OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 15 MAY 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
CROMER PF/13/1521 – Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for Crematoria
Management Ltd
Background
The application came before the Development Committee on 15 May 2014 where it
was resolved unanimously:
1. That consideration of this application be deferred to allow discussions
with the applicant in respect of landscaping and highways.
2. That a further meeting be arranged between the applicant and the
developer of the woodland burial site with a view to bringing both
applications back to the Committee to be discussed together.
A copy of the 17 April report to Committee is attached at Appendix 1. The minutes of
the meeting also contain the relevant updates reported to the Committee at that time
which included:



Reference to receipt of amended plans including relocation of a large section
of car parking along the eastern boundary; amendments to the external
materials including substitution of render for brickwork for the ancillary areas
and vent stack; agreement to provide additional/amended landscaping
throughout the site and to include additional planting to the northern boundary
to help screen in the event of clear-fell of the adjacent woodland;
Reference to the fact that further representations had been received since the
report to the Committee was drafted including a further letter of objection from
Mr William Macadam which sought to question the report before committee
and suggested that the application should be refused;
Reference to the fact that the Highway Authority had confirmed that they had
no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions which was
based, in part, on the agreement between the Town Council and the applicant
not to have cemetery and crematorium services at the same time thus allowing
any additional parking to take place within the existing cemetery roads and
grounds reducing the likelihood of any parking taking place within the highway.
In addition, on the basis that the applicant has agreed to provide funds to be
held on account for a period of time to allow for post opening reviews to
monitor the site and to implement waiting restrictions or other measures which
may be necessary to protect the safety of users of the adjacent public
highway. The Highway Authority had noted that the proposals incorporate
significant safety improvements at the Greens Lane/A148 Holt Road junction
and the cemetery access onto Greens Lane, but these would need to be
completed prior to first use of the development.
Development Committee
1
15 May 2014

Reference to the fact that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to
the proposal subject to a condition being imposed to secure a surface water
drainage scheme.
Following the Development Committee meeting Officers contacted the applicant with a
view to undertaking further negotiations in relation to the issues raised by Committee
as set out below.
Landscape
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, some Members of the Development
Committee raised concerns about the potential for loss of adjacent woodland screening
to the north of the site (under separate ownership) and the possibility of views of the
site being opened-up from the AONB.
In seeking to address the concerns of the Committee the applicant has agreed to move
the crematorium building approximately 7m due west so as to provide a larger area for
landscaping along the northern boundary. Based on the revised plans the Landscape
Officer has commented:
„The revised alignment of the building allows for a much more substantial landscape
belt along the northern boundary (averaging 8m wide now as opposed to 4m
previously). This gives more scope for a mixed planting scheme within the site
boundary that will provide effective screening and act as succession planting to the
existing mature woodland beyond.
The mix should include for some larger size trees to provide an amount of maturity to
the scheme. Suggested species to include in the mix are Scots Pine, Holm Oak, Holly,
Birch, Oak, Hornbeam and a small percent of Sycamore. It would be prudent to have
some detail of the proposed planting spec. for this screen planting prior to
committee. The remainder of the landscape can be dealt with by condition as
previously advised‟.
Based on the revised plans, Officers remain of the opinion that the proposal would not
result in adverse landscape impacts nor would it result in harm to the special character
of the AONB. As such the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies EN 1 and
EN 2.
Highways
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, concern was raised by Members of the
Development Committee about possible highway impacts resulting from the proposed
crematorium, especially at the junction of the A148 and B1436. The Committee made
reference to existing problems at the junction and to the separate Junction Review
Study undertaken by the Highway Authority which recommended that a compact
roundabout be installed at the junction of the A148 and B1436 at an estimated cost of
£300-£500K. In response to the request from the Committee, the Highway Authority
has been asked to indicate a level of contribution that would be considered
commensurate with the traffic impacts associated with the proposal. At The
Development Committee meeting on the 17 April, a representative of the Highway
Authority indicated to the Committee that the likely impact of the proposal on the
junction of the A148 and B1436 would be low (in the region of approximately 1 to
1.5%) and therefore the likely level of contribution that could be sought would be
relatively low. With this in mind, notwithstanding the fact that there are currently no
highway objections to the proposed development, the applicant has indicated that they
would be prepared to accept a request for a S106 contribution of £3000-£4000 to
assist in Holt Road highways improvements. The Highway Authority have been
Development Committee
2
15 May 2014
advised of this offer from the applicant and the Committee will be updated orally when
a response from the Highway Authority has been received.
Meeting between the applicant and the developer of the woodland burial site
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, the Development Committee recommended
that further consideration be given to a joint scheme involving the proposed
crematorium and the woodland burial ground (ref: PF/13/0116) which the Development
Committee had previously resolved to approve in April 2013. Committee indicated that
they would like to see a joint scheme not dissimilar to that proposed by the AONB
Action Group, which was appended to the April 17 Committee report and which
proposed both developments taking place on the woodland burial site.
Officers reported to the Committee that, on the back of the plan produced by the AONB
Action Group, a meeting had already taken place on 06 March 2014 involving the
applicants behind the crematorium proposal, the applicants behind the woodland burial
scheme together with representatives from the Highway Authority. At the meeting both
applicants indicated that they had considered and discussed the alternative proposal
with each other but for various commercial reasons the applicant behind the woodland
burial site was not supportive of relocating the crematorium onto their land and, in view
of the lack of substantive grounds to refuse the crematorium, the applicant behind the
crematorium scheme considered there was no justifiable reason to abandon their
current plans.
Following the Development Committee meeting on 17 April the applicant behind the
crematorium proposal was asked to confirm their attendance at a further meeting to
discuss a conjoined scheme together with representatives of the Woodland Burial
Ground. In seeking to set up a meeting between the relevant parties, it emerged that
the applicant behind the woodland burial site (Mr David Oliver) would not be able to
attend a meeting until 06 May 2014 at the earliest and that, in any event, whilst stating
that he had an open mind to possible joint working, Mr Oliver had verbally indicated
that it was highly unlikely that the schemes would come together on his site because of
the difference in ethos between the crematorium and woodland burial sites.
Nonetheless both applicants have indicated that there would be some degree of
synergy between the two schemes but it was not essential or indeed desirable for both
to be on the same site. The applicants have submitted some further evidence to
support their respective positions, copies of which are available at Appendix 1.
Therefore, notwithstanding the request from the Development Committee to hold a
meeting between both parties, it is apparent that a conjoined scheme on the woodland
burial site is highly unlikely to be forthcoming as a planning application. In any event,
both applicants are entitled to have their applications determined as submitted and it is
therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Development Committee as to whether
there are substantive grounds to refuse the crematorium proposal. A refusal reason on
the basis of a lack of a conjoined scheme could not be supported by Officers as
although this might be desirable in some respects there are not considered to be any
planning grounds to require this.
Other Matters
Another matter discussed at the Development Committee on 17 April 2014 was
concerns about existing drainage problems along Greens Lane/Davey Hill and whether
the proposed development would exacerbate those existing problems. It was reported
to Committee that a response had been received from the Environment Agency (EA)
which has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition. A
copy of the EA response is attached at Appendix 1. On the basis of the EA advice and
Development Committee
3
15 May 2014
subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the proposed development
would accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 10.
Summary
Having regard to the recommendation of the Development Committee to defer the
application, Officers have undertaken further negotiations with the applicant which
have secured a wider landscaping belt along the northern boundary and an offer of up
to £4,000 towards the cost of a compact roundabout at the junction of the A148/B1436.
In regard to the possibility of a conjoined scheme with the adjacent Woodland Burial
proposal, for the reasons outlined above, a conjoined scheme is not a solution which
would be wholly attractive to either applicant. In any event the applicant for the
proposed crematorium is entitled to have their application determined as submitted
and, on the basis that there are no substantive grounds to refuse the proposal, the
Committee are recommended to approve the application as set out below.
Recommendation
Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
1. No new material issues being raised following re-consultation in respect
of revised plans;
2. The inclusion of specific conditions as set out by the Highway Authority
in relation to highway matters together with the securing of funds for a
post opening highway safety review and the contribution of £4,000
towards a compact roundabout at the junction of the A148/B1436 via an
obligation under S106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended);
3. The inclusion of specific conditions set out by the Environment Agency
in relation to surface water drainage,
4. The inclusion of specific conditions set out by Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (interim) in relation to design and landscape
matters;
5. The inclusion of conditions proposed by Environmental Health together
with any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
In addition it is recommended that a separate letter be sent on behalf of
North Norfolk District Council to Norfolk County Council Highways
requesting that the improvement works at the junction of the A148 and
B1436, as recommended within the Junction Review Study undertaken by
the Highway Authority, be carried out as a matter of high priority.
Development Committee
4
15 May 2014
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
AYLMERTON - PO/14/0464 - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling; One
Acre, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr D Oliver
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 June 2014
Case Officer: Mr C Board
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19790983 PO - Demolition of the present brick surround arcon bungalow &
erection of new dwelling
Approved 27/07/1979
PLA/20080919 PO - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling
Approved 05/08/2008
PF/11/0543 PO - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling (extension of period
for submission of reserved matters on permission reference: 08/0919)
Approved 23/06/2011
THE APPLICATION
This application is for Outline planning permission for the erection of a replacement
single storey dwelling with all matters reserved. The application follows on from recent
applications 2011/0543 and 2008/0919 both of which provided approved permission
for a replacement single storey dwelling.
The current application re-uses the 2008 site block plan for a replacement dwelling - in
2008 this was identified as being 210sqm in footprint (proposed). As an outline
application a decision is sought in respect of the principle with all matters being
reserved for future submission.
The site contains a single storey arcon dwelling of brick, concrete tile and timber
fenestration construction. It has an attached flat roof garage and is set back from the
road within a large secluded plot. Access from the highway is via a 5-bar gate, the site
is maturing rapidly with the planting and trees dominating the site since the previous
visit in 2011.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The two most recent applications were processed at a delegated level. The current
application is submitted by the father of the Deputy Leader. In the interests of open
and transparent decision making this application is referred for a Committee decision.
PARISH COUNCIL
At the time of writing no response has been received.
Development Committee
5
15 May 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing no responses have been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Highways - Thank you for the consultation received recently
relating to the above development proposal, with consideration that the proposal is for
a replacement dwelling as previously consented in 2008 under PP 08/0919 and
renewed under PP 11/0543, I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues
only, as this proposal does not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of
traffic, that Norfolk County Council does not wish to raise any highway objections.
Should your Authority be minded to the grant of consent, I would seek to append the
following conditions to any consent notice issued:
SHC 05 - Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details
(in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority to illustrate the following: Surface Water Drainage, Parking Provision in
accordance with adopted standards, turning areas.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Any material changes in planning policy between 2011 and current.
2. The impact of the previous approvals as a material consideration.
3. The principle of a replacement dwelling set against planning policy.
APPRAISAL
The application follows two previous approvals which are material in the determination
of this application. In 2008 an outline application was approved, this approval dealt
with the principle and the details of access and scale, all other matters being reserved.
A second application in 2011 approved permission for the extension of period for
submission of reserved matters - effectively an extension of time. This approval
extended the compliance period to 29th April 2014 for the submission of reserved
matters.
The application site lies in the Countryside policy designation in the village of
Aylmerton. The site has an existing arcon bungalow and is set in relatively secluded
gardens with the dwelling set back from the road (approx 32m) behind a group of
Development Committee
6
15 May 2014
trees. The proposal was first approved in 2008 with an extension of time in 2011. In
2011 it was noted that the new Core Strategy was in place though in policy terms little
had changed except for the requirement for compliance with sustainable construction
and energy efficiency. This situation remains unchanged and the proposal remains
compliant with Core Strategy Policy SS2 in respect of the principle of development.
The existing bungalow is of little architectural value and its replacement would be a
single storey dwelling of a larger footprint. The scale of the dwelling as indicated on
the submitted plan would be increased from 91sqm to 210sqm - credit having
previously been given to permitted development extensions which could take the
building to 205sqm. The increased scale of the replacement property has been
established in the 2008 and 2011 permissions, this was limited through the application
of a planning condition in 2011 to a total of 210sqm. It should be noted that as an
outline application the decision sought is in respect of principle only; any reference to
the detail could change at a Reserved or Full application stage - therefore the critical
element of the decision relates to the description of development only "Erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling" and the size of the replacement dwelling cannot
be controlled by condition through this application.
In order to be successful at a reserved matters stage the proposal will need to be
considered as compliant with the Core Strategy and Design Guide and thus its size
shall not be disproportionate to the original dwelling. This provides the policy limitation
for the scale of the building and accordingly its impact towards the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB), should a subsequent application apply for a building that is
materially larger without appropriate justification it is likely that the proposal would
have a detrimental impact in scale terms which would be negative in respect of the
Countryside and AONB; therefore a larger proposal could be resisted at a future date.
It is considered that there is sufficient space and opportunity within the site to provide
appropriate layout, highway access and landscaping so as to support the detail of a
future planning application without conflict to the wider locality. The proposal is
considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy HO8.
In summary, there have been no material changes in planning policy between 2011
and the current application so as to warrant a change in recommendation. Accordingly
the previous approvals can be regarded to be material in the consideration of the
current application and the principle of a replacement dwelling as an outline application
can be considered to accord with Development Plan planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions listed below.
1. Time Limit Outline Applications.
Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Approval of these
reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the Local Planning
Authority in writing before any development is commenced. The development hereby
permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final
approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final
approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section
92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
Development Committee
7
15 May 2014
2. Time Limit Reserved Application Submission.
These reserved matters shall relate to the Access, Appearances, Landscaping, Layout
and Scale of the proposed development and this condition shall apply notwithstanding
any indication as to these matters which have been given in the current application.
Reason:
The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are pursuant
to the provisions of Article 3 (1) to the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details (in the
form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority to
illustrate the following: Surface Water Drainage, Parking Provision in accordance with
adopted standards, turning areas.
