OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 10 NOVEMBER 2011
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 DECISION
1.
LANGHAM - 20060770 - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel
and village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages; Former Glass
Factory, North Street for Avada Country Homes
Request for variation of terms of a Section 106 Obligation
The Committee is asked to agree to a request to vary the terms of the obligation
(agreement) made on 5 December 2008 and relating to planning application
20060770.
Background
This application was previously considered by the Development Control Committee
(West) on 4 December 2008 when it was resolved that “the application be approved
subject to the finalisation of the Section 106 Obligation and subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions.” The Obligation was duly completed on 5 December 2008
in accordance with that resolution and the relevant planning permission was issued
on 9 December 2008.
A critical issue when the application was previously under consideration by the
Committee was the “enabling development” comprising the proposed twenty-three
holiday cottages, the income from which will support the proposed hotel
development. This matter was the subject of a number of reports prepared by Strutt
and Parker on instructions from the District Council and addressing concerns raised
by objectors to the proposed development that the cottages could be built but not the
Hotel. The Section 106 Obligation therefore tied ownership of the cottages to the
Hotel, restricted use of the cottages to holiday accommodation only and provided for
a minimum number of letting days per annum for the cottages.
The applicant had been unable to progress the development owing to issues relating
to the funding of the project and requested a variation of the Obligation in 2010. The
application was locally controversial and a number of objections referred to the
possibility that the holiday cottages would be constructed but that the former
Langham Glass buildings would not be converted to provide the new hotel and
village shop. The Section 106 Obligation as originally agreed by the Council and the
applicant company addressed this issue by phasing provisions in the form of
covenants given by the applicant, Avada Ltd. These were varied following
agreement by the Development Control Committee on 28 August 2010. However the
applicant has not been able to progress the scheme despite the agreed amendments
to the Section 106 Obligation.
Current position
The planning permission granted in 2008 has been implemented but the applicant
has not progressed the development and the site is currently dormant. It is
understood that the developer has been unable to secure funding and/or third party
Development Committee
1
10 November 2011
investment to enable the development to proceed as the Section 106 Obligation ties
ownership of the proposed holiday cottages to the hotel and this has proved a
disincentive to the prospective funding institutions and investors.
Application to vary the Section 106 Obligation
The Managing Director of the applicant company (Avada Country Homes) has met
with Officers to discuss the development of the site and has requested a further
variation of the existing Section 106 Obligation. The issues then discussed are set
out in a letter from the company (Appendix 1) setting out the applicant’s proposed
changes to the Obligation and the reasons for this request. Essentially this proposes
that the company will be able to sell the holiday cottages freehold rather than
leasehold but with all purchasers being required to be members of a Management
Company which will maintain the link between the hotel and the holiday cottages.
The proposed amendments to the Section 106 Obligation are set out in a note with
the letter received from the developer (Appendix 1).
No change is proposed to the phasing arrangements for the construction of the hotel
as previously amended in accordance with the decision of the Committee on 28
August 2010 and the conditions on the planning permission restricting use of the
cottages remain in full force and effect.
Key Issue
The key issue in this case is considered to be whether the future provision of the new
hotel (the financial and tourism-related benefits of which were reflected by the
decision of the Development Control Committee (West) to approve the application in
December 2008) is likely to be compromised by this further proposed variation of the
terms of the Obligation.
Appraisal
Delegated authority to approve application 20060770 was originally given on 27
March 2008. At that time the relevant Development Plan was the former North
Norfolk Local Plan which was superseded by the North Norfolk Core Strategy
adopted on 24 September 2008. The Core Strategy was therefore the development
plan in force at the time this application was considered by the Development Control
Committee (West) on 4 December 2008. Differences in policy between the
superseded Local Plan and the Core Strategy were identified and explained in the
report to the Committee and it was then concluded that the applicant was entitled to
expect the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan
policies (former Local Plan) in force when the application had originally been
considered by the Committee. This remains the situation and it is considered that
there has been no significant change to the other considerations material to the
determination of the application as considered by the Development Control
Committee (West) on 4 December 2008.
The phasing provisions in the Section 106 Obligation have already been varied by
agreement with the Council, in accordance with the resolution of the Committee on
28 August 2010. The further variations now requested reflect the current economic
climate and the difficulties of bringing this development forward. The view of Officers
is that the potential economic and tourism-related benefits of the proposal remain
valid, as well as the opportunity for a beneficial re-use of a prominent former village
employment site. It is acknowledged that the proposed development also safeguards
the listed barns and would provide a new village shop, for the benefit of the local
community and visitors.
Development Committee
2
10 November 2011
In conclusion, it is considered that the future provision of the new hotel would not be
compromised by the proposed variation of the terms of the existing Obligation as
requested by the developer.
Legal implications
It will be necessary for the changes to the existing Section 106 Obligation to be given
legal effect by way of a formal Deed of Variation completed by the parties to the
original Obligation. This will leave that Obligation intact but with new clauses
substituted as set out in the applicant’s letter (Appendix 1).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to agree to the requested variation to the
Obligation dated 5 December 2008.
(Source: R M Howe, Planning Legal Manager, ext 6016: Ref 20060770)
2.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2011, covering the turnround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes. Figures are included for land charge searches.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance in processing planning applications for
the second quarter of 2011/12.
Four major applications were determined in the quarter, 129 minor applications and
205 ‘other’ applications. Speed of determination of minor and other cases fell again,
by a further 10% on minor cases and some 3% on ‘other’ cases; these are the lowest
quarterly returns in almost 20 years. In terms of the cumulative impact for the current
financial year, major cases stand at some 50%, minor cases at a little over 37% and
‘other’ cases at almost 51%.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service. Slightly fewer applications were
submitted in Quarter 2 than the first quarter, although pre-application enquiries, “Do I
need planning permission?”, and duty officer enquiries all increased during the
quarter. It is difficult to interpret these figures in terms of indicating whether workload
trends are moving upwards or downwards, reflecting uncertainties in the local
economy.
