AGENDA - Brecklanddemocracy.breckland.gov.uk/Data/Development Control... · 2007-05-01 · AGENDA NOTE: In the case of non-members, this agenda is for information only Committee -

AGENDA

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

Committee - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Date & Time - MONDAY, 23 MAY 2005 AT 9.30 A.M.

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

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

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

LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED FOR

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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

PERSONS ATTENDING THE MEETING ARE REQUESTED TO TURN OFF MOBILE PHONES

Committee Services Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham, Norfolk, NR19 1EE Date: 10 May 2005

Please ask for Julie Be-mail: julie.britton

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

PLEASE NOTE

ritton (01362) 656343 @breckland.gov.uk

PART A – ITEMS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Page(s)

herewith

1. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2005. 5 - 17

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. 18

9. APPEALS DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)

Reference No. & Details Decision

APP/F2605/H/05/1175135: Dereham: 20 Market Place: Appeal against discontinuance action by Breckland District Council: Roy and Susan Singfield (reference RAB.BP.4310.116.9)

Appeal dismissed

10. THETFORD: PROPOSED SHELTERED FLATS, FORMER VAUXHALL GARAGE, BURY ROAD: REFERENCE 3PL/2004/1628/F

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment. 19 - 21

2

Development Control Committee 23 May 2005

Page(s) herewith

11. UNAUTHORISED CHANGE OF USE OF RESIDENTIAL GARDEN LAND AND ADJOINING AGRICULTURAL FIELD

Report of the Operations Manager – Environment (photographs attached separately).

22 - 23

12. UNAUTHORISED EARTH BUND, DAIRY DRIFT/HERNE LANE, BEESTON


24 - 25

13. UNAUTHORISED WORKS TO A LISTED BUILDING: SAVERS, 39- 41 KING STREET, THETFORD


26 - 27

14. ROUDHAM/LARLING: ROUDHAM TRADING ESTATE

For information only. 28

15. LITTLE DUNHAM: BARROWS HOLE LANE: ERECTION OF DWELLING: REFERENCE 3PL/2005/0409/O

To consider this item in the light of the site visit held on Thursday 19 May 2005. A copy of the report to the meeting held on 25 April 2005.

29 - 30

16. PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 6 (PPS6) PLANNING FOR TOWN CENTRES


17. DEFERR ED APPLICATIONS

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

36

a) Blo-Norton: Plot adjacent Enigma, Fen Road: Erection of Residential Cottage Style Dwelling and Garage: Reference 3PL/2002/0012/F

37 - 39

b) Mattishall: Demolition of Dwelling and Erection of New Dwelling and Garage: Walnut Tree Farm, Mill Road: Reference 3PL/2004/1758/D

40 - 41

18. ENFORCEMENT ITEMS


19. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications (Electronic version of this document is attached separately).

48 - 107

agenda20050523

3


Page(s) herewith

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

Report of the Development Services Manager (Electronic version of this document is attached separately)

108 - 122

21. REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES

To nominate representatives to the following Liaison Groups for the ensuing year (no political balance):

Snetterton Circuit Liaison Group (Existing/previous members: Mr J.D. Rogers (Chairman), Mr S. Askew, Mr. P. Cowen)

Old Buckenham Airfield Consultative Committee (Existing/previous members: Mr J.D. Rogers (Chairman), Mr A. Joel, Mr K. Martin, Mr A. Stasiak, Mr P. Francis)

Fibrothetford Liaison Group (Existing/previous members: Mr J.D. Rogers (Chairman), Mrs M P Chapman-Allen, Mr R G Kybird, Mr R S Key, Mr J P Cowen, Mr A Paines)

22. APPLICATION DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION

3CM/2004/0034/F: Carbrooke: Land at Mill Corner: Variation of Planning Permission to allow continued extraction, processing, stock-piling and sale of minerals for 4 Leaf Enterprises Ltd.

Conditional Approval

3CM/2004/0028/F: Snetterton: Landfill Site, Heath Road: Fenced compound on edge of an existing landfill which will house a containerised generator & ancillaries for CLP Envirogas Ltd.


3CM/2005/0007/F: Cranwich: Watermill Farm: Variation of Cond 2 on 3CM/2002/0047 to import 2000 tonnes of sand to create saleable products/restoration for John Brown (Gazeley) & Son.


agenda20050523

4

Development Control Committee 25 April 2005

BRECKLAND COUNCIL

At a Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Held on Monday, 25 April 2005 at 9.30 a.m. in the Anglia Room, Elizabeth House, Dereham

PRESENT Rogers, Mr J (Chairman) Kybird, Mr R Darby, Mr P Labouchere, Mr J P Duigan, Mr P J Monson, Mr I Gould, Mrs E (Vice-Chairman) Rose, Mr B Howard-Alpe, Mrs S Ward, Mr M Kemp, Mr R Wickham, Mr D Key, Mr R Wilkin, Mr N

ALSO PRESENT Duffield, Mr R Jordan, Mr C Holland, Mr C Stasiak, Mr A Joel, Mr A Steward, Mrs A

In Attendance Addison, Mr G - Tree and Countryside Officer Britton, Mr G - Principal Planning Officer Britton, Mrs J - Committee Officer Burlingham, Mrs H - Assistant Development Control Officer Chinnery, Mr J - Consultant Solicitor Daines, Mr P - Development Services Manager Hendry, Miss L - Assistant Development Control Officer Long, Mrs A - Environmental Planning Manager Moys, Mr N - Principal Planning Officer (Major

Projects)

ACTION BY

79/05 MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM 1)

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

80/05 APOLOGIES (AGENDA ITEM 2)

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs J Ball and Earl Cathcart.

81/05 DECLARATION OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 3)

Mrs E Gould declared a personal interest in Agenda item 12 (Scarning) the nature of which related to her having a relative living in the same road as the applicant. Mrs Gould left the room whilst this item was being discussed.

5


ACTION BY

82/05 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)

Items 5, 8 and 12 of the Schedule of Applications had been withdrawn.

83/05 REQUEST TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM 5)

Members were informed that requests for deferral had been received by the applicants for items 3 and 9 on the Schedule of Applications. Members considered each application and it was

RESOLVED that

(a) item 9 (Little Dunham) be deferred for a site visit at the request of the Ward Member, Mr C Holland; and

(b) item 3 (Watton) be dealt with at the meeting as there were no valid reasons for it to be deferred.

84/05 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM 7)

Mr Duffield – Ward Member for Agenda item 11 (East Bilney).

Mr Duffield, on behalf of Mr Gretton – Ward Member for Agenda item 12 (Scarning).

Mr Holland – Ward Member for item 9 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Joel – Ward Member for Agenda item 10 (Old Buckenham).

Mr Jordan – Ward Member for item 11 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Jordan, on behalf of the Parish Council – for item 1 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mr Stasiak – Ward Member for item 2 of the Schedule of Applications.

Mrs Steward – Ward Member for item 10 of the Schedule of Applications.

85/05 WIND ENERGY – A STATEMENT OF BRECKLAND COUNCIL POLICY (AGENDA ITEM 9)

The Environmental Planning Manager presented the report. Members were reminded that the Council had sought to produce additional guidance on the subject of Wind Energy to assist in the determination of applications between now and the adoption of a new policy as part of the Local Development Framework. The

6


ACTION BY

draft Wind Energy Policy had been published for public consultation in the summer of 2004. It was then the intention that the document would ultimately be adopted by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to supplement Policy ENV.25 in the adopted Local Plan 1999. However, changes to the Development Plan system that had been brought about by the enactment of parts of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in September 2004 had resulted in the abolition of SPG.