Reason: To ensure the development makes appropriate provision for drainage,
parking and turning areas in the interests of highway safety.
3.
BRININGHAM - PF/14/0296 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
dwelling; The Olde White Horse, The Street for Dr S Lomax
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 May 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of two linked outbuildings, which are currently used as a home
office/storage, which have a combined floor area of 60 sq. metres to a two bedroom
dwelling, with kitchen, sitting/dining room and snug.
As part of the scheme a shallow pitched roofed extension is proposed to the north
elevation which would have a floor area of 16 sq. metres and would accommodate an
entrance porch and sitting room.
It is proposed that this extension would be finished in red facing bricks to match the
existing building under a grey single ply membrane roof which would imitate lead.
Also as part of the scheme a new vehicular access is proposed off Church Lane with a
car parking and turning area for two vehicles.
An amended plan has been received which shows the boundary fence between the
Olde White Horse and the proposed property extended in length and increased in
height so as to provide additional privacy between the two dwellings.
Development Committee
8
15 May 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Member Councillor Wright due to local concerns that the
proposal would result in a cramped form of development which would be out of
character with this part of Briningham.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the following grounds, (summarised) :1. The proposed development is not in keeping with the village.
2. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Grade I listed church of St.
Maurice and the Grade II listed telephone call box.
3. Church Lane is very narrow and an additional entrance off this lane would restrict
access to the church which has no car parking.
4. The increased traffic would result in additional wear and tear to Church Lane which
has a brittle surface.
5. The lane is unsuitable for additional traffic.
6. The water table in the vicinity of the site is very high and it is understood that the
former White Horse public house has had sewage problems in the past.
7. Flash flooding already occurs in Church Lane and additional water from the
proposed Package Treatment Plant going into the nearby ditch would only serve to
exacerbate this situation.
8. The buildings are not redundant, they were converted by the former owner to an
office in 2010.
9. The proposed development would leave the Olde White Horse with a new
entrance only 2.9 metres wide with little or no storage space.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns, (summarised):1. The increase in vehicular traffic movements will have an adverse impact on the
pedestrian users of Church Lane.
2. The proposed parking area is not wide enough to allow cars to turn out of the
proposed parking area without damaging the bank on the opposite side.
3. Visitors to the property will park in Church Lane restricting access to the church
and emergency vehicles reaching Church Cottage and The Old Vicarage.
4. In addition to the church there are already five dwellings accessed off Church Lane
and there is not parking for the church.
5. The plans do not allow for a turning circle on the narrow lane.
6. The windows to the north elevation would disturb the visual approach to the
church.
7. The approach to the church will be urbanised.
8. The increased density of development is a concern and would alter the character
of the area.
9. The proposed development would drain into a stream on neighbouring land which
has a history of flooding.
10. The site is surrounded by springs and the proposed development will upset the
water table, resulting in further problems for the Old Vicarage.
11. In the wet summer of 2012 there was water across the bottom of Church lane and
up the garden of Church Cottage to its doorstep.
12. The use of a Package Treatment Plant would only serve to increase the indecent
of flooding.
13. The proposal will change the character of the approach to the church, a Grade I
listed building, which at the present time has an un-spoilt and rural appearance.
14. The land is not designed to take additional traffic.
15. The Churchwardens object to this development because it will be detrimental to
the church, increasing the risk to those accessing the church and graveyard.
Development Committee
9
15 May 2014
16. This is a sensitive area for wildlife which would be affected by the development.
17. The proposal is contrary to Development Plan policy.
18. Increasing the density of housing within Church Lane would have a detrimental
impact on the character of the existing settlement and surrounding area and be
contrary to supplementary planning document Landscape Character Assessment.
19. This is not a suitable location for new development.
Six letters of support have been received which make the following observations,
(summarised):1. The proposal would improve and preserve the area.
2. A turning area is proposed as part of the development.
3. As owners of property in Church Lane we have no objection to the proposal.
4. I have lived in the village for 14 years and can see no reason why the application
should not be passed.
5. Certain areas of Church Lane need to be refreshed and tidied up and this may be
the catalyst for this.
6. The applicant‟s deserve the support of the community.
One letter of comment:As Vicar of St Maurice‟s Church I would like to make it clear that the parochial church
council has not discussed this application, and therefore St Maurice‟s church cannot
be said to either support or object to this proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Has no objection to the
removal of the belt of leylandii trees to the northern boundary and considers that there
would be no overriding landscape or heritage impact issues. However the Landscape
Officer would require the imposition of a condition requiring the existing mixed
boundary hedge to Church Lane and the eastern boundary to the parking area to be
trimmed and maintained at a minimum height of 2m, with any gaps infilled with
appropriate native species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Environmental Health – No object subject to the Package Treatment Plant (PTP)
being of an appropriate size and the necessary approval being sought from the
Environment Agency.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
10
15 May 2014
Policy H0 9: Conversion & Re-use of rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies within
an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
4. Highway safety
5. Flood risk
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies HO9, EN4, EN13, CT5
and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value and are structurally sound and
suitable for conversion without substantial rebuilding and or extension.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are
set. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also
requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN13 requires that all development proposals minimise, and where possible
reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution,
and ensure no deterioration in water quality. Proposals will only be permitted where,
individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on;
 the natural environment and general amenity;
 health and safety of the public;
 air quality;
 surface and groundwater quality;
 pipelines) where new development would be likely to impose significant
restrictions on the activities of the existing use in the future.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
Originally outbuildings to the former White Horse Public House, the buildings are
currently used in association with the main house and make an important contribution
to this part of Briningham and are worthy of retention due to their appearance, historic,
Development Committee
11
15 May 2014
landscape or architectural value. In addition, they are structurally sound and suitable
for the proposed use without substantial rebuilding and or extension. It is therefore
considered that the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with
other Development Plan policies.
In terms of the design it is considered that this would respect the form and appearance
of the existing buildings with the northern wall of the frontage building, closet to The
Street, remaining blank. Whilst other elevations would utilise the existing openings for
doors and windows. The main changes would be to the north elevation of the rear
building which is stepped in from Church Lane by some 6.5 metres. It is to this
elevation that it is proposed to introduce the single storey extension, which due to a
variation in ground levels would be built up out of the ground by some 700 millimetres
with the flat roof finishing just above the eaves of the existing outbuilding. It is
proposed that there would be two windows and door to the north elevation of this
extension, together with a stainless steel flue pipe. Subject to this extension being
finishes in appropriate facing bricks and the fuel pipe painted matt black or dark grey
it is considered that this would integrate successful with the existing buildings.
Furthermore, given that it is the intention that the hedge to Church Lane would be
retained and reinforced where necessary it is not considered that the extension would
be readily visible and would not detract from the appearance of the buildings in the
street scene.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties the nearest dwelling to the site is the
Olde White Horse to the south west. This would be 2.9 metres from the proposed new
boundary wall/fence to the dwelling at its closest point. Whilst there would be a close
relationship between the two dwellings it is not considered that there would be any
significant amenity issues in terms of loss light or overlooking to either dwelling. Other
dwellings in the vicinity of the site, which would potentially be affected by the
development, are 1, 2 and 4 Church Lane to the north of the proposed dwelling.
However given the fact that no new openings are proposed in the north wall of the
existing building abutting Church Lane there would be no direct overlooking of the lane
or the properties beyond. Whilst the two windows and door to the north elevation of
the extension would be set back 3.5 metres from the boundary at the closest point
behind the existing hedgerow, which is to be trimmed and retained. As such whilst
there could be a degree of overlooking of part of the garden area of 4 Church Lane
until the hedge has time to thicken and mature, given that the separation distance
between the windows and the boundary of the neighbouring property is some 14
metres, this in itself would not result in significant overlooking and loss of privacy.
As far as the access and car parking are concerned, Church Lane is an adopted road
but unclassified, as such the creation of the new access, parking and turning area are
permitted development and do not require formal planning permission. This said, it is
considered that the creation of an access in this location which would result in the loss
of a small section of hedgerow with Church Lane is acceptable and would not
significantly affect the character and appearance of the area or the setting of St.
Maurice Church. Whilst in respect of the access to The Street the views of the
Highway Authority are awaited.
Turning to the concerns raised in respect of off-site flooding, surface water from the
existing building is discharged to soakaways, whilst it is proposed the foul drainage
would be to a package treatment plant (PTP) with a drainage field within the site.
Although a small extension is proposed to the building this would not significantly
increase the run off of surface water. Whilst given that the proposed dwelling would
only have two bedrooms and a wet room it is not considered that the levels of
discharge to the PTP would be significant. As such subject to the installation of an
Development Committee
12
15 May 2014
appropriate size PTP it is not considered that the proposed scheme would contribute
to flooding in the vicinity of the site, which in the past appears to have been the result
of flash floods.
In summary, whilst the concerns of local residents are noted it is considered that the
proposed scheme would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring properties, would not adversely affect the character and appearance of
the area and would not contribute to any off site flood event. Furthermore, although it
is accepted that the access to the church via Church Lane is only single track, given
that this an unclassified road and subject to the Highway Authority raising no
objection, the proposed development would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated to the Head of Planning to approve subject to no
objection from County Highways and the imposition of appropriate conditions including
the removal of permitted development rights restricting the alteration and extension of
the dwelling.
4.
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0310 - Conversion of barns to three residential
dwellings, re-location of access and change of use of land from agricultural to
residential; Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for Blue Tile Farm Barns Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 May 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070474 PF - Conversion of Barns to Three Residential Units
Approved 28/10/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of barns to three permanent dwellings with associated gardens,
garaging and outbuildings, requiring a change of use of land from agricultural to
residential, as well as partial demolition and infill of roadside wall and relocation of
vehicular access.
Amended plans have been received following the request for additional parking
provision to be provided by the Highway Authority and alterations required to satisfy
Building Control in order to comply with the regulations in terms of means of escape.
A further amended plan has been received in terms of car parking layout should Unit 3
have four bedrooms rather than three.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To discuss and consider the planning issues raised by the Parish Council and local
residents
Development Committee
13
15 May 2014
PARISH COUNCIL
Object for the following reasons:
1. There are concerns over the enlarged plot and additional buildings on this site,
leading to fears that future applications for infill development will be made.
2. The splays in the road are close to another splay on the opposite side of the road.
There will be problems with large farm machinery passing and using the access for
the farm.
3. Regarding window frames these should be wooden in keeping with the surrounding
old buildings.
4. There are no plans for trees to be planted at the boundary of Blue Tile Farm.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Concerns over enlarged plot.
2. Concerns over additional buildings.
3. Potential for further development.
4. Concerns over access considered to be another urbanisation of the countryside.
5. Access will restrict the road at a point very close to another splay, which must make
it difficult for large farm machinery to pass without mounting the kerbs or pavement.
6. Wooden window frames and doors would be more in keeping with the old buildings.
7. Colour of window frames important.
8. Concerns over the appearance that the excess residential creep would have on the
area.
9. Concerns over a 'garden centre landscape' of non-indigenous species.
10. Landscaping potentially detrimental to the agricultural nature of the barns and their
immediate surroundings.
11. Loss of view.
The applicant has confirmed that he will be using mini-treatment systems for the
disposal of foul water and that he is in agreement with a condition to be imposed for
implementation of the development within one year of the decision date.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection to first amended plan showing increase in parking
provision. Conditions required regarding provision and retention of new access,
access and egress as shown on approved plans, no gates, bollard or chain or other
means of obstruction at access, visibility splays, access, and on site car parking and
turning in accordance with approved plan, detailed scheme for off site highway
improvements (new kerbline to facilitate improved visibility splays).
Comments on second amended plan awaited.
Environment Agency - No objection. Advice offered in relation to foul water disposal.
Building Control - No objections to amended plans regarding means of escape, and
the proposed use of treatment plants for the foul drainage is also preferable and
acceptable.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - Despite having
reservations about several aspects of this new scheme, it is not considered that an
objection can be sustained on Conservation & Design grounds.
Development Committee
14
15 May 2014
Providing the hedge screening the extended curtilage is maintained at a height greater
than 900mm to contain the inevitable domestication (i.e. not less than 1800mm), the
development should not unduly harm the appearance and character of this part of the
Conservation Area. In the event of an approval being issued conditions are requested
regarding materials, external colour finishes and full details of the sheds and bin
stores.
In addition to the suggested conditions, it is assumed that PD rights will be withdrawn
for all extensions and curtilage buildings/structures, and that a full hard and soft
landscaping scheme will be sought (to include the surfacing within the existing
farmyard). Lastly for the record (as the applicant has previously queried it by email),
there is no requirement in this instance for the rooflights to be conservation-type
examples – this is because they would not be readily visible from any public vantage
points.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - The Landscape Section does not
object to the application subject to the following comments and conditions:
The application involves the conversion of former barns at Blue Tile Farm, Field
Dalling. The application was supported by a Protected Species Survey prepared by
The Ecology Consultancy Limited final revision dated March 2014. The surveys were
completed by Suitably Qualified Ecologists following recognised procedures and
guidelines.
The surveys concluded that the former agricultural buildings (principally the main barn)
proposed for conversion is used intermittently as a day roost by small numbers of
common bat species (brown long-eared, Natterer‟s and common pipistrelle) and a
likely singleton male barbastelle. Hibernation use of the buildings cannot be ruled out
due to the number of deep internal cracks within the masonry. The proposed
conversion works will eliminate one or all of these bat roosts and a possible brown
long-eared feeding perch and has the potential to kill/injure or disturb bats if present
during the construction works. The consulting ecologist has specified that a European
Protected Species (EPS) Licence will be required to carry out the works to convert the
buildings.
The Landscape Section considers that an offence under Article 12 of the European
Directive and Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) will occur, with or without mitigation.
In accordance with the Standing Advice issued by Natural England, as part of the
decision making process, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether an EPS
Licence is likely to be granted by Natural England in order to derogate from the
protection of the Habitats Regulations 2010. Information has been provided by the
ecological consultant on why they consider a Natural England EPS Licence is likely to
be granted by reference to the „three derogation tests‟ (Regulation 53 of the Habitats
Regulations 2010).