A decision from the Government on future funding arrangements for development
management, which has been awaited throughout 2011, would greatly assist in
securing the necessary resources for the service. This would enable appropriate
staffing arrangements to be put in place for the medium to long term.
Since the end of the quarter a year-out planning graduate has taken up her post and
the two trainee planning officers have graduated successfully, enabling them to
spend additional time in the office. If overall workload remains static or falls it is
hoped that these changes will enable performance to begin to recover, but this will
not be rapid while a backlog of out of time cases remains in the system. It is clearly
essential that the situation is monitored closely.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter concerned and cumulative figures are
close to 92% and not therefore significantly different from the previous two years.
Development Committee
3
10 November 2011
In terms of planning appeals, two appeals were allowed and four dismissed in the
quarter so that cumulatively only 22.2% of appeals were determined against the
Council’s decision.
As far as land charge searches are concerned, Table 3 indicates that in the second
quarter of 2011/12 (July-Sept) 523 Official Searches were processed with an average
response time of 2 days. Including Personal Searches the total searches for the
quarter amounted to 687, Personal Searches on average accounting for 24% of the
total.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090920 PF - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling
Refused 18/11/2009
PF/11/0098 PF - Extension and conversion of barn to provide residential dwelling
Refused 12/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion and extension of a barn currently in a ruinous condition, which
the application suggests has a floor area of 84sq.metres, to a four bedroom dwelling
having a total floor area of approximately 265sq.metres.
The dwelling, which would be linear in form and orientated east west would present a
two storey elevation to Rectory Lane with a single storey element under a catslide
roof to the south elevation. The former building would be rebuilt and extended using
flint and reclaimed red bricks whilst the new roof would be of reclaimed pantile and
the windows and external joinery of oak.
Access to the site would be via a new entrance to the north of the barn off Rectory
Lane with a driveway of some 100 metres in length running diagonally across an
arable field. The area in the immediate vicinity of the dwelling would provide a
hardstanding with a parking area adjoining the western gable end with a private
amenity area beyond.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes due to the fact that the site is within an
area where Policy HO9 is applicable and the conversion and extension of the barn
would tidy up the site.
Development Committee
4
10 November 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support which considers that the restoration and improvement of the
barn would be a great addition to the southern end of Hart Lane.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - Seek changes to the access drive and turning area to comply with
the requirements of emergency services. Also the size of the proposed window
openings do not provide adequate means of escape.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objection on the grounds that the existing ruins make a significant contribution to the
historic environment and the proposal to establish the site as a dwelling would have a
significant impact on the site in terms of domestication and visual amenity.
Furthermore trying to incorporate the ruins into a new dwelling does not sit
comfortably from a conservation perspective; C&D feel the site has more to offer as a
ruinous landscape feature.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Objection on the
grounds that the proposal would introduce a new urban feature into the rural
agricultural landscape, even if reclaimed materials of brick and flint are used.
Currently, the existing barn ruins blend into the landscape and add to the sense of
character and history of the landscape and should be left to decay naturally.
Residential development on this piece of land would change it from a rural context to
a residential/leisure use which would have a negative effect on the landscape
character as identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment, and
would therefore be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
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.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Development Committee
5
10 November 2011
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 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. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies SS2, HO9, EN2 and
EN4 are applicable. Policy SS2 lists development which it is considered requires a
rural location, including agriculture and forestry.
Policy HO9 states that the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in
the countryside for permanent residential purposes will be permitted provided the
property lies within a location subject to the residential conversion designation, and is
worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value.
In addition the building should be capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding
or extension.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character).
Policy EN4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing
buildings and structures will be expected to have regard to the North Norfolk Design
Guide and be suitably designed for the context within which they are set. In addition
proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential
amenity.
Although the site is within an area where the conversion of traditional buildings to
residential use would be acceptable under Policy HO9, in this particular case due to
the current ruinous condition of the building which consists primarily of a modern
concrete block wall and three sections of brick and flint wall to a height of
approximately 2.5m it is considered that the scheme would fail to comply with this
policy as this former building is not capable of conversion without substantial
rebuilding or extension. In addition the Council’s Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has indicated that a new dwelling in this location would change
it from a rural context to a residential/leisure use which would have a negative effect
on the landscape character as identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and which would therefore be contrary to Policy EN 2 and also Policy
SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
In terms of the access arrangements the Highway Authority has raised no objection.
Development Committee
6
10 November 2011
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to comply with
Development Plan Policy due to the fact that insufficient of the existing structure
remains to warrant its conversion to residential use without substantial rebuilding or
extension. Furthermore due to its appearance it is considered to be of little historic or
architectural value and not worthy of rebuilding, since this would not protect or
enhance the character the site and would have a negative effect on the landscape
character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:The proposal fails to comply with the Development Plan policy owing to the
fact that the building is not structurally sound, could not be converted to a
residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension and due to its
appearance is considered to be of little historic or architectural value and not
worthy of retention.
Furthermore the alterations and extension would not protect or enhance the
character the site and would have a negative effect on the landscape character
of the area, as identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
by reason of introducing an urban feature into the rural agricultural landscape.
4.
CROMER - PF/11/1025 - Erection of A1 (retail foodstore) with A3 (cafe) unit; B P
I Service Station, Holt Road for Lidl UK GmbH
Major Development
- Target Date: 15 November 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Principal Routes
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19890944 PO - Petrol filling station restaurant & car wash
Approved 17/10/1989
PLA/19892162 PM - Erection of petrol filling station, car wash, shop and restaurant
Approved 23/04/1990
THE APPLICATION
Proposes removing the petrol filling station, car wash, shop and restaurant on site to
allow the erection of a retail foodstore with a gross floor area of 1,467 sqm and a net
sales area of 1,063 sqm. The proposal would include a cafe with a gross floor area of
approximately 84sqm. The proposed building would be clad with a mixture of glass,
rendered panels and aluminium cladding under a mono-pitched aluminium roof. The
building would have a maximum height of approximately 8.4m at the front of the site
sloping down to 4.7m high at the rear of the site at the delivery bay.