Local Authorities were still able to produce Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) under the new system; however it was a prescribed procedure which included the requirement to undertake Sustainability Appraisal which took approximately 12 months. On the advice of officers and Go-East, Members decided to pursue the issue and to use the work undertaken to date on the SPG to formulate a statement of Breckland’s own policy.

The Environmental Planning Manager advised that the Statement of Policy would not carry the same weight in the planning application process as SPD under the new system; however it would allow the Council to have a policy in place relatively quickly to assist in the determination of applications between now and the adoption of a new policy in the LDF in February 2008.

The Environmental Planning Manager explained the main key features of the policy:

• The policy would give the Council greater strength in requiring developers to submit enough information on submission of their application.

• The policy would provide the Council with stronger grounds in requiring developers to consult with local communities that were likely to be affected by proposals prior to submission of the application.

• The policy would place the onus on developers to prove to the Council (in the context of the Landscape Assessment Study) that their proposal would not significantly adversely affect the character of the landscape.

• The Statement of Policy could also be used to inform any future LDF policy and would have the advantage of having been tried and tested.

• Members would have all the relevant, up to date information prior to the application.

One of the main issues still under contention was how much distance should be between the turbine and the nearest residential property, this was called a buffer zone. The Environmental Planning Manager advised that the distance could vary with each proposal depending on what type of landscape the wind turbine would be sited in, for example land cover, hills or

7


ACTION BY

trees.

The original Policy had included a buffer zone of 1000m for the placement of wind turbines away from domestic dwellings. On the advice of the Government Office, Go-East, this had been removed as it was felt that the consideration of impact on amenity negated the need for a buffer zone. If a buffer zone was included Go-East had requested that a copy of their letter regarding this issue be included with the Policy.

The Committee was informed that at the Scrutiny Panel (Social and Environment) meeting (Minute No. 33/05 refers), Members had supported the removal of any reference to a buffer zone as the effect of each wind turbine would be considered through the amenity impact assessment. It was further noted that a buffer zone could jeopardise the possibility of the inclusion of wind turbines on brown field sites in the future.

In response to a question regarding shadow flicker, the Environmental Planning Manager advised that this had been taken into account.

Another Member questioned what would be classed as a group of wind turbines; the wind turbines sited at Swaffham were discussed as an example. The Environmental Planning Manager said that although these wind turbines were technically classed as two singles, from some view points on the landscape they could be classed as a group. It was noted that the cumulative effects would be discussed with every wind turbine application.

Members requested that the subject of groups and the cumulative effects be included in the policy.

RECOMMEND TO CABINET to support the Wind Energy Policy subject to the addition of groups and the cumulative effects being included.

Environmental Planning Manager

86/05 OLD BUCKENHAM: OLD BUCKENHAM GREEN – VILLAGE AMENITY AREA (AGENDA ITEM 10)

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application was a resubmission of similar proposals which had been refused and withdrawn in 2004. The scheme had been revised in an attempt to overcome the previous concerns.

The revised scheme, which was strongly supported by the Parish Council, reduced the size of the car park by reducing the number of parking spaces and attempted to reduce the impact of the proposal by alternative surface treatment of the vehicular crossings.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that although the application had been revised, he felt that the proposal was still considered to be unacceptable.

8


ACTION BY

An alternative position for parking on the opposite side of the road directly outside the village shop had been suggested by Officers but had been discounted by the applicant. Details of this scheme were presented to the Committee.

The following speakers attended for this item:

• Mr Joel – Ward Member, who although a member of the Parish Council, was representing the views of his Ward, in support of the application.

• Mr Baskerville – Norfolk County Council representative, in support.

• Mr Read – Chairman of the Green Right Proprietors, in support.

• Mr Bartlett – Chairman of the Village Action Plan and on behalf of the Parish Council, in support.

• Mr Phillips - Objector

• Mr Addision – Breckland’s Tree and Countryside Officer.

Mr Joel advised that the application was supported by 679 residents, which amounted to 83.4% of the population of Old Buckenham. He explained that vehicles were constantly encroaching on to the Green. He implored Members to support this community based application.

Mr Baskerville explained the road layout of the village and felt that the car park would be a safety facility for the people visiting the only remaining shop in Old Buckenham.

Mr Phillips, an objector, felt that the Green should be defended and was concerned that he had only 3 minutes (the amount of time allowed for public speaking), to secure something that had one thousand years of history.

Mr Read informed the Committee that a grant of £1,000 had been given to the Parish Council from the Green Right Proprietors, which he represented, for the proposed Village amenity area.

Mr Bartlett informed Members that restoration works had taken place in the village on a number of projects which had been subject to conservational issues. He felt that the amenity area was essential for the protection of the Green, as more erosion had occurred since the submission of the application.

Mr Addision, the Tree and Countryside Officer, emphasised that Old Buckenham Village Green was a valued historical landscape and was of national importance. He found it strange that, in order to preserve the Green, the landscape had to be destroyed. He

9


ACTION BY

felt that introducing hard landscaping and parking a number of vehicles on the Green would be a greater intrusion.

It was made clear that the revised application had reduced the number of car parking spaces from 17 to 14 and the Officers’ suggestion was linear parking for 10 vehicles.

Members were concerned about the safety issue, as the revised proposal placed the car parking area across the road from the shop, on the other side of the main Hargham Road. The Committee felt that this would be dangerous, as customers would have to cross the busy road to visit the shop.

Following discussion, the Committee concluded that the applicant should have regard to the Officers’ recommendations and, it was

RESOLVED that the application be refused as recommended.

Principal Planning Officer

87/05

EAST BILNEY: HIGHFIELDS FARM, CHURCH ROAD: OUTLINE PROPOSAL FOR FIVE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS (AGENDA ITEM 11)

This item was considered in the light of the site visit held on 18 April 2005.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of this application which was recommended for refusal on policy grounds.

The proposal, which was outside the Settlement Boundary, was to cease all pig and poultry production on the application site and the adjoining land, and to remove all farm buildings.

An indicative layout had been provided showing that the site could readily accommodate five dwellings. The existing access was proposed to be used with some improvements being provided to visibility off Church Lane.

Nine letters of support had been received from local residents and there had been no objections to the proposal from the Parish Council.

Mr Duffield, the Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He informed the Committee that the applicant would be willing to enter into any necessary Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Hedges (Applicant) and Mr Richards (Supporter) were present to speak to this application.

Members were very supportive of this application, on the grounds that there would be a planning gain from the removal of the pig and poultry use from the site, eliminating noise, smell and the flies.

10


ACTION BY

There was some discussion of whether, if the Committee was mindful to approve the application, the scheme would generate the requirement for one affordable unit. The Principal Planning Officer pointed out that the Housing Officer had advised that given the remoteness of the site a commuted sum to provide a suitable affordable dwelling in another area would be more appropriate.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee

RESOLVED that the application be deferred; however the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement, to include:

1) the cessation of the existing use and the removal of all the agricultural pig and poultry units from the site prior to the occupation of any of the new houses;

2) a contribution towards one affordable unit; and

3) the pig and poultry units to be removed in stages to allow the storage of building materials, to be removed on completion of all building works.


88/05 SCARNING: BOBTAIL COTTAGE, 1 FEN ROAD: DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDING AND ERECTION OF CRECHE FACILITY (AGENDA ITEM 12)

This item was considered in the light of the site visit held on 18 April 2005.

Mrs Gould left the room whilst this item was being discussed.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of this application and informed the Committee that a number of letters of objection had been received.

The application was recommended for refusal on policy grounds.

