Seven lifetime care homes at Saham Tythe Barn, Chequers Lane, Saham Toney, Thetford

What was proposed

The application proposed seven single-storey lifetime care homes with associated access and landscaping, arranged in a mix of two-, three- and four-bedroom homes.

“The full planning application seeks the erection of 7 no. lifetime care single-storey dwellinghouses (Use Class C3(b)) with associated works and landscaping. All of the proposed dwellings are single storey and can be broken down into the following housing mix:”

“- Plots 1 and 2 – single storey 3 bed semi-detached dwellings with adjoining side garage. - Plot 3 – single storey 4 bed detached dwelling, with an adjoining carport garage side link. - Plots 4 and 5 – pair of single storey 2 bed semi-detached dwellings. - Plots 6 and 7– single storey 3 bed detached dwellings with adjoining side garage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.49-hectare site is landscaped amenity land with a pond and fishing hut, within a gated community outside Saham Toney’s settlement boundary.

“The application site is 0.49 hectares in total and comprises of amenity/garden land with a pond and fishing hut that is surrounded by trees and other soft landscaping along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Nearby applications allowed four dwellings, while another residential development application was refused and its appeal was dismissed.

“Planning Reference: 3PL/2018/1583/O Description: Residential Development Application Status: Approved – 14/03/2019”

“Planning Reference: 3PL/2019/0948/O Description: Residential Development Application Status: Refused – 31/12/2020 – Appeal Dismissed on 05/10/2021”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the existing care facility, identified care need and housing supply benefits outweighed conflicts with development plan policies and the unsustainable location.

“The introduction of 7no C3(b) dwellings would also make a positive contribution to the Local Planning Authority’s shortfall in housing supply, which is currently 3.25 years, and this adds further material weight to the granting of planning permission, despite this being considered an unsustainable location.”

“The proposals are considered contrary to Policies GEN01, GEN03, GEN05, HOU04 and HOU09 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023). However, there is existing C3(b) provision immediately adjacent to the proposals and this is considered an other material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application. An extension of this existing facility is likely to help with maintaining it long term (in accordance with Paragraph 83 of the NPPF).”

Officer report

What people said

One objection raised concerns about care provision, the access road, footways and sustainability; one letter supported the proposal, with no further revised-scheme representations.

“- Not clear on the care provision proposed. - Inadequate access road serving the development. - Lack of footways or connectivity into Saham Toney. - Unsustainable location.”

“Following significant revisions to the scheme to revise the Use Class from C2 to C3(b) and to reduce the number of dwellings to 7no dwellings, a full 21 day reconsultation was carried out, where neighbours were reconsulted for 21 days from 25/11/25 and a further public site notice was erected for 21 days from 27/11/25. No further representations for or against the revised proposals have been received to date.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council spoke against the application, a care home provider spoke for the assisted living homes, and a ward member’s support letter was read aloud.

Members considered the proposal

Members considered the application in detail against the prevailing policies and guidance.

“Consideration was given to the report presented by Ed Small, Senior Development Management Planner.”

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

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted nine to none, with one abstention, in favour of the officer recommendation.

“DECISION: Members voted 9 x 0 + 1 abstention in favour of the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions as listed in the report.”

Minutes