Traveller site with manager dwelling at Otterwood Kennels, Dereham Road, Saham Toney, Thetford

What was proposed

The application sought 12 permanent traveller pitches, ancillary hardstanding and conversion of an existing building into an onsite manager’s dwelling.

“ASSESSMENT 1.0 Principle of development 1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of land to a Gypsy and Traveller site comprising 12 permanent pitches (including the regularisation of an existing pitch), together with ancillary hardstanding and the conversion of an existing building to a site manager’s dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The triangular site is outside a settlement boundary, in open countryside between Watton and Shipdham, with access from the A1075.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The site is made up of a triangular parcel of land measuring approximately 0.15 hectares in size, situated outside any defined settlement boundary falling within the parish of Saham Toney, whilst abutting the parish of Ovington. The site is located just over 2 kilometres from the settlement boundary of Shipdham. The site is in a location mid-way between Watton and Shipdham. The site is accessed from the A1075/Dereham Road to the north-east.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included a temporary mobile home permission, a temporary appeal permission for one pitch and a refused four-pitch proposal.

“RELEVANT HISTORY There have been a number of historic planning applications on this site; the following are the most recent/relevant: 3PL/2022/0581/F - Siting of Temporary Mobile Home for 2 Years (Retrospective) Approved 23-03-2023 3PL/2014/0892/F - The use of land for the stationing of one mobile home for 1 no. gypsy pitch and day /utility room REFUSED 09-12-2014.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because safe access was not demonstrated, the location was unsustainable, and the development would harm rural character and landscape.

“In addition, the proposal would introduce a materially intensified form of development in an open countryside location, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. This harm would arise both from the scale of development proposed and the loss of existing boundary vegetation required to facilitate access arrangements.”

“The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form, and associated infrastructure, would result in a harmful and urbanising form of development in an open countryside location. The requirement to remove a substantial length of existing hedgerow and trees to facilitate access visibility splays, together with the introduction of caravans, hardstanding and boundary treatments, would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Two representations objected on highway safety, sustainability, countryside impact, residential amenity, drainage, ecology, unauthorised development and personal impact grounds.

“Two representations received raising objections for the following reasons: - Highway safety – access if vehicle and tourers onto A1075 is poor, plus. - No access by sustainable modes - Utilities? - Unsuitable location / policy conflict: Site is outside settlement boundary, in open countryside, and not allocated in the Local Plan. - No unmet need: Council is said to have sufficient Traveller pitch provision; site previously assessed and rejected for allocation.”

“- Unauthorised development: Existing unauthorised works seen as undermining planning control. - Human rights / personal impact: Strong emphasis on severe personal health and wellbeing impacts on immediate neighbours.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbouring ward representative spoke against the application, and the applicant’s agent also addressed the committee.

Earlier deferral

The application was deferred to allow further information about boundary treatment, landscaping, planting, highway access and visibility splays.

“This planning application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting May 2026 to allow the applicant to provide further information in relation to:”

“Boundary treatment • Landscaping and planting…”

Minutes

Members’ consideration

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

“Consideration was given to the report presented by Will Hornbuckle, Development Management Planner.”

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

Minutes

The vote

Members supported refusal by 9 votes to 2.

“DECISION: Members voted 9 x 2 In support of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because safe access and mitigation were not demonstrated, while the proposal would harm the rural landscape and habitat sites.

“RECOMMENDATION The application is recommended for refusal for the following grounds: 1. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate that a safe, suitable and deliverable means of access can be achieved and maintained.”

“No suitableUnilateral Undertaking or other form of mitigation in relation to the Norfolk IRAMS to mitigate for the recreational impact of the development on Habitat Sites in Norfolk has been provided.”

Officer report