Mrs Watson (Applicant) and Mr Phillips (Applicant’s Agent) were present and spoke in support of the application.

Mr Duffield spoke against the proposal, on behalf of the Ward Member, Mr Gretton, who was unable to attend the meeting.

Members felt that although there might be a need for crèche facilities in the area the location was inappropriate.

RESOLVED that the application be refused, as recommended.


11


ACTION BY

89/05 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 13)

(a) North Tuddenham: Oak Farm, Off Low Road: Grass Livery: Reference 3PL/2005/0189/CU

This item had been deferred from the Development Control Committee meeting of 11 April 2005. The proposal, which sought two liveries, had been approved in principle subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement for the removal of the bund forming the northern and western boundaries of the site.

The applicant was of the opinion that the linking of the business to the removal of the bund was inappropriate and had requested reconsideration of her application.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Council’s solicitor had further considered the legal position in respect of the linkage of the proposal to the removal of the bund, the latter issue currently being the subject of an Appeal.

Accordingly, the Committee was asked to determine the livery only, following which it was

RESOLVED that the application be approved, as recommended, subject to the number of liveries being restricted to two.


(b) Hockering: The Street: Proposed Residential Development: Reference 3PL/2004/1366/D

This report concerned an application for approval of reserved matters for 10 dwellings on land at Hockering.

Members were asked to recall that the initial application had been considered by Committee on 20 December 2004 (Minute No. 262/04 item 4 refers) where it had been deferred for further discussion with the applicant.

The application was re-submitted to Committee on 7 February 2005 (Minute No. 25/05 (d) refers), where it had been resolved to refuse permission on design grounds due to the lack of provision for an emergency access to serve the adjacent Yew Tree Court development. However, on the advice of the Council’s Monitoring Officer, the refusal notice had not been issued as it was considered unlawful to refuse the application based on the absence of an emergency exit.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) explained that the applicant had now offered to reserve a strip of land for a period of 12 months to allow for the access to be provided. This offer had been made on the proviso that arrangements be made for the adoption and future maintenance of the access by a public body. However, in the absence of arrangements to adopt the access the strip of land would revert to garden land.

12


ACTION BY

In respect of design, there had been a number of detailed changes, including the inclusion of brick plinths, enhanced detailing to window openings and greater variation to external finishes. Additionally, plot 6 had been moved further away from the western boundary (adjacent to Yew Tree Court) and the introduction of a lean to feature had been installed to the two storey dwellings.

Mr Arthurton, a former objector to the application, spoke on behalf of the residents of Yew Tree Court who were now satisfied with the revised proposals. He pointed out that the residents would be willing to help maintain the access.

Mr Charlton, the Chairman of the Parish Council, was very pleased that a compromise had been brought about. He informed the Committee that the Parish Council had indicated that it would be in favour of adopting and maintaining the emergency access.

Members proposed that the modifications and the offer of the emergency access be accepted.

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) advised the Committee to proceed with caution as the terms of any access had not been formally agreed and would need further discussions with the applicant. Additionally, the adoption of the emergency access had not been resolved.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred; however the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant approval of reserved matters as recommended on completion of a Section 106 Agreement, to secure the agreed arrangements in respect of the emergency access, and its adoption by a public or other body.

Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)

90/05 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM 14)

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


Reference & Details Decision

3PL/2004/2028/F: (item 1): Shipdham: Park View, Watton Road: Demolish existing dwelling, erect new dwelling and garage and stable block/tack room for Mr G & Mrs V Hoare.

Refused, contrary to the recommendation, on design grounds.


13


ACTION BY

3PL/2005/0327/F: (item 5): Great Ellingham: Penhill Road: Revisions to Planning Permission 3PL/2004/1053/F – change Plot 6 to pair of semi-detached dwellings for Orchard Developments Ltd.

This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

3PL/2005/0353/O: (item 6): Beetley: Highfields Farm, Church Road, East Bilney: Residential development (5 dwellings) for Mr & Mrs M Hodges.

This item was considered in conjunction with Agenda item 11 (Minute No. 87/05 refers).

3PL/2005/0371/O: (item 8): Dereham: Stanton Close: Erection of a house and garage for A Stewart and C Hulett.


3PL/2005/0409/O: (item 9): Little Dunham: Barrows Hole Lane: Erection of dwelling for Mr S J and Mrs P Wright.

This item was deferred for a site visit to be held on Thursday 19 May 2005 at 10.00 am.


3PL/2005/0212/F: (item 12): Old Buckenham: Shardalows Farm, Fen Street: Change of use of agricultural buildings to stables, livery and ménage/arena for Stephen Brown.


3PL/2005/0383/O: (item 14): Scarning: Euroview Coaching, Dereham Road: Residential development – 4 dwellings for Mr D Reeve.

Deferred, contrary to the recommendation and the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant permission subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement for cessation of the existing use, and complete clearance and decontamination of the site, including the removal of the underground fuel tanks before any commencement of building works.


3PL/2005/0329/F: (item 16): Old Buckenham: Old Buckenham Green: Village amenity area for Old Buckenham Parish Council.

This item was considered in conjunction with Agenda item 10 (Minute No. 86/05 refers).

14


ACTION BY

NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE

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

Schedule Item No. Speaker(s)

Agenda item 10 and Schedule item 16

Mr Joel – Ward Member, spoke in support of the application

Mr Baskerville – Norfolk County Council representative, in support

Mr Read – In support

Mr Phillips – Objector

Mr Bartlett – on behalf of the Parish Council, in support

Agenda item 11 and Schedule item 6

Mr Duffield – Ward Member, in support of the application

Mr Hedges – Applicant

Mr Richardson - - In support

Agenda item 12 Mr Duffield – on behalf of the Ward Member, Mr Gretton – spoke against the application

Mr Phillips – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Watson - Applicant

Agenda item 13: Hockering

Mr Arthurton – Former Objector

Mr Charlton – Chairman of the Parish Council – in support

Agenda item 13: North Tuddenham

Miss Baddiley - Applicant

Schedule item 1 Mr Jordan – on behalf of the Parish Council – against the application

Mr Shirley – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Hoare – Applicant, to listen only

15


ACTION BY

2 Mr Stasiak – Ward Member, in support of the application

Mrs Lawrence – Objector

Mr Jenness – Applicant, to answer questions only

Mr Cumming – Applicant’s Agent

4 Mr Day – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Collier - Objector

9 Mr Holland, Ward Member, in support of the application

Mr Wright - Applicant

10 Mrs Steward – Ward Member, on behalf of the Applicant’s Agent, in support of the application

Mrs Taylor – Parish Council, against the application

11 Mr Jordan – Ward Member, spoke for and against the application – on behalf of the applicant and the Parish Council

14 Mr Reeve – Applicant, to answer questions only

Mr Wingate – Applicant’s Agent

Written representations taken into account

Reference No. No.of Representations

3PL/2004/1366/D 5 3PL/2004/2028/F 1 3PL/2005/0025/F 11 3PL/2005/0236/F 4 3PL/2005/0314/F 1 3PL/2005/0329/F 51 3PL/2005/0353/O 7 3PL/2005/0409/O 19 3PL/2005/0416/O 2 3PL/2005/0418/F 3 3PL/2005/0432/O 12

16


ACTION BY

91/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 15)

This item was noted.

