Agenda item

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the attached Schedules of Planning Applications submitted by the Assistant Director.

The Committee considered schedules of applications for planning permission submitted by the Assistant Director for Planning and Environment (copies of the schedules were published with the agenda).  Any changes for the schedules will be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED:That the applications be determined as set out at (i) – (ii) below, where appropriate to the conditions and reasons or grounds of refusal, set out in the schedules signed by the Chair.

(i)              25/01801/FM

Downham Market / Wimbotsham:  Land south of 22 Bridle Lane:  Full planning approval for the erection of 114 dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure with vehicular access proposed from Lynn Road and an emergency vehicular access to Cinnamon Road:  Mrs Anne Dew

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the site was an irregular shaped parcel of land located to the north-east of Downham Market. It was located mostly within the parish of Downham Market, but the access road serving the site was located within the parish of Wimbotsham (boundary along bridleway BR13 / Bridle Lane which ran generally east west).

Excluding the access, the site comprised approximately 6.4 ha of an allocation site of 16.2 ha of residential development for Downham Market under Policy F1.3 of the Local Plan, with the policy requiring at least 250 dwellings and associated facilities.

Phase 1 of Allocation F1.3 already benefitted from outline and reserved matters consent (21/00798/F and 21/01121/RMM) for 226 dwellings and the site was currently being built out and was known locally as ‘The Willows’.

This was a full planning application for Phase 2 which proposed the construction of 114 dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure.  Vehicular access was proposed from Lynn Road and an emergency vehicular access to Cinnamon Road.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of the Planning Committee Sifting Panel.

The Committee noted the key issues to be considered when determining the application, as set out in the report.

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Anne Dew (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

The case officer advised the Committee that fire hydrants had been referenced in the report and a condition needed to be added relating to the provision of fire hydrants.

During the debate, Members raised the need for fire hydrants and wider fire-service funding. Officers confirmed that hydrants could be secured by condition, would meet building-control standards and would provide at least three hydrants for this scheme.  However, no additional fire-service financial contribution had been requested by the relevant authority.

In response to a question regarding contributions, officers explained that the allocation had been judged unviable for Community Infrastructure Levy purposes during the plan examination.  However, this exemption might be reconsidered through the next CIL review and local plan.

It was explained that the primary vehicle access would be from the Lynn Road roundabout, with an emergency-only connection to Cinnamon Road controlled by bollards. Officers explained that the arrangement followed consultation with Norfolk County Council Highways and was intended to prevent routine traffic using the secondary route.  Delivery, refuse and visitor movements would be accommodated through loops, parking areas and turning facilities.

Members questioned whether affordable housing was sufficiently pepper-potted.  Officers explained that the units were arranged in clusters permitted by housing policy, with no more than 10 units together, and that strategic housing officers supported the arrangement.

Members asked about level changes and overlooking for properties near Bridle Lane and Cinnamon Road. Officers explained that some homes would be around one metre higher because of site drainage, but separation distances of approximately 13 metres were provided; altered layouts, including parallel positioning of homes had reduced the scheme from 116 to 114 dwellings, and boundary treatment would be reviewed through a condition.

The Committee then voted on the need for an additional condition requiring fire hydrant provision which was agreed.

The Committee then voted on the recommendation to approve the application with the additional condition requiring the provision of fire hydrants and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (unanimously).  The Chair asked to be included in the relevant process in the event that the S.106 is not signed within 4 months. 

RESOLVED: That the application be:

(A)           APPROVE – subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement within 4 months of a resolution to approve to cover affordable housing provision, provision and maintenance of the open space and play equipment, off-site reptile mitigation and management, payment of the GIRAMS tariff and financial contributions required by Norfolk County Council and NHS Norfolk & Suffolk, permission be granted subject to certain conditions.  If the agreement is not completed within 4 months of the committee resolution, but reasonable progress has been made, delegated authority is granted to the Assistant Director / Planning Control Manager to continue negotiation and complete the agreement and issue the decision.

(B)           If in the opinion of the Assistant Director / Planning Control Manager no reasonable progress is made to complete the legal agreement within 4 months of the date of the Committee resolution, the application is refused on the failure to secure affordable housing provision, maintenance of the open space and play equipment , off-site reptile mitigation and management, payment of the GIRAMS tariff and financial contributions required by Norfolk County Council and NHS Norfolk and Suffolk, contrary to Policies LP05. LP19, LP21, LP22, LP27, LP28 and F1.3 of the Local Plan.

The Committee then adjourned at 10.20 am and reconvened at 10.30 am

(ii)            26/01142/F

Downham Market:  Melanna, 25 Ryston:  Householder:  Part Retrospective:  Conversion of first floor area of existing garage to annexe and single storey rear extension to dwelling, new boundary treatment and retention of patio:  Mr Dick Cavill

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application sought the conversion of an existing garage to an annexe, a single storey rear extension to an existing dwelling, a new boundary treatment and the retention of a patio area, which was attached to the garage.

Members were reminded that permission had been granted by the Planning Committee on 11 May 2026 for the retention of a detached garage under application 26/00414/F, subject to conditions.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Osbourne.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr Chris Walford (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, the Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Councillor Osbourne who could not be present at the meeting.

Members questioned whether the ground-floor garage could later become habitable accommodation. Officers agreed to amend condition 2 to identify the first-floor annexe on the approved plans and make it clear that the ground-floor garage elements must remain as shown. Any later conversion to habitable space would require a further planning application.

In relation to the obscure glazing, the condition required replacement obscure glazing to the ground-floor rear window and front upper gable window; temporary obscuration film would not satisfy the requirement. Compliance would be enforceable, alongside checks on the fence and other conditions, through the council’s enforcement process.

Members queried the garage’s dimensions and whether it could accommodate modern vehicles. Officers stated that sufficient external parking was available and that the garage was not being approved for residential use.  The annexe over the garage would also need to comply with building regulations, including relevant construction and separation requirements.

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application, subject to condition 2 being amended to clarify the annex’s first-floor location, retention of the ground-floor garage and the ancillary relationship to the main dwelling (the Chair asked to be included in wording of the condition) and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (6 votes for, 1 vote against and 4 abstentions).

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, as recommended, subject to the amendment of condition 2.