The ecological consultant concludes that with appropriate mitigation and
compensation, which includes new roost facilities (including a dedicated bat loft in a
new building and bat tubes and bat boxes), the favourable conservation status of the
local bat populations affected, would be maintained. Based on the evidence provided,
I can see no reason why a Natural England EPS Licence would not be forthcoming
with respect to the FCS test subject to the provision of appropriate mitigation and
compensation measures.
Development Committee
15
15 May 2014
The British Standard for Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development
(BS 42020:2013) indicates that where a European protected species is affected by
development and where an offence cannot be avoided through mitigation, the
competent authority should impose a planning condition preventing development from
proceeding without first receiving a copy of the EPS licence. The Landscape Section
recommends conditions in relation to protected species, external lighting and
landscaping.
Environmental Health - No objection in terms of contamination, advisory note required.
With regard to foul water would prefer to see use of mini-treatment system. If this is
not possible then further consultation with Environmental Health would be required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
Development Committee
16
15 May 2014
3. Impact upon Conservation and Area
4. Highway safety
5. Landscaping
6. Impact upon amenities of adjoining dwelling
APPRAISAL
This application follows the approval of planning application 07/0474 on 28 October
2011. That application was for the conversion of the barns to three residential
dwellings. Planning permission 07/0474 is extant and could still be implemented prior
to the 28 October this year. This is a material consideration in the determination of the
current application (reference:14/0310).
The principle of the barns being converted into three residential dwellings has
therefore already been established. However, notwithstanding this the application site
is located within the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for the conversion and
re-use of rural buildings as dwellings are required to accord with the five criteria of
Policy H09 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
This policy permits the conversion of buildings in the countryside to permanent
dwellings outside of the H09 zone subject to the buildings being worthy of retention
due to its appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. It is considered that
the barns are of quality and of historic, architectural and landscape merit and in good
condition. They therefore comply with the requirements of criteria 1 and 2 of Policy
H09.
Criterion 3 requires the building to be structurally sound and suitable for conversion to
a residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension and the alterations protect
or enhance the character of the building and its setting. The building is considered to
be in good condition. Whilst some extension is proposed under the current application
it is not considered to be substantial. The extensions are proposed within the internal
courtyard. There is a narrow extension to the east of Unit 1, facing the internal
courtyard. It is to create a hallway to access the bedrooms. This extension is single
storey and measures approximately 1.5m wide by 12m in length. There is also a
further extension to this same unit (Unit 1) on the eastern elevation, and backing onto
the road. This again is single storey and consists of a bedroom and bathroom. The
footprint of this extension is approximately 6.5m wide by 5m deep. To the south east
corner of the courtyard a single storey garage structure is proposed measuring
approximately 7m wide by 5m deep. This new structure along with the extension to
Unit 1 reinforces the enclosure to the courtyard from the road. There are already
boundary walls fronting the road to the south, and such a layout is not uncharacteristic
of some farmsteads. A further detached double garage is proposed to Unit 2, which is
to the rear (north) of the barns. Its siting it is not in a prominent position in the
landscape. This building would measure approximately 5.5m x 6.5m. Each unit also
has a large shed for storage measuring approximately 3m x 5m. It is not considered
unreasonable to expect the need for some structures for storage of garden
paraphernalia associated with the dwellings. The extensions and elements of new
build are not considered to be substantial.
Apart from the extension to Unit 1 the barn structure itself remains basically intact with
some fenestration changes. There are five new openings in total proposed along the
western elevation. Two openings were previously approved under 07/0474. On the
northern elevation a former opening is to be re-instated. This was approved under
07/0474. There are four additional rooflights in the northern elevation from what was
approved under 07/0474, and five new roof lights on the eastern roof slope of Unit 1.
All other fenestration/openings are as original and previously approved under 07/0474.
Development Committee
17
15 May 2014
The proposed alterations to the fenestration will not be clearly visible from public view
points and it is not considered that they would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the character and appearance of the building and its setting. The proposal is
therefore considered to comply with criteria 3 of Policy H09.
Criterion 4 requires the scheme to be of an appropriate scale in terms of the number
of dwellings proposed for the location. Given the extant permission is for three
dwellings it is considered that three is acceptable in this location.
Criterion 5 states that where it is viable to do so, on all schemes resulting in two or
more dwellings that not less than 50% of the total number of dwellings proposed are
affordable or an equivalent contribution is made in accordance with the requirements
of Policy H02. However, given that there is no requirement for affordable housing on
the extant permission this is a material consideration in the determination of this
application. Given that 07/0474 can be implemented now there would be no affordable
housing provision. Furthermore, the District Council is currently promoting a Housing
Delivery Incentive Scheme. This means that there is no requirement for an affordable
housing provision should the applicant agree to a condition to implement the
application within one year of the permission date. The applicant has confirmed that
he would agree to such a condition. Criterion 5 of Policy H09 does not therefore apply
at this time.
Policy H01 regarding dwelling mix and type would normally require, on schemes of
three dwellings, for at least one dwelling to comprise not more than 70sqm internal
floorspace and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. However, given the extant
permission did not comply with this policy and that this is a material consideration in
the determination of this application it is not considered that non- compliance with this
policy alone would be sufficient grounds for a refusal. Particularly where the District
Council is promoting the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme to encourage
development quickly.
The curtilage to the barns has increased in size from the approved development under
07/0474. Previously the garden areas were approximately 12m deep. Under the
current scheme the garden depth to Unit 1 is approximately 24m deep. This also
applies to Unit 2, but extends to approximately 26m to the north. Unit 3 has a garden
depth of approximately 27m which also extends approximately 23m to the west which
is approximately 13m further than previously approved. The curtilage to Unit 3 now
extends around and along the northern boundary of the adjacent property. A shed has
also been positioned adjacent to this neighbouring dwelling. However, this relationship
to surrounding neighbouring dwellings is considered to be acceptable.
The applicant has negotiated this increase in the curtilage of the barns to incorporate
the drainage fields that are required for the foul drainage. This is because the
drainage fields are required to be a minimum of 15m from the dwelling to comply with
Building Regulations.
In terms of foul drainage the applicant has confirmed that he will be using minitreatment systems which is acceptable to both Environmental Health and Building
Control.
A new vehicular access and farm track is also proposed. The existing farm track
access is to be stopped up and re-located beyond the new boundary top the gardens
of the barns. This is considered to be acceptable and like the extensions to the front of
the site the blocking up of the existing access will reinforce the sense of enclosure
along this part of the road.
Development Committee
18
15 May 2014
The Highway Authority have raised no objection subject to a number of conditions as
provided in this report.
The design of this scheme is considered to be acceptable, and as the site is located
within the Conservation Area the Conservation and Design Officer has been
consulted. Committee will note from his comments that it is not considered that an
objection can be sustained on Conservation and Design grounds, and that a number
of conditions are required should the application be approved. Subject to the
imposition of these conditions it is not considered that the development would unduly
harm the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area. These
conditions include details of materials and colour finishes.
The Committee will also note that the Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the
application in terms of impact upon the landscape, biodiversity and Protected Species
subject to the requested conditions being imposed on any approval.
Whilst this application may not comply with Policy H01 the proposal is considered to
be in accordance with other relevant policies of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. The
extant permission for this site is a material consideration in the determination of this
application and it is not considered that based on this previous decision and noncompliance with Policy HO1 that there are sufficient grounds to refuse this application.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and apart from Policy H01 is in
compliance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to appropriate conditions including one
year implementation, amended plans, removal of all permitted development
rights (extensions, alterations, new windows and openings, outbuildings,
structures, enclosures), materials, external colour finishes, full details of sheds
and bin stores, landscaping, external lighting, protected species, drainage,
provision and retention of new access, access and egress, no gates, bollard or
chain or other means of obstruction at access, visibility splays, on site car
parking and turning, scheme for off site highway improvements and an advisory
note regarding contamination.
5.
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871946 PF - Convert barn forming lettable accommodation in conjunction
with public house
Approved 23/11/1987
PLA/20000137
PF - Removal of occupancy restriction (condition 3 of planning
permission reference 871946)
Approved 10/03/2000
PLA/20020690 PF - Demolition of toilet block and temporary office and erection of
Development Committee
19
15 May 2014
single-storey dining room extension
Approved 05/12/2002
PLA/19791347 PF - Erection of bungalow
Approved 07/01/1980
PLA/20080555 PF - Change of use from public house to residential dwelling
Refused 23/05/2008 Appeal dismissed 18/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of The Hare and Hounds from a public house to a residential
dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was previously deferred by the Committee to enable the adjacent
Parish Council to be notified of the Committee date.
PARISH COUNCIL
Hempstead Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
- Many of the arguments offered by the applicant are inaccurate.
-The way the pub has been run gives the reasonable impression that the true aim of
the owners has been to run down the business. In doing so they have deprived
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe a valued and valuable social amenity.
- Opening hours were erratic
- The suggestion that the local village halls have competed with and deprived the pub
of business is absurd and disingenuous.
- The pub has been successful in the past and could be again if run in a competent
and business-like way.
- There is good reason to believe that the pub has not been sold as a going concern
because the asking price has been unrealistically high.
Comments following submission of additional information:
The Parish Council maintains its objections on the same grounds as previously stated.
In addition it is felt that the applicants statement is misleading (for example the
assertion that Hempstead Village Hall has an alcohol licence). Furthermore it is not at
all clear why problems with sewerage are raised now when the papers show that the
matter was first brought to the applicants attention in 2002 (on application 20020690)
Baconsthorpe Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
- The loss of the pub is very sad. It has always played a part in the life of this village.
- The owners of the pub made it fairly clear over a period of time that they intended to
shut the pub down eventually.
- Opening times of the pub were erratic.
- The applicant suggests parking is restricted on the site. This is inaccurate there is a
large car park at the pub.
- Reasons given by the applicant as to why the business was not successful include
the rural location, lack of footpaths and lack of tourist accommodation in the area.
These were facts that the applicant knew when originally purchasing the pub and are
unchanged from when the pub was run successfully.
- The Parish Council have never been aware of any drainage problems at the pub.
There is surely no difference with drainage for a pub or a dwelling and if there are
drainage problems surely the conversion of the little pub barn at the front of the site is
an issue for the applicant.
Development Committee
20
15 May 2014
Comments following submission of additional information (summarised):
Objects to the amended application and maintains its position as previously offered.
-There is no new information that makes a difference in assessing the situation.
-The question of drainage poses a problem, but as the applicants indicate they need
to address this with their solicitor and should be settled legally before any further
action is taken.
-Should the ombudsman find the applicants complaint upheld she will have the right to
sue for the cost of the drainage to be put right.
- Questions the accuracy of the some of the statements offered by the applicant in her
submission.
-Permission has recently been given for a campsite in the village and this will help the
vitality of the village, as would the retention of the pub.
REPRESENTATIONS
21 letters of representation received. These include 20 letters of objection and 1 letter
of comment.
Letters of objection citing the following grounds:
1. This is the last pub in the village and in fact in the four surrounding villages.
2. The village of Baconsthorpe is in need of a well run local pub.
3. The pub serves not only Hempstead and Baconsthorpe but Plumstead and
Matlaske.
4. Many other pubs in the area have had new owners in the same period as the Hare
and Hounds and are still successful.
5. The current owners took over a thriving business and mismanaged it.
6. The owners have deliberately run the business in to the ground. When the pub was
still open it had erratic opening times, the owners had no interest in developing the
trade and turned customers away.
7. The marketing exercise was a fait accompli as the owners did not want to sell the
business. Marketing was only done to tick the box for the planning application - for
example prospective purchasers of the pub were turned away, not being allowed to
view the pub.
8. The pub is a valuable commodity to a village in rural Norfolk which allows people in
the village to meet and converse to avoid isolation.
9. The only people who will benefit from the change of use is the applicant, to the
detriment to the community.
10. Baconsthorpe and Hempstead have already lost the post office and shop and the
loss of the pub would represent the final nail in our village's coffin.
11. Camp site now approved opposite.
12. Drainage quotes appear excessive.
13. Previous owners have run it as a successful business.
14. Advertised at an inflated price.
1 letter of comment as follows:
Shame to lose the chance that the Hare and Hounds might once again flourish as a
public house.
The applicant has submitted information in support of their application detailing the
viability issues with retaining the public house in addition to details of the problems
encountered with adequately resolving the drainage problems on the site. This is
attached as Appendix 2. She has commented that the premises have not been open
to the public since 2010.
Development Committee
21
15 May 2014
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - (summarised) With consideration of the current use of the
building, I find that I have no objection to the proposed development, in principle. The
proposed use would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic above that currently
permissible, I do however have concerns regarding parking provision as none is
indicated on the submitted plans. Further information in respect of proposed parking
layout and the number of bedrooms proposed in the dwelling (to ascertain the
required parking spaces) would need to be provided to enable the Highway Authority
to further consider the application.
Building Control Original comments:
I refer to the drainage consultation. It appears that the premises was a pub initially
with a septic tank drainage system. The restaurant use was then added and the
discharge consent should then have been varied with the Environment Agency. This
presumably would have started a chain of events involving alterations to the drainage
system which would have then required consent under Building Regulations. This
would not have been required without the Environment Agency input however as the
introduction of trade waste would not have impacted on the drainage from a building
control aspect.
As far as satisfactory drainage is concerned, we have advised the applicant that
adequate provision may be possible but would involve the use of a specialist
consultant to design a system suitable for the use of the premises, the likely output
and the site conditions. This would apply equally to the current public house use or
any subsequent change of use.
Comments following submission of additional information:
The applicants would appear to have obtained specialist advice on the feasibility of a
suitable drainage system as was previously suggested. Percolation tests have been
undertaken and the results of these discussed with the Environment Agency and
which would appear to preclude the use of a septic tank or sewage treatment plant to
serve a commercial development. The only other alternative would be a cesspool and
again this would appear to be prohibitive in terms of the cost of the plant, installation
and on-going emptying. I would therefore conclude that from the details now submitted
by the applicant the use of this property as a commercial enterprise would appear to
be compromised by the apparently insurmountable drainage problems.