92/05 APPEALS DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 16)


93/05 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 17)


The meeting closed at 2.25 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

17

Development Control Committee

23 May 2005 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.

18


23 May 2005

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE: 23 MAY 2005 REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER (Author: Nick Moys, Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) THETFORD: PROPOSED SHELTERED FLATS, FORMER VAUXHALL GARAGE, BURY ROAD: 3PL/2004/1628/F

SUMMARY – This report concerns a proposal for a retirement housing development in Bury Road Thetford. It is recommended that an objection to the proposal be maintained based on the absence of any contribution towards affordable housing. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report concerns a planning application for a development of 31 sheltered flats for the elderly, together with manager’s accommodation, on the site of a former garage at Bury Road, Thetford. The development would comprise a series of interconnected 3 storey blocks fronting onto Bury Road and Newtown, together with communal landscaped gardens and parking area. 1.2 An appeal has been lodged by the applicant against non-determination of the application. The application cannot therefore be determined by the Council. However, in order to assist in the preparation of the necessary appeal statements, Members’ views on the proposal are sought. 2. KEY DECISION 2.1 This is not a key decision. 3.0 COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.1 The following Council priorities are relevant to this report: A safe and healthy environment A well planned place to live and work 4.0 POLICY

4.1 Policy HOU.2 of the Breckland District Local Plan (1999) permits new residential development in Thetford provided that certain criteria relating to townscape, amenity, and access issues are properly addressed. 4.2 Policy HOU.13 of the Breckland District Local Plan (1999) states that an element of affordable housing will be sought in residential developments of 25 or more dwellings proposed in urban locations. The Breckland Council Affordable Housing Policy, adopted in July 2003, provides that an affordable housing contribution of 30% built units will be required on qualifying sites. 4.3 National planning policy on housing and affordable housing is set out in PPG 3 and Circular 6/98. 5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Thetford Town Council has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the use of locally distinctive external materials, the provision of adequate parking and a pedestrian crossing over Bury Road.

5.2 Norfolk County Council, as Highway Authority, has raised no objection to the application subject to appropriate vision splays.

5.3 Norfolk Landscape Archaeology and the Environment Agency have raised no objections

19


23 May 2005 subject to conditions. 5.4 One letter of objection has been received from a local resident concerned about increased traffic, parking and pressure on local services. 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal planning issues raised by the proposed development relate to: i) its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and ii) the provision of affordable housing. 6.2 Dealing with the local environmental impact of the proposal, it should be noted that the development site occupies a prominent location on one of the main approaches to Thetford town centre. The site falls within the Thetford Conservation Area. There is a range of residential, commercial and institutional uses in the immediate locality. In its present semi-derelict condition, the site does little to enhance the appearance of the area. The proposed development offers an opportunity to improve significantly the appearance of the site and the surrounding area. 6.3 It is considered that the form and scale of the proposed development would relate well to the surrounding pattern of development. Following negotiations, amendments have been made to the design and external materials to ensure that the development would make a positive contribution to the character of the area. On this basis it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in design terms. 6.4 Turning to the issue of affordable housing, in line with Council policy, a contribution has been sought of 9 flats for rent to be provided in conjunction with a Registered Social Landlord. There is currently a need for such accommodation in Thetford, with more than 140 elderly people being registered on the Housing Waiting List. 6.5 The applicant is unwilling to provide affordable housing, arguing that the site is not suitable for such provision. National planning policy, notably Circular 6/98, is cited in support of this argument. In particular it is suggested that the development is not of sufficient scale to enable a reasonable mix of house types/sizes to be accommodated, as required by Circular 6/98. It is also argued that a mix of social rented and owner occupied flats would create management difficulties given that package of services and communal facilities proposed. 6.6 Notwithstanding the arguments made it is considered that in the context of development in Breckland, the proposal is significant in scale and should contribute towards affordable housing. Although the site area falls below the 1 hectare site area referred to in both local and national policy, it clearly exceeds the 25 dwelling threshold. This threshold would also be likely to be exceeded by a conventional housing scheme, given recent trends towards high density developments in central locations such as this. Whilst the potential management problems are acknowledged, it is considered that these could be addressed to an extent through the layout and design of the development. If these problems were considered to be insurmountable, the payment of a commuted sum towards off-site provision could be made.

20


21

7.0 OPTIONS

7.1 The following options are available:

1. To object to the proposal on the grounds of the lack of provision for affordable housing in conflict with Local Plan Policy HOU.13 and to contest the appeal accordingly, or

2. To raise no objection to the proposal and to offer no evidence against the proposal in relation to the appeal. A further planning application could also be invited.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 It is recommended that, given the clear conflict with Local Plan Policy HOU.13, an objection to the proposal should be maintained (option 1).


BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE/WILLIAM NUNN: 23 MAY 2005 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Debbie Wragg: Enforcement Officer) UNAUTHORISED CHANGE OF USE OF RESIDENTIAL GARDEN LAND AND ADJOINING AGRICULTURAL FIELD MR CARROLL, THE GRANGE, LYNN ROAD, SWAFFHAM

Summary: This report concerns unauthorised storage taking place on land within the residential curtilage of The Grange and on the adjoining agricultural field both in the ownership of Mr Carroll. It is recommended that enforcement action be authorised to remove all unauthorised storage/vehicles and the cessation of any unauthorised activities.

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 In January 2005 complaints were received stating that the adjacent agricultural field was being used for banger racing and that associated storage was taking place.

1.2 Complaints also related to the storage of scrap vehicles within the residential curtilage of the premises.

1.3 A site inspection was made in February 2005 which showed that there were several scrap vehicles on the agricultural land but at that particular visit the curtilage of the dwelling although untidy did not contravene any planning rules. A request was made of the occupier to clear the field and it was agreed to re-visit at the end of March.

1.4 A further site inspection was carried out on 1 April 2005, at which point the field had been cleared to an acceptable level and no unauthorised activities appeared to be taking place. However it would appear that approximately 20 - 30 of the vehicles and a mobile home had been moved into the curtilage of the dwelling. The occupier informed us that the curtilage would be cleared in the near future as the drive was due to be tarmaced.

1.5 A legal opinion was requested on the 11 April 2005 as to the possible courses of action that could be taken to address the situation.

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 Further site inspection have been carried out, the last one being 27 April 2005. We

were unable to gain access to the property, however it was noted that the unauthorised storage was again taking place on the agricultural field and remained within the curtilage of the property.

22


5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 5.1 To serve an Enforcement Notice. 5.2 To serve a Section 215 Notice. 5.3 To take no further action. 6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) 6.1 Uses of land generally benefit from 28 days permitted development rights in any one

calendar year. Given that the storage taking place has already exceeded this allowance it is considered that there has been a material change of use of the land, and accordingly an enforcement notice will allow us to take steps to remedy the unauthorised storage and secure the restoration of the land to its original condition.

6.2 The Authority may only serve a Section 215 Notice where it appears to affect the

amenity of the surrounding area. In this case there are no public views to the site and it is only visible by one neighbouring property.

6.3 To take no further action would be unacceptable as the Authority would be seen to be

condoning the unauthorised uses on the site. 7. RECOMMENDATION(S) 7.1 To take enforcement action as outlined in 5.1 above.

Appendices: Site Plan Photographs

23


BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE/WILLIAM NUNN: 23 MAY 2005 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Debbie Wragg: Planning Enforcement Officer)

UNAUTHORISED EARTH BUND, DAIRY DRIFT/HERNE LANE, BEESTON

Summary: This report concerns an unauthorised earth bund at land adjacent Dairy Drift/Herne Lane, Beeston. It is recommended that enforcement action is authorised in order to secure its removal.


1.1 Complaints were received in January 2005 in relation to the creation of a large earth bund at Beeston. Enquiries concluded that the land belonged to Norfolk Farm produce at Herne Lane Beeston.

