OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 5 APRIL 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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 INFORMATION
1.
THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (TREE PRESERVATION) (ENGLAND)
REGULATIONS 2012
To report the receipt of new Regulations regarding Tree Preservation Orders.
Background
The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Regulations were last reviewed in 2008. Since
this time the Government has been in consultation with interested parties to review
the legislation in a bid to make them “more workable and less bureaucratic”.
Landscape Officers within Conservation Design and Landscape section have been
involved in this process and comments and ideas have been submitted via the
national network of tree and landscape officers to Government Office. Government
Office has taken note of the comments and have modified the regulations
accordingly.
The new Regulations were made on 28th February 2012, were laid before Parliament
on 5th March 2012. They will come into force on 6th April 2012.
Summary of changes to the Regulations.
The current Regulations are robust in most areas so that Officers and professionals
can work with them to deliver a fair service. However some parts relied on “good
will” between the applicant and the Council and these areas led to abuse of the
Regulations. Therefore the majority of the Regulations stay the same with only a few
changes that reduce bureaucracy and eliminate the “grey” areas.
Main Changes to Regulations
The format for a TPO is being changed to be more “customer friendly”. The previous
document included many pages of legislative text which was inappropriate for a
person with limited legal knowledge. The proposed form includes the basic
information needed, clearly detailing the tree(s) and property(ies) affected including
position and species and a detailed map.
The previous Regulations required that a copy of the TPO form be sent to the owner
and all neighbouring properties. This was an onerous task that meant that Officers
had to research ownership of many properties and in some cases send out large
numbers of forms to people who were not affected by the TPO.
The new Regulations require that the form be served on the persons interested in the
land affected by the Order. Therefore Officers can now make a judgement as to
whom the form should be sent.
Development Committee
1
5 April 2012
The ambiguous Area Order is being removed from the Regulations and new Orders
must include full details of trees included when making a Group or Individual Order.
Woodland Orders remain the same.
The exceptions for notifying the Local Planning Authority for work to protected trees
are being changed to prevent any misunderstanding that might arise.
-
“Dying” trees are no longer exempt from notification. This has been changed
to protect veteran trees which by their nature are dying but are very important
for their amenity and biodiversity value.
-
Exempt work to “dangerous trees” under the new Regulations is only
permitted in cases when such works are necessary to remove an immediate
risk of serious harm. This removes the defence for contractors or property
owners who take down trees instead of implementing appropriate
management.
-
The previous Regulations did not state when and in what form notice was
required regarding Statutory Undertakers works in relation to protected trees
and general works to dangerous trees. Under the revised regulations
Statutory Undertakers and those wishing to carry out works to dangerous
trees must give 5 days notice in writing to the Local Planning Authority. In the
case of trees that pose an immediate risk the Local Planning Authority must
be notified as soon as practicable after the works become necessary.
Under the previous Regulations there was no set time limit as to how long after a
refusal to consent to tree works an owner of a property could bring a compensation
claim. Owners of a property could claim compensation for damage to persons or
property or loss of value of the land any time after a decision. It was left to a judge in
a Court of Law to decide if the time between the claim and the refusal of works was
reasonable. This part of the legislation put significant pressure on Officers making
day to day decisions and resulted in large sums being claimed against Local
Authorities.
The revised Regulations place a 12 month time limit on any claim for compensation
against the Local Authority regarding a decision to refuse tree works. This will assist
Officers in considering applications for works to trees and will be in line with good
arboricultural practice. The new Regulations put a minimum limit of £500 for any
claim to prevent small claims being made.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Team has amended its documentation and
systems to be ready for the date when the Regulations come into force on 6 April
2012.
No alterations are proposed concerning arrangements for the confirmation of Orders
or the circumstances which require referral to Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report.
Source: (Simon Case, Landscape Officer. Extn 6142)
Development Committee
2
5 April 2012
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.
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0115 - Erection of replacement barn and stables; 35
Trunch Road for Mr Bonham
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 March 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
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
PLA/20070626 PF - Erection of dwelling
Refused 05/06/2007 Appeal dismissed 10/04/2008
THE APPLICATION
The application is for a single building to replace three existing stables and an old
fibre sheet arc building. The proposed building is has an L shaped layout comprising
a barn and three stables, which in footprint is broadly the same as the existing
buildings it is intended to replace. The barn is at 6.5m to the ridge, (taller than the
buildings it replaces), similarly the stables at 5m are approximately a metre taller than
the existing stables. The building will have a brick plinth, timber ship lap clad walls
and a pantile roof.
Amended plans received removing the gablets from the barn roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor B Smith having regard to the following planning issue:
Design/scale of the development proposed.
PARISH COUNCILS
Mundesley Parish Council - no objection
Knapton Parish Council - awaiting comments
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters have been received from three local residents objecting on the following
grounds (summarised):
1. Questions whether a contaminated land survey, ecological or tree survey should
have been submitted with the application.
2. The proposed development is contrary to the Council's Core Strategy.
Development Committee
3
5 April 2012
3. Questions whether equine grazing or vegetable growing can justify the scale of
the building.
4. Insufficient grazing.
5. Volume of building is greater than that it replaces.
6. Scale and massing of the building proposed is excessive and seriously visually
intrusive.
7. The access is dangerous and its use by larger vehicles such as horseboxes is
likely to harm highway safety.
CONSULTATIONS
County Highways - Due to the access position being close to a bend resulting in
reduced visibility the Highway Authority would have reservations about any proposal
significantly increasing the vehicular use of this site. However, strictly subject to the
proposed barn and stables being for the applicants personal use with no commercial
uses whatsoever allowed there would be no objection to the granting of permission.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - In view of the
agricultural/stable appearance of the building and the agricultural use of the land,
there are limited reasons to object to the application. The proposed stable and barn
is a tall building at around 6.5m in height, which is not insignificant in the landscape.
The building is not positioned well within the plot as it does not relate to any
boundary particularly well, although the barn section of the building is on the same
footprint as the existing Nissen hut.
The proposed development presents the opportunity to remove a series of redundant
and derelict buildings and improve the general appearance of the land, which is to be
welcomed. The site itself is not overly visible to the general public therefore there is
a limited overall visual impact. Conditions are requested to safeguard the future
retention of the prominent hedgerow that runs between the two parcels of land in the
ownership of the applicant. Environmental Health - no objection subjection to condition E28 relating to waste
disposal.
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
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
4
5 April 2012
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Design/scale.
3. Visual impact.
4. Relationship with neighbouring development.
APPRAISAL
The application site extends to approximately 0.125 ha and is in association with two
areas of land extending to approximately 0.5 ha which have been used for many
years as a smallholding. The western portion of the land is within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty where the existing stables are located. The eastern
portion of the land is outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and a tall
hedge divides the two land parcels.