Environmental Health – Comments as follows:
In general terms I agree with the applicants comments on the suitability of soil in the
locality having poor porosity. Without site of the previous planning application I would
normally question whether it was possible to connect to a main public sewer. Parts of
Baconsthorpe are connected to an Anglia Water sewage treatment works located
approximately 1km away and does have very limited capacity available. I would
however suggest that the cost of connection to it is uneconomical given the distance.
For this reason I am discounting the need to question connection to the main public
sewer. As such I have no reasons to object to the conversion to a dwelling on the
grounds of poor drainage, but do require that details of the actual disposal route for
sewage is submitted and approved.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
22
15 May 2014
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Loss of the public house as an important local facility
APPRAISAL
Background
At the meeting on 19 December 2013, Development Committee deferred the
application for Officers to seek further independent information on viability in relation
to the cost of a drainage system. It was further deferred at the last meeting to allow
the neighbouring Parish Council (Baconsthorpe) to be advised of the Committee date).
Members will recall that the key issue for consideration was the loss of the public
house and the requirements of Policy CT3 which seeks to retain important local
facilities. This requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is no reasonable
prospect of retention of the pub at its current site; and that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months.
Officers had reported at that time, that whilst it was clear that there had been a
reasonable attempt to sell the property, given the lack of information regarding the
precise duration of the marketing or that a realistic price which might achieve a sale
has been sought for a whole 12 month period it was considered that the applicant had
failed to demonstrate that the property has been satisfactorily marketed for sale or to
let at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.
However the applicant had indicated that the poor drainage at the site is a significant
factor in why she is unable to run the public house. The second key consideration
was therefore whether the adequacy of the foul drainage for the site makes the
retention of the pub an unreasonable prospect and financially unviable. At that time,
based on the quotes submitted by the applicant for the costs of the plant, installation
and on-going emptying of a cesspool, Officers considered this to be prohibitive to the
continued running of a public house on the site. Officers therefore considered that the
applicant had adequately demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the
retention of the pub at the site and the cesspool drainage system required makes the
continued running of the pub unviable.
Development Committee
23
15 May 2014
Verification of drainage needs and quotes
Since the Committee resolution to defer, Officers have verified the site drainage
problems with the Environment Agency, who confirm that the only sewage option for
the site is a cesspool.
The sewage could be discharged via a drainage field on the adjacent farmers land (as
was the situation previously), however the applicant has advised that this has since
been disconnected at the withdrawal of permission from the land owner. The
Committee will note that the Planning Authority cannot require the drainage to be
accommodated on third party land.
Therefore, to resolve the drainage within land controlled by the applicant, the only
solution, for both a residential property and a public house, appears to be a cesspool.
The applicant had submitted a quote for a cesspool for the public house which was
£140K based on a cesspool of approx. 300,000 litre capacity (based on cesspool
having a 45 day holding capacity, installation in clay soils, sloping site and need to
install in a trafficked area).
Following the Committee resolution Officers have verified this quote with the drainage
company who confirm the figures quoted are correct.
The applicant has also since submitted a further quote with similar figures for
equipment and installation of £120K. Again Officers have verified this with the
company who confirm the figures are correct, based on the storage requirements
indicated by the applicant and are a rough estimate.
Officers have also obtained an independent quote from a drainage consultant. There
are two cost factors to be considered for a cesspool system: 1: The equipment
(cesspool) and their installation costs; 2: ongoing emptying costs.
1. Costs for plant and installation:
Firstly looking at the cost of the cesspool tanks and their installation. Whilst the
applicants quote has costed for a cesspool large enough to hold a 45 day load, both
the Environment Agency and the drainage consultant advise that there is no statutory
requirement for a tank to have a 45 day holding capacity. Instead the key determining
factor for the size of the cesspool should be taken from the capacity of the tankers
used to empty the cesspool. Since these are very large vehicles, the largest tanker
that could practicably access the site for emptying is 18,000 litres. As such whilst it
would be useful to store a greater capacity of waste on the site (to reduce frequency of
emptying) in reality only 18,000 litres can be emptied at any one time.
The cesspool of approx. 300,000 litres capacity detailed in the applicants quote is
therefore not considered necessary.
However, officers have calculated the flows from the pub (running at maximum
capacity). The combined discharge of the pub and ancillary residential would be 5280
litres per day. As such it is reasonable for more than 1no. 18,000 litre tank to be
installed since each 18,000 litre cesspool tank would be full in only 3.4 days.
Based on 3no. 18,000 litres tanks (54,000 litre capacity equating to 10 days storage
capacity for the property), the Local Planning Authority has been quoted £24K for the
tanks and their installation.
Development Committee
24
15 May 2014
This is a significantly lower figure than the two quotes obtained by the applicant,
however these are very broad quotes and are not specifically tailored to the site
constraints. As such there could be further installation costs.
Whilst the installation/equipment costs could therefore be significantly less than the
£140K quote submitted by the applicant, both the Environment Agency and the
drainage consultant have advised the Local Planning Authority that emptying costs are
often prohibitive to the installation of a cesspool.
2. Emptying costs:
Moving on to costs of emptying, the industry standard costs for emptying cesspools
are approx. £150 per 4500litres of waste emptied. As such the annual cost for the
emptying of a cesspool for the pub/ancillary residential would be £65,000 (or £1250
per week).
Officers therefore consider that the emptying costs alone are prohibitive and render
the continued running of the pub unviable.
Drainage for a residential use
Whether retained as a pub, or converted to a dwelling, there are clearly drainage
issues on the site and an appropriate solution would still need to be installed for a
residential property. The Environment Agency has indicated that a cesspool would still
be a requirement for a residential property. Costs for this (based on quotes obtained
by the Local Planning Authority) would be approx. £16K for two cesspools and their
installation (which would give approx. two weeks capacity) and an annual emptying
cost of approx. £29K (or £560/week).
In the event that planning permission is granted for the change of use to a dwelling, a
condition would need to be imposed to agree precise details of the sewage disposal
method for the residential property prior to its first use.
Summary
Officer‟s recommendation remains unchanged to that of the report on the December
2013 committee agenda.
Whilst it is possible that the public house could re-open it would require a very
substantial investment and it is not considered that such a level of investment could be
justified on the basis of the very small catchment area in the immediate area which is
very rural. In that respect Officers consider that the applicant has adequately
demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the retention of the pub at its
current site and the costs of installing and maintaining the necessary foul drainage
makes the continued running of the pub unviable. On this basis, the application, as
amended, is considered to comply with Policy CT3 of the Core Strategy.
Subject to conditions, it is also considered that the proposal would accord with all
other Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
-Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, precise details of
the proposed parking and turning areas including number of parking spaces, layout
and surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be completed in accordance
Development Committee
25
15 May 2014
with the approved plan prior to the first use of the property and shall be retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
-Prior to the first use of the premises as a dwelling, details of sewage disposal for the
dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
6.
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road for
Mr & Mrs J Bonham
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19981489 PF - Replace existing conservatory garage and shed with
conservatory garage annex and utility extension
Approved 03/12/1998
PLA/20021931 PF - Erection of garage and single-storey side extension
Approved 28/03/2003
PLA/20070626 PF - Erection of dwelling
Refused 05/06/2007 D 10/04/2008
PLA/20080878 PF - Conversion and extension of nissen hut to provide studio and
workshop and conversion of stable to garden room
Withdrawn 05/09/2008
PF/12/0115 PF - Erection of replacement barn and stables
Approved 27/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is to retain a timber building on the footprint of former stables. An amended plan has
been received amending the door and window styles which has been re advertised.
The building is 4m deep and 9.5m wide and sits directly onto the concrete pad of the
original stables and has an eaves height of 2.4m with a ridge height of 3.7m It is of
timber construction stained a dark grey and the intention is to clad the roof with a grey
corrugated metal sheet roof.
The applicant has clarified that the building will be used for storage in connection with
the land and possibly a stable in the future.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Graham Jones having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
Inappropriate design
Development Committee
26
15 May 2014
PARISH COUNCIL
Mundesley Parish Council - Objects on grounds of traffic and accessibility
Knapton Parish Council - no response
Trunch Parish Council - objects
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from adjoining residents













Raises questions about accuracy of the application and address
The stables were required to be demolished as a condition on the previous
application for a replacement barn and stables.
The barn referred to the Design and Access Statement as being replaced has not
been there for at least 10 years or 20 according to another objector.
Building has UPVC patio doors and probably the intention for UPVC windows is
clearly not suitable for horses and storage of horse feed.
Visible from objector's balcony
What is the purpose of the building.
Concern that it could be converted at some future date to a dwelling.
The newly built structure is larger and taller than the old demolished stable block.
it appears to be a holiday chalet type
He does not need to replace the stables and barn as he already has permission to
do that on the land directly behind no. 35.
A large Oak tree close to be building appears to have been ignored.
Already has permission to replace the stable building behind 35 Trunch Road
As the stables have already been demolished the land should be regarded as
Greenfield.
The applicant has advised that he is not currently in a position to erect the barn
approved under PF/12/0115. It is on the same base as a former timber/corrugated
sheet metal structure which has been removed. The building is intended to be used
for stabling when finance will allow, until then it will be used for storage ancillary to the
use of the land. Existing doors and the rest of the windows and doors can be painted
another colour if necessary. Grey metal sheeting proposed for the roof. No current
plans to store any domestic household items at present, but may wish to at some
stage.
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
27
15 May 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development in the Countryside
2. Design
3. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The application site is agricultural land behind four properties that front Trunch Road
and in the same ownership as 35 Trunch Road. The site lies within the Countryside
Policy area as defined in Core Strategy as well as the Area of High Landscape Value
and the Undeveloped Coast. Such a building is acceptable under Policy SS 2.
The land was formerly a small holding and the use classification remains agricultural.
However, it should be noted that the southern boundary line forms a fairly contiguous
rear boundary line with the other houses along Trunch Road which have all
characteristically long rear gardens.
The building in question has been erected on the same concrete pad as the former
stables and is awaiting the roof cladding pending the outcome of the application. With
an appropriate dark roofing material and sited as it is against back hedge and treed
boundary the building will be easily assimilated into its surroundings. There are no
views of the site from the south because of the topography of the land rising to the
south. In fact from any public vantage point, which is mainly from the north, a suitably
dark-stained, small-scale building would meld into the existing residential character of
the area. Consequently, it is considered there are no significantly adverse impacts
upon the Area of Undeveloped Coast or the Area of High Landscape Value.
The design and materials are considered acceptable under Policy EN 4.
As to the relationship with the neighbouring properties the building is at the closest
point 68 metres to the closest dwelling and the same distance to the boundaries to the
properties directly to the north of the stables. There is clearly no adverse impact upon
the residential amenities of those properties from overshadowing or overlooking or
disturbance from storage and a stable.
There is an extant planning permission to erect a barn and stables directly behind 35
Trunch Road granted in April 2012 on which construction appears not to have begun.
The applicant has been asked to advise what his intentions are with regard to this
permission. However, notwithstanding the fact he could implement that permission it
is considered for the reasons described above there is no significant landscape harm
or adverse impacts on neighbouring properties arising from the retention of this
building.
Development Committee
28
15 May 2014
The proposal accords with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to no new material
issues being raised following the re-advertisement of amended plans.
To include the specific conditions listed below:
(1)
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing number
02 A3) received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 March 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(2)
The building hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes that are
ancillary/incidental to and in connection with the use of the land.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policies SS 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1335 - Continued use of land for hand car wash and
valeting services and retention of canopy and two containers; Land at 29 New
Road for Mr M Meizeraitis
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 January 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19771596 PF - Erection of double arcon to form stores
Approved 18/11/1977
PLA/19790407 PF - Installation of underground petrol storage tank
Approved 27/04/1979
PLA/19840715 PF - Underground petrol storage tank
Approved 22/06/1984
PLA/19860947 PF - Erection of exterior spraybooth, spraying or motor vehicles
Approved 25/07/1986
PLA/19891294 PF - Extensions & alteration to garage premises, including new
canopy
Approved 03/11/1989
PLA/19910559 PF - Change of use of part building from commercial garage to fish &
chip take away
Approved 04/07/1991
Development Committee
29
15 May 2014
THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application for the continued use of land for a hand car wash
and valeting service including the retention of a canopy under which the vacuuming
and polishing of vehicles is undertaken and the siting of two containers. One of which
is used as a waiting area for customers and the other which houses equipment and
has containers of car wash liquids atop. This land formed part of the curtilage of a
garage/petrol station but in recent years the site has been sub-divided and this
proposal is a stand-alone business unconnected with the main building/use on the
site.
The proposal is situated at the rear of the site adjacent the boundaries of two
residential properties and in close proximity to others. The proposal although
commonly described as 'hand car wash' utilises pressure washing equipment and
vacuum cleaners.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order to allow
further negotiation to take place with the applicant in respect of drainage, noise
mitigation including amendment of site layout and alteration to proposed hours of
operation.
TOWN COUNCIL
Members will be updated at the meeting of any additional comments received from the
Town Council
REPRESENTATIONS
In addition to the 7 letters of objection originally received (see original report at
Appendix 3) a petition (56 signatories) in support of the proposal was submitted by
the applicant at the earlier Committee meeting.
CONSULTATIONS
See original report at Appendix 3. Additional comments following re-negotiation will
be provided to Members at the meeting.
Anglian Water - will not allow the discharge of trade effluent into the surface water
sewer and make comments on best practice.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
See original report at Appendix 3.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Development Committee
30
15 May 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
2. Drainage
APPRAISAL
Members will recall that this application was deferred at a previous meeting of the
Committee. This was to allow further negotiation to take place with the applicants
following suggestions made at the meeting that they would be willing to further amend
the proposal, and to allow Officers to consider and consult where necessary on any
amendments.