1.2 The construction of an earth bund constitutes an engineering operation as defined in s.55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and requires planning permission, accordingly an application was requested.

2. KEY DECISION 2.2 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.2 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 Correspondence was received from Norfolk Farm produce refuting the fact that

planning permission was required as existing bunds had merely been updated and refurbished. Aerial photographs taken in 2001 do not show any bunding in place and local residents have confirmed that the bunding is new.

4.2 A legal opinion on the bund has been sought and our solicitors have advised not to

engage in further discussions regarding whether there is a need to apply for planning permission.

4.3 The owner of the land has submitted representations from a number of local

residents which suggest that the unauthorised development occurred more than 4 years ago and accordingly is immune from enforcement action. In these circumstances the most appropriate way forward would be to request the submission of a formal planning application for a Certificate of Lawful of Existing Use or Development (CLUED). However, it should be noted that the information provided does not accord with that held by both the County Council and the Parish Council.

5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 5.1 To serve an Enforcement Notice to secure the removal of the earth bund. 5.4 To request an application for a CLUED. 5.3 To take no further action.

24


6. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) 6.1 The bund, although on the edge of the industrial area is still quite prominent and

considered inappropriate and therefore to take no further action would be considered inappropriate and contrary to policy ENV.3.

6.2 Given that the information held by the Council does not support the claim that the development occurred more than 4 years ago it is not recommended an application for a CLUED is requested at this time. It would be open to the landowner to raise such argument as part of any appeal against any enforcement notice served.

6.3 If we take no further action the bund will benefit from deemed planning permission after it has been in place in excess of 4 years.

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

Appendices: Photograph Site Plan

25


BRECKLAND COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE/WILLIAM NUNN: 23 MAY 2005 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER – PHIL DAINES (Author: Sue Bloomfield: Enforcement Assistant)

UNAUTHORISED WORKS TO A LISTED BUILDING SAVERS, 39 – 41 KING STREET, THETFORD

Summary: This report concerns unauthorised works that have been carried out to a Listed Building in Thetford. It is recommended that enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of both the fascia and the projecting sign.


1.1 In November 2004 an application was submitted for internally illuminated fascia and projecting signs.

1.2 It was 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. Accordingly the application was recommended for refusal and this was supported by Committee.

1.3 It was also considered that the proposal was contrary to Policies ENV.10, ENV.13

and ENV.28. 2. KEY DECISION 2.3 This is not a key decision. 3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES 3.3 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 Concerns were raised by members of the Development Control Committee that the

works as refused had been carried out. 4.2 A site inspection was made on 26 April 2005 which confirmed the Members fears,

and that the works had indeed been carried out. 5. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 5.1 To serve an Enforcement Notice. 5.5 To take no further action. 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.

26


6.2 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

27


BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 23RD MAY 2005 ROUDHAM & LARLING: ROUDHAM TRADING ESTATE REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER AUTHOR: Greg Britton – Principal Planning Officer REPORT FOR INFORMATION ONLY Members will recall an application for the retention of a snack bar with a panel fence surround on land adjacent to the Roudham Trading Estate (Minute 63/05 refers). The application was recommended for refusal on the advice on the Highway Authority as they were concerned that vehicles calling at the snack bar were damaging the highway verges. The application was approved as the Committee were of the opinion that the erosion of the verges was being caused by a wider range of vehicles visiting other premises on the estate. It was resolved that a letter should be sent to Norfolk County Council Highways Authority requesting suitable road improvements. This was done and the following is an extract from the response received.

Roudham – Trading Estate Thank you for your letter of 22 March regarding the above estate, and in particular, to the introduction of a snack bar adjacent to the highway. Under normal circumstances, the width of the road should be more than adequate to cater for its use by HGV traffic, and in keeping with visual and environmental issues, would not consider kerbing to be necessary. I understand that the area is still being developed as an industrial estate, so until the full impact of this, and the introduction of the snack-bar, can be assessed, the extent of overrun cannot be seen. Should the overrun problem increase over time, then I will review the situation, but for the immediate future, do not propose any action. I trust that this explains the situation

28

29

Letter(s) of SUPPORT

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 25-04-2005

* This application relates to the erection of a dwelling on the southern side of Barrows Hole Lane,east of Westcliffe House. * The site lies outside the settlement boundary for Little Dunham and the development as proposed is contrary to policy, in particular HOU.6 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan. * PPS7, at paragraphs 9 and 10 also states that new housing will not be permitted in the countryside unless it meets the ‘special justification’ outlined in paragraph 10 relating to the

ASSESSMENT NOTES

3PL/1996/1149 - Residential development of four houses and garages - Refused. 88/1040/O - Residential development for four houses Pt OS 48 and 49 - Refused - 22nd August 1988. 87/0404/O - Residential development for four houses Pt OS 48 and 49 - Refused - 28th May 1987.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CLERK TO LITTLE DUNHAM P C NO REPLY AS AT 5TH APRIL 2005.

Policies HOU.6 and ENV.1 of the Breckland District Local and PPS7 (paragraphs 9, 10 and 11) and PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) are considered relevant to this application (paras 20,21,27 (v) and (viii)). HOU.6 - Development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism. ENV.1 - Development will not be permitted in the Areas of Important Landscape Quality and Historic Parklands except in exceptional circumstances.

POLICY NOTES

AGENDA TYPE:

LB GRADE:

TPO:

CONS AREA:

ALLOCATION:

POLICY:

APPN TYPE:

REF NO:

PROPOSAL:

AGENT:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

ITEM

N

No Allocation

Out Settlemnt Bndry

N

N

3PL/2005/0409/O

Outline

Erection of dwelling

Nuthatch Sporle Road Mr S J and Mrs P Wright

Nuthatch Sporle Road Mr S J and Mrs P Wright

Barrows Hole Lane LITTLE DUNHAM

Agreed Refusal 9

30


essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work or the criteria in paragraph 11 relating to exceptional design. * The grounds advanced by the applicants are largely personal and include the length of residence within the parish, proximity to local schools for the children, the family’s contribution to village life, the cessation of their current tenancy, the inability to run a business from housing association accommodation. The proximity to the settlement boundary is also advanced. * The applicants carry out hedge and grass cutting and other ground works in “local churchyards and village greens”. Your officers are of the opinion that these works are often undertaken by contractors who are peripatetic. No evidence has been put forward of the customer base and the distances travelled from Little Dunham. * The policy advice from central government is that there must be an essential need for a worker to live permanently at/near their place of work. No argument has been put forward that the application is of exceptional design: the application has been submitted in outline with all mattersreserved. * Similarly, the submission has not included any analysis of other sites considered within the settlement boundary e.g. brownfield sites, infill sites or existing properties on the open market. * A letter of support has been received, commenting that the development would enhance an unsightly area and be a natural progression of existing development. * Whilst your officers acknowledge the personal circumstances of the applicants, these are not considered sufficient to outweigh normal policy considerations relating to the safeguarding of the countryside and development within the countryside as set out in ENV.3 and HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan and national policy documents. * The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the following grounds.

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission RECOMMENDATION:

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL: Non-std reason for refusal Non-std reason for refusal Non-std reason for refusal Policy not met outside settlement Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. Unwarranted intrusion into landscape No evidence that cannot be met in settlement Despite personal circumstances Setting a precedent

9900 9900 9900 9044 9046 9130 9048 9310 9300


BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 23 MAY 2005 FOR INFORMATION REPORT OF THE OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – (Author: David Spencer, Senior Planning Policy Officer)

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 6 (PPS6) PLANNING FOR TOWN CENTRES Summary: This report informs Members of the contents of Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) Planning for Town Centres which has recently been published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). 1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 1.1 The Government has recently published Planning Policy Statement 6 on Planning for

Town Centres. The document is the final version of this statement of national planning policy. The Draft Planning Policy Statement 6 was published in December 2003. This document replaces Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6), "Town Centres and Retail Developments", published in 1996 and is now a major consideration in the production of planning policies and in determining planning applications.