Access to the site would be via a new central 7m wide access onto Holt Road, which
would be shared by customers and delivery vehicles servicing the site. The proposal
provides 66 vehicle parking spaces (including three disabled and three parent and
child spaces). Parking for 40 cycles is also included. The applicants have indicated
that they would be prepared to provide a pedestrian crossing over the A148.
Development Committee
7
10 November 2011
The proposal involves re-profiling/re-grading of site levels on which to erect the store
and landscaping around the boundaries of the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The current land owner is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comment as follows:
1. Would rather see the site developed than have a derelict site but are concerned
at any possible detrimental effect on the town centre;
2. The Town Council has a Dark Skies Policy and object to any illuminated signs
and advertisements;
3. The landscaping plans show a lack of trees at the front of the site and some
mature trees being removed from the site. Members ask that semi-mature native
trees are planted at the site.
4. There is no public provision of public recycling facilities e.g. bottle banks. Please
can these be included;
5. Ask for reassurance that in order to protect the view towards the town centre, the
front edge of the store is no higher than Homebase;
6. With the increased number of pedestrians visiting the site, a pedestrian crossing
needs to be installed;
7. For many months, the residents of Holt Road and Steps to Safety Campaigners
have been fighting for a footbridge over the railway line. The Town Council asks
that S106 money is provided to fund a footbridge and would also like S106
money for the provision of allotments for parishioners.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of representation have been received, five in support, three objecting and
one commenting.
Summary of letters of support:
1. The proposal will give much needed employment.
2. The proposal will cater for local need.
3. The proposal will provide healthy competition without dominating the main High
Street.
4. Will complement a range of existing good shops in Cromer.
5. We would rather see the site developed than the garage closed and become
derelict and an eyesore on the main road into Cromer.
6. The proposal will reduce the need to travel to North Walsham.
7. The existing BP garage does not appear to have a very supportive clientele.
Summary of letters of objection:
1. The proposal does not include a filling station.
2. The existing garage caters for a wide number of customer include small, medium
and large businesses, holiday makers, coaches lorries, cars with motor
caravans/trailers and the loss of the garage will mean that those customers will
have to use the filling station in the town centre (which is very small) and which
will increase traffic congestion.
3. The proposal will lead to increased fuel prices in the town as there will only be
one filling station to serve the town.
4. The proposed loss of the garage could be bad for the economy of the town and
harm businesses who use this facility.
5. Do not need another food outlet in the town as we are already well catered for in
Cromer.
6. More people will travel out of town to use a "known brand" petrol station and this
could increase travel miles and carbon footprints.
Development Committee
8
10 November 2011
7. The proposal will increase traffic along Holt Road.
8. There are 47 houses the Holt side of the railway bridge and development should
be refused until a footbridge over the railway line is provided.
Summary of comments only:
The proposal will only provide three disabled and three parent and child spaces
whereas other stores provide greater number of such spaces.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
significant design objections subject to the imposition of conditions including those
relating to hard landscaping surfaces, lighting and signage.(See full copy at
Appendix 3).
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection in
principle but need to resolve concerns regarding the submitted landscaping scheme
and clarify biodiversity issues prior to decision being issued. (See full copy at
Appendix 3).
County Council (Highways) - Original comments - Further revised details requested
within the Transport Assessment to clarify certain highway matters.
Following receipt of revised details, no objection to the proposal subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions (See Appendix 3)
Further comment - I refer to the telephone conversation of 25 October when it was
indicated that the applicant may be unwilling to accept the imposition of a Limited
Assortment Discounters condition.
Guidance set out in PPG13 states that developers should not be required to provide
more parking than they consider necessary. Whilst the number of parking spaces
does not accord with the Core Strategy, the under-provision of parking is not
considered a problem with the site operated by Lidl. However, if the site were to be
purchased by an operator having a higher turnover, parking could well overflow onto
Holt Road.
If a LAD condition is not accepted then the Highway Authority would wish the
applicants to fund the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order imposing waiting
restrictions on Holt Road.
Environmental Health - No objection in principle subject to conditions. However,
further information has been requested in respect of the proposed ground source
heat pump and proposed delivery hours.
In respect of contamination issues relating to previous uses on the site, whilst the
submitted report is generally acceptable, there are areas of verification which will
need to be secured by way of suitably worded planning conditions.
Council's Retail Consultant (Mark Wood Associates) - No objection, subject to
conditions
The proposal involves the erection of a supermarket within the urban area of one of
the District’s Principal Settlements. It would be located on one of the main routes into
and out of the town relatively close to the District Council’s offices and near to two
existing out of centre food stores together with a range of non-food retail
warehouses.
Development Committee
9
10 November 2011
The information submitted in support of the planning application is predicated on the
basis that it would be occupied by Lidl GmbH, a national food and grocery retailer
specialising in providing quality products at discounted prices.
In relation to policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy the proposed store would not be
located within a defined Primary Shopping Frontage of Cromer. No sequentially
preferable sites are available, suitable and/or viable for the size of store required to
meet the identified need. The impact on Cromer and Sheringham town centres is
predicted by the Applicant to be limited. In our opinion while the scheme would
inevitably lead to further reductions in the convenience goods turnover of these two
centres, the impact would not be significantly adverse. Sheringham will benefit from a
modern supermarket operated by Tesco and this will strengthen its vitality and
viability. The supermarkets within Cromer would continue to provide a service in
primarily meeting day to day shopping needs and the impact will proportionately fall
on the out of centre stores along Holt Road. We do not believe that any locally
significant impacts would occur for example on smaller villages or on Holt town
centre.