Subsequently Planning and Environmental Health officers have met on site with the
applicant and suggested no Sunday or Bank Holiday working, requested an amended
layout plan for consideration by Committee and submission of further drainage details.
A response is awaited.
Members will be updated at the meeting of the outcome of these negotiations. A copy
of the original Committee report can be found at Appendix 3.
RECOMMENDATION: Members will be updated at the meeting
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/13/1531 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of 2 two-storey dwellings; 43 Marshgate for Mr M Alexander
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 February 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19911521 PF - Demolish bungalow & garage & erect two semi-detached
bungalows with integ.garages
Approved 21/05/1992
THE APPLICATION
Seeks outline permission to demolish the existing bungalow and erect two two storey
dwellings. All matters are reserved except for the access.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore with regard to the objection offered by North
Walsham Town Council, overdevelopment and impact upon neighbours' residential
amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham Town Council object to the application on the grounds of
overdevelopment. Concern has also been expressed regarding the potential impact
upon the mains surface water drain which runs alongside the boundary of the site.
Development Committee
31
15 May 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following issues;
 Development is not in keeping with the adjacent area of bungalows and would
result in overdevelopment
 Two storey dwellings would create both overshadowing and overlooking for
neighbours
 Orientation of site would result in the dwellings to the south west, west and north
west being overshadowed
 Dwellings shown are much higher than the two storey dwelling 45 Marshgate
 De-value neighbouring dwellings
 Concerns regarding sewerage and drainage capacity
 Plans previously passed in 1991 would however be welcomed
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) No objection to this proposal subject to the alignment of the highway carriage way
being improved, which the dedication of a small part of the roadside frontage of this
property would allow.
This improvement would consist of tapering the highway carriage way across the
frontage of the site and extension of the existing public foot way to meet up with the
public footpath (North Walsham FP12) on the opposing south-easterly side of
Marshgate. These improvements would be detailed in 3 conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) This Authority has a statutory duty to have regard to protected species as part of the
planning process and must have the information available to assess the impact prior
to making a decision. Local Authorities may request protected species surveys when
“there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the
development” (Circular 06/2005).
The building contains features that make it suitable for roosting bats and is within
suitable habitat with good commuting routes (Hundt L (2012) Bat Surveys: Good
Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition, Bat Conservation Trust). As such it was
recommended that the applicant contacted an Ecological Consultant who would be
able to advise them on the level of survey required to inform the planning process.
A Protected Species Survey was subsequently submitted. It confirms the likely
absence of protected species at the property therefore the development can proceed
without impacting bats or nesting birds. I would recommend that the Natural England
Advisory Note is placed on any permission given as surveys only provide a 'snapshot'
in time and bats are a dynamic species.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
32
15 May 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Scale of development
3. Impact upon neighbour's residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a residential area of North Walsham. North Walsham has
been identified as a Principal Settlement under Policy SS 1. The majority of new
residential development will be located within these Principal Settlements. Under
Policy SS 1, Policy SS 3 and Policy SS 10 the principle of erecting new dwellings at
this site is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore paragraph 17 of the NPPF
supports a plan-led approach to development which identifies suitable land for
development.
The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling. It is sited near the rear
(north west) of the plot and has a detached single garage located to the front/side.
This application seeks permission to demolish both of these buildings and replace
them with two two storey dwellings. An outline planning application, details of only the
access are to be considered at this stage.
This area of North Walsham has a mixture of dwellings in terms of age, design and
size. To the south west, west and north of the site lie bungalows all of a similar design.
To the north east of the site lie both two storey dwellings and chalet bungalows. The
principle of two storey dwellings at this site is considered to be acceptable and would
maintain the character of the area.
Indicative plans were submitted showing two dwellings with a shared detached
garage. First floor windows to the rear were shown. Following a site visit it was clear
these windows would lead to overlooking for the neighbours to the north west. As such
the agent was asked to provide new indicative plans to show that development of the
plot could be achieved without introducing overlooking for these neighbours. The
amended plans show only obscured roof lights in the rear of the dwelling above
ground floor level. Whilst the amended design may not be ideal, they do show that the
development could be achieved without first floor rear windows. The final design
would be addressed in any future reserved matters application.
The layout, scale and appearance of the proposal are all reserved for consideration.
Given that the indicative plan has shown that the initial concern regarding overlooking
to the rear can be addressed, the site has no obvious further constraints and it is
considered that two dwellings could be accommodated on the site with reasonable
curtilages, without detriment to the amenities of adjacent dwellings; and with regard to
Development Committee
33
15 May 2014
the scale, form and appearance of the surrounding development. Policy EN 4 is
therefore considered to be complied with.
The site falls within a Tree Preservation Consultation Area for trees that lie to the
south east of Marshgate. Due to the tarmacked road lying between the site and these
trees there are no concerns that the development would impact the protected trees.
The current footpath along Marshgate stops at the boundary of 43 Marshgate, a
designated Public Right of Way footpath stops opposite the site on the south east side
of the road. The improvements asked for by the Highway Authority would extend the
existing footpath along Marshgate further north east, across the site frontage. This
would enable the two footpaths to effectively join up. With this improvement to the
frontage of the site and suitable conditions ensuring that the access and parking
arrangements are acceptable, the development is considered to comply with both
Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
The development is considered to be in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0286 - Demolition of A1 (retail) food store and
residential dwelling and erection of replacement A1 (retail) food store; 7-11
Yarmouth Road for Lidl UK GmbH
Major Development
- Target Date: 03 June 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Residential Area
Contaminated Land
Adjacent Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19960863 PO - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of class a1(food)
retail unit and associated car parking
Approved 10/12/1996
PLA/20010060 PF - Demolition of buildings and construction of foodstore and
ancillary works
Approved 03/09/2001
PF/13/1274 PF - Erection of extensions to house storage, office, preparation and
freezer facilities with related increase in net sales area from 807m² to 1056m²,
provision of additional parking area and re-cladding of gables to the existing store.
Approved 20/12/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to demolish the existing A1 (retail) supermarket together with the
adjacent residential property at No.11 Yarmouth Road and to erect a replacement
Development Committee
34
15 May 2014
supermarket with a footprint of approximately 2,250sqm and a total sales area of
1,286 sqm. The replacement supermarket would have a 'wedge' shape profile with a
maximum height of 8.1m at the entrance canopy sloping down to 4.0m at the southern
boundary with No.1 Farman Avenue.
Externally the applicant proposes to clad the building with a combination of painted
render (Grey and white) at lower level with grey aluminium panelling to the upper
sections and a raised seam aluminium roof.
The proposal would include an amendment to the existing car park layout and
additional land, currently used for the adjacent fire station, would be included as part
of the car park for the supermarket. The plans indicate that 76 car parking spaces
would be provided (including 4 disabled and 2 parent and child spaces and 1 staff
space). 6 Cycle spaces are proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the range of planning issues to
consider.
TOWN COUNCIL
Although the Town Council supports the application in principle, it has deferred a
decision pending concerns about the appearance of the proposed new building (which
is a departure from that originally agreed, which was in keeping with other buildings in
the area, i.e. red brick), fan noise (which had been a concern previously) and traffic
matters (relating to access to the site, congestion and the pedestrian crossing close
by).
The Town Council Planning Committee has therefore deferred a decision pending
further information on these matters, including a report from Highways on the traffic
issues.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of representation have been received including six letters of objection
and one letter in support.
Summary of grounds of objection:
1. This will change the character of the area that used to be residential;
2. The proposal would dramatically restrict our present view and outlook;
3. The proposal will overshadow our property;
4. Concerned about additional traffic and the danger this could cause to pedestrians
including children walking to and from school in the mornings and afternoons;
5. The demolition and construction is likely to cause significant disturbance with
excessive dust and dirt blown about and will cover our property in dust;
6. The proposal is deficient in parking spaces (approximately 40 spaces);
7. With a larger sales area where will all the customers park?
8. Farman Avenue already struggles with inappropriate parking despite the 'Access
Only' sign and vehicles blocking access to driveways.
9. More parking is required for the store;
10. Concerned about external appearance of the store and the change from brick to
render;
11. Concerned about the potential for noise and disturbance from freezers and fans;
12. There have been problems in the past from freezers and fans which have been
recently addressed;
13. The enlarged store will compete with and harm existing retail businesses in the
town centre;
Development Committee
35
15 May 2014
14. The proposal will harm the residential character of the adjacent area near to the
park;
15. The design is not suited to a town centre location and lacks architectural merit;
16. Why lose a perfectly decent home;
17. The proposal does not appear to respect the character of the town centre;
18. Concerned about the number of potential highway hazards in the area of the store
entrance which should be addressed as part of this proposal
Summary of grounds of support:
1. Supportive of the proposed development which will enhance the range of shopping
available within the town centre and will reduce the likelihood of further out of town
development.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objection - On the basis that the existing store and adjacent bungalow are clearly not
of any particular age or architectural merit, there need be no heritage objections to
their proposed demolition. Also, with the existing use well established, and with the
site just lying on the fringes of the retail core, Conservation & Design have no reason
to challenge the principle of redevelopment.
In terms of detail, the new store would clearly be larger than the existing building.
However, with the net increase in floorspace not substantial, and with the new store
being of a comparable size to the Roys building opposite, the new build should in
theory be compatible with its surroundings.
In practice, however, the suggested built form would actually serve to accentuate the
overall size. Rather than breaking up the mass into a series of gables and wings (as
existing), the new store would essentially be housed under one long mono-pitch roof.
Hence, instead of presenting well articulated facades at a human scale, the plans
depict a large wedge-shaped building which would tend to be viewed as one
monolithic whole. Whilst there are some changes in the plane of the facades, they
would be largely subsumed under the continuous roofline. The net result would be: 


That those entering the town along the busy Grammar School Road would be
greeted with the full western flank of the wedge. Whilst from a store point of view
this might lead the eye up to the entrance round the corner, at the same time, the
unbroken sightline at verge level would create an uneasy shallow-pitched form
which would be far from balanced.
That those approaching from the town centre and car park would be faced with a
relatively imposing elevation which would be largely flat and unanimated, and
which would affectively be the rear end of the wedge.
That those coming into the town centre from Yarmouth Road would see the
standing seam roof running away from them. Whilst this would help keep the
height of the building down adjacent the residential property to the south, it would
also present a disproportionately long roofslope within the street scene.
More generally, it seems that the new store meets the applicant‟s existing corporate
model of using “crisp” materials and maximising natural light to provide a “modern
retail experience”. Whilst this is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any retailer, it is
less apparent how this approach has actually been tailored to the site (other than in
general terms). Particularly as the materials have been directly transcribed from other
recent stores, there is little to suggest that the new build would have any real
Development Committee
36
15 May 2014
resonance with its surroundings, or be a bespoke composition rich in visual interest
and innovation.
In summary, C&D are always willing to lend their support to any successful business
which wants to adapt/expand. At the same time, however, this support has to be
conditional on the adaption process being sympathetic to the local context. In this
case, hand on heart it is difficult to see how the form and design of the proposed
building would achieve this. Even accepting the fact that the immediate surroundings
are rather mixed architecturally, and that the existing building perhaps contributes to
this disparate quality, its replacement employs forms and materials which are without
any true precedent locally. The net result would surely be a building of greater impact
which would struggle to be successfully integrated into the wider townscape.
For these reasons, and because the site lies just outside the North Walsham
Conservation Area, C&D are prevented from supporting this application as submitted.
However, in the event of built form being successfully addressed, and with some
associated revisions to the materials, this is a position which would change. A good
starting point would perhaps be to make more of the main entrance and create a
properly expressed focal point which breaks through the roof plane and which could
therefore draw the eye away from the unduly long sightlines. Then with a little more
imagination around the materials (a la Tesco, Sheringham where traditional materials
have been used in fresh new ways), and even by maybe returning to an edged roof
which is also successful in keeping scale down, a more compatible result could be
achieved.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions including those relating to
lighting, any extraction or refrigeration equipment to be installed, restrictions on
opening and delivery hours and advisory notes regarding demolition and
contamination.
County Council (Highways) - Comments awaited
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
subject to conditions - The Landscape Section does not object in principle to the
demolition of the existing store and erection of a replacement store, however consider
that the proposed design and landscape treatment does not conserve or enhance the
local landscape character. It is considered that opportunities exist with the re-design
of the store and site layout to improve the visual amenity of the area.
The Design and Access Statement indicates on page 14 that “the visual impact from
Yarmouth Road will be enhanced by the replacement of the existing store with new
modern facades… the redevelopment and refurbishment of the car park will further
enhance this impact”. Later on the D&A Statement (page 16) states that the “external
spaces and landscaping are key factors to ensure effective integration of the proposal
into the surrounding environment… the proposals incorporate integrated soft
landscape and hard surfaces which will help to maintain and improve existing views
and vistas both into, across and out of the site”.
The Landscape Section does not consider that the current replacement store
proposals will enhance the views in this part of North Walsham or that the proposed
building will integrate effectively into the local landscape. The proposals lack any
meaningful soft landscape treatment, and offer minimal planting to compensate for the
loss of existing trees and to attempt to mitigate the visual impact from the south and
residential properties.
Development Committee
37
15 May 2014
The views, as approached from Grammar School Road, will be dominated by a vast
sloping façade of grey powder coated aluminium and glazing. There has been no
attempt to break this singular unit up by design or through landscape treatment
(although admittedly this would be difficult given the physical constraints of the site).
The views of the development do not improve as the corner is rounded on Yarmouth
Road. Views into the car park are bland and will be dominated by car parking,
signage and trolley bays.
The Landscape Section accept that the approach to the proposed store design and
concept is adhering to the Lidl brand and shopping „experience‟, however it is
considered that this can still be achieved whilst making adjustments in the design of
the store and improvements to the soft landscape treatment which will offer an
enhanced local landscape and more pleasing shopping experience.
Colleagues from C&D will address the design aspects of the proposed building.
However, it is worth noting that the character of this part of North Walsham is
transitional, phasing from the larger residential properties and gardens along
Yarmouth Road, the landscaped gardens of the Memorial Park into the commercial
shopping streets and stores of North Walsham. The proposed design is monolithic
and does not take into account the transitional character of the area.
The current car park is busy, unattractive and unpleasant to navigate on foot. There is
no visual break between the car park and the footway. The proposed car park does
not attempt to address these issues, but provides a wider vehicular access that may
address some traffic flow problems. The store re-design offers an opportunity to
improve the visual environment but also the shopping experience for those arriving on
foot or by vehicle. This may require the loss of some car parking spaces to
incorporate soft planting areas and/or footways, but this would ultimately improve the
overall experience and environment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Committee
38
15 May 2014
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle
Impact on Town Centre
Design & Impact on Conservation Area
Impact on Residential Amenity
Landscaping
Highway Safety
APPRAISAL
Principle
The existing A1 (retail) store (approved under planning ref: 01 20010060 PF) is
located within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of North Walsham
where there would be support in principle for the replacement and extension of an
existing A1 retail premises subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy
policies. The proposal would replace and extend the built envelope of the existing
store outside of the town centre and primary shopping onto land formerly part of No.11
Yarmouth Road and the gardens of Nos.2 and 3 Farman Avenue. Again the principle
of such an extension is considered acceptable subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
Impact on Town Centre
Both the North Norfolk Core Strategy (Policy EC 5) and the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) identify a need to ensure that proposed development does not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of town
centres. In this case the existing A1(retail store) has a net sales area of 807sqm
(using the National Retail Planning Forum definition of sales area) and the store
contributes positively towards generating footfall within North Walsham Town Centre
with anecdotal evidence of linked-trips between this site and the rest of the town
centre, particularly as a result of the 90mins free parking available. The proposed
replacement store would increase the sales area of the existing store by 479sqm to
1,286sqm.
The enlarged sales area would be partly within the Town Centre and Primary
Shopping Area of North Walsham but would also be partly within the 'residential' area
occupied by No.11 Yarmouth Road and parts of the gardens of Nos. 2 and 3 Farman
Avenue. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would result in the loss of one
existing residential property, the new store would be located within a sequentially
preferable location and the proposal would generally accord with the requirements set
out Policy EC5 and would be considered policy compliant. No Impact or Sequential
Test Assessment is therefore considered necessary.
Officers therefore conclude that the replacement store would contribution positively
towards the vitality and viability of the town centre and the proposal would accord with
Development Plan Policy.
Development Committee
39
15 May 2014
Design and Impact on Conservation Area
The proposed replacement store has a 'wedge' shaped form and is similar in character
to existing Lidl stores at Cromer and, to some extent, the store at Fakenham. External
materials proposed for the store include rendered and painted elevations and glazing
at lower level with silver coloured aluminium cladding to the upper sections with a
raised seam silver coloured aluminium roof.
Whilst the site is not located within the Conservation Area of North Walsham, the site
lies opposite the Conservation Area and therefore has the potential to affect views into
and out of the Area. In respect of the effect of the development on Conservation
Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability
of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This
is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN8, which requires
development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
In respect of the proposed building the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
has noted that 'the suggested built form would...serve to accentuate the overall size [of
the store]. Rather than breaking up the mass into a series of gables and wings (as
existing), the new store would essentially be housed under one long mono-pitch roof.
Hence, instead of presenting well articulated facades at a human scale, the plans
depict a large wedge-shaped building which would tend to be viewed as one
monolithic whole. Whilst there are some changes in the plane of the facades, they
would be largely subsumed under the continuous roofline. The net result would be: -



That those entering the town along the busy Grammar School Road would be
greeted with the full western flank of the wedge. Whilst from a store point of view
this might lead the eye up to the entrance round the corner, at the same time, the
unbroken sightline at verge level would create an uneasy shallow-pitched form
which would be far from balanced.
That those approaching from the town centre and car park would be faced with a
relatively imposing elevation which would be largely flat and unanimated, and
which would affectively be the rear end of the wedge.
That those coming into the town centre from Yarmouth Road would see the
standing seam roof running away from them. Whilst this would help keep the
height of the building down adjacent the residential property to the south, it would
also present a disproportionately long roofslope within the street scene.
More generally, it seems that the new store meets the applicant‟s existing corporate
model of using “crisp” materials and maximising natural light to provide a “modern
retail experience”. Whilst this is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any retailer, it is
less apparent how this approach has actually been tailored to the site (other than in
general terms). Particularly as the materials have been directly transcribed from other
recent stores, there is little to suggest that the new build would have any real
resonance with its surroundings, or be a bespoke composition rich in visual interest
and innovation'.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is of the opinion that the proposed
replacement store would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area but this harm would be 'less than substantial' in accordance with
paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Statement. It is therefore a matter of
planning judgement in balancing harm against the public benefits of the proposal.
Development Committee
40
15 May 2014
The applicant has been advised of the concerns/issues raised by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. The Committee will be updated orally regarding any
response from the applicant.
Impacts on Residential Amenity
Representations have raised concern, amongst other things, about potential noise and
disturbance from any external fans or refrigeration units and the potential for the store
to have an overbearing impact on adjacent residents, particularly those on Farman
Avenue as well as a loss of view for some residents.
In respect of No.1 Farman Avenue, this property would share a boundary with the
proposed supermarket (currently it shares a boundary with a residential property
known as No.11 Yarmouth Road, which has been purchased by the applicant to
facilitate the creation of an enlarged store). The primary concern for the residents at
this property has been in relation to the loss of outlook (currently the fence between
No.11 Yarmouth Road and 1 Farman Avenue is a low timber fence for approximately
the first 9 metres back from Yarmouth Road and this affords views towards the town
centre). Whilst loss of view is not a planning consideration to which weight can be
afforded, an overbearing impact or loss of daylight or sunlight is a matter which can be
taken into account. The proposed store would be approximately 7-8m away from the
boundary with No.1 Farman Avenue and the proposed building at this point would be
approximately 4m high. No.1 Farman Avenue would be due south of the proposed
store and therefore Officers consider there could be no loss of sunlight and the height
of the store would be unlikely to result in an overbearing relationship. Details of
boundary treatment and landscaping can be the subject of planning conditions so as
to ensure an acceptable appearance.
In respect of Nos. 2-6 Farman Avenue, part of the store would be located on land
formerly part of the rear gardens of Nos.2 and 3 Farman Avenue. Whilst undoubtedly
residents on Farman Avenue will see the replacement store from upper floor windows
and occupiers of No‟s 2 and 3 will also likely see the building from ground floor
windows, the applicant has proposed to erect closed-boarded timber fencing along the
boundaries with Nos.2 and 3 which will go some considerable way to help screen the
development and planting areas between the store and properties along Farman
Avenue will also soften the visual impact.
In respect of concerns regarding noise from mechanical extraction etc (a problem of
noise was only recently resolved through the intervention of Environmental Health),
this could be controlled through the imposition of conditions. Environmental Health
has no objections subject to conditions.
On balance, Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
the proposed store will be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity
of adjacent residents and refusal on grounds of potential adverse impacts on amenity
could not be reasonably justified.
Landscaping
The physical construction of the proposed enlarged store would result in the loss of a
number of existing trees and hedgerows between the supermarket site and adjacent
residents on Farman Avenue. The replacement store offers an opportunity to provide
meaningful landscaping within and around the site to help soften the impact of the
proposal. However, the Landscape Officer '...does not consider that the current
replacement store proposals will enhance the views in this part of North Walsham or
that the proposed building will integrate effectively into the local landscape. The
Development Committee
41
15 May 2014
proposals lack any meaningful soft landscape treatment, and offer minimal planting to
compensate for the loss of existing trees and to attempt to mitigate the visual impact
from the south and residential properties.....The Landscape Section accept that the
approach to the proposed store design and concept is adhering to the Lidl brand and
shopping „experience‟, however it is considered that this can still be achieved whilst
making adjustments in the design of the store and improvements to the soft landscape
treatment which will offer an enhanced local landscape and more pleasing shopping
experience. The current car park is busy, unattractive and unpleasant to navigate on
foot. There is no visual break between the car park and the footway. The proposed
car park does not attempt to address these issues, but provides a wider vehicular
access that may address some traffic flow problems. The store re-design offers an
opportunity to improve the visual environment but also the shopping experience for
those arriving on foot or by vehicle. This may require the loss of some car parking
spaces to incorporate soft planting areas and/or footways, but this would ultimately
improve the overall experience and environment'.
The relatively constrained nature of the site, and the limited number of vehicular
parking spaces means it unlikely that spaces would be given up by the applicant for
additional landscaping. However, the applicant has been made aware of the views of
the Landscape Officer and the Committee will be updated orally regarding any further
landscape proposals. It may be possible to secure landscape improvements by way
of planning condition so as to ensure the proposal would accord with Policy EN 2.
Highway Safety
The Council's adopted parking standards require free-standing food superstores with a
gross floor area above 1,000sqm to provide 1 vehicle space for every 14sqm and 1
visitor and 1 Staff cycle space for every 100sqm. The proposed replacement
supermarket would have a gross floor area of approximately 2,160sqm and therefore
would require 154 vehicle parking spaces and 43 cycle parking spaces to be fully
compliant. The proposal is therefore currently significantly deficient in parking
provision.
Representations have been received which raise concerns that the deficiency in
parking spaces will result in parking on surrounding residential streets, to the
detriment of residential amenity. Concern has also been raised about the suitability of
the existing highway network in and around the store. The Highway Authority has
been consulted and the Committee will be updated orally once a response is received.
Summary
In summary, whilst the principle of a replacement and enlarged A1 (retail) store is
acceptable, concerns have been raised about the design of the store and its context,
lack of meaningful landscaping and shortfall in parking provision. The applicant has
been made aware of these concerns and it is anticipated that many of the issues can
be satisfactorily addressed. Therefore subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended
plans and subject to no objection from the Highway Authority, the proposal is likely to
generally accord with the Development Plan. Ultimately it is a matter of planning
judgment for the Committee in balancing any harm resulting from the proposal against
public benefits. There is no doubt that an enlarged and improved store, although
providing some competition for existing shops, would contribute positively to the
vitality and viability of North Walsham Town Centre and would provide footfall into the
town centre through linked-trips. The proposal would also provide 1 additional full-time
and 4 additional part-time jobs together with some spin-off benefits during the
construction phase.
Development Committee
42
15 May 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
10.
Receipt of satisfactory amended plans to address the concerns from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) relating to design and
landscape matters;
No new material issues being raised following consultation in respect of any
revised plans received;
No objection from Norfolk County Council Highways;
The imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended by consultees including
those recommended by Environmental Health
Any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0143 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; Plots 4 & 5,
20 Abbey Road for Mr A D Clark
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Brownfield Sites
Residential Area
Sheringham Park
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892554 PO - One detached bungalow and garage
Approved 26/03/1990
PLA/19930251
PO - Erection of one detached bungalow and garage (renewal
previous permission reference 01/892554/O)
Approved 01/06/1994
PLA/19941007 PO - Demolition of existing house and erection of three houses and
garages
Withdrawn 15/05/1995
PLA/19950806 NP - Demolition of dwelling
Refusal of Prior Notification 10/07/1995
PLA/19970508 PM - Erection of bungalow and garage
Approved 26/06/1997
PLA/20001615 PO - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of six detached
dwellings and garages
Approved 04/12/2001
PLA/20020556 PM - Erection of six detached bungalows
Approved 21/06/2002
PF/13/0345 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling, formation of vehicular
access and revised access road
Approved 31/05/2013
PF/13/0815 PF - Erection of 2 two and a half storey dwellings
Approved 22/10/2013
Development Committee
43
15 May 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of two, two-storey dwellings as plots 4 and 5 of a site which has
extant consent for 6 bungalows with garages. Amended designs for plots 1, 2 and 3
have been granted consent with plot one being for a one and a half storey dwelling
with attached garage and plots 2 and 3 being two and a half storey dwellings.
The application plots would be located within the south western area of the site
generally in the positions of the previously approved bungalows.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Shepherd and Cllr. Oliver for the following planning reasons:
1. Form and character of the area
2. Relationship with neighbouring dwellings
3. Human rights
Members will also have visited the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):
 for at least the last 22 years the applicant has covered many attractive sites in
North Norfolk with deplorable developments
 houses are rammed in any which way to maximise density and thence profit
 no architectural merit, no pleasing proportion
 the size and building mass of these properties will inevitably change the street
scene
 Views to Franklin Hill will be obscured from Uplands Park and Abbey Road
 viewed from the rear the properties would have 3 storeys
 all the windows on the first and second floors of the south facing elevations will
have clear uninterrupted views into our property and those either side of us
 particular concern regarding the balconies which would be extremely intrusive and
would be a clear breach of our human rights to privacy in bedrooms and adjacent
rooms
 original application for single storey dwellings raised no concerns as only the apex
of the roofs would have been seen
 proposal does not reflect the needs of the community nor the Government's
requirement to provide for increased number of elderly people by building more
bungalows
 should the application be approved we ask that the balconies are removed and the
window to bedroom 4 is changed to velux style or obscure glazed to protect our
privacy
 the developer should provide tall planting at the southern end of the gardens
 design is out of keeping with surrounding development which are mainly
bungalows
 concerned about the safety of the overgrown Cypress tree in the south west corner
of the site - it shades the two plots and part of our garden. Suggest it should be
felled.
 overlooking of the bungalow to the east of the proposed dwellings
 loss of light
CONSULTATIONS
Landscape Officer: No objection - conditions requested to secure tree protection
measures as specified in the arboricultural report and the wider landscaping details.
Development Committee
44
15 May 2014
County Council (Highways): No objection
Building Control: No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
Members will have visited the site.
The site lies within a designated residential policy area and benefits from extant
consent for the erection of 6 bungalows and more recently for revised designs to plots
1, 2 and 3 from single storey to one and half storey (plot 1) and two and a half storey
(plots 2 and 3). The principle of development of the site has therefore already been
established.
Members will be aware of the topography of the site and the relationship with
surrounding developments from the recent site visit.
The proposed design would be in keeping with the style of dwellings recently
approved under planning references 13/0815 and 13/0345. The proposed dwellings
would be largely masked from the street scene due to their position towards the south
western corner of the site. They would be mostly viewed from the private access track
that runs along the south western boundary which serves number 22 and from within
Development Committee
45
15 May 2014
the site itself. The design intends to utilise the site's topography by presenting integral
garage and living accommodation at ground floor level with bedroom and bathroom
accommodation within the roof space. From the front the proposed dwellings would
appear as one and a half story dwellings. From the rear the dwellings would appear as
two and a half storey dwellings with additional living accommodation being provided at
basement level. Due to utilisation of the topography of the site, whilst overall on a likefor-like basis the proposal would introduce an increase in ridge heights of
approximately 1.3m from the earlier approval, the applicant has stated that the
finished height would be identical to the original consent. However, the previously
approved plans are not sufficiently detailed to confirm this to be the case.
Notwithstanding this, the merits of this scheme are acceptable in terms of roof heights.
Objections have been received from nearby residents in respect of loss of their view
across the site and loss of privacy by overlooking from the rear elevations including
the introduction of rear facing balconies. Loss of a private view is not a material
planning consideration. In respect of the introduction of overlooking of the properties
to the south west of the site (Uplands Park) the recommended separation distances
for primary window to primary window in the Design Guide is 21m. In this instance
there would be some 40m between the dwellings and some 22m between the rear
elevation of the proposed dwellings and the boundary of those properties on Uplands
Park. In addition existing trees are to be retained along the south western boundary
and a private access track separates the site boundary from the boundary of those
neighbouring dwellings, which also benefit from fencing and hedging. These dwellings
sit on lower ground and it is considered that the site line from the proposed towards
the rear of those dwellings would be interrupted by the existing boundary treatments.
It is worth noting that the windows proposed to the rear would serve, at first floor
(ground floor level), a void area (such that the living accommodation at this level would
be set back approximately 2.2m from what appears as a floor to ceiling window) and a
W/C and utility room. A balcony is also proposed at this level approximately 3.6m x
1m.) Within the roof space the 3 velux windows would serve bathrooms and the
pitched roof dormer would serve a forth bedroom. It is therefore considered that in
respect of the properties to the rear, the proposal complies with the Council's design
guide amenity criteria and would not introduce any significant detriment to the
amenities of those neighbouring dwellings. Likewise the proposal complies with the
amenity criteria in relation to No.22 to the north west and the bungalows that front
Abbey Road to the south east.
The proposal would result in a shortfall in the recommended separation distances for
primary window to blank elevation between the two plots of approx 8.5m. However a
1.8m fence is proposed between the dwellings and the window which would serve
primary living accommodation is a third window to this area and it is therefore
considered that this relationship raises no cause for concern.
Given the above and notwithstanding the objections raised, the proposal is considered
to comply with the policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of conditions considered
to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
46
15 May 2014
11.
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1464 - Demolition of hall building and erection of two
semi-detached two-storey dwellings; British Red Cross Society, Swan Entry for
Mrs S Davey
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 February 2014 Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892640 PF - Demolish existing building and replace with new building and
ancillary works
Approved 19/03/1990
PLA/19900282 LD - Demolition of existing building
Approved 28/03/1990
PLA/20071378 LE - Demolition of hall
Approved 12/10/2007
PLA/20071377 PF - Erection of two two-storey dwellings
Withdrawn 09/10/2007
PLA/20080419 PF - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling
Approved 12/05/2008
PF/11/0567 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling (extension of period for
commencement of permission reference 08/0419)
Approved 09/07/2011
PF/13/1053 PF - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
Withdrawn 28/10/2013
LE/13/1054 LE - Demolition of hall building
Withdrawn by Applicant 28/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of hall building and the erection of two semi-detached two storey
dwellings. The proposal follows withdrawal of earlier applications in 2013 because of
design issues. The current proposal has been further amended to address concerns
relating to design and impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Walsingham Parish Council objects to the amended proposal and requests that the
Development Committee visits the site as well as considers the points raised by Seb
Moore who has written separately.
This application has not changed significantly from the previous application
PF/13/1053 and LE/13/1053 and the matters of concern remain the same.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objection have been received, with one being signed by 4 different owners
of neighbouring properties.
Development Committee
47
15 May 2014
The key points of the objections are listed as below:
 2 dwellings is inappropriate for Swan Entry
 Proposal is too large for site and would look at odds with the surrounding
properties and character of Swan Entry
 Proposed development is too high in height and too large in scale
 Change the character of Swan Entry and is a detriment to the visual quality of the
lane in the historic core of the village
 Proposed development does not meet Council's recommended minimum window
to window distances
 Overlooking onto garden of no.7 from first floor windows
 Proposed cottages would be higher than most of the surrounding dwellings
 Increase in traffic from two cottages
 Proposed development would exceed minimum indicative density for Service
Villages and Coastal Service Villages
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): object (amended plans) - Previously highlighted that I
have severe reservations around any development which would intensify the use of
severely restricted Swan Entry, which is a narrow dead end road, without any
pedestrian provision and suffers with severely restricted access visibility onto narrow
Coker's Hill due to high roadside walls at its junction.
I am mindful that the site was subject to previous application 07/1377/F where the
Highway Authority commented; "Notwithstanding the inadequacies of Swan Entry and
its junction with Cokers Hill it must be acknowledged that this site has engendered a
degree of vehicular movement in the past. Accordingly, I have no objection to this
proposed residential re-use of the site"
However, the amended design removes the second parking place from the layout,
resulting in only one parking place being available for each dwelling, which would be
considered to be a shortfall and likely lead to additional parking in this narrow road,
possibly within the overrun areas, which were mitigation for the development.
As such, I would not be in a position to support the current proposal and I would
request that this response is considered to be a holding objection until such time that
two parking places are available for each unit together with the required frontage
overrun area for use by other road users.
Conservation and Design: No objection - The existing pre-fab building makes little
contribution to the prevailing character of the area, therefore no objection to its
demolition and redevelopment. The amended plans represent a significant
enhancement on the original scheme submitted.
The exclusion of the dormer windows along with the reduction in footprint, ridge height
and change in gable proportions have reduced impact on the neighbouring dwellings
and the wider Conservation Area. In terms of detailing, the additional flint work,
quoin's, parapet coping and chimney detailing all help to knit the building into its
context and provide much needed local distinctiveness.
The lean-to extensions on either end of the building add some variation to the building
form and create some sense of the buildings architectural development.
Subject to the inclusion of requested conditions in respect of materials and joinery
details C&D raise no objection to the application.
Development Committee
48
15 May 2014
Environmental Health: Comment - Contaminated Land: I have examined our
records and I am unable to identify any specific activities that would suggest the
presence of historic contamination.
However given the location and age of the site and the likely presence of made
ground from mixed historic activity, I would recommend caution, especially given the
proposed sensitive end use. In view of this I would recommend attaching E31 to the
application.
In addition I would also add that due to the proximity of the site to a former Leper
hospital (which has an undefined boundary) there is a potential for pathogens to be
present in the soil which may consequently be disturbed by development. I would
recommend that any subsequent site investigation should take this into consideration
when undertaking works.
Waste Storage and Collection & Foul Drainage - details provided satisfactory
Demolition - Standard note requested
Historic Environment Service: No objection subject to programme of archaeological
work being carried out prior to the commencement of development.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Development Committee
49
15 May 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Neighbour Impact
2. Parking Provision
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at a previous meeting to allow Members
to visit the site.
The site lies to the north of Swan Entry, between residential properties which have a
mix of traditional styles. Currently the site accommodates a single storey prefabricated building used for British Red Cross. The site is within a designated
residential area and within the Walsingham Conservation Area. The site has the
benefit of an extant consent for one one and a half storey dwelling. It is therefore
considered that the principle of residential redevelopment of the site is established.
The amended proposal follows withdrawal of an earlier application for a pair of two
storey dwellings which were considered to have too great a scale and massing for the
site. The applicant then further amended the current application following officers'
concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring dwellings.
The amended proposal seeks the erection of a pair of cottages which Officers
consider represents a significant enhancement on the original scheme.
Redevelopment of the site requires the demolition of the existing hall. There are no
objections to the demolition.
It is considered that the proposal is a significant improvement on the extant permission
in design terms and would make more efficient use of the land and more closely
reflect the close knit form and character of the area.
With respect to neighbouring residential properties the proposal would not deliver the
minimum recommended separation distances between windows in respect of Nos. 8
and 7. There would be a blank staggered gable facing the gable end of No. 8. No. 8
has one window at first floor and its windows at ground floor face the boundary fence
(approx 1.3m high) which is within approx. 1.2m of that elevation. It is therefore
considered that the relationship with No.8 would not result in significant detriment to
the amenities of the occupiers. In respect of the proposed relationship with No.7 the
accommodation proposed would result in secondary rooms facing the public facing
elevation of that dwelling which sits hard up against the edge of the highway (the
smaller windows proposed at first floor are to bathrooms and would be obscure
glazed). A shortfall in the recommended window to window distances would range
between 0.7m to 10m. However these are recommended distances that apply
particularly in respect of modern developments. In this instance it is considered that
strict adherence to the recommended distances would be harmful to the design quality
and the form and character of the area. It is acknowledged that the shortfall in
separation distances would have a level of negative impact on the privacy of No.7 but
this is not considered of such significance as to justify a recommendation of refusal.
The Highway Authority have raised objection to the amended plans as only one
parking space would be available per unit. Car parking standards normally require
two spaces per unit. In addition the Highway Authority were keen to preserve an open
frontage to the site to allow for informal passing area on this narrow lane. Despite the
shortfall it is considered that due the sites location within the Conservation Area, it is
acceptable in this instance to accept the shortfall in spaces in order to achieve a high
quality locally distinctive design that reflects the form and character of the area. The
Development Committee
50
15 May 2014
open frontage has been retained and would be available as an informal passing
space.
Proposals for two or more dwellings in a service village would normally require 50% to
be affordable, however the applicant has advised that they wish the proposal to be
considered under the Council's Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme in respect of
affordable housing requirements and would accept a short time limit for
commencement of development as set out in the scheme. This is considered
acceptable.
Given the above, on balance the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of
the development plan and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific conditions
listed below:
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 30/01 and 30/02) received by the Local Planning Authority on 11 February
2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan in accordance
with the highway specification Drawing Number TRAD 4. Arrangement shall be
made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so
that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a 2.4m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site‟s roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained at all times free
from any obstruction exceeding 0.225m above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access, on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled,
surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter
available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Development Committee
51
15 May 2014
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation and assessment into
the presence of possible contaminants affecting the site shall be carried out in
accordance with details which shall have first been approved in consultation with
the Local Planning Authority. The findings of the assessment shall then be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing. Unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place on those
areas of the site which have been identified as potentially containing contaminants
until a scheme to protect the exposure of future users of the site from hazards
associated with the contaminants has firstly been approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, and secondly implemented in full.
Reason:
In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy EN 13 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.71-3.3.72
of the explanatory text.
prior to the commencement of development brick and tile samples shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved detailed horizontal
and vertical sections through the joinery at a scale of no less than 1:20 shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The joinery shall
then be constructed and installed and thereafter retained in full accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The flints to be used on the development hereby approved shall have a diameter of
less than 125mm when measured in any direction.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
A) No development shall take place within the site until a Written Scheme of
Investigation for a programme of archaeological works has been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall include:
1. An assessment of the significance and research questions.
Development Committee
52
15 May 2014
2. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.
3. The programme for post investigation assessment.
4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.
5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation.
6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the
site investigation.
7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written
Scheme of Investigation approved under part (A) of this condition.
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post
investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme
set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under part (A) of this
condition and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination
of results and archive deposition has been secured.
In this case the programme of mitigatory work will comprise an archaeological
excavation in accordance with a brief that can be obtained from Norfolk County
Council Historic Environment Service.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/0241 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 11/0302 to permit use of annexe as holiday accommodation; The
Cottage, The Street, Thurgarton for Mrs J Watts
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/14/0265 - Removal of conservatory and erection of rear orangery;
9 Anne Stannard Way for Mr P J Carr
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - PF/14/0168 - Installation of swimming pool, associated plant room
and telescopic pool enclosure.; Houghton Farm, Fakenham Road, Houghton St.