There is an existing vehicular access to the land between two adjacent properties
known as Freshwind and Heather Cove.
The application site is an area of land behind the applicant's dwelling which lies
outside the development boundary for Mundesley within an area designated in the
Core Strategy as Countryside. Within the Countryside policy area buildings for
ancillary residential, recreation and agriculture in conjunction with the use of the land
may in principle may be acceptable as set out in Policy SS2.
In the design and access statement submitted with the application the applicant has
stated that the buildings will be used essentially for the same purposes as the
existing buildings are or were previously used. The larger barn element will be used
for to store personal vehicles, machinery for land husbandry, storage of produce with
hay and straw stored within the roof space and the stables to house ponies. Thus
the use of the buildings would comply with Policy SS 2.
In support of the design the applicant submits that the raised eaves height, and
ultimately the overall height, is required to allow room for a motor caravan which is
taller than the average vehicle and the height and degree of roof pitch are to a certain
extent constrained by the type of prefabricated timber building proposed. In terms of
the siting, the building would be located on the same footprint as the existing arc
building on land directly behind the applicant's dwelling. While the building would be
taller than the existing structure, the external appearance would be obviously much
improved and the design is considered suitably rural in appearance as to be
assimilated within the existing landscape on the edge of Mundesley where it is
screened from view by the roadside development and topography of the landscape.
Although the building would be visible from existing dwellings and more distant
higher land to the north, from most other directions views of the building would be
limited. Indeed there is benefit in moving the stables to land outside the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Objections have been raised to the scale of the proposed building. The proposed
building would be 70 m from the closest dwelling and it is considered sufficiently
distant from any of the adjoining properties so as not to harm their residential
amenities through loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing impact.
Development Committee
5
5 April 2012
As the existing land and buildings can be or currently used for the purposes the
applicant intends for the use of the new building, it is considered the proposed
development is unlikely to significantly intensify the use of the existing vehicle
access. However, it would be prudent to impose a condition that the new buildings
should only be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the land, as suggested by
the Highway Authority, which is raising no objections on that basis.
On balance, the proposed building would replace in footprint only that of the existing
structures. It would be appropriately agricultural in form, layout, appearance and the
materials proposed to be acceptable in its design for this type of development. The
relationship with neighbouring development is also considered to be acceptable.
Consequently, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to appropriate conditions including that the development
should only be used for private purposes ancillary to the use of the land,
demolition of the existing stables concurrently with the first use of the
approved stables, those required by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager and materials.
3.
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0098 - Erection of side extension; Havelock Barn, 4 Manor
Farm Barns, Cross Street for D & M Hickling Properties
- Target Date: 27 March 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080598 PF - Change of use of barns to four residential dwellings
Approved 28/10/2008
PF/09/1264 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling
Approved 16/02/2010
PF/10/0554 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling
Approved 22/06/2010
PF/10/0555 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling
Approved 24/06/2010
PF/10/0661 PF - Variation of condition 2 of 08/0598 to permit retention of singlestorey extension and increased size of east gable
Approved 29/07/2010
PF/10/1197 HOU - Erection of single-storey outbuilding
Approved 06/12/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single storey side extension to no. 4 Manor Farm Barns which
is part of a recently converted barn complex of residential dwellings.
Development Committee
6
5 April 2012
The extension would be 4.7m long with a gable width of 4.6m to match that of the
existing building. It would be sited on the northern end of the building and would be
constructed of reclaimed flint and brick under a reclaimed Norfolk pantile roof, with
timber doors to match that of the existing building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issue:
In view of the amount of extensions already approved on the site and
overdevelopment.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object as this will be an extension of the footprint of the original barn and this
appears to be development by stealth outside the village planning envelope.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - The proposed extension should not
harm the appearance and character of this part of Salthouse's Conservation Area
and there is therefore no objection.
Environmental Health - 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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
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 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. Principle of the development
2. Scale of the extension and impact on the host building
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Impact on neighbouring amenity
Development Committee
7
5 April 2012
APPRAISAL
Permission was granted for conversion of the group of barns to four residential
dwellings in 2008 and subsequent revised schemes in 2010. Whilst the acceptability
of the original conversion of the building to residential was judged against whether
the conversion could be undertaken without substantial alteration or extension, the
principle of subsequent extensions to existing residential buildings is acceptable
subject to an appropriate scale and design in relation to the form, character and
appearance of the original agricultural building. In particular Policy HO8 requires that
any extension would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or
scale of the original dwelling or materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside
In this particular case, whilst there have been a number of small extensions and
outbuildings to the original scheme and complex overall, the only additional new build
for unit 4 is that of an outbuilding which was granted permission in 2010 (10/1197).
The main form of barn 4 has not been previously extended. This application seeks to
add an extension to the rear of the building to create an additional room for the
dwelling and is not considered to be disproportionate in terms of scale in either its
footprint or height to the original dwelling. Furthermore as it would be tucked away
on the rear of the building and would be well screened by surrounding boundary
walls, it would not be visible from public vantage and would not materially increase
the impact of the building on the wider countryside. In addition, and importantly, the
original simple linear form of the rural building would not be adversely affected as it
would only be extended in length by 4.7m with matching materials and its overall
linear form would therefore be retained. As such on balance, it is not considered
that, in terms of scale and design, the proposed extension would result in any
adverse impact on the character or appearance of the this former agricultural building
and would not materially increase its impact on the wider countryside.
In respect of impact on the Conservation Area, the proposed extension would
complement the rest of the group being in keeping both in terms of its form and
materials used in its construction. This coupled with its position to the rear of the
building would ensure that the proposal would result in no adverse impact on the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
In terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties, the site is well screened to
boundaries with a combination of brick and flint walls and fencing and the extension
itself would be of a limited height and scale. As such it is not considered that the
proposed extension would result in any significantly adverse impact on the amenities
of those adjacent dwellings in terms of overlooking or loss of light.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed is acceptable and would
accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including the use of matching
materials.
Development Committee
8
5 April 2012
4.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0079 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry -Warnes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 15 March 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a three-bed detached one and a half storey dwelling with rooms in the
roof on land which currently forms part of the garden to No.21 Abbey Road. The
dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 78sq.m and would include an
attached garage.
The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 4.1m and a height to ridge of 7.8m.
Access to the site would be gained from a new access on to Abbey Road, which is
an unmade private road to the west of Holway Road.
The new dwelling would have a maximum garden depth of approximately 10m and a
width of approximately 16m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter of objection has been received from the owner of a property to the rear and
also one from her solicitor which considers that the development would result in a
loss of light to her bungalow and that it is an overdevelopment of the site. She
suggests that Members visit the site. The letter from the solicitor also suggests that
there is a covenant on the land which prevents the erection of an additional dwelling.