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 priorities:

• A safe and healthy environment • A well planned place to live which encourages vibrant communities

4. PLANNING FOR TOWN CENTRES 4.1 The policies in the statement should be taken into account in preparing Local

Development Documents and they are material to decisions on individual planning applications. The key objectives in PPS6 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

4.2 The statement is accompanied an annex on the detail of delivery entitled “Planning for

Town Centres: Guidance on Design and Implementation Tools”. Best practice guidance on need and impact assessments, sequential testing and dealing with smaller centres is due out later in the year.

31


5. ASSESSMENT 5.1 The key issues raised in the PPS are outlined at Appendix A together with an indication

of the implications for the production of LDF policy.

6. OPTIONS AVAILABLE 6.1 There are no options available. 7. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) 7.1 This report is for information. 8. RECOMMENDATION(S) 8.1 Note the contents of this report. Appendices: Appendix A – PPS 6 – Planning for Town Centres – Key Issues

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.

32


Appendix A - PPS 6 – Planning for Town Centres – Key Issues INTRODUCTION

In order to deliver vital and viable town centres PPS6 requires local planning authorities to adopt a proactive, plan-led approach to planning for town centres. This approach means actively planning for growth and managing change in town centres through both the Local Development Framework (LDF) and the Development Control processes. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

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 Networks and Hierarchies PPS6 requires LDFs to set out a network of centres taking account of the need to avoid over-concentrating development in any one location and the need for investment and growth to strengthen other centres (especially those needing regeneration). In the Breckland context the network or hierarchy of centres will consist of:

• Market towns – serving an extensive rural hinterland • District Centres – a group of shops, often containing at least one

supermarket as well as a range of non-retail services such as a bank or a library

• Local Centres – a group of shops, possibly including a small supermarket, and other facilities. A number of Breckland’s larger villages may perform the role of a local centre.

It should be noted that PPS6 states that new out-of-town regional shopping centres are unlikely to be supported and should only be promoted through the regional planning process. Strategy In preparing a strategy for town centre development in the LDF, local planning authorities will have to:

• Assess the need for new retail floorspace • Identify the centres where development will be focussed • Define the extent of a primary shopping area and the town centre • Identify sites for town centre developments

Policies Set out criteria-based policies for assessing new development proposals that will:

• Protect primary shopping frontages where retail uses will predominate but acknowledge that town centres as a whole should contain a high diversification of uses

• Encourage well-designed, and where appropriate, high density, development • Encourage the use of upper floor spaces • Allow for a diversity of uses – shops, leisure, offices, tourism, residential

33


Site Selection When identifying sites for development in the LDF the authority will be required to:

(a) assess the need for the development, both quantitatively and qualitatively (b) identify a scale of opportunities directly related to the role and function of the

centre (c) apply the sequential approach to site selection – first priority will be given to

sites in the existing centre, followed by edge-of-centre locations and then out-of-centre sites that are well served by a choice of means of transport.

(d) Assess impact (e) Ensure locations are accessible

PPS6 states that an apparent lack of sites should not be construed as an obstacle to identifying sites for town centre development. It advises that local authorities should actively assemble sites using compulsory purchase orders to ensure that suitable town centre and edge of centre sites come forward. Local and rural shops PPS6 encourages authorities to protect existing facilities which provide for people’s day-to-day needs such as a village shop by having policies that would resist their loss or change of use and respond positively to proposals to provide or extend shops in rural communities, including farm shops. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

When assessing proposed developments PPS6 states that the key considerations should be:

(a) the need for the development (b) the appropriateness of the scale of development (c) that there are no more central sites for development (d) there is no unacceptable impact on existing centres (e) the location is accessible

Assessing Need Retail proposals in town centres will not be required to demonstrate need unlike edge-of-centre and out-of-centre proposals. Greater weight will be given to quantitative need (i.e. there is sufficient capacity/available expenditure in the local economy) over qualitative need (i.e. it improves consumer choice). Sequential Test In selecting sites, developers must be able to demonstrate that all options in the centre have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. In this regard PPS6 expects operators to be more flexible about their proposed business model – innovative site layouts and store configurations, reduced car parking or splitting a store over two or more sites. In a marked change from its predecessor (PPG6), the new policy statement says that there are no types of goods or retail formats that cannot be sold or operate from a town centre. Therefore bulky goods and retail warehouses are now no longer exempt from the sequential test. Assessing impact Like its predecessor, PPS6 maintains it is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or prevent innovation. However, where a significant development would have an impact on the vitality and viability of a town centre and other nearby centres, this impact needs to be assessed by the applicant. The impacts on the vitality and viability of existing centres that need to be considered include:

• Likely effect on future investment

34


35

• Trade/turnover of existing centres within the catchment area of the proposal • Changes to range of services provided in these centres • Impact on the number of vacant properties • Potential changes to the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and

character of the centre Extensions PPS6 introduces new policy to deal with extensions to retail premises in edge-of-town and out-of-town locations, this includes:

• Demonstrate that the need for class of goods to be sold exists • Proposals exceeding 200sqm will need to be sequentially tested (including

internal alterations) and applies to individual units whether they be on an established out-of-town retail park or not.

Ancillary Uses PPS6 reminds authorities that ancillary retailing (i.e. trade counters) can only be permitted where the retail element is limited in scale and genuinely ancillary to the main development. Whether the development is ancillary will be a matter of judgement for the decision-maker.


36

REFERENCE AND DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS MEETINGS FIRST REPORTED TO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

REASON FOR DEFERMENT

3PL/2004/1068/O: Attleborough: Land adjacent to Mill House.Leys Lane: Erection of one dwelling for Mr and Mrs W Chard.

09/08/04 Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

Deferred at the request of the applicant.

3PL/2004/1715/F: Old Buckenham: 49 Hargham Road: Proposed annex as an extension to existing garage to provide a separate dwelling for Mr and Mrs R Gurden.

17/01/05 Refusal Deferred for further negotiations with the applicant.

3PL/2005/0056/O: Fransham: The Fransham Motor Company Ltd, Main A47: Site for residential development for the Fransham Motor Company.

28/02/05 Refusal Deferred, for the applicant to provide a full development brief or full planning application before any final decision be made.

3PL/2004/2045/O: Thetford: Forest Retail Park, London Road: Phase 2: for LxB Properties (Thetford) Ltd.

21/03/05 Refusal Deferred at the request of the applicant.

3PL/2005/0310/F: North Elmham: Eastgate House, Eastgate Street: Alterations and extension to living accommodation for Mr M R and Mrs B R Markwell.

11/04/05 Refusal Deferred, to allow applicant to submit revised plans.