Giles for Mr S Huggins
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0144 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference 10/0752 to permit installation of flues (plots 1-4) and roof lights (plots
3 & 4); Arterial Engineering, Morston Road for Swan Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0254 - Installation of replacement windows; 35 High Street
for Mr & Mrs E Ewing
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
53
15 May 2014
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0263 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Coronation
Cottage, 113 High Street for Mrs M Stacey
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0264 - External and internal alterations and erection of rear
extension; Coronation Cottage, 113 High Street for Mrs M Stacey
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0326 - Installation of replacement flooring; Kings Arms,
Westgate Street for The Kings Arms
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - NMA1/14/0035 - Non material amendment request to permit change
of garage roof from gabled/ridge to hipped roof arrangement; Plot 2, John
William Way for Prince Plant
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRINTON - LA/14/0209 - Construction of pitched roof to dormer window; Church
House, The Street for Mr P North
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRINTON - PF/14/0211 - Construction of pitched roof to dormer window; Church
House, The Street for Mr P North
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/0225 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 155 Hall Street
for Mr N Blaker
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0346 - Demolition of garage and conversion of
outbuildings to habitable accommodation with link extension; Northcote, New
Road for Mr Dunne
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/14/0280 - Increase roof height to provide accommodation in loft;
Lacey's Cottage, Long Lane for Mr & Mrs Murfitt
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0232 - Continued use of land for siting
temporary agricultural worker's dwelling; Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr
A den Engelse
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0335 - Erection of side orangery; 4 Bittern Rise for Mr & Mrs
Cole
(Householder application)
DILHAM - PF/14/0369 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1 The Old
Granary, Honing Road for Mr N Loadman
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0276 - Removal of outbuilding and erection of single-storey
side and rear extensions; 4 Holt Road for Mrs L Pateman
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
15 May 2014
EDGEFIELD - LA/14/0277 - Removal of outbuilding and erection of single-storey
side and rear extensions; 4 Holt Road for Mrs L Pateman
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0239 - Erection of side dormer window; 103A Norwich Road
for Mr I Routh
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0288 - Alterations to covered area to provide additional
office accommodation; Cookes of Fakenham Ltd, Enterprise Way for Cookes of
Fakenham
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1037 - Construction of surface water attenuation pond;
Land off Hayes Lane for Nelson Grove Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0231 - Erection of rear extension; Heathcote, 9 Heath Rise
for Mrs Sparks
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - HN/14/0325 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 3.5m and would have a
maximum height of 3.8m and eaves height of 3m (revised scheme incorporating
a pitched roof); 10 North Park for Mr R Pawley
(Householder Prior Notification)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0314 - Conversion of detached garage into single unit of
holiday accommodation; Beck Farm, Stow Heath Road for Mrs A Kershaw
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - NMA2/11/0300 - Non-material amendment request for reduced
width and increased length of extension, revised fenestration to the rear of
extension, and installation of flue; Grooms Cottage, Hyltons Crossways,
Suffield Road for Mr A Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FULMODESTON - PF/14/0176 - Installation of buried electrical cable system
(revision to part of the previously approved route); Agricultural Land between
Fulmodeston and Kettlestone for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - LA/14/0308 - Internal alterations to attic; Bale Hall, Field Dalling
Road, Bale for Mr N Newbury
(Listed Building Alterations)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/14/0204 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions and garage/store; Painswhin Farmhouse, 54 Rudham Road for Mr &
Mrs M Lapping
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/0366 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
conservatory; Solway, 21 Pineheath Road for Mr M Silver
(Householder application)
Development Committee
55
15 May 2014
HOLT - PF/14/0258 - Installation of replacement shop front; 7 Market Place for
Wells Deli Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/14/0316 - Installation of non-illuminated fascia sign and replacement
doors; 24 High Street for Miss C Banham
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/14/0362 - Change of use from launderette to A3 (café); 24 High Street
for Miss C Banham
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - PF/14/0251 - Removal of window and installation of sliding doors; The
Barn, East Ruston Road for Mr J Sharples
(Householder application)
HONING - PF/14/0319 - Erection of front conservatory; Rose Cottage, The Street
for Mrs L Macpherson
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/13/1093 - Erection of first floor side extension/two-storey rear
extension, installation of front bay window, erection of detached garage and
formation of replacement vehicular access; Greenleas, Upper Street for Mrs S
Frosdick
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0221 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6 St
Margarets Gardens for Prof J Collier-Dixon
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/13/0173 - Conversion and extension of former dwellings to
offices and conference facilities and erection of play barn and workshop;
Limosa, Pensthorpe Nature Reserve & Gardens, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe
for Pensthorpe Wildlife & Gardens
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - LA/13/0174 - Alterations and extension of former dwellings to
facilitate conversion to offices/lecture facilities; Limosa, Pensthorpe Nature
Reserve & Gardens, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Pensthorpe Wildlife &
Gardens
(Listed Building Alterations)
KNAPTON - PF/14/0246 - Erection of grain store; Old Hall Farm, Hall Lane for
Cargill Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0113 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0721 to replace the requirement to achieve Code Level 3 with
Code Level 2; The Langham, North Street for Avada Langham Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0301 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The
Anchorage, 4 Rippingall Yard for Mr & Mrs Espin
(Householder application)
Development Committee
56
15 May 2014
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0224 - Engineering works to
restore river channel; Bayfield Hall, Bayfield Park, Bayfield for Mr R Combe
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0226 - Erection of garage block;
Former Maltings, Holt Road for D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0290 - Erection of first floor side extension; 6 Back Street
for Mr J Matthews
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/1280 - Erection of extension to kitchen, formation of
entrance lobby, installation of roof lights and side gates and revised extract
flue; White Horse, The Street for NWHP Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0220 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with
double garage; 45A Bacton Road for Mr & Mrs R Kent
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0253 - Erection of entrance lobbies and installation
of replacement windows; Art & Theatre building, Paston Sixth Form College,
Grammar School Road for Paston Sixth Form College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/0262 - Installation of replacement windows and
erection of entrance lobbies; Art & Theatre building, Paston Sixth Form College,
Grammar School Road for Paston Sixth Form College
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0275 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; 139 Mundesley Road for Mr M Ducker
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0384 - Conversion and extension of garage to
provide habitable accommodation; 85 Lynfield Road for Miss T Mills & Mr C
Howard
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/0101 - Formation of vehicular access; The Nursery, 69a
Northrepps Road for Ms D Mavroleon
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - HN/14/0329 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 5.3m and would have a
maximum height of 2.4m and eaves height of 2.1m; 63 Cromer Road for Mr &
Mrs G Mayes
(Householder Prior Notification)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/14/0268 - Conversion and extension of garage to
provide habitable accommodation; 62 Church Road for Mr T Rozee
(Householder application)
Development Committee
57
15 May 2014
RAYNHAM - PF/14/0019 - Installation of underground electricity cable to connect
solar farm to electricity sub-station; Land between West Raynham Airfield and
Hempton Sub-station for Good Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar Park (030)
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/0086 - Use of agricultural building to house bio-mass system,
erection of flues and installation of pipework to serve bio-mass system; Land at
Raynham Hall, East Raynham for Exors of 7th Marquess Townshend
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/13/0675 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration to front porch and pool room; Hill Farm House, Thorpe Market
Road for Mr A Baldwin
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RUNTON - PF/14/0387 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 37 Renwick
Park East, West Runton for Mr & Mrs D Bakewell
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/13/1375 - Demolition of former children's home buildings
and erection of five detached dwellings with double garages; 15 - 17a Hooks Hill
Road for Break Charity
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0171 - Conversion and extension of former A4 (social
club), A1 (retail unit) and C3 (flat) to a mixed use of D1 (place of worship) and C3
(residential); Sheringham Social Club, 2 Holway Road for New Wine Church
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0297 - Relaxation of Condition 16 of planning permission
reference: 13/1071 to delete requirement for Code Level 3 to be met; 15 Holt
Road for Miramar Property Investments
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0235 - Demolition of building and erection of two A1
(retail) units, one A5 (hot food take-away) unit and three residential units; Lotus
House, 10 Station Approach for Mr S P Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0305 - Erection of single-storey extension and
construction of external dining area; Crown Inn, East Cliff for Mr R Brewster
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - HN/14/0341 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 3.5m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.4m and eaves height of 2.4m; 33 Pine Grove for Mr K
Linford
(Householder Prior Notification)
SKEYTON - PF/14/0160 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden and
erection of storage building; Land at Crossways, Swanton Abbott Road for Mr A
Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
58
15 May 2014
SKEYTON - NMA1/13/0180 - Non-material amendment request to remove the
proposed first floor windows and rooflights on the west elevation; Willow Farm,
Swanton Abbott Road for Mrs M Peters
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0322 - Relaxation of Condition 7 of planning permission
reference: 11/0829 to delete requirement for Code Level 3 to be met; St
Justines, Thorpe Road for Southrepps Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0034 - Erection of
extension; 18 Long Lane for Mr J Starling
(Householder application)
two-storey/single-storey rear
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0353 - Conversion of detached garage to detached
annexe and erection of carport; Hillside, Chapel Road for Mrs C L Lennox
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/14/0266 - Removal of Conditions 4, 5 & 6 of planning permission
reference11/0117 to permit full residential occupation; Beeches Farm, Knapton
Road for RC & LV Catling
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/14/0141 - Erection of one and a half storey/singlestorey rear extension; Pump Cottage, Aylsham Road for Mr K Bonner
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/14/0287 - Erection of detached car port/storage building;
Dragon House, Letheringsett Road for Mr R Newton
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/0229 - Siting of storage container; Pitt Cottage,
Cromer Road for Ms N Carey
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/0206 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension, Covered
Pergola and Detached Garage; Donan, Market Street for Mr & Mrs Taylor-Rowe
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/0393 - Erection of single-storey side extension with
accommodation in roof space; 8 Orchard Estate, Market Street for Mr I Marshall
(Householder application)
WARHAM - LA/14/0189 - Internal alterations, installation of casement doors, side
window and rooflights and erection of rear extension; Fourways Cottage, The
Street for Mr M Sell
(Listed Building Alterations)
WARHAM - LA/14/0379 - Removal of fire place to accommodate wood burning
stove; 24 The Street for Mr Woodcock
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
59
15 May 2014
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0269 - Variation of Condition 2 & removal of
Condition 3 of planning permission reference 12/0820 to permit change of wall
finish to single-storey extension; 30A Freeman Street for Underwood
Amusements
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0270 - Retention of vehicular bridge; Pitch &
Putt Course, Beach Road for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/14/0153 - Installation of dormer windows and rooflights and
conversion of loft to residential flat; 32 Cabbell Road for Mr A Priest
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/0190 - Siting of external cold store with timber screening;
National Trust, Felbrigg Hall for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PO/14/0250 - Erection of detached farm manager's dwelling; Land at
Poplar Farm, Sutton Road for Norman Farming Partnership
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/14/0169 - Retention of clear-glazed side window; Brightside, 7
Church Road for Mrs P Laybourne
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0584 - Change of use of Post Office to residential
dwelling; Southrepps Post Office/Stores, High Street for Mr D Geary
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road for Mr R Banester
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
No items
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
Development Committee
60
15 May 2014
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane for Mr T Field
SITE VISIT:- 12 March 2014
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place for Mr K Graves
SITE VISIT:- 11 March 2014
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
FAKENHAM - PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, 1 Hayes
Lane for Mr & Mrs R Gordon
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House for Miss L Hughes & Mr P
James
SITE VISIT:- 28 April 2014
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/1296 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Woodside, 24 Danish House Gardens for Mr R
Porter
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road for Mr M Goss
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for McCarthy
and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
These two appeals related to the same site, the former Police Station and Magistrates
Court building on Holt Road, Cromer. Appeal A was an appeal against the Council‟s
refusal of application PF/13/0111 for 35 retirement apartments with communal
facilities. Appeal B was a linked appeal against the Council‟s decision to refuse
Development Committee
61
15 May 2014
Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the Police Station and Court building.
A joint decision was issued on 4 April 2014 with both appeals being allowed.
The Inspector identified the main issues as follows:
Appeals A and B
whether the appellants have submitted an adequate description of the significance
of the heritage assets affected by the proposal.
Appeal A
whether the design of the proposed replacement building would preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area; and
Appeal B
whether the effect of the loss of the locally-listed building within the Conservation
Area would be adequately compensated for by the proposed re-development of the
site such as to justify the demolition.
In respect of the heritage assets, these were the Cromer Conservation Area and the
locally-listed existing building. The Inspector assessed the documents which had
been submitted to the Council and found that the appellants had taken account of the
reasonably available evidence of the history of the Police Station/ Court building and
had employed reasonable expertise in assessing its heritage value.
On Appeal A the Inspector assessed the design of the new building and found that the
proposal would not be harmful to the Conservation Area or its setting. He went on to
conclude that the new building would preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. This would accord with policy EN8 of the
Council‟s Core Strategy.
Appeal B required an assessment of the demolition of the existing locally-listed
building against Core Strategy policy EN8 and also by reference to paragraphs 134
and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 135 requires
the decision-maker to make a balanced judgment having regard to the scale of any
harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. As the Police Station is to be
demolished the harm can only be considered as “substantial”. However, the Inspector
found that the existing building has only limited significance as a heritage asset. In
such cases paragraph 134 of the NPPF is engaged, so that any harm to a heritage
asset should require “clear and convincing justification”. Where the harm is less than
substantial, the decision-maker must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the
proposal.
Having set out the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF, the Inspector went on to
summarise the benefits which flow from the proposed demolition. These include the
proposed re-development being in a sustainable location, close to shops, services
and public transport; meeting the growing need for private-sector specialised housing
for the elderly, benefits to the local economy and appropriate re-use of a brownfield
site.
Drawing the issues together, the Inspector concluded that the demolition of the
building would be justified. Both appeals were therefore allowed.
Development Committee
62
15 May 2014
HOVETON - PO/13/1385 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Rose Villa, Horning Road West for Mrs Joyce
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of outline planning permission for a bungalow with
accommodation in the roofspace. The main issues considered by the Inspector were
firstly the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and
secondly its effect on the living conditions of adjacent residents.
The Inspector concluded that the rear garden of the host property is large enough to
accommodate another bungalow but that its siting at the rear would be at odds with
the established pattern of development in the area. He also found that the height of
the proposed building (necessary to accommodate rooms in the roof) combined with
its proximity to nearby dwellings would be intrusive. This would adversely affect the
character and appearance of the area and would not accord with policy EN4 of the
Council‟s Core Strategy.
On living conditions, the Inspector noted that the access drive to the proposed
bungalow would be adjacent to the host property. He found this to be unacceptable in
such close proximity to that property and also likely to cause disturbance to occupiers
of the neighbouring property. Again, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would
not accord with policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1235 - Erection of first floor extension; 49
Waveney Close for Mrs L Garratt
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a loft/gallery extension
at the above property, a detached bungalow in a row of similar bungalows with their
gables facing the highway. The main issue was the effect of the proposed extension
on the character and appearance of the area.
The Inspector assessed the proposal against policy EN4 of the Council‟s Core
Strategy and determined that the proposed extension would be disruptive by
introducing a different type of development on this estate. This would be particularly
prominent and intrusive because of its height and bulk in relating to the existing
bungalow. It was also concluded that the extension would be a disproportionate
addition which would unbalance the appearance of the bungalow because of its height
and bulk in relation to the existing roof structure.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not accord with policy EN4, nor with
paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework and dismissed the appeal.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
(17) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No items.
Development Committee
63
15 May 2014