Further letter from the neighbour indicating that the applicant was considering
reducing the height of the building and lowering the ground level. Agrees this but still
objects on overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to a condition requiring compliance
with code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Highway Authority - No objection subject to a condition requiring the
proposed on-site garaging and car parking area to be laid out prior to first occupation
of the dwelling.
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
9
5 April 2012
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
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 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 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 the development
2. Impact on amenity
3. Design and impact on the form and character of the area
4. Access and parking
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
The site is located within the residential area of Sheringham within which the
principle of erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable.
In respect of design, Policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, whilst the dwelling would
be fairly tight on the plot, sufficient private garden areas of adequate size and shape
to serve their intended purpose would be achieved on the proposed plot and, in line
with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations, the area of the plot given to
private amenity space would be no less than the footprint of the dwelling. However,
by developing this garden plot, the existing dwelling, No.21 Abbey Road, would be
left with a limited garden area where the majority of the remaining outside space for
the dwelling is taken up with the existing garage and driveway. As such the existing
dwelling would have little useable outside amenity space other than the gravelled
driveway and parking areas. However, this outside space to be retained for the
existing dwelling would comply with the Design Guide in so far as the area of the plot
given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint of the dwelling.
Development Committee
10
5 April 2012
In respect of the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings, ground floor and first floor
windows are proposed on the west elevation facing the bungalow (no.19) to the east
and this would permit some overlooking of the adjacent dwelling. However, the 1.8m
boundary fence would screen the ground floor window from the neighbouring
property. In respect of the first floor window, this would permit overlooking of the side
of the dwelling. However as the proposed window would be in close proximity to the
adjacent dwelling, only views at an oblique angle into the ground floor windows would
be possible and as such it is not considered that this would result in a significant loss
of privacy. Furthermore overlooking of the outside amenity space of that dwelling
would be largely limited to the driveway which is already open to public view. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would result in any significant harm to the
amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling to the west.
In respect of the amenities of the dwelling to the rear (north) of the site, a first floor
rear bedroom window is proposed, although as this would be set back by
approximately 10m to the rear boundary, it is considered that this would not result in
any significantly adverse overlooking of the windows or private garden area of that
dwelling.
With regard to the relationship with the existing dwelling on the site, No.21, the
proposed dwelling would have a single storey garage on this side and would be set
further back into the site. As such the proposed dwelling would not be significantly
overbearing nor would it result in any adverse loss of light to the existing dwelling.
Furthermore, windows on the east elevation facing the existing dwelling would be
limited to a first floor bathroom window and a secondary dining room window at
ground floor and this would ensure that no adverse overlooking of No.21 would
result.
There are two large windows at ground floor and first floor in the western elevation of
No.21. However, the proposed dwelling would be screened from overlooking at the
ground floor by a proposed 1.8m boundary fence. The first floor window would
permit overlooking of the side of the house and front garden area of the proposed
dwelling, but the limited windows proposed on this side and the fact that the front
garden would already be open to public view would ensure that this would not result
in significant harm to the privacy of the of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
Withdrawing permitted development rights for further windows and extensions would
ensure that no uncontrolled alterations in the future would have an adverse impact on
the amenities of the neighbours. Therefore subject to this condition and with
consideration of the above, whilst the site is rather tight, it is considered that the
proposed dwelling would have no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
The height and scale of the dwelling would not be out of character with the
surrounding area and would provide a transition between the single storey bungalow
to the east and the thatched two storey cottage to the west. Subject to appropriate
external materials, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character
and appearance of the area, in compliance with Policy EN4.
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has indicated that he is considering ways of
reducing the impact/scale of the building; however, at the time of writing this report
no amended plans had been received.
With respect to sustainable construction and energy efficiency, conditions are
recommended in order to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes requirements
are met, in accordance with Policy EN6.
Development Committee
11
5 April 2012
Policy CT6 requires two parking spaces for a 3 bed property; these would be
provided in addition to an attached garage, thus complying with the Council's parking
standards.
In respect of the impact of the development on the highway, the Highway Authority
has advised that, given the appropriate level of visibility from the private road on to
Holway Road and with consideration of the existing number of dwellings currently
served from the site, there would be no objection. The proposal is therefore
considered to raise no highway safety issues and as such complies with Policy CT5.
The issue of a possible covenant on the land restricting any further dwellings is a civil
and not a planning matter.
In summary, whilst the proposal would result in a tight-knit form of development and
a reduced useable outside amenity space for the existing dwelling, on balance it is
considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including submission of
materials, compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes, those required by
the Highway Authority, and removal of permitted development rights for further
windows and extensions.
5.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of
screening; 31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
- Target Date: 03 April 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0515 HOU - Retention of balcony
Refused 09/06/2011 Appeal dismissed 26/09/2011
PF/12/0009 HOU - Retention of balcony and erection of screening
Withdrawn 07/02/2012
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the retention of a balcony and the erection of screening.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Smith and Hannah having regard to the following
planning issues:
Impact on neighbouring property and protecting and enhancing the historic
environment.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
Development Committee
12
5 April 2012
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received from the neighbour at number 1 The Avenue, also
asking the Council to consider that their objections submitted on the previous
applications for 31 Beeston Road remain. Object on the following grounds:
1. Visual impact; ugly and dominating and is/would be a blight upon the neighbour's
outlook and quality and enjoyment of life;
2. Loss of privacy and light
3. Overshadowing and overbearing impact;
4. Noise impact;
5. Applicant visits the property infrequently for a few weeks at a time a few times a
year where as the objectors are there for 52 weeks a year;
6. There are other ways the applicant could enjoy daylight and fresh air;
7. Safety concerns regarding poor construction of the balcony;
8. Impact on surrounding area within Conservation Area;
9. Sets a precedent by showing that planning laws can be flouted through
retrospective applications.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - Having explored numerous
options and design approaches, it is now considered that the submitted scheme
offers a reasonable compromise between protecting the amenities of the neighbours
and the character and appearance of the conservation area.
In some ways it is an impossible design ask to secure a visually successful screen at
first floor level. However, the latest plan at least now puts forward a visually
lightweight pergola which is a form of development sometimes seen oversailing roof
terraces. In its ‘raw’, uncoloured state, the structure should not unduly harm the
significance of the wider heritage asset.
In the event of an approval being issued, please condition that the existing balustrade
is either; a) removed and replaced with one with a natural finish, or b) stripped back
to bare wood before a clear finish is applied, within 28 days of the date of the
decision notice.