In our opinion the Applicant has submitted sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with the relevant retail tests in Policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy and with
policies EC15.1 and EC16.1 of PPS4. This is subject to adequate conditions
controlling the nature of the proposed use. (See full copy at Appendix 3).
Planning Policy Manager - No objection subject to conditions
Property Services - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
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).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
10
10 November 2011
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
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).
Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes relevant to the
determination of both applications include:
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Retail Issues
3. Highway Safety
4. Design and Visual Impact
5. Landscape and Biodiversity Impact
6. Impact on AONB
7. Sustainability
8. Loss of Petrol Filling Station
9. Ground Contamination
10. S106 Obligations
11. Other Material Considerations
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The site is located within the defined settlement boundary for Cromer and within a
designated employment area where Core Strategy Policy SS 5 states "only
employment generating development proposals will be permitted". Policy SS5
defines employment generating development proposals as those falling within Use
Class B1 (light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (warehouse and
distribution), petrol filling stations, car / vehicle hire, the selling and display of motor
vehicles and builders yards. Retail warehousing and hotels may be permitted
provided that there is no sequentially preferable sites available.
The proposed retail supermarket (Class A1) and associated development would
therefore not comply per se with the requirements of Policy SS 5 and there would
have to be other material considerations in support in order to tip the balance in
favour of the proposal.
Development Committee
11
10 November 2011
Retail Issues
Policy EC5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy considers the Location of Retail and
Commercial Leisure Development. The policy suggests that retail units with a net
sales area of 750sqm or greater will only be permitted in the defined Primary
Shopping Area of settlements with a large town centre such as Cromer. However,
retail proposals which are located outside of the defined primary shopping area may
be permitted provided that:A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant
adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or nearby Service
Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport,
including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
The above criteria within Policy EC5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
accorded with the requirements laid out in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for
Town Centres. However, PPS6 has now been superseded by Planning Policy
Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, which introduced a range
of different tests, including those specifically for plan making purposes and those for
development management purposes. One key change is that there is no longer a
requirement for applicants to demonstrate need.
One of the key outcomes of PPS4 is promoting sustainable economic growth, the
Government’s objectives for planning, and to build prosperous communities; reduce
the gap in economic growth rates between regions; deliver more sustainable patterns
of development and respond to climate change; and to promote the vitality and
viability of town and other centres as important places for communities.
In respect of the consideration of retail matters (including the sequential approach to
site selection), the Council's retail consultant has considered the proposal against the
relevant policy criteria within Core Strategy Policy EC 5 and Government guidance
within PPS 4 together with other relevant material considerations. A copy of his
report is contained at Appendix 3.
Sequential Selection
Both Core Strategy and Government guidance advocate a town centre first
sequential approach in seeking to locate new retail development and, only where it
can be demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites available,
suitable or viable, will less sequentially preferable sites be considered.
The Council's retail consultant, in considering the sequential approach to site
selection, refers to Paragraph 5.6 of PPS 4 Practice Guidance, which states:
“The sequential approach forms a key policy consideration, and can in itself be a
clear reason for refusal. As such it is critical that applicants carry out a thorough
assessment to explore alternative options, and that if more central opportunities are
rejected, it is for sound reasons which are clearly explained and justified. As the onus
rests on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with sequential approach failure to
undertake such an assessment would constitute a reason for refusal, although as a
matter of good practice applicants and the LPA should seek to agree the scope of
such assessments and clearly identify any areas of difference.”
Development Committee
12
10 November 2011
The applicant accepts that compliance with the sequential approach is a key policy
test which applies to the scheme notwithstanding the particular business model
proposed. The applicant has assessed sites only within Cromer, having regard to the
primary catchment area of the proposed store, and the Council's retail consult agrees
with this analysis.
Two sites have been considered by the applicant, both of which are identified within
the Council's Site Allocations Development Plan Document. These include;
1. Louden Road and Church Street (Policy ROS3) and
2. Land South of Louden Road (Policy ROS4)
Having considered the evidence submitted, the Council's retail consultant agrees
with the conclusion of the applicants that neither of the above town centre sites is
available, suitable or viable and there are no other sequentially preferable sites within
the town that are available, suitable or viable.
Impact
Having determined that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available,
suitable or viable, the applicants are required to consider the impact that their
proposal would have on, amongst other things, the vitality and viability of Cromer
town centre and other settlements as well as consider potential impact of the
proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a
centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal.
The applicants have identified the catchment area of the proposed store and
indicated a predicted convenience goods sales density of £3,000 per sqm for the Lidl
supermarket, which the Council's retail consultant considers to be reasonable. This
would provide a design year (2014) turnover of £2.57m. The Council's retail
consultant has referred to the PPS 4 Practice Guide which, at paragraph D13 states
that "The turnover assumptions should reflect the range of potential operators likely
to be permitted having regard to any envisaged planning conditions proposed". In
this instance the applicant has not assessed the potential impact of a different
operator with a higher turnover and the Council's retail consultant is concerned that a
different operator with a higher turnover could "lead to substantially greater levels of
trade diversion" [i.e impact] and the retail consultant therefore advises that a planning
condition be imposed limiting occupation of the store to a Limited Assortment
Discount Retailer (LAD).
A table indicating the predicted impacts of the proposed store together with an
assessment of the proposal in relation to relevant PPS 4 policies is included within
the Council's retail consultant's report at Appendix 3.
Whilst the proposal would have some impact and result in some trade diversion from
the Budgens and Iceland stores in the centre of Cromer and smaller convenience
goods outlets, the Council's retail consultant considers this "unlikely to be unduly
damaging......this is because these stores cater for top-up shopping undertaken by
people already within the centre. The proposed store focusing on meeting bulk food
shopping would not compete to the same degree within this sector of the market".
The Council's retail consultant therefore concurs with the view of the applicant that
the "impact [of the proposed supermarket] would fall to a greater extent on out of
centre stores such as Co-op and Morrisons".
Whilst there would be some impact on Sheringham, the Council's retail consultant
considers that Sheringham will be sustained and enhanced following the completion
of the supermarket on Cromer Road
Development Committee
13
10 November 2011
In summary, whilst the Council's retail consultant acknowledges that "the scheme
would lead to a modest reduction in the convenience goods turnover of the town
centre; the cumulative impact when taken in combination with the proposed Tesco at
Sheringham would [in his view] be unlikely to lead to any store closures or significant
diminution in the towns overall attractiveness". He goes on to comment that: "The
degree of overlap with the town centre supermarkets which by and large operate in
niche markets and serve top-up shopping needs is predicted to be limited and does
not reach the threshold of being significantly adverse".
Accordingly, subject to the imposition of appropriate retail conditions including limiting
the total area devoted to the sale of goods, a limit on the amount of comparison
goods sales area and limiting the store to occupation by a Limited Assortment
Discount Retailer (LAD), it is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to have
significant adverse retail impact and would accord with relevant Core Strategy
policies and Government guidance.
If the applicant is unwilling to accept a condition limiting occupation of the store to a
Limited Assortment Discount Retailer (LAD) then further consideration would need to
be given to the potential impact of a store with a higher turnover and this would
require the applicants to review their submitted retail impact assessment. Any
recommendation in respect of non-LAD store would be dependent on the outcome of
this further work.
The Committee will be updated orally in respect of the applicants' final position
regarding the imposition of the proposed retail conditions.
Highway Safety
In respect of highway safety considerations, the applicants propose to create a new
central access onto Holt Road to serve the proposed development with the two
existing vehicular accesses being stopped-up. The new access would provide shared
vehicular, pedestrian, cycle and delivery vehicle access to the site. Parking spaces
for 66 vehicles are proposed. The Council's adopted vehicle parking standards
require 1 vehicle parking space per 14 sqm gross floor area. The store would have a
gross floor area of approximately 1,467 sqm and the adopted standards would
therefore require 104 vehicle parking spaces.
Whilst the applicants' proposed parking provision falls below the adopted standards,
the Highway Authority has raised no specific highway safety objections concerning
parking provision, based on the store being occupied by a Limited Assortment
Discount Retailer, such as the applicant. The Highway Authority has indicated that it
would need to review the situation if an operator with a higher turnover and
consequentially a greater number of vehicle movements and parking space
requirements were to operate from the store and this could include a requirement for
the applicant to fund waiting restrictions so as to prevent on-street parking on the on
A148 Holt Road.
Design and Visual Impact
In respect of design the applicants propose a relatively modern approach with a
mixture of glass, rendered panels and aluminium cladding under a mono-pitched
aluminium roof. Given the sloping nature of the site and, notwithstanding proposed
variations to the ground levels to create a generally level site, it is considered that the
visual impact of the proposed building would generally be less than that of a similar
development on a totally level site.
Development Committee
14
10 November 2011
Views and perception of the building differ depending upon the direction of approach
along Holt Road and would ultimately be dependent on the choice of landscaping
(see Landscape Impact below). Associated car parking at the northern end of the site
has the potential to be highly visible along with a proposed electricity sub-station in
the north-western corner of the site. Again the degree of impact that these elements
have would be highly dependent on the choice of landscaping scheme.
In respect of signage, this would be the subject of a separate application for
advertisement consent. Nonetheless the applicants have been given clear advice
that excessive signage would not be accepted in this location and that the sloping
nature of the site and gateway position on the entrance to Cromer mean that a
sensitive and bespoke signage solution will be required.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure use of appropriate
external materials (including hard surfacing), lighting and signage, it is considered
that the proposal would generally accord with Development Plan policies relating to
design.
Landscape and Biodiversity Impact
Analysis of the site indicates that landscaping is an important element in this
development and key to the successful integration of the foodstore building into the
landscape. The applicants have generally proposed a low-level planting scheme,
although some existing hedging is proposed to be retained and/or translocated, and
five new trees are proposed (a mixture of silver birch and field maple).
There is concern that the proposed landscaping scheme has not properly considered
the context of the site and, as such, the Conservation Design and Landscape
Manager considers that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed,
including the overall landscaping strategy and the types, numbers and species of
plants used. There is also concern that the amount of space allocated for
landscaping along the western (front) boundary is insufficient to provide the type of
planting required in this area. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considers that it would be better to remove the space allocated for landscaping on
the eastern boundary and move the car parking spaces east so that additional land is
available on the front boundary.
The applicant has been advised of these concerns and has agreed to re-consider this
aspect of the proposal. Notwithstanding the concerns about the current landscaping
scheme, subject to receipt of a satisfactory scheme there would be no objections to
the principle of the development.
In respect of impact on protected species and biodiversity the submitted Ecological
Appraisal recommended that further bat survey work was required (between May and
September) but there is no evidence that this has been carried out. Given the
European protection afforded to bats this matter needs to be addressed satisfactorily
and the applicants have been asked to comment on this matter. Committee will be
updated orally once a way forward has been identified. In all other respects, subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the submitted Ecological Appraisal would
conform to current guidelines and methodology for protected species and ecological
surveys.
Impact on AONB
In respect of impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, subject to the
submission of a satisfactory landscaping scheme and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to secure an appropriate form of development, it is considered
that the proposal would not be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the
Norfolk Coast AONB.
Development Committee
15
10 November 2011
Sustainability
In respect of sustainability, subject to the imposition of conditions the proposed
development is considered to be fully compliant with the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy EN 6 and in some cases would far exceed the minimum requirements
required by this policy.
Loss of Petrol Filling Station
Some representations objecting to the proposal have raised concern about the loss
of the petrol filling station and the impact that this could have on the town, both in
terms of potential increased traffic using the last remaining main petrol filling station
on Prince of Wales Road and also the potential loss of revenue for the town due to
the fact that, in the opinion of objectors, the Prince of Wales Road petrol filling station
is less suitable for larger vehicles and caravans.
Whilst the concerns about the loss of the Holt Road petrol filling station are noted and
understood and whilst it is recognised that the Holt Road garage occupies a larger
more spacious site within which vehicles can manoeuvre, the Prince of Wales petrol
filling station (together with the smaller facilities at the East Coast Motors site on
Beach Road) would continue to provide the town with alternative provision of at least
equivalent quality in respect of the number of petrol filling pumps and some facilities
to cater for larger vehicles. It has to be recognised that existing remaining petrol
filling stations may be able to adapt and improve their facilities to cater for the
potential increase in demand that would result from the closure of the Holt Road
facility, but ultimately it is a matter of commercial judgement for the operators of the
Holt Road site as to whether it is viable for them to continue trading. As such, the
loss of the Holt Road petrol filling station would not conflict with Core Strategy Policy
CT 3.
Ground Contamination
In view of the current use of the site as a petrol filling station the applicants are
required to take the necessary steps to remediate any pollution present on site so as
to reduce the potential risks to future occupiers. The applicants have submitted a site
investigation report and, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring certain
mitigation measures, the Environmental Health Officer has raised no substantive
objections to the proposed remediation methods. Policy EN 13 would therefore be
complied with in respect of contamination.
S106 Obligations
In respect of financial contributions, representations have expressed a wish for the
applicant to help fund a footbridge over the railway line adjacent to the A148. Whilst
the applicants have agreed to provide a pedestrian crossing over the A148 near to
the application site the applicants contend that the increase in both pedestrian and
traffic flows to the site would be so low that to request S106 monies to fund a
footbridge over the railway line would be unjustified. In addition the applicants
consider that monies for parishioners allotments (as requested by the Town Council)
cannot be drawn from this application under S106 guidelines. However, the
applicants have indicated that they have been approached to provide bulbs for
planting along the grass verge on Holt Road and would look to provide a contribution
for this. It is considered that it would be unreasonable to require the applicants to
fund off-site improvements other than those required by the Highway Authority under
a Section 278 Highway Authority Design and Build Agreement and relevant planning
conditions.
Development Committee
16
10 November 2011
Other Material Considerations
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
Summary
The submitted evidence indicates that the general principle of an A1 retail use and
associated development in this location is considered to be acceptable. Subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, a Limited Assortment Discount Retailer
(LAD) store of the size and turnover proposed is unlikely to have a significant
adverse retail impact and would accord with relevant Core Strategy policies and
Government guidance. However, the submitted landscape plan requires significant
alteration before it can be considered acceptable and clarification is required in
respect of impact on bats.
Development Committee
17
10 November 2011
Subject to satisfactory resolution of these outstanding matters and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including limiting the total area devoted to the
sale of goods, a limit on the amount of comparison goods sales area and limiting the
store to occupation by a Limited Assortment Discount Retailer (LAD) as well as other
relevant conditions required by consultees, it is considered that the proposal would
accord with relevant Development Plan policies and Government guidance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve
the application, subject to satisfactory resolution of landscaping and
biodiversity issues, subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including limiting the total area devoted to the sale of goods, a limit
on the amount of comparison goods sales area and limiting the store to
occupation by a Limited Assortment Discount Retailer (LAD) as well as other
relevant conditions required by consultees, including those requested by the
Highway Authority.
5.
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 01 November 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Enforcement Notice
Primary Retail Frontages
Primary Shopping Area
Principal Routes
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090929 PF - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter and Air
Conditioning System
Refused 18/12/2009 Appeal Dismissed 11/10/2010
PLA/20090930 AI - Display of Illuminated Advertisements
Withdrawn - Appeal against non-determination 18/11/2009 M 11/10/2010
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the installation of a new shopfront to replace the existing unauthorised
shopfront. The proposal includes an offset entrance, a cornice-type moulding to be
added to the fascia, repainting of the rendered column and stallriser, installation of
timber frames fitted to the stallriser and the fitting of bars to the vertical posts to
provide some relief to the profile.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Johnson in view of the planning history relating to this proposal.
TOWN COUNCIL
Raises strong objections to this application.
Development Committee
18
10 November 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society - Objects - 57-59 Church Street occupies a prominent
position opposite the Grade I listed church and is set within Cromer's Conservation
Area. This proposal neither preserves nor enhances the Conservation Area. The
existing shop front was installed without planning permission and was dismissed on
appeal. Furthermore the compliance date has already passed. This new application
does not address the existing poor quality design issues and the proposed
application of various stick on mouldings lacks integrity which will have an adverse
effect on the whole appearance. The proposed centralisation of the signage lacks
relevance as the entrance is set to one side. The only proposal to be welcomed is the
removal of the security grille. We support the recommendations of NNDC
Conservation and Design and object to this proposal which does not conform to
Policies EN 4 and EN 8.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objection - Conservation & Design are of the opinion that the latest proposals from
the applicants do not meaningfully address the main failings of the installed
shopfront; namely: 1. The lack of symmetry:
No attempt has been made to reinstate the symmetry which has always existed
across the front elevation. Instead the existing unbalanced arrangement of different
bay widths would remain in situ. It would also prevent the shopfront from properly
integrating with the building above.
2. The over-deep fascia:
The attempt at reducing the impact of this feature would achieve very little visually. In
practice the 'cornice' is just a piece of planted-on moulded timber which is only
125mm deep. With the fascia continuing on down below it, the end result would
amount to nothing more than tokenism. It is maintained that the fascia needs to be
cut back and a proper architrave plinth introduced which corresponds to the depth of
the console brackets.
3. The lack of depth:
The proposed measures to relieve some of the flatness of the shopfront are also less
than convincing. As far as can be determined, this involves basically attaching further
square-sectioned aluminium panels around and onto the entrance area. This would
surely not introduce the meaningful depth required across the whole shopfront. In
terms of the picture frames to be added to the stallriser, these are poorly
proportioned and pay very little regard to the bay widths. They would again appear as
an afterthought and not as an integral part of the shopfront.
As a result of the above, it is difficult to see how we can realistically be expected to
support this latest scheme. Whilst welcoming the centring of the fascia sign, the
removal of the roller shutter and the painting of the masonry to match the fascia, the
remainder of the proposals would have an entirely negligible impact upon the
character and appearance of the frontage. They would also completely negate our
earlier efforts in fighting and winning the appeal. Refusal therefore has to be the
Conservation & Design recommendation.
County Council (Highways) - Comments awaited
Development Committee
19
10 November 2011
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, refusal 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):
Land allocated for retail development in the Site Specific Allocations Development
Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011.
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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. Principle of development
2. Design consideration, including impact on Conservation Area
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
In considering the context of the proposed replacement shopfront application, the
Committee should be mindful of the planning and enforcement history of this site.
Planning application 20090929 for “Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller
Shutter and Air Conditioning System” and advertisement consent application
20090930 for “Display of Illuminated Advertisements” were submitted on 17
September 2009 on behalf of Iceland Foods Ltd, who had bought the former
Woolworths premises at 57 Church Street, Cromer.
At the same time as submitting the application, work began to replace the shopfront
at the premises and the applications were therefore retrospective in nature by the
time that the Development Control Committee considered the planning application on
26 November 2009. Planning permission was refused on 18 December 2009 on the
grounds that “the design for the replacement shopfront is damaging to the character
and appearance of this highly prominent part of the Conservation Area in that it fails
to respect the balance and symmetry of the building, creates a flat and featureless
facade, lacking depth and modelling, and includes a deep fascia which bears no
relationship to the capitals which define the lateral extent of the shopfront. The
proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area and conflicts with the above policies of the Development Plan”.
An Enforcement Notice was served on 8 January 2010 (ref: ENF/10/0002) which
required the applicant to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter within
three months from the effective date of the notice, which was due to take effect on 12
February 2010.
Development Committee
20
10 November 2011
On 10 February 2010 an appeal was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in
relation to the planning application, advertisement consent and enforcement notice
and the matter was dealt with by the Planning Inspector by way of Informal Hearing.
A copy of the Inspector's decision is attached at Appendix 4.
Whilst the Inspector allowed part of appeal relating to the non-illuminated loading bay
door sign, in all other respects the appeals were dismissed and the Enforcement
Notice was upheld but with a varied compliance period of 8 months, which took effect
on 11 October 2011. The applicant therefore had to comply with the requirements of
the notice to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter by 10 June 2011.
Subsequent to receipt of the Inspector’s decision, on 26 January 2011 the applicants
put forward their first proposal to try and address the concerns raised by the
Inspector. However, the proposals were considered to fall well short of what the
Local Planning Authority was expecting or would accept and Officers gave clear
advice as to what was required to make the proposal acceptable. Further plans were
received from the applicants on 8 March 2011 but again, whilst the proposals were
an improvement, they still were considered to fall short of what the Council can
accept and again Officers gave clear advice as to how to make the proposal more
acceptable.
On 19 May 2011 further correspondence was submitted from the applicants, who
indicated that they “have been working tirelessly with various specialist shopfront
designers to try and present to you an acceptable solution but unfortunately have not
managed to do this to date.” A request was made by Iceland Foods Ltd to grant an
extension of time before enforcement action is taken to enable new proposal to be
produced. The request to defer the enforcement action was considered by Officers to
be a matter that would require approval by Development Committee.
A meeting took place on 14 June 2011 with the applicants' newly appointed shopfront
designer and again Officers gave clear advice and outlined the necessary steps to
produce what would be considered an acceptable scheme. Plans were prepared and
submitted to Iceland Foods Ltd by their appointed shopfront designer but these plans
were not acceptable to Iceland with the applicant commenting that “this scheme
proves to be a problem with us in terms of expenditure and I would be grateful if you
could assess the scheme again”.
The applicants were advised to submit a proposal that they would be prepared to
accept and, despite this request, no such plans were submitted formally prior to the
Committee authorising prosecution under Section 179 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 for a failure to comply with the enforcement notice on 21 July
2011.
Principle of Development
There would be no objection in principle to the installation of a replacement shopfront
subject to the proposal complying with relevant Core Strategy policies including those
related to design (EN 4) and impact on heritage assets (EN 8)
Design Considerations including Impact on Conservation Area
In respect of shopfronts, the North Norfolk Design Guide states: "A successful
shopfront should not only enable a business to effectively display its wares, but it
should also provide a welcoming entrance to pull in customers. At the same time,
however, it should also set the scene for the building above, and take its place
comfortably within the rest of the street scene."
Development Committee
21
10 November 2011
57-59 Church Street, whilst relatively modern by comparison with other buildings in
Cromer, was built in 1933 and combines Art Deco and Neo-Georgian detailing. The
building occupies a prominent position within the commercial heart of the town and
also within the Conservation Area of Cromer.
Government advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the
Historic Environment suggests at paragraph HE7.5 that "Local Planning Authorities
should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive
contribution to character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The
consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials
and use".
In considering whether the proposal makes a positive contribution to the character
and local distinctiveness of the Cromer Conservation Area, the Committee has to be
mindful of the previous lawful shopfront that existed when the store was occupied by
Woolworths. Committee may recall that it included the following features:
It was symmetrical like the building above.
It had meaningful depth with its two recessed entrances.
It was properly framed by its expressed pilasters.
It was visually split into two by the expressed support pillar.
It was recessive by virtue of its muted colours - silver framing and black stallrisers.
It was visually lightweight with slender framing members.
It had a fascia which was housed entirely within the art deco shopfront capitals.
It reflected the layout of openings in the original 1933 shopfront.
The current proposal is considered to be an improvement on the scheme dismissed
at appeal in 2010 in respect of the centred fascia sign, removal of the roller shutter
door and the painting of the masonry to match the fascia. However, these benefits
have to be balanced against the negative aspects of the proposed shopfront
regarding the lack of symmetry, the over deep fascia and the lack of depth, as raised
by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
Therefore, taking account of the desirability of new development making a positive
contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the Cromer Conservation
Area, the proposal is considered to have a harmful impact and would neither
preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; nor is
the shopfront considered to be suitably designed for the context within which it is set.
The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Core Strategy Policies EN 4 and EN
8.
Highway Safety
Comments from the Highway Authority have been sought regarding the impact of the
proposal on pedestrian traffic in view of the minor incursion of fielded panels onto
highway land. Whilst it is unlikely that this would pose a risk to pedestrian safety,
Committee will be updated when the views of the Highway Authority have been
received.
Other Material Considerations
In considering the proposal, it is a matter for the Committee to consider and decide
what weight should be afforded to other material considerations which might have an
impact on its decision. In this case the applicants have submitted a supporting letter,
a copy of which is attached at Appendix 4, which outlines their opinion on the
previous planning history. The applicants have expressed the following views: "We
have transformed a tired old building which had suffered from neglect, into a clean,
Development Committee
22
10 November 2011
bright frontage to the benefit of the "High Street" and surrounding area. But for our
intervention this building would no doubt be vacant today and would have remained a
blot on the landscape."
Other material considerations include new Ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg
Clark MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23
March 2011. The Ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to afford this document as a material planning
consideration but given that it is only in draft at this stage, it is subject to a
consultation process and it may be revised or altered in light of that consultation
process, it is considered that it should be afforded little weight.
There is no doubt that the presence of a retail supermarket within the town centre
offers a welcome boost to the vitality and viability of Cromer town centre at a time
when the economic climate is less than certain and there are no land-use planning
concerns. It is not accepted, however, that the physical changes to the shopfront
made by the applicants can be considered as an improvement and this is evidenced
through the Committee's decision to refuse application ref: 20090930 being
supported at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
Summary
In the light of the successful appeal decision (from the Council's point of view), it is
considered that acceptance of the current proposal would not deliver the necessary
improvements to the shopfront required to outweigh the harm to the character and
appearance of the area that would result. It is considered that, notwithstanding the
economic benefit derived from the presence of the retail store, acceptance of a
substandard scheme in this location would be likely to undermine efforts by the
Council to improve the character and appearance of Cromer Conservation Area and
efforts to improve the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole through good
quality urban design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the grounds that the design for the replacement shopfront would
continue to damage to the character and appearance of this highly prominent
part of the Conservation Area in that it would fail to respect the balance and
symmetry of the building, would create a flat and featureless facade, lacking
depth and modelling, and would include a deep fascia which would bear no
relationship to the capitals which define the lateral extent of the shopfront. The
proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and would conflict with adopted Core
Strategy policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the Development Plan and would also fail to
accord with Government guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement
5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
Development Committee
23
10 November 2011
6.
CROMER - LA/11/1214 - Application of painted render to approved rear
extension; Exton House, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
- Target Date: 01 December 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LA/11/0388 LA - Demolition and re-building of rear extension, construction of rear
dormer window, installation of rooflight, rendered plinth, gib door, window to replace
entrance door, new entrance door, uncover flint to rear and internal refurbishment
Approved 13/06/2011
THE APPLICATION
Relates to works to the inner courtyard where it is proposed to substitute the red
brick quoins and flint panels to the exterior wall of the extension approved as part of
listed building consent 11/0388 with a smooth painted render finish.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No comment received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & 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.
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
Impact on historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
Exton House (formerly Cliffside) is a Grade II listed building situated on the southern
corner of The Gangway and Surrey Street and forms the northern end of the row of
attached listed properties, with The Gangway itself also being Grade II listed from the
north of Exton House to the sea.
Development Committee
24
10 November 2011
The property is located within the designated Town Centre for Cromer as defined by
the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy where 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 listed building and wider Conservation Area and their settings
through high quality, sensitive design. Furthermore development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
In June 2011 planning permission and listed building consent were granted by the
Committee for the demolition and re-building of a rear extension, construction of a
rear dormer window, and other external and internal alterations and refurbishment. At
that time the approved plans indicated that the eastern courtyard wall to the
replacement rear extension would be finished in red brick quoins with flint panels.
However given the small area of wall involved coupled with the fact that the elevation
also has French doors and an outhouse door the applicant considers that the small
panels of flintwork would be rather contrived and out of place with the rest of the
walls within this private courtyard which are a mix of painted render or painted flints.
It is therefore proposed that the flint and brick be replaced with smooth render of a
painted finish.
Given that this section of wall is not visible from any public vantage point and that
visually it would preserve the character and appearance of the building it is
considered that this minor change to the approve scheme is acceptable and would
accord with Development Plan policy. This view is confirmed by the Council’s
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
7.
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1074 - Change of use to a spa retreat including single
storey extensions to the side and rear, sauna, entrance canopy, new access
route from Kelling Heath Holiday Park and formation of car park.; Squirrelwood
Farm, Warren Road for Imagine Health & