised replacement signage to the front elevation of a Listed Building which lies within the Conservation Area for Swaffham. It is recommended that enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of the unauthorised signage which is considered unacceptable.

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 In July 2005 a complaint was received into this office concerning the unauthorised illuminated signage at the above property. This signage replaced hand painted signs that had been there previously.

1.2 Application forms were sent but despite several conversations with the agent to date no application has been submitted for the retention of the signage.

1.3 It is unlikely that if an application were to be submitted it would receive officer support as it is considered that the signage by virtue of its unsympathetic design, materials and method of illumination would have a detrimental impact on the historic and architectural character of this Grade II Listed Building and would create an undesirable intrusion into this part of the Conservation Area.

1.3 It was also considered that the signage is contrary to Policies ENV.10, ENV.13 and ENV.28.

2. KEY DECISION

2.1 This is not a key decision.

3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES

3.1 The matter(s) raised in this report fall(s) within the following Council priority(ies):

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

4.1 The replacement signage does not have the benefit of planning permission or Listed Building Consent and as such is unauthorised.

5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE

5.1 To serve an Enforcement Notice.

5.2 To continue with requests for an application for the replacement signage.

23

6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

6.1 The service of an Enforcement Notice would enable the Authority to secure the removal of the unacceptable signage and ensure that a more sympathetic proposal be submitted which would be seen to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and protect the Statutory Listed Building.

6.2 To continue to request an application would be fruitless as any application submitted is unlikely to receive officer support.

6.3 To take no further action would be unacceptable as the Authority must be seen where possible to protect the Listed Building and prevent any development which would be detrimental to the Conservation Area.

7. RECOMMENDATION(S)

7.1 To take enforcement action as outlined in 5.1 above.

Appendices:

Site Plan Photographs

24 25 26 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE: 9 JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Sue Bloomfield: Enforcement Assistant)

BREACH OF CONDITION MR ROUF, 17 – 19 WHITEHART STREET, THETFORD

Summary: This report concerns breaches of conditions imposed on planning permission 3PL/2001/1026/F requiring details of the air conditioning units and an odour arrestment system . The building is a Grade II Listed Building and lies within the Conservation Area for Thetford. It is recommended that enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of the existing odour arrestment system which was installed without first seeking the authorisation of the planning authority and to ensure that this system is replaced by one acceptable to the planning authority and that attenuation be applied to the fans and air conditioning units to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed the existing background level by more than 5dB(A).

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 Planning permission was granted in December 2001 for change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (takeaway) under reference 3PL/2001/1026/F. At the time of granting planning permission conditions were imposed which required the applicant to provide full details of the proposed chiller and air conditioning units and a scheme for the introduction of an odour arrestment system to the extraction system, these details were to be provided before work commenced on site. Work commenced and to date no details have ever been received.

1.2 At the end of last year the department was contacted by a colleague from Environmental Health expressing concerns on behalf of the neighbouring property (The Thetford Museum). She had visited the site and observed that the odour arrestment system installed did not include any filtration system, that the stack had been fitted with a conical top, and that the discharges were at a level lower than the surrounding buildings and that these combined factors resulted in an unacceptable level of odour within the vicinity during times that the kitchen is in use.

1.3 At the same time the Historic Building Officer expressed his concerns that the appearance of the flue was detrimental to the setting of the Listed Building and so negotiations commenced with the owner to provide an acceptable replacement.

2. KEY DECISION

2.1 This is not a key decision.

3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES

3.1 The matter(s) raised in this report fall(s) within the following Council priority(ies):

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

4.1 Despite letters being sent to Mr Rouf and two site meetings at which the owner assured us that the problem would be addressed, no details as required have been submitted, which now leaves us with no option other than to seek the removal of the existing flue and secure a suitable replacement.

27

5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE

5.1 To serve an Enforcement Notice.

5.2 To take no further action.

6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

6.1 The building is Listed and lies within the Conservation Area for Thetford. The existing flue, the details of which have not been agreed prior to its installation by the Local Planning Authority is considered to be ineffective and causing both a visual and odour problem to the neighbouring property. The service of a Notice would enable us to ensure that the flue is replaced to one considered satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority

6.2 To take no further action would be unacceptable as the Authority must be seen where possible to protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

7. RECOMMENDATION(S)

7.1 To take enforcement action as outlined in 5.1 above.

Appendices:

Site Plan Photographs

28 29 30 31 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 9th JANUARY 2006 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL 1 – 12th JANUARY 2006

FOR INFORMATION REPORT OF THE OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – (Author: David Spencer, Senior Planning Policy Officer)

BRECKLAND RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRE STUDY – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Summary: This report informs Members of the contents of the Breckland Retail and Town Centre Study (October 2004) which has been prepared for the Council by independent Planning and Retail consultants Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In April 2004 Breckland Council appointed national retail planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners to prepare a town centre and retail study to inform preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) and update a previous study undertaken in 1996. The study looked in detail at the five main retail centres within the authority area – Dereham, Thetford, Swaffham, Attleborough and Watton.

1.2 The Study provides the following information: • An overview of national, regional and local policy on retail planning • Results of a survey on the shopping habits of 1,000 households in Breckland • Results of a survey of the views and future plans of current retailers. • Analysis of the five main retail centres – number and types of shops, environment, accessibility and property indicators • A detailed assessment of the need for new retail development (2004-2014) • Assessment of the need for new commercial leisure development (2004- 2014) • The scope for accommodating further growth – including potential town centre opportunities.

1.3 The Study was completed in October 2004 and will now form part of the evidence base for the LDF. However, it also has an increasing practical application as proposals for retail development are submitted in advance of the LDF being finalised.

2. KEY DECISION

2.1 This is not a key decision.

3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES

3.1 The matter raised in this report falls within the following Council priority:

• A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities

32 4. Equalities, Human Rights and Crime & Disorder

4.1 This report has taken account of the need for compliance with the Council’s Equal Opportunities Policy and the requirements of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

5. Planning for Retail and Town Centres

5.1 The overall objectives of the planning system for retail development and town centres are contained in Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) and can be summarised as follows: • To focus development in town centres in an attempt to promote their vitality and viability • To improve consumer choice by providing a range of shops and services for the whole community • All developments will be accessible through various transport options • To promote high-quality design and make efficient use of land in town centres • To encourage cleaner, safer, greener town centres

5.2 In broad terms PPS6 states that when preparing LDFs authorities should: • accommodate identified need in existing centres to strengthen and consolidate them • make better use of existing land and buildings in existing centres • identify the role and function of existing centres and where appropriate promote or develop a specialist or new role The Retail and Town Centre Study identifies the need for new retail and commercial leisure development over the period to 2014 and identifies a number of town centre opportunities for consideration when preparing the LDF.

5.3 Clearly the focus of retail planning is town centres, however, out-of-town retailing is not ruled out by national or local planning policy. However, there are a number of strict tests that any developer promoting out-of-town retail or commercial leisure developments must demonstrate and these are: 1. There is a need for the development 2. The vitality and viability of the town centre will not be harmed 3. There are no available town centre sites (the sequential test) 4. The site is accessible

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 A summary of the main findings of the study are outlined at Appendix A.

7. OPTIONS AVAILABLE

7.1 There are no options available.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

8.1 This report is for information.

33 9. RECOMMENDATION(S)

9.1 Note the contents of this report.

Appendices:

Appendix A – Breckland Retail and Town Centre Study – Summary of Findings

This report has taken account of the need for compliance with the Council’s Equal Opportunities Policy and the requirements of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This report raises no matters to which attention specifically needs to be drawn under the legislation.

34 Appendix A – Breckland Retail and Town Centre Study – Summary of Findings

Introduction

The main text of the Study is 130 pages, with a further 50 pages of technical appendices. Its findings will be used to inform the preparation of policy and site selection in the Local Development Framework. The sites identified by the Study are the recommendations of independent consultants of sites that are suitable for retail or commercial leisure development. It will be through the LDF process to consider these options in the round with other competing land-use demands in town centres.

Set out below is a brief summary of some of the key findings. In order to visualise the floorspaces outlined below the following table may be of assistance.

Store Retail Floorspace Tesco - Dereham 3,050sqm Tesco - Kilverstone, Thetford 4,750sqm Sainsburys – Attleborough 2,300sqm Tesco – Watton 1,110sqm Waitrose – Swaffham 2,300sqm

Identified Need

Convenience (food) Retailing

There is no immediate need for additional food floorspace in the District (2004-07). However, in the longer term we will need for 1,500sqm of new supermarket floorspace and 700sqm of new small food shops by 2014.

There is no need for any additional new large foodstores in Dereham and Thetford. However, both Dereham and Thetford could sustain a further “top-up” foodstore to enhance “offer”.

There is no need for additional foodstores in Attleborough, Swaffham and Watton – although there is evidence from the retail study that superstores in Dereham draw significant trade from Swaffham and Watton.

Comparison (Non-food) Retailing

The study proves that Breckland is leaking significant expenditure to competing centres (mainly Norwich). About 60% of available non-food expenditure in Breckland households is spent outside the District.

Given the influence of Norwich (and to a lesser extent King’s Lynn and Bury St Edmunds) the Study says it would be “unrealistic to assume that the District can claw back a significant level of expenditure leakage in the future”.

35 However, it is important that Breckland towns are not undermined and as much expenditure is retained as is realistically achievable. On this basis the Study recommends that:

Available expenditure could support 3,800sqm of new high street non-food floorspace by 2010 – mainly in the south of the District (Thetford) Expenditure projections could also support 2,100sqm of new retail warehouse floorspace up to 2010 – again, mainly in the south of the District (Thetford)

Commercial Leisure Theoretically Thetford could sustain a small 3 screen cinema, but this is very much dependent on the impact of the new multiplex in Bury St Edmunds. There is “market share” to sustain large private health clubs in Dereham and Thetford in 2014. Dereham could sustain a bingo hall, Thetford a small tenpin bowling facility and both towns could support further nightclub provision. The District in general can support more restaurants and bars.

Accommodating Need

Existing vacant premises are insufficient to meet the above need.

In order to stop leakage and limit over-trading/congestion in existing stores the Council needs to identify development opportunities in the LDF

The study identifies 5 sites in Thetford, 6 in Dereham, 1 in Swaffham, 3 in Attleborough and 8 in Watton. In the case of Dereham, the town centre redevelopment scheme has absorbed immediate need and in the case of Thetford, the former Kwik Save site is the immediate redevelopment opportunity.

Copies of the Study are available from the Planning Policy Team on a CD-Rom. Paper copies can be inspected in the main offices at Elizabeth House.

For further information please contact: David Spencer, Senior Planning Policy Officer – 01362 656889

36 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE: 9 January 2006

REPORT OF THE DISTRICT SOLICITOR (Author: John Chinnery)

FOR INFORMATION

MEMBERS’ INTERESTS AT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE and PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Summary: A: Some extracts from a recent article are set out, showing the importance of Members not taking part in planning decisions if they appear to be biased or come to the committee with their minds already decided on application. B: An extract is also included from a legal textbook on taking into account personal circumstances when considering an application.

A:Interests

The attention of Members is drawn to some remarks made by a barrister in an article in a recent edition of the “Journal of Planning Law” on the subject of Members taking part in planning decisions when they are biased. The following extracts are taken word for word from that article, and are therefore the views of the author of the article, Mr. James Findley.

1. Local objectors and commercial competitors see councillor conduct as an increasingly fruitful ground of challenge against grants of planning permission. In recent cases the Courts have shown a greater willingness to find the appearance of bias or in particular a closed mind.

2. Richardson v. North Yorkshire CC [2003]. It was held in this case that in respect of paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct all councillors with a prejudicial interest ought to withdraw from any meeting even if they are not part of the decision making committee itself. Secondly, such a councillor, although not a member of the decision making committee, could not remain in his private capacity even to defend a personal interest.

3. The test for bias in relation to a particular councillor who participates in the decision making itself is: “Would a fair minded observer knowing the background consider that there was a real possibility of bias arising from the particular councillor being a member of the decision making body?” In addition the Courts will consider: “whether from the point of view of the fair minded and informed observer, there was a real possibility that the Planning Committee or some of its members were biased in the sense of approaching the decision with a closed mind and without impartial consideration of the planning issues”.

4. R. (on the application of Cummins) v. Camden LBC [2001]: The judge accepted that when local authorities were considering applications which concerned their own land they have to be “particularly scrupulous” to avoid taking irrelevant considerations into account. There was a difference between predisposition and predetermination – the former being acceptable, and the latter not. His view was that membership of other committees that had previously considered the matter did not give rise [necessarily] to bias, but did give rise to concern as to predetermination. What had to be considered in such circumstances was whether councillors had approached the [planning] decision with closed minds.

G:\General\WORDDATA\Committee\REPORTS\2005\Planning JSC.doc - 1 - 37 5. Bovis Homes v. New Forest DC [2002]: The Chairman of the Planning Committee was also a member of an outside body, the New Forest Committee, and she had expressed strong views on a planning matter. The judge considered that the membership of the outside body was a personal external interest and that there was a real danger of bias. The judge considered that the Chairman should not have been at the meeting that determined the local plan designation – that was enough to have the decision quashed notwithstanding that there was a preponderance of unbiased persons at the meeting which would have ensured the same result.

6. Partingdale Lane Residents Association v. Barnet LBC [2003]: This concerned a decision by a member of the Executive to make a road traffic regulation order. That he had made a clear manifesto commitment to make the Order was not considered enough to demonstrate predetermination. However he had also made it clear to a local resident that he was going to re-open the road. He had reiterated this determination in e-mails and at a Policy conference. All this occurred prior to the consultation process. The Councillor had overstepped the mark and had demonstrated by a course of conduct over some time that his mind was made up.

7. Georgiou v. Enfield LBC [2004]: The Court held that where some of the councillors on the planning committee were also members of the Council’s Conservation Area Group which had previously endorsed the proposal, there was a real possibility that the three “dual“ members approached the decision with closed minds and without impartial consideration of the planning issues. The test was objective. The judge recommended that any person with dual membership should ensure that they expressly disassociate themselves from any conclusion reached by one body before taking part in the decision making process in the second and subsequent body.

8. Ghadami v. Harlow DC [2004]: This related to the involvement of the Chairman of Planning Committee and was based on the close relationship of the Chairman with the developers and his determination that the development should go ahead. The judge found, applying an objective approach, that the involvement of the Chairman prior to the decision would cause a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that he had made up his mind in favour of the proposed development and that he would approach the matter with a closed mind and without impartial consideration of the relevant planning issues.

9. The importance of fair and balanced reports is clearly evident. Councils should give thought in seeking to pre-empt challenges to taking steps to ensure that the decision making process is as objectively fair as possible. Where pressure groups are involved, steps can be taken to avoid the appearance of pre-determination or bias by councillors keeping their own counsel until the relevant decision comes to be taken [in planning committee] and ensuring that any view that they state is provisional (and realistically so). As to developers, it is vital that councillors do not prejudice their position by appearing convinced or prejudiced before the [planning] decision is taken.

B. Personal Circumstances. The following is an extract from the Encyclopedia of . Planning: “Personal circumstances or ‘the human factor’ are always present in the background to the consideration of the character of land use, but may sometimes be given direct effect in development control as an exceptional or special circumstance: they may be weighed in the balance whenever other planning considerations are not decisive. Similarly, it would be right, in a case where other planning considerations did not compel a different view, to bear in mind that the proper application of planning policy required that it should be fairly administered; and that the planning history of a site might require the grant of permission to achieve fairness, where all other things are equal.”

G:\General\WORDDATA\Committee\REPORTS\2005\Planning JSC.doc - 2 - 38 Eight cases are quoted to support these statements. The bold emphasis has been added.

G:\General\WORDDATA\Committee\REPORTS\2005\Planning JSC.doc - 3 - 39 BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 9 January 2005 SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETING DEVELOPMENT REASON FOR DEFERMENT FIRST SERVICES REPORTED TO MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION 3PL/2005/1441/F: North Tuddenham: Street Farm, Low Road: 14/11/05 Approval Deferred, to enable the applicant to Installation of 20m high telecommunications tower, 3 antennas, provide information on alternative siting. 2 dish antenna, radio equip. housing & ancill. For Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd.

3PL/2005/1473/D: Thetford: Broom Covert, Kilverstone Park: 12/12/05 Approval Deferred, for further discussion Proposed residential development for Ashwell Developments regarding the affordable housing Ltd. element.

A15 Deferred Items 40

BRECKLAND COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL DEPARTMENT

ENFORCEMENT ITEMS – JANUARY 2006

1. THETFORD – MR OATRIDGE, 60 BURY ROAD (2003/0381) Unauthorised works to Listed Building. Enforcement action authorised 21 July 2003 to secure replacement joinery. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Legal 12 August 2003. Requisition for Information served. Enforcement Notice served, effective from 7 February 2004, has until 7 February 2005 to comply. Amended Notice served, effective from 3 March 2004, has until 3 March 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted. Appeal upheld but Notice quashed, amended instructions based on Inspectors requirements sent to Legal 1 September 2004. Amended Notice served 30 November 2004, effective from 11 January 2005, has until 11 May 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted. Appeal dismissed 14 September 2005, has until 14 January 2006 to comply.

2. DEREHAM – MR SINGFIELD, CANTERBURY HOUSE, MARKET PLACE (2004/0290) Unauthorised signage in Listed Building. Enforcement action authorised 7 June 2004. Signage inside the windows has been reduced to acceptable level, further application has been requested for two large yellow signs fixed to the building. Instructions to serve Discontinuance Notice sent to Steeles 20 October 2004. Notice served 8 December 2004, effective from 21 February 2005, has 14 days from this date to comply. Appeal submitted 22 February 2005. Appeal dismissed, has 2 months from date of appeal decision (5 May 2005) to comply. Prosecution instructions sent to Steeles 7 July 2005. Prosecution hearing to take place in Magistrates court 13 September 2005. Mr Singfield pleaded not guilty to charges, further hearing to take place 2 November 2005. Hearing adjourned, trial to take place on 17th January 2006.

3. DEREHAM – MR GORE, MOORGATE HOUSE, SOUTH GREEN, DEREHAM (2004/0291) Unauthorised works to windows in Listed Building. Enforcement action authorised 7 June 2004. Site meeting held on 10 June 2004 to discuss remedial works, Historic Buildings Officer agreed time period of 15 months in which to carry out the agreed works to all 30 windows, this extended time period has been agreed as the works are only able to be carried out during the summer months and there is quite a large financial implication as the applicant had already spent a substantial amount of money having the new windows inserted. Inspection carried out by Historic Buildings Officer, works have not been carried out as required. Works not carried out as required, letter sent to Mr Gore. Works have been carried out to one window, site meeting arranged for 5 December 2005, if works acceptable other windows will be replaced.

4. SWANTON MORLEY – MISS CADE, DERWENT, WOODGATE LANE (2004/0357) Retrospective application for continued use of stable building for keeping of dogs. Enforcement action authorised 19 July 2004 to secure cessation of use. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to legal department 4 August 2004. Enforcement Notice served 17 September 2004, effective from 25 October 2004, has until 25 January 2005 to comply. New Notice served 30 November 2004, effective from 3 January 2005, has until 3 April 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted 4 February 2005. Appeal withdrawn, has 3 months from 28 October 2005 to comply with requirements of original Notice.

41

5. MATTISHALL – MRS MOONEY, MANANA, MILL ROAD (2004/0390) Unauthorised use of pig weaner unit for dog breeding, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004 to secure cessation of the use and to tidy the site. Instructions to serve Notice sent to Legal 20 August 2004. New application submitted for dog breeding unit with external runs. New application refused. Email sent to Steeles 6 January 2005 to re-commence enforcement proceedings. Enforcement Notice served 25 April 2005, effective from 21 June 2005, has until 21 October 2005 to comply. Appeal lodged against 2nd planning refusal.

6. MATTISHALL – MRS MOONEY, MANANA, MILL ROAD (2004/0391) Unauthorised mobile home, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004 to secure the removal of the mobile home. Instructions to serve Notice sent to Legal 20 August 2004. Email sent to Steeles 6 January 2005 to re-commence enforcement proceedings. Enforcement Notice served 25 April 2005, effective from 21 June 2005, has until 21 October 2005 to comply. Action suspended pending outcome of appeal against the use of the unit.

7. – MR GRIFFIN, LAND ADJ FORMER WINDMILL (2004/0393) Unauthorised mobile homes, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to legal 25th August 2004. Enforcement Notice served 5 October 2004, effective from 11 November 2004, has until the 11 February 2005 to comply. Appeal lodged 13 December 2004. Appeal Dismissed 11 August 2005, period of compliance extended to 6 months by Inspector, final compliance date 11 February 2006.

8. MILEHAM – PREMIER LETTINGS, REAR OF THE LODGE, THE STREET (2004/0395) Unauthorised use of outbuilding, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004.

9. – MR GARNER, LAND WEST OF PLOUGHBOY LANE (2004/0514) Application for CLUED in respect of soil storage and crushing refused 18 October 2004, enforcement action authorised to secure cessation of soil storage and crushing, action also authorised for fence and other unauthorised storage. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 15 November 2004. New application submitted 3PL/2005/0769/EU. CLUED refused, enforcement action re-commenced. Enforcement Notice served 28 September 2005, effective from 10 November 2005, has until 10 January 2006 to comply. [was there no appeal submitted?]

10. ATTLEBOROUGH – MR MUTLU, 11 EXCHANGE STREET (2004/0563) Retrospective application for signage refused 8 November 2004, enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of the signs. Instructions to serve enforcement notice sent to Steeles 14 December 2004. Signage has changed, seeking further advice. Enforcement Notice served 3 August 2005, effective from 2 September 2005, has until 2 January 2006 to comply. Appeal submitted. Enforcement appeal received 18 August 2005, accepted by Planning Inspectorate 25 October 2005.

42

11. HARLING – MR FREEMAN, THE OLD BULL INN, MARKET STREET (2004/0644) Retrospective application to paint building refused 20 December 2004. Enforcement action authorised to secure removal of the paint. New application submitted. Subsequent planning permission granted for removal of render and paint, limewash west and south. Historic Buildings Officer to inspect.

12. – MR AND MRS DANIELS, WICKEN FARM (2005/0020) Retrospective application for demolition of existing and erection of new farm store and workshop/garage refused 17 January 2005. Enforcement action authorised to secure removal of the store and workshop/garage. Instructions to serve Notice sent to Steeles 11 February 2005. Appeal lodged against planning refusal 28 February 2005. Enforcement Notice served 18 March 2005, effective from 22 April 2005, has until 22 October 2005 to comply. Appeal lodged against Enforcement Notice 3 June 2005. Appeal dismissed against planning refusal 25 July 2005, awaiting decision of planning inspector for appeal against Enforcement Notice.

13. – MR GARDINER, LAND AT HEATH ROAD (2005/0128) Retrospective planning application for shed refused, enforcement action authorised 21 March 2005 to secure removal of shed. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 19 April 2005. Enforcement Notice served 31 May 2005, effective from 4 July 2005, has until 4 September 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted against planning refusal 8 July 2005. Appeal lodged against Enforcement Notice 18 August 2005.

14. – NORFOLK GAMES & FRAMES, FAKENHAM ROAD (2005/0131) Retrospective application for advertising sign refused. Enforcement action authorised 28 February 2005 to secure removal, action to be deferred for a period of 1 year.

15. – MR P DUNNING, 47 HARGHAM ROAD (2005/0187) House and garage not erected as approved. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to ensure garage rebuilt as approved. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 25 May 2005. Enforcement Notice served 1 July 2005, effective from 5 August 2005, has until 5 December 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted against Enforcement Notice.

16. SWAFFHAM – MR M CARROLL, THE GRANGE, LYNN ROAD (2005/0251) Unauthorised change of use of residential garden land and adjoining agricultural field. Enforcement action authorised 23 May 2005. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 13 June 2005. Two Enforcement Notices served 2 August 2005, effective from 14 September 2005, has until 14 November 2005 to comply. [need an update following Deb’s recent dealings]

17. BRISLEY – MR & MRS HORNE, POND FARM, FAKENHAM ROAD (2005/0252) Unauthorised mobile home, ancillary buildings and concrete hardstanding. Enforcement action authorised 23 May 2005 to secure removal. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 16 June 2005. Enforcement Notice served 10 August 2005, effective from 14 September 2005, have until 14 March 2006 to comply.

43

18. BEESTON – NORFOLK FARM PRODUCE LTD, HERNE LANE (2005/0253) Unauthorised earth bund. Enforcement action authorised 23 May 2005 to secure removal. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 10 June 2005. Served 18 July 2005, effective on 22 August 2005, has until 22 November 2005 to comply. Appeal submitted against Enforcement Notice. Appellant has indicated that the bund is to be removed.

19. THETFORD – SAVERS HEALTH & BEAUTY PLC, 39-41 KING STREET (2005/0272) Unauthorised signage, enforcement action authorised to secure removal of both the fascia signage and the projecting sign. Negotiations taking place to secure acceptable replacement signage, scheme should be submitted into office in next 2 weeks (week ending 5 August 2005). Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 2 September2005. Amended proposals for signage received, considered acceptable. Awaiting details of time scale in which signage will be replaced.

20. OVINGTON – MR G SMITH, REDHILL LANE (2005/0291) Unauthorised use of caravan for residential use. Enforcement action authorised 13 June 2005 to secure removal of caravan and all unauthorised structures and material. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 15 July 2005. Enforcement notice served 5 September 2005, takes effect 17th October 2005, has until 17th February 2006 to comply. Appeal submitted.

21. DEREHAM – MR SARI, 5 QUEBEC STREET (2005/0296) Breach of condition relating to opening hours. Enforcement action authorised 13 June 2005 to secure compliance with the condition. Instructions to serve Breach of Condition Notice sent to Steeles 7 July 2005. Breach of Condition Notice served, effective immediately, has 28 days to comply. Tenancy of property has changed, application submitted by new tenant to vary hours of opening. New tenant has vacated property, trying to establish current tenants.

22. WATTON – MS CASHLEY, THE WILLOW HOUSE, NORWICH ROAD (2005/0297) Unauthorised advertising sign. Enforcement action authorised 13 June 2005 to secure removal of the sign. Instructions to serve Discontinuance Notice sent to Steeles 5 August 2005. Discontinuance Notice served 16 September 2005, notice effective from 11 November 2005, has 28 days from this date to discontinue the display of the advertisement. Ms Cashleys solicitors have made contact with office, negotiations taking place to resolve situation. Meeting to be held with planning officer to negotiate acceptable scheme.

23. DEREHAM – MR G WOODLEY, 10 ROAD (2005/0345) Unauthorised banner sign. Enforcement action authorised 4 July 2005 to ensure removal of the sign. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 18 July 2005. Matter to be dealt with by way of undertakings to remove the signage at the end of the permitted 6 month period.

24. BRISLEY – MR B W LUCAS, NO 1 POND FARM, FAKENHAM ROAD (2005/0341) Unauthorised stationing of mobile home, utility room and touring caravan for residential use. Enforcement Notice served 1 August 2005, effective 12 September 2005, has until 12 January 2006 to comply.

44

25. DEREHAM – MR & MRS WORLEDGE, MILL-VUE FARM, BADLEY MOOR (2005/0388) Application for erection of dwelling ancillary to agricultural engineers refused. Enforcement action authorised 25 July 2005 for removal of the caravan. (Committee recommended period of nine months be given to comply with notice). Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 25 August 2005. New application for caravan submitted, so progress of enforcement action suspended pending the outcome of the application

26. GRESSENHALL – MR LUCAS, LAND TO REAR DODSON DRIVE (2005/0427) Enforcement action authorised 15 August 2005 to secure removal of unauthorised roadway. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 9 September 2005. Enforcement Notice served 17 October 2005, takes effect 28th November 2005, has three months to comply.

27. THETFORD – MR MOREIRA/LEITE, LAND TO REAR OF 49 CASTLE STREET (2005/0428) Enforcement action authorised 15 August 2005 to secure cessation of unauthorised businesses and the removal of the unauthorised shed. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 12 September 2005, awaiting return of requisitions for information. Enforcement Notices served 21 October 2005, effective from 2 December 2005, has until 2 February 2006 to comply.

28. – MRS LOND-CAULK, ALLCREST, THE STREET (2005/0455) Planning application for 3 bedroomed bungalow refused. Enforcement action authorised 5 September 2005 to ensure that existing building works comply with submitted details. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 13 October 2005. Appeal lodged against planning refusal. Requisitions for information served.

29. OLD BUCKENHAM – MR FLYNN, RODWELLS, PUDDLEDOCK (2005/0479) Planning application for mobile home refused, enforcement action authorised for its removal by Development Control Committee on 26 September 2005 but requested that applicant be given 2 years to comply with Notice. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 18 October 2005. Enforcement Notice served 28 November 2005, effective from 9 January 2006, has until 9 January 2008 to comply.

30. BANHAM – MR SMITH, HEATH ROAD (2005/0480) Application for Certificate of Lawful Use refused by Development Control Committee on 26 September 2005, enforcement action authorised to re-instate the land to its original condition and the removal of all equipment and materials associated with any use other than agriculture. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 12 October 2005.

31. WATTON – GARNER GROUNDWORKS, REAR OF 9 HIGH STREET (2005/0510) Planning application for starter homes refused. Enforcement action authorised 5th September 2005 to secure cessation of works on site and the removal of all unauthorised works. New application pending.

32. SWAFFHAM – MR BUCHAN, 113 LONDON STREET (2005/0530) Retrospective application for extension refused by Development Control Committee 17 October 2005. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 8 November 2005.

45

33. – MR HOLLAND, CASTLE HILL GARAGE, NEW BUCKENHAM Enforcement action authorised 17 October 2005 to ensure site is cleared of any redundant/scrap vehicles and that it is tidied to an acceptable level. Site inspection carried out 21 November 2005, site has been cleared to an acceptable level. Mr Holland informed no further action would be taken at this time.

46 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

Item Applicant Parish Reference No. No. 1 Mrs D H Grant NORTH LOPHAM 3OB/2005/0004/OB 2 T Scott GRISTON 3PL/2005/1367/F 3 The Reverend James R Skinner ASHILL 3PL/2005/1461/F 4 Jark Resourcing Plc ICKBURGH 3PL/2005/1490/O 5 Mr Robert Webb DEREHAM 3PL/2005/1518/F 6 Norfolk County Ltd ROUDHAM/LARLING 3PL/2005/1586/F 7 Mr L Brown ROCKLANDS 3PL/2005/1630/F 8 West & Childerhouse ATTLEBOROUGH 3PL/2005/1631/F 9 J W Allen & Sons GREAT ELLINGHAM 3PL/2005/1639/LB 10 J W Allen & Sons GREAT ELLINGHAM 3PL/2005/1640/F 11 George Edward Reay WATTON 3PL/2005/1654/O 12 Mr Matthew Bidewell BRISLEY 3PL/2005/1684/F 13 Breckland Council NECTON 3PL/2005/1685/O 14 Mr John E Connolly THETFORD 3PL/2005/1697/F 15 Mr and Mrs Allen SWAFFHAM 3PL/2005/1700/F 16 Christopher John Edwards THETFORD 3PL/2005/1710/CU 17 Robert Henry Betts & Florence WEETING 3PL/2005/1724/F 18 Robert Henry Betts & Betty WEETING 3PL/2005/1725/F 19 Mr T Tugwell MILEHAM 3PL/2005/1729/F 20 Mr P Scott SCARNING 3PL/2005/1736/CU 21 Mr & Mrs J Smith BRIDGHAM 3PL/2005/1745/F 22 Mr & Mrs Honeybone BRIDGHAM 3PL/2005/1747/F 23 Mr & Mrs Rivett WHINBURGH/WESTFIELD 3PL/2005/1748/O 24 Executors of Mrs L Aldridge BANHAM 3PL/2005/1749/O 25 Banham Poultry Ltd ATTLEBOROUGH 3PL/2005/1755/F 26 Flint Estates Ltd DEREHAM 3PL/2005/1761/CU 27 Mrs J Pyle MATTISHALL 3PL/2005/1767/F 28 Executors of Mrs L Aldridge BANHAM 3PL/2005/1773/O 29 Mr & Mrs R Hendry MATTISHALL 3PL/2005/1786/O

47 DC131 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 1 REPORT TO COMMITTEE

REF NO: 3OB/2005/0004/OB

Planning Obligation LOCATION: NORTH LOPHAM APPN TYPE: West Acres POLICY: Tanns Lane ALLOCATION: N

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mrs D H Grant West Acres Tanns Lane TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Mrs D H Grant West Acres Tanns Lane

PROPOSAL: Removal of Section 106 agreement restricting use to holiday/temporary accommodation

CLERK TO N LOPHAM P C The Parish Council strongly objects to the application and would ask that original conditions apply.

RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation made 1950 SEE MAIN AGENDA ITEM

DC131 48 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 2 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1367/F

Full LOCATION: GRISTON APPN TYPE: Former Community Centre POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Watton Road ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: T Scott The Hollies Church Road TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Adrian Morley Kingsfold Watton Road

PROPOSAL: Conversion of community centre to 12no. dwellings and 4no. dwellings within site (Revised application)

KEY ISSUES Impact on village character and local amenities.

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

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO GRISTON P C See letter dated 19th October 2005.

Further comments awaited.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * It is proposed to convert a former social club building in Griston into 12 dwellings. The building was formerly used as a prison officers’ social club in conjunction with Wayland Prison. It has been vacant for several years. * It is also proposed to erect 4 new dwellings on land to the rear of the former social club. These dwellings would comprise the affordable housing element of the proposal. * The application site falls within the Settlement Boundary for Griston, and is surrounded by residential development. The site is considered to be suitable in principle for redevelopment for housing. * The proposal has aroused a good deal of interest locally. Letters of objection have been received from local residents concerned about the scale of development, its impact on village character, loss of residential amenity and increased traffic.

DC131 49 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* In response, amendments to the proposal have been made in an effort to address local concerns. These include redesigning the conversion scheme to provide houses rather than flats. Changes have also been made to the layout of the 4 new dwellings in order to reduce their impact on neighbouring properties. * Subject to the amendments referred to above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. It is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions and to a legal agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing.

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Permission

CONDITIONS: 3007 Full Permission Time Limit (3 years) 3048 In accordance with submitted AMENDMENTS 3104 External materials to be approved 3304 No P.D. rights for extensions, sheds, etc 3405 Fencing/walls - details and implementation 3414 Fencing protection for existing trees 3406 Surfacing - details and construction 3712 Access and car park laid out prior to use 3722 Turning space to be constructed 3738 Clearance of visibility splays 3992 Non-standard note re: S106

DC131 50 51 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 3 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1461/F

Full LOCATION: ASHILL APPN TYPE: Ashill Methodist Church POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Hale Road ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: The Reverend James R Skinner The Wymondham, Attleborough & Watton TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Peter W Moore 27 Bancroft Close Stoke Holy Cross

PROPOSAL: Conversion of redundant church to residential unit

KEY ISSUES * No car parking provision on site.

POLICY NOTES Policies TRA.5 and TRA.9 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. TRA.5 Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted. TRA.9 Parking provision will be required in accordance with adopted standards.

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO ASHILL P C No objection to actual conversion to residential but concern expressed regarding sewer which is already a problem in Chapel Lane. Also must inform you that the proposed access into Chapel Lane is onto a private road and permission will be required from residents for this to be used. Would like a condition that there is no parking allowed to front of building as access from Chapel Lane onto Hale Road is already very dangerous and any parking in front would restrict view even more. These concerns were raised previously when application was made for additional dwelling at 3 Chapel Lane which was refused.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application proposes the residential conversion of this former Methodist Chapel located off Hale Road, Ashill. * The principle of the conversion and the scheme of works is considered acceptable, however no

DC131 52 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

on-site parking provision would be available to its occupants. * Whilst the agent has advised that space for one car could be made available by the removal of the railings at the front of the building, the Highways Authority has stated that this would be wholly unacceptable. * The space available is not only considered inadequate for the purpose but its use would reduce visibility from the adjacent Chapel Lane onto Hale Road. * Four letters of objection have been received from neighbouring occupiers concerned that Chapel Lane would be used by the occupiers, that visibility at the junction would be harmed and likely pressure would be placed on the existing private sewer. * The agent for the application advises that drainage would be to the mains sewer only. * The application is recommended for refusal due to lack of parking provision which would ultimately result in highway danger.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 D.W.L.P. Policy TRA.9 and parking provision.

DC131 53 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 4 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1490/O

Outline LOCATION: ICKBURGH APPN TYPE: Three Cornerfield POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Ashburton Road ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Jark Resourcing Plc Beechurst Commercial Road TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Carpenter Planning Consultants in assoc. with Bidwells 1 Ferry Road

PROPOSAL: Erection of agricultural dwelling

KEY ISSUES Agricultural dwelling. Functional and financial need.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.6 and ENV.1 of the Breckland District Local Plan and PPS7 are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities. ENV.1 - Development will not be permitted in the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens except in exceptional circumstances. PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

CHAIRMAN TO ICKBURGH P C NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is for the erection of an agricultural dwelling for occupation in connection with the Breckland shoot. * The operation is currently established and operating from land to the rear of the gamekeepers dwelling within the Settlement Boundary. * The new dwelling would be located outside the Settlement Boundary * The proposal has been supported by a full agricultural appraisal justifying why the dwelling is required and addressing the policy requirements set out in HOU 6 and Planning Policy Statement 7. * The views of the Parish Council are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting. * There are currently 300 pheasants and 60 cock pheasants producing some 10,000 eggs. These are hatched and reared in pens and then released and managed for the shoot. The applicant wishes to increase the number of pheasants threefold and also include 300 partridges which will produce an additional 8,000 eggs. The current site is not of sufficient size to

DC131 54 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

accommodate the planned growth. Furthermore a veterinary surgeon has confirmed that the birds are suffering undue stress and increased mortality and increase in the risk of disease due to the close proximity to the adjoining residential properties and the proximity of the duck processing factory. * The agricultural appraisal has demonstrated that there is a clear functional requirement for the dwelling and satisfied the tests. The gamekeeper is employed throughout the year on a full time basis. The new hatchery and rearing pens require a dwelling to be sited in close proximity for welfare, bio security and security reasons. The existing dwelling is too far away to provide the functional need. The shoot has been established for over 40 years, is economically viable and profitable and shows signs of remaining viable in the future. * The site is within the area of important landscape quality, however it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape. * It is considered the proposal satisfies the policy requirements. It is recommended outline planning permission is granted subject to an agricultural occupancy condition

RECOMMENDATION: Outline Planning Permission

CONDITIONS: 3005 Outline Time Limit (3 years) 3058 Standard Outline Condition 3060 Standard outline landscaping condition 3046 In accordance with submitted plans 3500 Agricultural Workers dwelling 3998 NOTE: Reasons for Approval

DC131 55 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 5 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1518/F

Full LOCATION: DEREHAM APPN TYPE: 35 Yaxham Road POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr Robert Webb 35 Swan Road Dereham TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: B Edwards 1 Fiennes Road Norwich

PROPOSAL: Alterations to form new trade/retail kitchen showroom offices and warehouse

KEY ISSUES * Detrimental to vitality and viability of town centre.

POLICY NOTES Policy SHO.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. SHO.2 Retail development in the five towns will be permitted where it does not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre and will be subject to a sequential test and other criteria.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/2004/1465/F Planning Permission - Alterations to and change of use of Units 2 and 3 Tavern Lane, Dereham.

CLERK TO DEREHAM T C No objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * Members may recall last year granting planning permission for the retail use of two industrial units at Tavern Lane, Dereham on the basis that the applicant would enter into a Section 106 Agreement to relinquish the retail use of his Yaxham Road premises, the subject of this application. Both sites were considered to be out of town for the purposes of retail policy. * This proposal, which now, in part, appears to be retrospective, is to re-establish this retail use to provide a trade/retail kitchen showroom and offices at first floor with warehouse below. The retail area is shown to be 121 square metres (1300 square feet). * Whilst the applicant advises that the business is principally aimed at trade sales there would be no retail restriction. He further states that he has searched Dereham for other premises but to no avail. * No evidence of other properties having been considered has been produced.

DC131 56 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* Given that this is an out of centre location and that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that he has fully complied with the sequential tests for suitable town centre and edge of centre sites, the application is recommended for refusal. * Given that unauthorised sales have commenced at the site, Members are requested to authorise enforcement action to ensure that these cease.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 D.W.L.P. Policy SHO.2 9900 Harm to vitality and viability of town

DC131 57 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 6 REPORT RECOMMENDING REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1586/F

Full LOCATION: ROUDHAM/LARLING APPN TYPE: Field next Swallow Aquatics POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Harling Road ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Norfolk County Ltd Roudham House Roudham TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Norfolk County Ltd Roudham House Roudham

PROPOSAL: Construct & operate malt whisky distillery, maturation, bottling & packaging plant, visitor facilities, shop, flat

CLERK TO ROUDHAM & LARLING P C Objection:- Please see attached letter dated 30th December 2005.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission 1950 SEE MAIN AGENDA ITEM

DC131 58 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 7 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1630/F

Full LOCATION: ROCKLANDS APPN TYPE: Land Northside Watton Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr L Brown 6 Road Hingham TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Mr L Brown 6 Hardingham Road Hingham

PROPOSAL: Tractor and agricultural machinery shed

KEY ISSUES Visual impact on landscape.

POLICY NOTES Policy ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/2005/0264/F - Erection of tractor and agricultural machinery store (1.2m x 7m). - Refused April 2005.

CLERK TO ROCKLANDS P C NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

CLERK TO LT. ELLINGHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This is a resubmission of an earlier application. The proposal seeks the erection of a new agricultural storage building to the north west corner of a parcel of meadow land adjacent Watton Road. * The size of the building has been reduced from 12m x 7m to 6.5m x 5.5m with a maximum height of 4.5m. * It is considered the reduction in the size of the building has overcome the previous concerns regarding the visual impact on the countryside. * The proposal is considered in accordance with Policy ENV.3 and is recommended for approval subject to a condition restricting the use of the building to agricultural storage only.

DC131 59 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Permission

CONDITIONS: 3007 Full Permission Time Limit (3 years) 3046 In accordance with submitted plans 3920 Use for agriculture only 3998 NOTE: Reasons for Approval

DC131 60 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 8 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1631/F

Full LOCATION: ATTLEBOROUGH APPN TYPE: Bunns Bank Industrial Estate POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: Employment

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: West & Childerhouse c/o Ian West 37 Holmfield Road TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Simon Westaway Associates 46 Connaught Road Attleborough

PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 3 & 4 to allow outside working & delivery & dispatch between hours 6am & 8pm Mon-Sat

KEY ISSUES Amenity of adjoining residents.

POLICY NOTES Policies ECO.4, ENV.28 and Attleborough 7 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- ENV.28 Amenity will be protected. ECO.4 Small scale economic development will be permitted within settlement boundaries subject to criteria.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Planning permission was granted under ref. 3PL/2002/0226 for the erection of 2 industrial units (B1 and B2 use) on plots 1 & 2, the service road, sewer, turning area and attenuation lagoon. Planning permission was granted under ref. 3PL/2005/1015 for an office/store building and parking for articulated vehicles on plots 5 & 6. Similar conditions regarding hours of operation were imposed on both permissions.

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC Comments: Council is unable to comment until it has further information. It would like to know what type of business West and Childerhouse have? Will it be noisy/smelly? Please send more details.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is for the variation of conditions 3 & 4 on planning permission 3PL/2002/0226/F. The conditions restricted the use of power tools & machinery outside the building, external working and deliveries between the hours of 8pm and 8am

DC131 61 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* The applicant wishes to vary the hours of operation to enable operations to start at 6am. * The site is currently an undeveloped serviced site located within the employment area at Bunns Bank. A service road and turning area have been provided but no industrial units have been erected on the land. * The land is identified within the Local Plan for industrial development of a type which would not be appropriately located on an established or other allocated site. However, due to the close proximity of the residential properties, nursery and caravan club site, it was considered that the development of the units adjacent the western boundary should be restricted to B1 and B8 uses which would act as a buffer to general industrial units on the other side of the service road and the industrial units beyond on the established industrial area. * Policy ENV 28 is relevant due to the close proximity of residential properties on the western boundary. * Further comments from the Attleborough Town Council are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting. Letters of objection have been received raising concerns regarding increasing noise and disturbance and loss of amenity during the early hours of the morning. * The applicant has indicated that the conditions are unduly restrictive and preventing the sale of the sites and that other businesses in the locality have unrestricted working hours. * The Environmental Health Officer is of the view that the conditions are necessary to protect the amenity of the adjoining residents and should not be modified. * The application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9018 D.W.L.P. Policy ENV. 28 adverse effect on amenity

DC131 62 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 9 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1639/LB

Listed Build Consent LOCATION: GREAT ELLINGHAM APPN TYPE: Portwood Farm POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Bush Green ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: J W Allen & Sons Portwood Farm Bush Green TPO: N

LB GRADE: Within Curtilage G2 AGENT: Andrew P R Love Architecture.Design.Planning Cherry Tree Farm

PROPOSAL: New packing house building

KEY ISSUES Impact on setting and historical curtilage of Listed Building.

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.3 and ENV.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. ENV.13 Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected.

CLERK TO GREAT ELLINGHAM P C No Objection.

CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC Comments: Council had no objections to previous applications submitted, but would rather existing buildings had been used for packing rather than accommodation. Perhaps ALL plans should have been submitted at same time.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is to erect a new packing building on an existing asparagus farm. * The proposed building is substantial in size, some 20 metres wide and 37 ½ metres deep with an additional shop/office element on the front. * The operation is currently operating in a range of traditional timber framed buildings however the operation has outgrown the size of these buildings. The existing farm buildings are located approximately 3 metres from the farmhouse, a grade two listed building. Although not listed in their own right, the traditional buildings form part of the historical curtilage and setting of the listed farmhouse. * The proposed packing building would be sited close to the existing traditional buildings on the other side of the building to the farmhouse. DC131 63 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* Separate applications have been submitted for the conversion of the traditional buildings to accommodate seasonal agricultural workers. * The Parish Council have raised no objection. * It is considered the proposed siting would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building and the historical curtilage. The applicant has been advised to seek an alternative position for the building but wishes the application to be determined as submitted. * It is considered the proposal is contrary to policy ENV 13 and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Listed Building Consent

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9210 D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.13 9215 Detrimental effect on Listed Building

DC131 64 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 10 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1640/F

Full LOCATION: GREAT ELLINGHAM APPN TYPE: Portwood Farm POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Bush Green ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: J W Allen & Sons Portwood Farm Bush Green TPO: N

LB GRADE: Within Curtilage G2 AGENT: Andrew P R Love Architecture.Design.Planning Cherry Tree Farm

PROPOSAL: New building for packing & preparation of asparagus crop grown on Portwood Farm

KEY ISSUES Impact on setting and historical curtilage of Listed Building.

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.3 and ENV.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. ENV.13 Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected.

CLERK TO GREAT ELLINGHAM P C No Objectiion.

CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is to erect a new packing building on an existing asparagus farm. * The proposed building is substantial in size, some 20 metres wide and 37 ½ metres deep with an additional shop/office element on the front. * The operation is currently operating in a range of traditional timber framed buildings however the operation has outgrown the size of these buildings. The existing farm buildings are located approximately 3 metres from the farmhouse, a grade two listed building. Although not listed in their own right, the traditional buildings form part of the historical curtilage and setting of the listed farmhouse. * The proposed packing building would be sited close to the existing traditional buildings on the other side of the building to the farmhouse. * Separate applications have been submitted for the conversion of the traditional buildings to accommodate seasonal agricultural workers. * The Parish Council have raised no objection.

DC131 65 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* It is considered the proposed siting would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building and the historical curtilage. The applicant has been advised to seek an alternative position for the building but wishes the application to be determined as submitted. * It is considered the proposal is contrary to policy ENV 13 and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9210 D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.13 9215 Detrimental effect on Listed Building

DC131 66 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 11 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1654/O

Outline LOCATION: WATTON APPN TYPE: 25 Charles Avenue POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: George Edward Reay 25 Charles Avenue Watton TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: George Edward Reay 25 Charles Avenue Watton

PROPOSAL: Erection of one single storey dwelling

KEY ISSUES Restricted plot size.

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

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

WATTON TOWN CLERK No objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This is an application for Outline Planning Permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling on an area of side garden currently serving a chalet. * The site measures 0.031 hectares in area and is triangular in shape. It is located at the end of a cul-de-sac characterised by a mix of bungalows and chalets. * The Highway Authority have not raised objection. * Three letters have been received raising objections on grounds of proximity of the development to neighbouring boundaries, concern regarding access, potential loss of light, loss of privacy, restricted nature of the site, traffic dangers and loss of character. * The main concern with regard to this application is the size and rather awkward shape of application site. Although just possible to position a single storey dwelling within the site it would appear cramped when viewed from the highway and have a relatively small garden area compared to other dwellings within the locality. * The proposal would therefore result in a layout inappropriate to the locality and is considered contrary to Policy HOU.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan. The application is recommended

DC131 67 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

for refusal

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 Contrary to Policy HOU.2 9170 Overdevelopment of site

DC131 68 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 12 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1684/F

Full LOCATION: BRISLEY APPN TYPE: Mill Lodge POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry The Green ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Mr Matthew Bidewell Mill Farm Cottage The Green TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Mr Matthew Bidewell Mill Farm Cottage The Green

PROPOSAL: Conversion of pig sheds to a nursery school

KEY ISSUES * Amenity

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.31 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. ENV.31 The conversion of rural buildings to non-residential uses will be permitted subject to the building being of permanent and substantial construction, being in keeping with their surroundings and being capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. ENV.28 Amenity will be protected.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/2004/0187/F Refused Removal of condition 4 (use as holiday accommodation on planning permission reference 3PL/1999/0998/F). 3PL/1999/0998 Planning Permission Conversion of outbuilding to single holiday unit.

CLERK TO BRISLEY P C No Objection.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application proposes the conversion of this former pig shed to a nursery school. * The building, which lies adjacent to The Green at Brisley, has previously been granted planning permission for conversion to a holiday cottage. * Brisley Green lies outside the Settlement Boundary of the village. * A looped access to the site is shown on the submitted drawings, running through Mill Farm and adjacent to a property known as Millfield. * Ten parking spaces are provided immediately adjacent to the building. * Whilst the applicant's intention is to offer the nursery school facility to local children, its location,

DC131 69 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

away from the main village, will require the use of the private car by parents. * PPS 7, whilst supporting the re-use of 'appropriately located' buildings for businesses and community uses does advise that they should be located in an area where there are opportunities for access by means other than the private car. * One letter has been received from an adjacent occupier, advising that the applicant has no right of way through Millfield as shown in the submitted drawings. Whilst this matter is a legal issue, the use of the track, which runs through part of the garden of that property, would unacceptably impinge upon the amenity of that occupant. * The application is recommended for refusal, being contrary to Policy ENV.28 and the advice of Central Government, provided in PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 Planning Policy Statement 7 - Unsustainable location 9220 D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.28 Impact on amenity

DC131 70 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 13 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1685/O

Outline LOCATION: NECTON APPN TYPE: Land at 29 Hale Road POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Breckland Council Elizabeth House Walpole Loke TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Asset Management Breckland Council Elizabeth House

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey dwelling

KEY ISSUES Principle of development.

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

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO NECTON P C This land is more suitable for affordable housing development rather than Folly View.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This is an Outline Planning Application submitted by Breckland Asset Management for erection of a two storey dwelling. All matters are reserved except for siting of the dwelling and means of access. * The site is located within the Settlement Boundary for Necton and is surrounded by other residential development. The site measures 0.048 hectares and is rectangular in shape. * The Highway Authority do not raise objection but require turning space and parking provision within the site. * Two letters of objection have been received raising concerns regarding loss of privacy and light. * Policy HOU.4 is relevant to this application. It requires that new residential development will only be permitted if the form and character of the village is enhanced. * This is a good size development plot within the Settlement Boundary for Necton. It can accommodate the proposed dwelling without harming existing amenity. On receipt of a detailed application it can be ensured that overlooking and loss of light to existing dwellings does not

DC131 71 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

occur. * In conclusion, the application complies with Policy HOU.4, and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Outline Planning Permission

CONDITIONS: 3005 Outline Time Limit (3 years) 3058 Standard Outline Condition 3060 Standard outline landscaping condition 3046 In accordance with submitted plans 3060 Standard outline landscaping condition 3740 Any highway conditions 3724 Turning space to be provided 3998 NOTE: Reasons for Approval

DC131 72 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 14 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1697/F

Full LOCATION: THETFORD APPN TYPE: Off Thomas Paine Avenue POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Mr John E Connolly 20 White Hart Street Thetford TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: John Atkins Architect Ltd 64 Melford Bridge Road Thetford

PROPOSAL: Erection of new garage

KEY ISSUES * Highway Safety.

POLICY NOTES Policy TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered to be relevant to this application. TRA.5 Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

CLERK TO THETFORD T C Committee would like to see the existing garage replaced. A double block of quality construction would be acceptable. The Historic Buildings Officer would be able to advise.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application relates to a triangular piece of land off Thomas Paine Avenue, approximately 106 square metres in area. The site abuts a corner and the cul-de-sac serves seven other dwellings. * The proposal relates to the erection of a single garage, adjacent an existing garage building. The building would be rendered to match the existing. The garages would be used by the occupier of 20 White Hart Street. * The County Council's Highway Engineer has objected to the proposal, given the limited amount of space available for manoeuvring/parking in front of the new garage. The garage is closer to the bend; the area in front varies between 2.5m and 7.0m and visibility is severely restricted. * Comments are awaited from the Historic Buildings Officer. * In the light of the comments made by the Highway Authority, it is considered that the proposals are unacceptable on highway grounds. The application is recommended for refusal.

DC131 73 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 D.W.L.P. Policy TRA.5 9455 Inadequate parking/manoeuvring 9455 Inadequate parking/manoeuvring

DC131 74 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 15 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1700/F

Full LOCATION: SWAFFHAM APPN TYPE: 51 Mill Farm Nurseries POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Allen 51 Mill Farm Nurseries Swaffham TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Helen Breach Norfolk House Newton Road

PROPOSAL: Extension

KEY ISSUES * Impact of Design.

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

CLERK TO SWAFFHAM TOWN COUNCIL No objection.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This is a Full Planning Application for the erection of a two storey extension to what is currently a bungalow. * The extension is set to the side of the bungalow and consists of bedroom extensions at ground and first floor levels. * In order to restrict the finished roof height to that of the existing bungalow a large portion of the extension roof is in flat roof form. The floor area to the first floor element measures 9.3 metres by 2.7 metres. * The Highway Authority raise no objection. * Concern with regard to this application relates to the proposed design of the first floor element of the extension. * In effect the extension creates a two storey, flat roof gable end, set within a metre of the neighbouring property. * Visually the extension appears as an incongruous feature jarring with the original pitched roof of what is a relatively modern bungalow. * In order to achieve the required floor space it appears little consideration has been given to the finished external appearance of the dwelling. * The proposal is therefore not in keeping with the scale and design of the existing dwelling and

DC131 75 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

is contrary to Policy HOU.17. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 D.W.L.P.Policy HOU.17 9370 Incompatible design of extension

DC131 76 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 16 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1710/CU

Change of Use LOCATION: THETFORD APPN TYPE: 1 Napier Place POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry London Road Ind Estate ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Christopher John Edwards 7 Rodinghead Springwood TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Christopher John Edwards 7 Rodinghead Springwood

PROPOSAL: Change of use from workshop & premises to workshop & retail of kitchens bathrooms & tiles inc assembly of kitchens

KEY ISSUES Use of unit on employment land for retail and workshop space for kitchens, bathrooms and tiles.

POLICY NOTES Policies SHO.2 and SHO.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan and PPS6 are considered relevant to this application. SHO.2 - Retail development in the five towns will be permitted where it does not underline the vitality and viability of the town centre and will be subject to a sequential test and other criteria. SHO.6 - Wholesale warehouses and workshops (which include a retail element) may be permitted on proposed employment areas subject to criteria. PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres.

CLERK TO THETFORD T C The Committee wanted there to be a 10% limitation on retail use of the unit, with goods to be limited to fittings and not utensils.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application relates to a change of a workshop at Napier Place on the London Road Industrial Estate, Thetford. 68% (700m²) would be used for retail purposes; the workshop element would amount to 13.8% (40m²). * Comments are awaited from the Environmental Health Officer. * There has been a policy objection; given that the retail element is more than twice that of all the other uses combined. The proposals are contrary to Policies SHOU.6 and SHO.2; it would be expected that the use would take place within a town centre, close to public transport, to ensure that the vitality of the centre is not undermined. * The applicant has chosen this unit specifically because of the proximity to the Forest Retail Park, Jarrolds Home Furnishings and Homewise and has therefore not submitted a sequential report. * The application is contrary to policy and is recommended for refusal on the following grounds: - DC131 77 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* The combination of uses proposed for the site gives the primary use of the site as retail. The proposal is considered to be detrimental to the vitality of both the industrial estate, within which it is situated, and the town centre, as the scheme could undermine the type of industrial development that could proceed, and also, the proposal should compliment the shopping provision already in the town centre; the scheme is contrary to SHO.2 and SHOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 Detrimental to vitality of industrial estate and town centre

DC131 78 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 17 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1724/F

Full LOCATION: WEETING APPN TYPE: Prospect Lodge POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Fengate Drove ALLOCATION: Employment

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Robert Henry Betts & Florence Betty Betts Prospect Lodge TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Kester Cunningham John Beacon House Kempson Way

PROPOSAL: Retention of park house showhome

KEY ISSUES Residential development within an employment area.

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.3 and HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan and PPG25 and PPG3 are considered relevant to this application. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/1985/1523 - Temporary Permission. 3PL/1995/1159 - Temporary Permission.

CLERK TO WEETING P C No objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application relates to the retention of a park house show home on a permanent basis and application 3PL/2005/1725, also included in this agenda, relates to the addition of an outer cladding. * There is another application relating to a certificate of lawfulness for Betts Timber Merchants, abutting the site and on the opposite side of Fengate Drove (3PL/2005/1726). This is due to be forwarded to the Council’s Solicitor upon receipt of comments from Weeting Parish Council. * The site is within an employment area in the adopted Local Plan. The site is to the south of Weeting village and is closer to Brandon. * The temporary use of a residential show home dates back to 1985; this was renewed in 1995.

DC131 79 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* Current planning guidance as set out in PPG 25 (para 40) advises that all applications to renew residential permissions should be thoroughly reviewed. * Under HOU.6, there is no provision for housing linked to business uses or for security reasons. PPG3 also advises that locations remote from services/settlements cannot be regarded as sustainable. * Since the previous renewal, the site has been allocated for employment purposes (Weeting I of the Breckland District Local Plan) * In the light of the above, the applications are recommended for refusal on the following grounds.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9062 Adopted D.W.L.P. (Sept 1999) Policy HOU.6 - Outside villages 9066 No evidence that cannot be met in settlement 9300 Setting a precedent 9310 Despite personal circumstances 9260 Consolidation of ribbon development

DC131 80 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 18 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1725/F

Full LOCATION: WEETING APPN TYPE: Prospect Lodge POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Fengate Drove ALLOCATION: Employment

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Robert Henry Betts & Betty Florence Betts Prospect Lodge TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Kester Cunningham John Beacon House Kempson Way

PROPOSAL: Construction of outer cladding to park house showhome

KEY ISSUES Residential development within an employment area.

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.3 and HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan and PPG25 and PPG3 are considered relevant to this application. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. HOU.6 - Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/1985/1523 - Temporary Permission. 3PL/1995/1159 - Temporary Permission.

CLERK TO WEETING P C No objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application relates to the addition of an outer cladding to a park house show home, the subject of application 3PL/2005/1724, also included in this agenda. * There is another application relating to a certificate of lawfulness for Betts Timber Merchants, abutting the site and on the opposite side of Fengate Drove (3PL/2005/1726). This is due to be forwarded to the Council’s Solicitor upon receipt of comments from Weeting Parish Council. * The site is within an employment area in the adopted Local Plan. The site is to the south of Weeting village and is closer to Brandon. * The temporary use of a residential show home dates back to 1985; this was renewed in 1995. * Current planning guidance as set out in PPG 25 (para 40) advises that all applications to renew

DC131 81 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

residential permissions should be thoroughly reviewed. * Under HOU.6, there is no provision for housing linked to business uses or for security reasons. PPG3 also advises that locations remote from services/settlements cannot be regarded as sustainable. * Since the previous renewal, the site has been allocated for employment purposes (Weeting I of the Breckland District Local Plan) * In the light of the above, the applications are recommended for refusal on the following grounds.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9062 Adopted D.W.L.P. (Sept 1999) Policy HOU.6 - Outside villages 9066 No evidence that cannot be met in settlement 9300 Setting a precedent 9310 Despite personal circumstances 9260 Consolidation of ribbon development

DC131 82 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 19 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1729/F

Full LOCATION: MILEHAM APPN TYPE: Land to rear of Blacksmiths POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Cottage ALLOCATION: No Allocation The Street CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Mr T Tugwell Blacksmiths Cottage The Street TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Broadacre Assoc. UK Ltd Ashlee Methwold Road

PROPOSAL: Proposed single detached bungalow & demolition of existing workshop/garage

KEY ISSUES Conservation Area - Failure to enhance and unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.4 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/2005/0297/F - Refused - Demolition of workshop/garage and erection of dwelling with integral garage.

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO MILEHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application proposes the demolition of a single storey workshop/garage and the erection of a single storey dwelling with integral garage. * The 0.05ha site, which currently provides an amenity area to the applicant’s cottage, is set at the head of a shared gravelled driveway, approximately 30m north of The Street, Mileham. * The site lies within the village Conservation Area. * Blacksmiths Cottage, which faces onto the driveway, is part of a tandem arrangement with the neighbouring unit, that being located further within the depth of the drive.

DC131 83 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* Given this tight knit arrangement and that the principal windows of both cottages face onto the drive it is considered that its further intensification of use to serve an additional dwelling would prove to be detrimental to the amenity of both occupiers. * In addition, the loss of this small area of garden would deprive the occupants of Blacksmiths Cottage of any private amenity space. * Two letters of objection have been received from the immediate neighbours raising concerns in respect of loss of privacy, impact of the access, the overdevelopment of the site and loss of the former smithy. * The Council’s Conservation Officer considers the building, as proposed, is out of keeping and fails to relate to the site's context thereby failing to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 Loss of amenity due to noise and disturbance 9900 Loss of amenity area to dwelling 9900 Harm to the appearance of the Conservation Area

DC131 84 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 20 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1736/CU

Change of Use LOCATION: SCARNING APPN TYPE: Arch Farm POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Podmore Lane ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr P Scott Arch Farm Podmore Lane TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Sketcher Partnership Ltd First House Quebec Street

PROPOSAL: Continuance of previously approved change of use of former agricultural building to general car sales

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.3, SHO.4 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan and PPS7 are considered to apply:- ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens to be protected from development wherever possible. SHO.4 Retail provision for local needs, including village shops, may be permitted subject to criteria. TRA.5 Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

CLERK TO SCARNING P C Agreed - limited to a further two year period.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application seeks approval for the continued use of a former agricultural building for general car sales. * Permission was given by Committee in October 2003 (ref 3PL/2003/0947/CU) for a temporary period, expiring 31st October 2005. The consent was also subject to the vehicles being stored within the barn only, sales being restricted to specified hours and days and a noise condition. * The Highways Authority wish to reiterate their previous comments which had been a recommendation for refusal based on the poor alignment and width of Podmore Lane. * Cars are being kept for sale outside of the barn to the front and side of the building. The applicant has been advised that he is in breach of condition 3. Clarification has also been sought regarding the site boundaries as shown on the submitted plan, the use of a mobile to the front of the barn and the use of a range of outbuildings abutting the lane. * Members will recall that the site is in open countryside. Access is by means of a tortuous single width carriageway. Retail sales within a rural setting are normally discouraged. The storage of

DC131 85 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

vehicles outside of the consented area constitutes a breach of the consent. In the circumstances, the application is recommended for refusal on highway grounds and loss of visual amenity, contrary to policies ENV.3 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan. Authority is sought for enforcement action to cease the use of the site for retail sales.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9110 D.W.L.P. - ENV.3 - Protected for its own sake 9900 D.W.L.P. - SHO.4 - Adverse effect on amenity 9900 D.W.L.P. - TRA.5 - Highway safety

DC131 86 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 21 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1745/F

Full LOCATION: BRIDGHAM APPN TYPE: 1 The Street POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs J Smith 1 The Street Bridgham TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: ADM Architectural Services Ltd Flint Cottage Road

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing garage to granny annexe and erection of new garage

KEY ISSUES Annexe policy. Visual impact. Highway safety.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.18, ENV.1, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.18 - Residential Annexes may be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.1 - Development will not be permitted in the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parks and Gardens except in exceptional circumstances. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

CLERK TO BRIDGHAM P C No Objection.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The proposal is for the conversion and extension of an existing detached flat roof garage/workshop within the garden of the applicants' semi-detached property to create a self- contained annexe. The annexe would consist of a bedroom, lounge, bathroom and kitchen/diner. A new triple timber garage/workshop would also be constructed at the rear of the applicants' garden. * The contentious element of the proposal relates to the creation of the annexe. Policy HOU.18 of the Breckland Local Plan only permits domestic annexes where there is a proven need for the care and supervision of the occupants, and that they would be well related to the existing dwelling in terms of the level of accommodation being provided. In this case, it is considered that the level of accommodation provided would constitute a self-contained dwelling in an area where

DC131 87 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

new residential dwellings would not normally be permitted. Furthermore, whilst the agent has stated that the annexe would be occupied by the applicants' parents, no case has been submitted demonstrating a need for the annexe. * The application is therefore considered contrary to Policy HOU.18 of the Breckland District Local Plan, and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9390 Adopted D.W.L.P.(Sept 1999) - Policy HOU.18 9395 Lack of evidence of need and scale of annexe

DC131 88 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 22 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1747/F

Full LOCATION: BRIDGHAM APPN TYPE: Gleb House POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry The Street ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Honeybone Gleb House The Street TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: J S Design Services Ltd Hyford Ringland Road

PROPOSAL: Detached garage and single storey side extension

KEY ISSUES Impact on streetscene, highway safety.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.17 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- HOU.17 Extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to criteria. TRA.5 Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/2004/1042/F - Planning permission for a single storey front extension - Approved. 3PL/1987/1732/F - Planning permission for detached house and garage - Approved.

CLERK TO BRIDGHAM P C No Objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The proposal seeks to construct a single-storey extension to the side of a detached house and a detached brick and pantile double garage in the front garden of the applicants' property. It is proposed by the applicant to implement the current permission if granted, as opposed to the previously approved scheme for a front extension which allowed access to be retained to the existing garage at the rear of the property. * The contentious element of the proposal relates to the ‘garage’ element. Given that the proposed double garage would be situated at the front of the plot, in a position where the existing boundary hedge would need to be removed to accommodate it, the garage would be significantly

DC131 89 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

visible within the streetscene. Furthermore, a garage of this nature would be out of keeping with the appearance and character and the pattern of development in this part of the village. * The Highway Engineer does not raise objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. * The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds of Policy HOU.17.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9365 D.W.L.P. Policy HOU.17 - Design out of keeping with area 9380 Incongruous building in built up area

DC131 90 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 23 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1748/O

Outline LOCATION: WHINBURGH/WESTFIELD APPN TYPE: Whinburgh Road POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Westfield ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Rivett Westfield Place Whinburgh Road TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Mr & Mrs Rivett Westfield Place Whinburgh Road

PROPOSAL: Erection of one two storey dwelling

KEY ISSUES Outside Settlement Boundary.

POLICY NOTES Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered to apply:- HOU.6 Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities.

CLERK TO WHINBURGH & WESTFIELD The Councillors object as the site is outside the Guidelines.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is to erect a house on an overgrown piece of land. * The site is outside a Settlement Boundary. * This part of the Parish does not have a Settlement Boundary and therefore Policy HOU.6 is applicable in this instance. * The Parish Council have objected to the application. * The proposal is contrary to Policy HOU.6 and is recommended for refusal. The Highway Engineer has raised no objection but due to the narrowness of Whinburgh Road, two passing spaces have been requested. * Policy HOU.6 prevents the development of dwellings within the countryside unless there is a proven justified need on the grounds of agriculture, forestry etc. * No case has been put forward on those grounds.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9040 Structure Plan Policy H.8 - Outside Villages

DC131 91 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

9042 Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9044 Policy not met outside settlement 9046 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9048 No evidence that cannot be met in settlement

DC131 92 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 24 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1749/O

Outline LOCATION: BANHAM APPN TYPE: Plot between 30 and 34 POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry Crown Street ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Executors of Mrs L Aldridge c/o Mr G Aldridge Mill House TPO: N

LB GRADE: Adjacent Grade 2 AGENT: Nicholas G Bailey MCIAT Duart Cratfield Road

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey dwelling with parking space

KEY ISSUES Principle. Highway Safety. Impact on Conservation Area.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.4, ENV.10, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

CLERK TO BANHAM P C No objection.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This outline application proposes a two-storey dwelling within part of the side garden of the applicant's property, of a plot fronting onto Crown Street. The only matter reserved for future consideration is landscaping. * The plot lies within the Settlement Boundary for Banham and is considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling in the manner proposed to meet the Council’s requirements in terms of amenity and parking area provision, without having a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, it is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling would preserve the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area.

DC131 93 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

* The contentious element of the scheme, however, relates to its impact on highway safety. The Highways Authority have raised strong objection on the grounds that the scheme would increase the level of traffic using the existing access from which there is already severely restricted visibility, with visibility of only 7 metres achievable, as opposed to the 90 metre standard in the critical on-coming traffic direction. The site is also situated directly opposite the village school. * Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy TRA.5 of the Breckland Local Plan, and recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9445 DWLP - Policy TRA.5 9900 Highway safety

DC131 94 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 25 RECOMMENDATION : APPROVAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1755/F

Full LOCATION: ATTLEBOROUGH APPN TYPE: Bunns Bank POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Banham Poultry Ltd Station Road Attleborough TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Pike Partnership 11 Hamilton Road Cromer

PROPOSAL: Temporary storage of building rubble

KEY ISSUES * Visual Amenity.

POLICY NOTES Policy ECO.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. ECO.4 Small scale economic development will be permitted within settlement boundaries subject to criteria.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY The site is the former Banham Poultry site.

CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TC Recommend storage be allowed for one year initially, with a requirement to re-apply for permission after one year if necessary.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * The application is for the temporary storage of building rubble on the former Banham Poultry site at Bunns Bank. * The rubble is from demolition works taking place at the Banham Poultry Station Road site. It is proposed to store the rubble at Bunns Bank for re-use at Station Road when construction commences. * The submitted plans have identified a relatively small area of the former factory site. The surrounding land is allocated for economic development. * Given the temporary nature of the use and the use of the surrounding land, the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to conditions limiting the use to a temporary period only. * The proposal is unlikely to result in a detrimental visual impact on the landscape.

DC131 95 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Permission

CONDITIONS: 3040 Non standard temporary use time limit - 2 years 3046 In accordance with submitted plans

DC131 96 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 26 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1761/CU

Change of Use LOCATION: DEREHAM APPN TYPE: 15 Norwich Street POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: Primary Comm. Area

CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Flint Estates Ltd Flint House 25 Charing Cross TPO: N

LB GRADE: Grade II AGENT: R & J Parker Bldg Design Consultants Ltd Home Farm Cottage

PROPOSAL: Change of use from retail to property letting agency

KEY ISSUES * Class A2 use unacceptable in Primary Commercial Area of town.

POLICY NOTES Policy SHO.7 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. SHO.7 The change of use of ground floors to uses other than specified retail uses will not be permitted in the primary commercial areas of Dereham and Thetford.

CLERK TO DEREHAM T C No Objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application proposes the change of use of these vacant premises in Norwich Street from A1 (Retail) to A2 (Financial and Professional Services). The applicants' intent is to establish a Property Letting Agency. * The site falls within the Primary Commercial Area for the town, being located approximately 90 metres from the junction of Norwich Road with the High Street. * Policy SHO.7 of the Breckland District Local Plan advises that planning permission will not be granted for uses other than A1 (Retail) and A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) in this area. * Notwithstanding that the applicants' advice that there is a demand for such businesses in the town and the use of the premises for such would not detract from the vitality and viability of the town cente, the application is recommended for refusal. * No evidence has been provided that other sites have been investigated within the Secondary Commercial Area where it is more appropriate to find such premises. * The grant of permission would be likely to result in the further erosion of the Primary Commercial Area thereby harming the vitality of the town centre and its continued viability.

Refusal of Planning Permission DC131 97 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

RECOMMENDATION:

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9900 D.W.L.P. Policy SHO.7 9900 Harm to vitality and viability of Dereham Town Centre

DC131 98 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 27 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1767/F

Full LOCATION: MATTISHALL APPN TYPE: Amberwell POLICY: Out Settlemnt Bndry Watercress Lane ALLOCATION: No Allocation Mill Road CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mrs J Pyle Amberwell Watercress Lane Mill Road TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: Mr R Horne 6 Dereham Road Mattishall

PROPOSAL: Removal of condition on pp. ref. no. 3PL/1993/1312/F to separate annexe from main dwelling

KEY ISSUES Outside Settlement Boundary. Removal of condition tantamount to new dwelling in countryside. Personal circumstances insufficient to outweigh policy constraint.

POLICY NOTES Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered to apply:- HOU.6 Residential development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or the expansion of existing facilities.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3PL/1993/1312/F - planning permission - Extension of Amberwell to form annexe.

CLERK TO MATTISHALL P C Objection:- Objection in principle. General concerns about development outside the village.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application seeks the removal of a condition which was attached to a planning permission in 1993 for the creation of an annexe addition to a bungalow known as Amberwell. The dwelling lies outside the Mattishall Settlement Boundary. * The applicant requires the condition to be removed in order for her to be able to sell the original part of the building which she occupies and move to a location benefitting from public transport and services. * She states that the annex accommodation was intended to provide accommodation for relatives in order that they could provide care for her and her late husband. The condition required that the new accommodation should not be sold, leased or sub-leased for occupation as a separate dwelling unit and should be occupied solely in addition to the main dwelling. * This additional accommodation, in the form of a rear wing to the principal unit, now benefits from its own access with the plot having been visually subdivided by fencing and planting of

DC131 99 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

hedges. * The building is clearly being occupied as a separate dwelling in contravention of the condition. * Notwithstanding the applicant's personal circumstances the application is recommended for refusal being contrary to Policy HOU.6 (new dwellings in the countryside) of the Breckland District Local Plan). * Members will be informed at the meeting in respect of the appropriate method of enforcement action.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9042 Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9044 Policy not met outside settlement 9046 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9048 No evidence that cannot be met in settlement 9310 Despite personal circumstances

DC131 100 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 28 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1773/O

Outline LOCATION: BANHAM APPN TYPE: Plot to rear of 34-36 Crown Street POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: Y APPLICANT: Executors of Mrs L Aldridge c/o Mr G Aldridge Millhouse TPO: N

LB GRADE: Adjacent Grade 2 AGENT: Mr N G Bailey Duart Cratfield Road

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey dwelling and garage

KEY ISSUES Backland site. Highway safety.

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.4, ENV.10, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development will be permitted where it will enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. ENV.28 - Amenity will be protected. TRA.5 - Where development would endanger transport safety, generate traffic that would be detrimental to the transport network, require highway improvements that would conflict with conservation considerations or attract traffic that would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, it will not be permitted.