Propose that the enclosing screen is erected quickly in the interests of privacy.
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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
13
5 April 2012
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbour amenities
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a residential area, where such a form of development could
be acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development Plan policies.
The site also lies within the Sheringham Conservation Area, where proposals should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The property is a semi-detached property facing onto Beeston Road. Permission was
refused and an appeal dismissed in 2011 for the retention of the existing balcony on
the grounds that the proposed development would have a significantly detrimental
impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties to
the north-east and north-west.
Earlier this year, a further application was submitted which proposed the retention of
the balcony and the erection of Norfolk Reed panel fence screening. This application
was withdrawn at Officer suggestion following concerns that the design would not
preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
The existing balcony occupies the space between the rear wall of 31 Beeston Road
and the boundaries of neighbouring 1 The Avenue and 29 Beeston Road to the
north-east and north-west. The latest scheme comprises retaining the existing firstfloor balcony measuring approximately 3.15m wide by 2.6m deep by 2.35m high, with
timber balustrades surrounding the balcony measuring approximately 1m in height.
However, to try and offer a compromise between protecting the amenities of the
neighbours and protecting the character and appearance of the Conservation Area,
the applicant is proposing to incorporate a light-weight timber framed pergola with
vertical timber boarding set behind the balustrades and opaque glazing up to a height
of 1.7m above the balcony to the north-east and north-west sides. Views from the
balcony would be restricted as a result to the south-east over the garden of 31
Beeston Road, and where the nearest neighbouring garden would be approximately
15m away across The Avenue.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to the finish of the
structure, it is considered that the design as proposed would now be sufficiently
lightweight and compatible with the host dwelling to preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager is raising no objections.
The obscure glass screening would extend to a height of approximately 1.7m above
the level of the platform to reduce the potential for overlooking. Arguably, the erection
of the screening would also reduce the level of overlooking occurring from an existing
north-east facing first floor window and door at 31 Beeston Road. Whilst the lower
part of that window is currently obscurely glazed, under the General Permitted
Development Order the applicant could install clear glazing without requiring planning
permission.
Development Committee
14
5 April 2012
In terms of overbearing impact and loss of light to the neighbouring properties, it is
recognised that the properties in their nature already share a close relationship.
Number 1 The Avenue has a courtyard garden surrounded by close-board fencing
approximately 1.8m in height already overshadowed by the house itself and is, to
some degree, overshadowed by 31 Beeston Road. Whilst it is recognised that
approval of this application would allow a solid timber structure to be built
approximately 1.5m above the height of the existing boundary fence, given the
existing situation this is considered on balance to be acceptable. The obscure glass
screen proposed above the vertical boarding would still allow light to penetrate
through whilst providing privacy. Furthermore, it has been taken into account that
under Class A of the General Permitted Development Order, the applicant could
erect a rear extension up to a maximum height of 4m and maximum eaves height of
3m without permission.
In respect of concerns over noise, it is recognised that the properties already share a
close relationship with garden areas backing onto each other.
It is recognised that the development would impact to some degree upon the closest
neighbours, however, it is not considered that the impact would be sufficient to
warrant a refusal on the grounds of loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact or
noise impact.
In summary, on balance the development is considered to comply with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
requirement for the existing balustrade to either be removed and replaced with
one with a natural finish or stripped back to bare wood before a natural finish
is applied and for the pergola structure, vertical timber boarding and obscure
glazing (to Pilkington Level 5) to be erected within 28 days of the date of the
decision notice and thereafter permanently retained.
6.
STIFFKEY - PF/11/1257 - Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation; Red
Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 December 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060835 PF - Erection of detached two-storey bedroom accommodation
Approved 15/09/2006
Development Committee
15
5 April 2012
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a block of ancillary serviced holiday accommodation. The
original plans showed six units, but following the receipt of amended plans four units
are now shown, each with a bedroom, bathroom and living area.
The accommodation would be located to the rear of the car park, on a triangular
piece of land, where the ground level is approximately 4.5m higher than the ground
level of the car park.
Amended plans have been received showing a revised design. The proposed
building would measure approximately 6.5m at its highest point. The front face of the
building would measure approximately 5.5m in height and 5.2m on the rear elevation.
The entire length of the building, including the overhang of the roofs and balconies,
would be approximately 17m. The width of the front of the building would be
approximately 9m, and to the rear 7m.
A section through part of the site has been submitted as well as a parking layout
plan.
The building would be constructed using timber cladding and painted render, with
powder coated aluminium joinery, and a flexible 'faux lead' fibreglass roofing system.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments - Support
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received on the grounds of overdevelopment of the
site, lack of car parking, driveway to car park too narrow, noise and general
disturbance.
The agent has confirmed that the proposed building would be wholly ancillary to the
Red Lion public house, and will provide additional rooms in association with the
public house. The aim is to provide bed and breakfast and restaurant facilities for
tourists visiting the area. The agent has also stated that the car park has 40 spaces,
however his subsequent submitted plan only shows 31.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway Authority) - Original comments - Object. A detailed
response has been provided and is contained in Appendix 1. It has concerns over
the severely restricted visibility at the access in both directions which is considered
unsuitable to cater for the scale of intensification of vehicular use proposed, which is
likely to cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway.
Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on site vehicular parking
and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required. If permitted it would be likely to
lead to an undesirable increase in on street parking to the detriment to highway
safety.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - Original comments - As with
the previously approved accommodation block nearer the main pub building,
Conservation & Design have no objection to the principle of this second ancillary
block at the back of the car park. In theory, it provides another means of sustaining
this rural business for the benefit of locals and visitors alike.
Development Committee
16
5 April 2012
In terms of design, however, there is less reason to be enthusiastic about what has
been submitted. Whether it be the imposing retaining wall and external stair which
would greet you, or the boxy building behind, there is unfortunately nothing to
suggest that the proposals would be anything other than unattractive.
The former structure at nearly 5.5 metres high has a rather brutalist appearance
which would surely produce a rather unwelcoming entrance. It would also provide a
stopped end to the car park which would belie the site’s rural location.
As for the building itself, this would be perched up well above the level of the car park
on an earth embankment. By virtue of its rather ‘mean’ flat roof form, and its
arrangement of openings, it looks not dissimilar to some of the inland control towers.
Whilst taking on board the agent’s comments about designing a contemporary
structure and incorporating green technologies, these ingredients do not appear to
have a produced a qualitative end result in this case. On the contrary, with the
building poking its head up above the slope of the valley side, this is a development
which could potentially be harmful to the countryside and to the setting of the
adjacent Conservation Area.
Therefore, in summary, whilst the scheme potentially offers a means of tidying up the
site and providing an innovative new building at end of the car park, the proposal as
submitted is not one Conservation & Design feel able to support.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Environmental Health - Clarification sought on whether an air source heat pump is to
be installed as referred to in Design and Access statement, but no other details
provided.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Complies with Policy EN6 subject to imposing condition
on any approval that the measures identified in the Sustainable Construction
Checklist submitted with the application have been implemented.
Historic Environment Service - Following a site meeting with the applicant it has been
established that the area of the proposed development has previously been quarried
and consequently has a low potential to contain any heritage assets with
archaeological interest. The applicant does not need to submit the results of an
archaeological evaluation and no other archaeological work will 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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application 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
17
5 April 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
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 the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and setting of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
4. Impact on the rural economy.
5. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
6. Highway safety/car parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where proposals that support
the rural economy including extensions to existing businesses may be permitted.
This is subject to such developments being of a scale appropriate to the existing
development and where they would not have a detrimental effect on the character of
the area, and accord with other relevant policies in the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Whilst there is a general presumption against new unserviced holiday
accommodation within the Countryside policy area, this proposal is to provide
serviced holiday accommodation within the curtilage of and in connection with the
existing public house. There is already a block of 10 existing en-suite rooms that
were approved under application reference 06/0835 on the site. This proposal is an
extension of that part of the business. The agent has confirmed that the proposed
building would be wholly ancillary to the Red Lion public house, and would provide
additional rooms in association with the public house. The aim is to provide bed and
breakfast and restaurant facilities for tourists visiting the area. Given this relationship
it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable as an ancillary use to the
public house and therefore acceptable in principle in this location. The proposal
would provide an additional four units of ancillary holiday accommodation, bringing
the total number of rooms available to fourteen.
Development Committee
18
5 April 2012
However, the site is located on a particularly elevated position on the north eastern
end of the site, to the rear of the car park. The ground level of the site, as shown on
the amended plans, is approximately 4.5m higher than the ground level of the car
park. The existing holiday accommodation is located to the south western end of the
car park and given the difference in ground levels, the ground level of the proposed
holiday accommodation, due to its elevated position, would be approximately in line
with the ridge of the existing accommodation. The proposed accommodation would
provide views above the roof of the existing accommodation to the south west.
Whilst Officers originally had concerns regarding the design, discussions have taken
place with agent and the plans have been amended. Whilst the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager are awaited on the amended plans it
is considered that the design follows the line of discussions that took place. Subject
to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on this
matter it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design.
However, a section through the site has been requested from the applicant, given the
significant differences in ground levels and close proximity to a neighbouring dwelling
directly to the south of the site. This is required in order to establish if the relationship
of the proposed building is acceptable not only to its immediate surroundings but also
its wider surroundings as it is considered it would be visible in the wider landscape,
but to what extent has not yet been established. At the time of writing this report a
section had been received, but it does not provide the information being sought and a
further section has been requested. This information is still awaited.
Subject to the receipt of a section showing an acceptable relationship and visual
impact, and no objections being received from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant
detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area,
and the quality of the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and
neighbouring properties.
There are a further three existing cottages located to the west of the proposed
building. However, they are at a significantly lower ground level than the site, and
front the road. Given the distance between them and the proposed building, and their
position it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers.
In the submitted Design and Access Statement the agent has confirmed that the Red
Lion currently employs 19 people, which increases to 26 in the summer months. Out
of the 19 people employed, 10 live locally or close by, and 6 different trades people
are employed on a regular basis who live in the village. The agent also confirms that
if the accommodation were to be approved an additional four new jobs would be
created. The existing business is clearly well established and a local employer
supporting the local economy in accordance with Policy SS5.
A response is also awaited from the agent regarding the Environmental Health
comments in relation as to whether air source heat pumps are to be installed. No
objections have been received from the Sustainability Co-Ordinator or the Historic
Environment Service following the receipt of additional information.
The Committee will note the objection received from the County Council Highway
Authority regarding the severely restricted visibility at the access in both directions
which is considered unsuitable to cater for the scale of intensification of vehicular use
proposed, which is likely to cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
Development Committee
19
5 April 2012
public highway. Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on site
vehicular parking and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required. If permitted it
would be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on street parking to the
detriment to highway safety.
The agent has confirmed that the access would remain unchanged and that the
existing car park has the provision to allow for extra vehicles that may be need for the
new development. The agent has previously advised that there are 40 car parking
spaces on the site, but a plan showing the layout of the car parking spaces only
shows 31.
This is a shortfall of 7 spaces based on the existing use and the
proposed development.
Whilst the design of the proposed accommodation is considered to be acceptable, a
section through the site along with clarification regarding the use of air source heat
pumps and car parking layout are still awaited. Notwithstanding this in view of the
strong objection from the Highway Authority on highway safety grounds the
development as it stands is not considered to be acceptable. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse, on the following grounds and any other grounds of objection following
receipt of the section through the site and clarification on the use of air source
heat pumps:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
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).
The access which will serve this proposal has severely restricted visibility in
both directions onto the busy A149 Wells Road and is therefore considered
unsuitable for the scale of intensification of vehicular use proposed. The
proposal is therefore likely to cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway.
Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular
parking and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local
Planning Authority. The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead
to an undesirable increase in on street parking to the detriment of highway
safety.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the above Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
20
5 April 2012
7.
STODY - PF/11/1442 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
first floor side extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr
Tollett
- Target Date: 23 January 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
EA Flood Zone 2
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey and single storey rear extension and a first floor
side extension.
The two storey rear extension would have a height to ridge of approximately 6.3m
and 4.4m to the eaves, matching that of the existing dwelling, with a gabled roof with
the ridge running south-east to north-west parallel to the main dwelling. The gable
would have a width of 4m and would be linked to the main house by a two storey
pitched extension projecting 1.3m from the rear wall of the dwelling. The overall
projection of the two storey element from the rear wall of the original dwelling would
therefore be approximately 5.3m.
The existing single storey mono-pitch outbuilding at the rear of the site would be
demolished and rebuilt and this would link in to the proposed extensions. This would
have a mono-pitch roof to a height of 3.6m and would run alongside the north-west
boundary.
In addition the existing two storey flat roof section on the north-west side of the
dwelling would have a pitched roof added.
The proposed extensions would be constructed of clay pantiles and red brick to
match that of the existing dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: There is no resolution as to whether they object, no comment or
support, but offer the following comments as a result of a site meeting:
1. The application will improve the aspect of the front of the property facing The
Green
2. It was hard to assess the scale of the extension from the plans, it does seem a
large project.
3. There will be impact on the light to neighbouring houses (some felt this was
reasonable, others didn't).
4. The renovations when finished will be more attractive to look at than the present
rear aspect.
5. There is likely to be a lot of disruption if the works were to go ahead, the applicant
has assured us any damage to the Village Green will be repaired.
Further comments: Now confirmed that the Parish Council object.
Development Committee
21
5 April 2012
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The extension, some of which is virtually on the boundary, will block light and
sunshine from a significant part of both the garden and area surrounding Bishops
Cottage (to the west)
2. Overdevelopment
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Whilst the
proposal involves a considerable amount of new build, the existing building has
already been extensively altered with less than sympathetic flat roof extensions. As
a result the new extensions would improve the appearance of the dwelling from
public vantage and because the main volume of the extension would be to the rear it
is considered on balance that the proposal would enhance the character and
appearance of the host property and thus that of the Conservation area. Therefore
no objection raised.
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).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Scale
3. Impact on neighbouring amenity
4. Impact on the Conservation Area
5. Flood risk.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
Development Committee
22
5 April 2012
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy where policies SS2 and HO8 are particularly relevant. Policy SS2 is
permissive of extensions to existing dwellings subject to compliance with Policy HO8
which seeks to ensure extensions to dwellings in the countryside are not
disproportionate in height or scale to the host dwelling and that they would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
Policies EN2 and EN4 are also relevant.
In respect of scale, the proposal involves a number of extensions and alterations to
the property. The dwelling has previously been subject to a two storey flat roof side
and rear extension and these appear to be post 1940's. As such they cannot be
considered as original for the purposes of calculating the increase in scale to the
property. Therefore on this basis the proposed extensions in addition to those
previous extensions result in an overall increase in the footprint of the property of
around 300%. However, the flat roof extensions are clearly well established on the
property and the increase now proposed is an additional 70% compared to the
existing dwelling and would be located to the rear of the dwelling. As such whilst the
amount of extension is quite considerable, because the main volume of build would
be at the rear of the site where views would be restricted, and the main public views
would be improved by the addition of a pitched roof above the existing flat roof
extension, it is not considered that the proposed increase in scale would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. As such on
balance the proposed increase in scale in this instance is considered to be
acceptable under policy HO8.
In respect of neighbouring amenity, the proposed two-storey extension would have
windows on the two side elevations facing the neighbouring properties which would
be limited to high level windows at ground floor level and a hall and ensuite window
at first floor level. As such it is not considered that the proposal would result in any
significantly detrimental loss of privacy to the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.
Whilst the proposed two storey extension would project some 5.3m from the rear wall
of the dwelling and would run along the north-western boundary, the distance
between this and the adjacent dwelling is sufficient to ensure that the extension
would not be significantly overbearing on that property. Furthermore, whilst the
extension would result in some loss of early morning sunlight to that dwelling to the
north-west, the orientation of the dwellings and position of windows on the rear
elevation of Bishop's Cottage, should ensure that for the rest of the day there would
be no impact on the sunlight entering that neighbouring property or its garden. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would result in any significantly adverse
loss of light to the adjacent dwelling.
In terms of the impact of the proposed extension on the Conservation Area, whilst the
proposal would involve a considerable amount of new build, it is noted that the
existing building has already been extensively altered with some less than
sympathetic flat roof extensions. As a result, the new additions would help to tie the
various disparate elements together, particularly when viewed across The Green,
whence the public face of the building would be considerably improved with the
introduction of the in-line tiled roof over the existing side extension. For this reason,
and because the main volume of build would be at the rear of the site where views
would be restricted, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager confirms that
subject to a condition the additions should enhance the appearance and character of
the host property and thus that of the wider Conservation Area, in compliance with
policies EN4 and EN8.
Development Committee
23
5 April 2012
In respect of flood risk, the rear garden lies within the EA Flood Zone 3 with a 1:200
probability of sea flooding and 1:100 probability of river flooding. Only the corner of
the existing outbuilding (to be re-built and incorporated as an extension to the
dwelling) would be within the flood zone. It is not therefore considered that the
proposal would result in any increased risk to life or property.
In view of the scale of the proposal this is considered to be a marginal case but in
view of its limited impact in the landscape, on balance it is considered to comply with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those requiring
matching materials and removing permitted development rights for further
windows on the side elevations to prevent overlooking.
8.
THURSFORD - LA/12/0126 - Internal alterations to first floor to provide en-suite
bathrooms; Old Coach House, Fakenham Road for Mrs A Green
- Target Date: 11 April 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Involves the subdivision of the existing first floor bathroom into two through the
insertion of a partition wall together with the introduction of new door openings to
bedrooms one and two in order to provide each room with separate en-suites.
In addition it is proposed to create a new door opening in the wall of bedroom three in
order to access the existing shower room with a view to providing this room with an
en-suite.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is a Member of the Council
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - 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.
Development Committee
24
5 April 2012
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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the plan form of the listed building.
2. Impact on the historic fabric of the building.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy, where Core Strategy Policy EN8 is applicable. This requires
that development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case the Grade
II listed building through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have
an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be
permitted.
As far as the impact on the plan form of the building is concerned this appears to
have been significantly altered, most notably as a result of its conversion in the early
1970s. As such the alterations would not significantly affect the layout of the building.
Whilst in respect of the impact on the buildings historic fabric again due to the level of
previous intervention there are no particular conservation issues and the works would
not affect the significance of the listed building, a view confirmed by the Council’s
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
It is therefore considered that the proposals would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the applications are
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
Development Committee
25
5 April 2012
LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 & LA/12/0182 - Conversion and extension of barns to
provide hotel with swimming pool, restaurant and bar facilities, conversion of
barn to four residential dwellings and erection of five holiday dwellings; land at
Glass Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the previous
planning history of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/12/0137 - Erection of rear conservatory; Lamp
Cottage, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mr R Grimble
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/1510 - Installation of overhead light; St John the Baptist
Church, Church Road for Mrs M Mitchell
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - NMA1/11/1017 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
lighting and CCTV and electric gate, formation of parking spaces, and increase
in size of storage cabin; National Grid, Paston Road for National Grid Plant
Protection
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BARSHAM - PF/12/0116 - Conversion of outbuildings to habitable
accommodation; The Old Buck, Fakenham Road, Houghton St. Giles for Mr &
Mrs Hutchings
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1555 - Conversion of garages/workshop to one unit of
holiday accommodation and erection of shed; Abbey Farmhouse, Cromer Road
for Mr & Mrs Pegg
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - LA/11/1556 - Alterations to garages/workshop to provide one
unit of holiday accommodation, internal alterations to Priory Cottage and
Granary Cottage and external alterations to Priory, Granary and Abbey
Cottages; Abbey Farmhouse, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Pegg
(Listed Building Alterations)
BEESTON REGIS - NMA1/09/0848 - Non material amendment request for
provision of covered walkway; The Two Pines, Sheringwood for Mr Perry
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1553 - Construction of three dormer windows to facilitate
conversion of loft space to habitable accommodation; Reef House, Back Lane
for Mr & Mrs A Birkbeck
(Householder application)
Development Committee
26
5 April 2012
BRISTON - NMA1/11/0126 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
garage for use as workshop/store, formation of additional parking space and
use of access onto Stone Road solely for new dwelling; Line Side, Macks Loke
for Mr G Babbage
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CATFIELD - PF/11/1353 - Change of use from D2 (Leisure) to B2 (vehicle
repairs/MOT bay) and part raising of roof height; Unit 1, Tradebase, The Street
for Managed Property Supply Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0104 - Erection of part single-storey/part two-storey rear
extension; Two Cottages, The Street for Mr Burt
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/1551 - Erection of single-storey and first floor
extensions and rendering of northern elevation; Thurn Cottage, The Fairstead
for Mr C Smith
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA3/11/0223 - Non-material amendment request for
repositioned rooflight, installation of two rooflights and revised bi-fold door;
The Quay House, 1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - PF/12/0092 - Erection of two-storey front extension; Buck Brigg Farm,
Buck Brigg, Hanworth for Mrs H Everett
(Householder application)
CROMER - PO/11/1400 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling and garage;
The Hawthorns, 14 Park Road for Mr & Mrs K Holman-Howes
(Outline Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/1534 - Installation of replacement ATM surround; Barclays
Bank Plc, Tucker Street for Barclays Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/11/1536 - Installation of advertisements, security light, CCTV
camera, air conditioning condenser unit and frosted vinyl and privacy
manifestation to windows; Barclays Bank Plc, Tucker Street for Barclays Bank
Plc
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/11/1554 - Erection of three-bay cartshed with ancillary
accommodation; 113 Compit Hills for Mr & Mrs D Dewbery
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/1557 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43-45
Norwich Road for Mr D Garwood
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/12/0049 - Installation of UVPC replacement windows and two
replacement doors; 9 Chapel Street for Mr R Mills
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
27
5 April 2012
CROMER - PF/12/0097 - Change of use of ground floor and basement from A1
(retail) to a mixed use of A3 (restaurant) and A5 (hot food take-away); Theos
Gallery, 36 Garden Street for Dr M Guppy
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0135 - Erection of detached guest bedroom accommodation;
The Grove Guest House, 95 Overstrand Road for The Grove Cromer LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - PF/10/1247 - Conversion of barns to 4 units of holiday
accommodation and associated facilities; Southmills Farm, Shereford Road,
Shereford for Mr & Mrs R Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/1095 - Erection of first floor extension; Simms Cottage,
Back Lane for Ms J Leslie
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/1313 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of
24.6m and overall blade height of 34.2m; Gothic Cottage, Mill Road for Mr Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0027 - Erection of ground mounted photovoltaic solar
panels; Holmes Cottage, The Holmes for Ms D Hood-Halstead
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0015 - Conversion of tithe barn and adjacent agricultural
building to residential dwelling and erection of link extension; Barn At, The Old
Rectory, Rectory Road for Mr & Mrs S Perkins
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - LA/12/0016 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
residential dwelling; Barn At, The Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Mr & Mrs S
Perkins
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0066 - Retention of solar panels; The Old Stables, Ramsgate
Street for Mr T Davy
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0169 - Installation of dormer windows and first floor
windows; The Mount, Hunworth Road for Mr & Mrs Bannerman
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1513 - Erection of rear/side two-storey, single-storey rear
extensions and detached workshop; 17 Greenway Close for Mr J Bunkle
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0002 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 73 Norwich
Road for Mr Allen
(Householder application)
Development Committee
28
5 April 2012
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0067 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
06/0738 to permit revised design of dwelling (including increase in ridge height);
Land at 16 Queens Road for Mr W J Rockett
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0084 - Change of use of upper floors from C3 (residential) to
ancillary A3 use; 2 Market Place for Mr D Langchild
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0164 - Retention of garden store; 163 Holt Road for Mr
Kendle
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0105 - Conversion of barns for purposes which are
ancillary to residential use; Priory House, 54 Langham Road for Mr & Mrs N C
Deterding
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - LA/12/0106 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
residential use; Priory House, 54 Langham Road for Mr & Mrs N C Deterding
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - LA/12/0004 - Erection of rear sunroom and dormer window
and installation of replacement windows; 21 Croxton Road, Croxton for Mrs A
Wess
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/12/0147 - Conversion and extension to existing outbuilding
to provide annexe; Paddocks House, Little Barney Lane, Barney for Mr & Mrs
Brodie
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/1562 - Erection of 15m wind turbine; Hall Farm, Field
Dalling Road, Bale for Mr H Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/1511 - Installation of replacement ATM surround; 16 High Street
for Barclays Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/1543 - Change of use from residential to A2 (financial and
professional services) at 3 Cross Street and Continued use of 1 Cross Street as
A2 use; 1 & 3 Cross Street for Norfolk Country Cottages
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/11/1544 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion to offices; 1 & 3
Cross Street for Norfolk Country Cottages
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - LA/12/0101 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
four dwellings; Manor Farm, The Street for Mr B William
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - LA/12/0124 - Alterations to former barn to facilitate conversion
to dwelling; The Old Barn Farmhouse, 45 The Street for Mr & Mrs Hollier
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
29
5 April 2012
KETTLESTONE - NMA1/10/1073 - Non-material amendment request for
alterations to elevations; The Old Barn Farmhouse, 45 The Street for Mr & Mrs
Hollier
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KNAPTON - PF/12/0107 - Erection of two-storey side extension, replacement
single-storey extension and detached garage and retention of vehicular access;
High House, Mundesley Road for Mr Cushing
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/12/0096 - Erection of summerhouse; Paddock Cottage, Moat
Farm Barns, East Ruston Road for Ms M Sorrell
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/12/0020 - Erection of replacement bridges; Morston Marshes for
The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - PF/12/0068 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension;
41 The Street for Mr & Mrs Goff