37

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 23RD MAY 2005 BLO’NORTON: PLOT ADJACENT ENIGMA FEN ROAD – ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL COTTAGE STYLE DWELLING AND GARAGE REFERENCE: 3PL/2002/0012/F REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER AUTHOR: Viv Bebbington – Senior Development Control Officer DEFERRED ITEM REPORT This application was deferred from the meeting on 31st March 2003 by the applicant in order to investigate whether any work could be undertaken off-site to improve the local drainage system to prevent the site from flooding. The proposal is to erect a dwelling within a former pit. The ground level is currently lower than the surrounding land. As a consequence it has acted as a collection point for excess surface water and is flooded during periods of heavy rainfall. Watercourses to the north of the site have a restricted flow and water runs down the road and collects in the site. The raising of the site level to avoid flooding for the occupants of the new dwelling would redirect the water towards other properties and cause serious problems elsewhere. Following the Development Control meeting this authority undertook a survey of the watercourse and discussions took place with the Council’s Drainage Engineer and the applicant. It was agreed that the replacement of a pedestrian footbridge at Elm Cottage and the cleaning of watercourses would improve the hydraulic flow and reduce the number of occasions that the watercourse overflows. The applicant has agreed to undertake the work and has obtained consent from the landowners. The Parish Council and objectors have been advised of the proposed works but still maintain a strong objection to the proposal, raising concerns regarding continued maintenance of the ditches to an acceptable agreement and the flooding of the site when during excessive rainfall the watercourses will overflow. It is considered that the proposed works will only reduce the number of occasions that the watercourse overflows and the proposed property is still at risk from flooding. Furthermore, the applicant does not have any control over the long-term maintenance of the identified watercourses, unless these watercourses and those elsewhere in the vicinity of the site are maintained on a regular basis, the problem will recur. Whilst it is acknowledged that it is not the responsibility of the applicant to provide a ‘surface water collection point’ for the village, the development of the site would result in adjacent properties being put at greater flood risk. Recommendation: Refusal.

Development Control Committee May 2005 23

38

Agenda Type Agreed Refusal

POLICY NOTES Policy INF.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan 1999 is considered relevant to this application. INF.4 Development that is likely to increase the risk of flooding will not be permitted.

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

3PL/2002/0012/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N

Ref. No. Appn.Type Policy Allocation Cons. Area T.P.O. L.B. Grade

Erection of residential cottage style dwelling & garage PROPOSALCOMMENTS

Nicholas G Bailey Duart Cratfield Road

AGENT

Mr S Hawkins c/o 81 High Green Brooke

APPLICANT

BLO' NORTONPlot adjacent to Enigma Fen Road

LOCATION

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM 2

Page 2 of 22


Development Control Committee May 2005 23

39

Refusal of Planning Permission

Objection The Parish Council is seriously concerned about this planning application. To begin with, the site plan is incorrect in that there are three properties not included in the near vicinity of the proposed dwelling. There is a bungalow on the large plot to the rear of the proposal which has an entrance on the eastern boundary of the small spinney as well as a pair of semi-detached cottages on the land between Rose Cottage and the proposal. The scale of the proposed house and plot would appear to be out of proportion. The plot is incorrectly stated as having been a garden. It has never been a garden. It is in fact an old sandpit which during wet weather acts as a reservoir for surplus water from the main water course alongside Middle Road. Last winter the plot was flooded for several months, at one stage having ducks and ducklings living on it. If, as is proposed, the site level is to be raised to the same level as Fen Road, where is all this water going to go? There is a serious risk of it running onto the cottages on the plot next door and the garden of Rose Cottage as well as onto Fen Road itself. It would be extremely dangerous to create a further access onto Fen Road from the proposed dwelling, as it is very close to the road junction, and visibility is not good. The approach to the junction from Thelnetham is on a left hand bend with a hedge on the left hand side, and to cross into Fen Road is lethal. On the right hand side there is a high bank that obscures traffic from either way. A house on the corner would decrease the restricted visibility there is at present. We feel that road visibility on the corner has to be seriously investigated. We think it is questionable as to whether the proposed house, garage and driveway would fit onto the plot without more trees being felled. Local reaction has generally been that it is ludicrous to even think of attempting to build at all on this particular plot, in view of the regular flooding and the position of the plot on a very difficult junction. We hope that our comments will be noted and we would welcome the chance to talk to anyone involved in this planning application as we do feel very strongly that this is a very ill thought through application.

* The site is a former pit, which has been filled in, but the ground level remains lower than the surrounding land. * As a consequence it has acted as a collection point for excess surface water and is flooded during heavy rainfall. * The raising of the site level would redirect the water towards other properties and cause serious floodingelsewhere as the storage area for surface water would be removed. * Recent heavy rain in late October and January resulted in serious flooding in the area and to adjacent properties. * The Drainage Engineer has recommended the application be refused. * The Parish Council have raised strong objections, raising a number of concerns, but largely in respect of the sites drainage function and the risk of flooding. * 10 letters of objection have been received raising concerns re drainage and detailing the flooding problems experienced in the area.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

Non-std reason for refusal9900

RECOMMENDATION

CLERK TO BLO' NORTON P C

Page 3 of 22



40

BRECKLAND COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 23RD MAY 2005 MATTISHALL: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING AND GARAGE – WALNUT TREE FARM MILL ROAD REFERENCE: 3PL/2004/1758/D REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER AUTHOR: Mike Brennan – Senior Development Control Officer DEFERRED ITEM REPORT 1. This application was deferred by Members at the meeting of this Committee held 28th

February 2005. The deferral was agreed in order to seek a revised design that would accord more readily to the building’s rural setting.

2. The revised proposals have simplified the appearance of the building through window

design, removal of the neo-classical porch and a reduction in the width of the front projection. In addition, the length of the building has been marginally reduced with parapet gables added.

3. Given the changes made to the original proposal it is considered that the dwelling’s

appearance is more in keeping with others in the village and is appropriate for this fairly large site.

4. The application is recommended for approval.



41

Agenda Type Refusal subj. to conflicting views ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 ITEM

MATTISHALL Walnut Tree Farm Mill Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1758/D Reserved Matters Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N

Ref. No. Appn.Type Policy Allocation Cons. Area T.P.O. L.B. Grade

Mr and Mrs Beavis 23 Brailsford Close Dereham

APPLICANT

John Downes 11 Burgess Way Brooke

AGENT

PROPOSA Demolition of dwelling and erection of new dwelling and garage LCOMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policy HOU.9 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application:- HOU.9 - Replacement dwellings in the countryside may be permitted subject to criteria.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY3PL/2002//1107/O - Outline Planning Permission: Demolition of dwelling and erection of new dwelling and

CLERK TO MATTISHALL P CNo objection in general. Ensure surrounding properties are complimented please, it's a large property.

ASSESSMENT NOTES

RECOMMENDATION

* This application proposes the replacement of a derelict cottage located off the western carriageway of Mill Road, Mattishall. * The site lies outside the village settlement boundary approximately 1.8km north west of the village centre. * Whilst a previous outline application was approved (3PL/2002/1107/O) in 2002 it did require that the subsequent reserved matters application should closely follow the indicative scheme considered at that time. * The current scheme shows a footprint of 165 m2, almost double that referred to. In addition, the scale, massing and design of the dwelling is not consistent with local character and whilst the site is relatively well screened from the road, the building will appear as a dominant feature in the rural landscape.

Disapproval of Reserved Matters

Non-std reason for refusal 9900

Page 26 of 33


42

BRECKLAND COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL DEPARTMENT

ENFORCEMENT ITEMS – MAY 2005 1. ROUDHAM – MRS L SWITZER, 1 & 2 AERODROME COTTAGES, HALL

ROAD (2000/0036)

Unauthorised gates. Enforcement action authorised 16th October 2000. New application submitted. Planning permission approved on 9 July 2002 subject to condition requiring existing gates at western end of the site to be removed within 2 months of commencement of the development. Monitoring site, to date no work has commenced on site. Work has now commenced on site, however electric cables being installed by Eastern Electricity so delay in removal of gates, re-inspect May 2005.

2. NECTON – MRS MASTERS, ROSE COTTAGE FARM, IVY TODD (2002/0325)

Unacceptable level of dogs on site. Enforcement action authorised 23 September 2002 to reduce the number to 4. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Legal 17 October 2002. Enforcement Notice served 14 November 2002, effective from 1 January 2003. Has until 1 July 2003 to comply. Appeal submitted. Appeal dismissed. Has 6 months from 16 June 2003 to comply with original requirements of Notice. Enforcement Officer to re-inspect site. New planning application submitted and refused. Court hearing to take place 6 April 2004. Court hearing adjourned until 4 May 2004. Court hearing took place 29 June 2004, Mrs Masters fined £1,000 for failing to comply with Notice plus £1,000 costs. Dogs have been reduced to 4 until result of appeal. Appeal to be held 11 January 2005. Appeal upheld.

3. 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.

4. WATTON – MR BROOKS, 2 MIDDLE STREET (2003/0502)

Enforcement action authorised 22 September 2003 to secure removal of UPVC windows at first floor level of building. Instructions to serve enforcement notice sent to legal department 4 December 2003. Enforcement Notice served, effective from 3 March 2004, has until 3 June 2004 to comply. Appeal submitted. Appeal dismissed, has until 7 December 2004 to comply. Instructions for prosecution sent to Steeles 13 January 2005. Court appearance 5 April 2005, Mr Brooks has pleaded guilty, adjourned until 3 May for sentencing.


43

5. DEREHAM – MR & MRS WARD, MERRYLAND, UNION DRIFT (2003/0564)

Application for shed and kitchen diner extension refused 3 November 2003. Enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of the shed. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Legal 1 December 2003. Appeal submitted. Appeal dismissed. Enforcement Notice issued 14 July 2004, effective from 23 August 2004, has until 23 September 2004 to comply. Site inspection carried out, shed will be removed by end of month. Instructions to prosecute sent to Steeles 11 April 2005.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. BYLAUGH – MR VINCE, BYLAUGH HALL (2004/0339)

Retrospective planning application for swimming pool refused 29 June 2004. Enforcement action authorised to secure its removal at same time. Instructions to serve enforcement notice sent to legal 13 July 2004. Enforcement Notice served 28 September 2004, effective from 10 November 2004, has until 10 February 2005 to comply. Prosecution instructions sent to Steeles 22 March 2005. Court hearing 3 May 2005.

9. 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.


44

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. LITCHAM – 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.

13. NEW BUCKENHAM – MR THOMAS, UNIT 1 CHURCH FARM BARNS, WYMONDHAM ROAD (2004/0394)

Unauthorised mobile home, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Legal 24 August 2004. Enforcement Notice served 5 October 2004, effective from 11 November 2004, has until 11 March 2005 to comply. Mobile home removed.

14. MILEHAM – PREMIER LETTINGS, REAR OF THE LODGE, THE STREET (2004/0395)

Unauthorised use of outbuilding, enforcement action authorised 9 August 2004.

15. GRISTON – MR BRITCHER, PLOT 2 CHURCH ROAD (2004/0509)

Unauthorised mobile home, enforcement action authorised 18 October 2004 to secure the removal of the mobile home. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 1 November 2004. Enforcement Notice served 16 February 2005, effective from 23 March 2005, has until 23 June 2005 to comply.

16. MATTISHALL – MR KUTUKCU, MATTISHALL FISH BAR, CHURCH PLAIN (2004/0510)

Retrospective application for illuminated display signs refused on 18 October 2004, enforcement action authorised to secure removal of all unauthorised signage. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 15 November 2004. Discontinuance Notice served 18 January 2005, effective from 4 April 2005, has until 4 July 2005 to comply.


45

17. SAHAM TONEY – 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.

18. ATTLEBOROUGH – MR MUTLU, 11 EXHANGE 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.

19. HOCKERING – MR MUTTITT, THE OLD CHAPEL, CHAPEL LANE (2004/0613)

Retrospective application for shed refused. Enforcement action authorised 29 November 2004 but applicant be given 6 months to comply. Has been advised to negotiate smaller shed. Instructions to serve Notice sent to Steeles 8 December 2004. Enforcement Notice served 19 January 2005, effective from 28 February 2005, has until 28 August 2005 to comply.

20. NORTH TUDDENHAM – MISS BADDILEY, OAK FARM, OFF LOW ROAD (2004/0614)

Retrospective application for increase in size to bund refused. Enforcement action authorised 29 November 2004. Instructions to serve Notice sent to Steeles 8 December 2004. Enforcement Notice served 19 January 2005, effective from 28 February 2005, has until 28 June 2005 to comply. Original Notice withdrawn due to error in Notice. New Notice served 2 March 2005, effective from 19 April 2005, has until 19 August 2005 to comply. Appeal against planning refusal has been lodged.

21. DEREHAM – MR SINGFIELD, CANTERBURY HOUSE, MARKET PLACE (2004/0643)

Unauthorised advertising board. Enforcement action authorised 20 December 2004.

22. 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.


46

23. TITTLESHALL – 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.

24. GARBOLDISHAM – MR BALL, 82 BACK STREET (2005/0067)

Unauthorised garage in Conservation Area. Enforcement action authorised 7 February 2005 for service of a Planning Contravention Notice. Instructions to serve Planning Contravention Notice 24 February 2005. Planning Contravention Notice served 7 March 2005, response to be made by 28 March 2005. No response to Planning Contravention Notice, further advice sought from Steeles.

25. HOCKERING – 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.

26. HOCKERING – MR GARDINER, LAND AT HEATH ROAD (2005/0129)

Unauthorised caravans on site. Enforcement action authorised 21 March 2005 to secure removal. Instructions to serve Enforcement Notice sent to Steeles 22 April 2005.

27. THETFORD – FABRIC MILL SHOP, LONDON ROAD (2005/0130)

Retrospective application for A Board refused. Enforcement action authorised 28 February 2005 to secure removal, action to be deferred for a period of 6 months.

28. GRESSENHALL – 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.

29. WEETING – WEETING FISH & CHIPS, MUNDFORD ROAD (2005/0132)

Retrospective application for unauthorised advertising sign refused. Enforcement action authorised 7 February 2005 to secure its removal. Appeal lodged against planning refusal.


47

30. HARLING – FARBUILD LTD, REAR OF THE NAGS HEAD PUBLIC HOUSE (2005/0167)

Houses not built in accordance with approved plans. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to ensure remedial works are carried out to dwellings.

31. ROCKLANDS – MR UPSTONE, FOXHILL, FEN STREET (2005/0168)

Retrospective application for mobile home refused. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to secure its removal.

32. ROCKLANDS – MR GARROD, THE WILLOWS, SANDY LANE (2005/0169)

Retrospective application for mobile home refused. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to secure its removal.

33. FRANSHAM – MR & MRS MALLON, MAIN A47 (2005/0170)

Unauthorised advertising sign. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to secure its removal.

34. THETFORD – MR COOPER, NORWICH ROAD (2005/0171)

Unauthorised advertising sign. Enforcement action authorised 21 March 2005 to secure its removal.

35. CRANWORTH – KPL PARTNERSHIP, 1 CHURCH COTTAGES, MOOR LANE (2005/0184)

Retrospective application for COU from B2 to A1 refused. Enforcement action authorised 11 April 2005 to ensure cessation of use and removal of unauthorised signage.

36. OLD BUCKENHAM – MR P DUNNING, 47 HARGHAM ROAD (2005/0187)

House and garage not erected as approved. Enforcement action authorised 12 April 2005 to ensure garage rebuilt as approved.