CLERK TO BANHAM P C Objection:- The Council strongly opposes the principle of backfilling. this will alter the character of the village in a Conservation Area and will set an unwelcome precedent the change from the original application for a two storey to a storey and a half is seen as a minor alteration and will not change the detrimental effect on neighbouring property. the use of a footpath for vehicular access.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This outline application proposes a dwelling and garage within the rear garden of the applicant’s property. The only matter reserved for future consideration is landscaping. * Although the plot lies within the Settlement Boundary, and is considered to be of sufficient size DC131 101 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

to accommodate a dwelling, its ‘backland’ nature raises concern. Given that the immediate area is characterised by frontage development, a house in the position proposed is considered to be out of keeping with the established pattern of development in this part of the village. * Furthermore, given its backland position, there is also potential for the development to result in detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties. * Access to the site would be provided by an access off Crown Street. The Highway Engineer raises objection to the scheme on the grounds of the severely restricted visiblity from the site access. Furthermore, the proposed access is also shown on the Council’s records as being a designated footpath. Further clarification from the applicant has been sought as to the current status of this footpath. * The site also lies adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building within the Conservation Area. Comments from the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer as to the acceptability of the scheme are currently awaited. * Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to Policies HOU.4, TRA.5 and ENV.28 of the Breckland Local Plan and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9012 Adopted D.W.L.P. - (September 1999) Policy HOU.4 9014 Failure to enhance form, character and setting 9320 Unacceptable backland development 9900 Highway Safety

DC131 102 BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 09-01-2006

ITEM 29 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSAL

REF NO: 3PL/2005/1786/O

Outline LOCATION: MATTISHALL APPN TYPE: 117/119 Dereham Road POLICY: In Settlemnt Bndry

ALLOCATION: No Allocation

CONS AREA: N APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs R Hendry 117 Dereham Road Mattishall TPO: N

LB GRADE: N AGENT: David A Cutting Building Surveyors Limited 70 Market Street

PROPOSAL: Proposed bungalow

KEY ISSUES * Poor Relationship Between Access and Principal Dwelling.

POLICY NOTES Policy ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) states that: ENV.28 Amenity will be protected.

CLERK TO MATTISHALL P C NO REPLY AS AT 16TH DECEMBER 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES * This application proposes the erection of a bungalow on land to the rear of a pair of semi- detached bungalows located at Dereham Road, Mattishall. * The submitted drawing shows these two units being amalgamated to form one dwelling with a 2.7 metre driveway to serve that proposed, set immediately adjacent to the present bungalow's western flank. * Whilst the 0.08 hectare site is considered large enough to accommodate a bungalow without harm to the immediate character of the area, it is considered that the tight relationship of the driveway would result in harm to the amenity of the occupants of the principal dwelling by virtue of noise and disturbance. * The application is recommended for refusal being contrary to Policy ENV.28.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: 9220 D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.28

DC131 103 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1044/F Banham Poultry Ltd SWAFFHAM Erection of detached bungalow Great Friars Farm with garage

3PL/2005/1312/F Mr and Mrs P Carter BEESTON Erection of wc/shower Church Farm

3PL/2005/1368/F Mr D Cannon SWAFFHAM 3 industrial units Land between Brocks Road and Turbine Way

3PL/2005/1445/F Attleborough Town Council ATTLEBOROUGH Retention of temporary 1st Attleborough (St Marys) structure for use as Scouts Scout Group Hall

3PL/2005/1453/F Mr & Mrs D Cann Detached house in connection Cow Slip Lodge with livery stables Drury Lane

3PL/2005/1458/F William Hill Organization Ltd THETFORD Change of use of ground floor 2 Well Street & first floor offices from D1 to A2 use and installation of new shop front

3PL/2005/1459/F William Hill Organization Ltd THETFORD Change of use of ground floor 2 Well Street & first floor offices from D1 to A2 use and installation of new shopfront (duplicate)

3PL/2005/1472/F Anglian Water Services Ltd Construction of additional Riddlesworth Water potable water treatment plant Treatment Works

104 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1477/F Mr & Mrs G Baker HARLING Demolition of existing garage 17 Drakes Close and provision of two storey extension

3PL/2005/1479/F Warburtons Ltd THETFORD Change of use B2 (general Unit 16 industrial) to B8 (bread Brunel Way distribution depot) including alterations

3PL/2005/1481/F Mr T Skipper NORTH TUDDENHAM Change of use of land from North Tuddenham Garage nursery to coach parking & Main Road erection of timber outbuilding

3PL/2005/1497/F J Robinson Esq Proposed new dwelling (amende Plot adjacent Kettlebrig design for previous Woodcock Road application ref. 3PL/2003/0612)

3PL/2005/1503/F Mr C Burton ASHILL New dwelling Adjacent to 9 The Green

3PL/2005/1513/F Mr R Old WATTON New dwellings type A1 & A2 Land adjacent to 69-71 Akrotiri Square

3PL/2005/1520/D David Goulty BRETTENHAM Erection of single storey 4 Aleutia Gardens dwelling Arlington Way

3PL/2005/1521/F Richard Gray 2no field shelters to store 93 Back Street straw, hay and machinery etc for private use only

105 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1522/F Mr D J Maclean SWAFFHAM Resiting of approved house and Tower Meadow Industrial garage ref. 3PL/2004/0102/D Estate

3PL/2005/1524/F Mr & Mrs M Lane Conversion of loft including Rectory House insertion of dormer to front Brandon Road elevation

3PL/2005/1532/F Mr & Mrs N Bailey NECTON Alterations to outbuilding to Swedish Barn form granny annex as ancillary Spicers Corner accommodation

3PL/2005/1535/F Oakwood Property Service SWAFFHAM Erection of 3 no. town houses Old Gasworks Site & associated works Lynn Road/Shouldham Lane

3PL/2005/1538/F Mr J L & Mrs K E Hill Extension to house 32 Scotgate Close

3PL/2005/1540/O Mr & Mrs A Dobson SWANTON MORLEY Proposed erection of three, Part of 39 & 37 Greengate one and a half storey dwellings

3PL/2005/1547/F Mr Steven Howell Barn conversion to provide Tower Farm bed and breakfast accommodation

3PL/2005/1557/F Richard Young Erection of a 10 x 8 metre Redgrave & Lopham Fen tractor/equipment shelter, Low Common Road with three enclosed sides and one 10 metre side open

106 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1559/F Mr & Mrs Wilson ROUDHAM/LARLING Single storey extension and Bryony detached garage Harling Road

3PL/2005/1570/F Richard Baker BRETTENHAM New entrance gates and walls Site adjacent St Johns Church Rushford

3PL/2005/1571/F Mr G & Mrs H Lebeau THETFORD First floor rear extension 2 The Covert

3PL/2005/1576/F Mr & Mrs L A Compton Garage conversion to bedroom September Cottage including link to dwelling Church Lane with car port and conservatory (Retrospective)

3PL/2005/1583/F E R Childerhouse /BRECKLES Conversion of barns to Mere Farm 2no. residences and new farm access

3PL/2005/1588/F Mr & Mrs Shiret KENNINGHALL Demolish existing buildings, The Poplar Barn erect new barn comprising Road of a stable and carport

3PL/2005/1590/F Mr K Cross MATTISHALL Proposed extension to 5 Welgate Close bungalow & erection of a garage

3PL/2005/1591/F Norfolk Constabulary DEREHAM Erection of new single Dereham Police Station storey ICT server unit Commercial Road

107 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1593/F LGL Developments Ltd THETFORD Proposed commercial Site on Brunel Way development consisting of 1no. commercial unit & separate two storey office block

3PL/2005/1600/F Mr & Mrs Abel Construction of helicopter The Old Rectory pad and store

3PL/2005/1603/F Mr P Keen COLKIRK New dwelling and garage Building plot adjacent Holmesdale

3PL/2005/1606/F Mr & Mrs Mitchell SAHAM TONEY Conservatory Whitehall Whitehall Lane

3PL/2005/1608/F Mrs Jennis ATTLEBOROUGH Take down existing 19 Paddock Gardens conservatory & construct new translucent roof conservatory to east elevation

3PL/2005/1611/F Mr C P Garland SWANTON MORLEY Single storey rear extension Colandria to kitchen Farrow Close

3PL/2005/1613/F Mr M Sutterby FOULDEN Conversion of redundant farm The Barn building to holiday Everetts Farm accommodation

3PL/2005/1614/F Mr T J Kent GREAT ELLINGHAM 20m x 7.5m lean-to The Knackers Yard building Swamp Lane

108 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1616/F Mr R Potter WEETING Front extension to bungalow 66 St Edmund Road

3PL/2005/1617/F G Lloyd WATTON Change of use of ancillary 87 Dereham Road accommodation to separate unit of accommodation

3PL/2005/1618/F QD Stores Ltd Extension to QD central AND QUIDENHAM storage distribution warehouse QD Distribution Centre (Renewal 3PL/2000/0773/O and 3PL/2003/1838/D)

3PL/2005/1620/F Mr J F Miller Proposed garage Laurels Brisley Road

3PL/2005/1622/F Mrs Barbara Hayes WHINBURGH/WESTFIELD Extension to link existing Rose Cottage house and outbuilding to Shop Street form kitchen. Raise roof on outbuilding

3PL/2005/1625/F Mr & Mrs M Jewell White UPVC conservatory Highfields lean to style Hoe Road

3PL/2005/1633/F Mr & Mrs A Downes CROXTON Construct double garage, 8 Church Avenue sun lounge & pitched roof over store room, extend store room

3PL/2005/1636/F Mr & Mrs M Gibb HARDINGHAM Erection of gates & fences Denmark House (permission required by cond 6 of pp 3PL/2005/1194/F)

109 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1645/F Mr and Mrs R J Gutteridge Erection of a conservatory Lilac and Laughter Cottage to the rear of dwelling (Formerly The Warren)

3PL/2005/1651/F Mr and Mrs R Braxton SAHAM TONEY Erection of 2 storey front Warwick Farm extension Cley Lane

3PL/2005/1313/LB Mr and Mrs P Carter BEESTON Replace kitchen window, Church Farm utility window and door and erection of wc

3PL/2005/1515/CU Mr T Saunders THETFORD Change of amenity land to 44 Sybil Wheeler Close garden use

3PL/2005/1517/CU Mr C Holland-Vyse Change of use of adjacent land 23 Oxborough from field to part of dwelling curtilage

3PL/2005/1523/CU Robert Fox SWAFFHAM Change of use to dental 25a Market Place laboratory/denture clinic (retrospective)

3PL/2005/1526/CU Watton Radio Model Club CARBROOKE Use of land for flying radio Land at Dawe Farm controlled model aircraft

3PL/2005/1533/CU Mr E Buscall CARBROOKE Change of use of existing Caudell Green Farm ancillary building to form annex accommodation

110 DC135 Date of List - 19 DEC 2005 BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE List of decisions made by the Development Services Manager under the agreed terms of delegation.

Permission

3PL/2005/1534/LB Mr E Buscall CARBROOKE Alteration to existing Caudell Green Farm ancillary building to form annex accommodation

3PL/2005/1599/CU Oliver Berney HOCKERING Change of use of agricultural Barns at Overgate Farm land to garden land Heath Road

3PL/2005/1610/CU Roger Pawsey SHIPDHAM Change of use of vacant land 10 Larwood Way to private garden with featherboard fence, concrete posts (retrospective)

3PL/2005/1619/LB Mr C M Lancaster QUIDENHAM Alteration, replacement of The Old Post Office rotting windows with slight Green Lane adjustment to their design

3PL/2005/1638/CU Noel Alexander Property MATTISHALL Change of use from shop (A1) 9a Dereham Road to estate agency (A2)

3PL/2005/1641/LB Mr and Mrs Davies CASTON Erection of hardwood Old Rectory Cottage conservatory Attleborough Road

Temporary Permission

3PL/2005/1661/F Shipdham Parish Council SHIPDHAM Siting of caravan for use Shipdham Bowls Club as temporary changing room and off Pound Green Lane store (renewal)

111 DC135