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0060 - Erection of detached garage; 11 Marina Road for Mr
P Francis
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - NMA1/05/0875 - Non-material amendment request for change of
dormer window to rooflight and revised door and window arrangements; Barns
& Outbuildings, Neatishead Hall, Common Road for Mr L Baugh
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/11/1538 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 13 Skeyton Road for Mr & Mrs R Clarke
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1542 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 23
Burton Avenue for Mr M Grimmer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0012 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
single-storey rear extension; 111 Mundesley Road for Mr T Frosdick
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0046 - Erection of two-storey extension; 9-11 Park
Lane for Paston Surgery
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0051 - Erection of 2.01m high retaining wall/railings;
Western boundary, Mundesley Road car-park for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1545 - Continued use of land for car parking and access
track and siting of portacabin as briefing/refreshment room and change of use
of agricultural buildings to storage of aircraft; Land at Winspurs Farm for Mr C
Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
30
5 April 2012
NORTHREPPS - LA/11/1547 - Erection of front porch; Church Cottage, Church
Street for Mr T Day
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1563 - Erection of front conservatory; 20 Emerys Close
for Mrs J Halls
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0149 - Installation of solar photovoltaic array; Land
adjacent North Norfolk Business Centre, Crossdale Street for Mr Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/12/0080 - Erection of side conservatory; 5 Mundesley Road for
Miss M Beswick
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/0132 - Variation of condition 7 of planning permission
reference: 99/0298 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 1,
Primrose Farm Barns, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs D Hickling
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - NMA1/10/0091 - Non material request to revise door and window
arrangements and install gate; Church Lane Cottage, Cross Street for Mr Bagley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0062 - Installation of doors to garage and erection of
garden shed; Haddon Barn, 2 Manor Farm Barns, Cross Street for Mr A Newton
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0078 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable
accommodation and erection of one and a half storey rear extension; The Seven
Whistlers, Cross Street for Mr & Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0070 - Change of use to B8 (furniture storage); Hangar 2,
Former RAF Coltishall, Tunstead Road for Ministry of Justice
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1459 - Installation of flue; The Haybarn, Grove Farm,
Creake Road for Mr A Turpin
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - LA/11/1460 - Installation of flue; The Haybarn, Grove Farm,
Creake Road for Mr A Turpin
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1546 - Conversion of former day nursery to residential
dwelling; Far Barn, Grove Farm, Creake Road for Miss G Matthew
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0120 - Erection of storage shed; Church Meeting Room,
Church Road for Sea Palling Parochial Church Council
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
5 April 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0006 - Construction of pitched roof to garage and
erection of replacement rear extension; 12 Laburnum Grove for Mr K Simms
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - PF/12/0063 - Construction of first floor rear extension and three
rear dormer windows; Ivy Cottages, 19 Main Road for Mr M Danson-Hatcher
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - LA/12/0064 - Construction of first floor rear extension, three rear
dormer windows and single-storey rear extension; Ivy Cottages, 19 Main Road
for Mr M Danson-Hatcher
(Listed Building Alterations)
SLOLEY - PF/11/0865 - Retention of air source heat pump; Weavers Cottage,
Low Street for Mr & Mrs B Allen
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0053 - Erection of double garage; Meadow View, Chapel
Road for Mr J Barker
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/0054 - Erection of five two-storey dwellings and one, one and
a half storey dwelling; Three Ties Barn, Brumstead Road for Mr G Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0075 - Siting of oil storage tank; Sunnydene, York Road for
Mrs J Copping
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0017 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
construction of pitched roof to garage; 5 Wades Way for Mrs G Faulkner
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0087 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 36 Wades Way
for Mr & Mrs Leeder
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/07/0957 - Erection of Village Hall and relocation of changing
rooms; Playing Field, Market Street for Tunstead Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/0055 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning permission
reference: 06/1381 to permit permanent residential occupation; Laurel Farm
Barns, Market Street for Mr Yonge
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/1498 - Internal alterations to provide new doorways and
block up existing doorway; Ebenezer Cottage, Scarborough Road for Mr P
Parker
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0058 - Rebuilding section of boundary wall; 6 Guild
Street for Rev Colin Amos
(Householder application)
Development Committee
32
5 April 2012
WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0059 - Rebuilding section of boundary wall; 6 Guild
Street for Rev Colin Amos
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1456 - Erection of storage building; Land at East
Quay for Mr Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0005 - Continued use of land as temporary car
park for 65 days per annum; The Recreation Ground, Beach Road for Wells
Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0037 - Installation of first floor side window and
rooflight; Westward House, Mill Road for Mr R Hiskey
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0038 - Installation of windows (revised design);
Westward House, Mill Road for Mr R Hiskey
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0174 - Alteration to roof of side extension; Mill
House, Northfield Lane for Miss Downey
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0175 - Installation of replacement front dormer
window and rear and side dormer windows (revised scheme); 4 Shrublands,
Polka Road for Mr Wells
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/12/0145 - Erection of rear extension; Jalna, Church Road
for Mr Wright
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0025 - Erection of orangery; Watermill House, Beach Lane
for Mrs L Flux
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0100 - Raising height of gates and wall; Yew Tree Cottage,
Station Road for Mr & Mrs J S Taylor
(Householder application)
WITTON - NMA1/11/0442 - Non-material amendment request for increase in
width of extension, and alterations to windows and a door; Heath Cottage,
Stonebridge Road for Mr & Mrs Gilman
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/1278 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide toilets
and dining area and conversion of outbuilding to three units of holiday
accommodation and micro brewery; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr D
Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - LA/11/1279 - Alterations to facilitate erection of extension and
conversion of outbuilding to three units of holiday accommodation and micro
brewery; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
33
5 April 2012
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/12/0099 - Erection of two 15m wind turbines; Highfield, Craymere
Road for Mr Babbage
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0018 - Erection of garage; The Quay House, 1
Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0102 - Erection of three 15m wind
turbines; The Pig Unit, Edgefield Street, Saxthorpe for Mr Lockhart
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/11/0064 - Erection of 15m wind generator; Land at Stibbard
Road for Lord Hastings
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - PF/12/0061 - Change of use from D1 (community hall) to A1 (retail);
Reading Room, Park Road for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0047 - Installation of three 15m high wind turbines;
Grange Farm, Lynn Road for Mr A Hornigold
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/11/0804 - Conversion of building to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0523 - Erection of 2 no. 15m wind turbines; Bridge Farm,
Pond Road, Bradfield for C B Arnold Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - LA/11/1304 - Installation of solar panels; The Old Rectory, Heath
Road, Ridlington for Mr Black
(Listed Building Alterations)
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/1516 - Erection of 15m wind turbine; Windmill Farm,
Holt Road for Mr Rivett
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/0088 - Erection of three 15m wind turbines; No 2 Site,
Foulsham Airfield, Foulsham for Mr Harold
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
34
5 April 2012
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Site at route between Weybourne Hope
(TG104,436) and Little Dunham (TF868,118) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SUSTEAD - ENF/11/0235 - Building of an unauthorised dwellinghouse; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham
INFORMAL HEARING 23 May 2012
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
BACTON – PF/11/1000 – Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for Mr R
Hollis
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue for Mrs Gibbons
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0986 - Erection of car port; The Poppies, Thorpe Market
Road for Mr O Read
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
35
5 April 2012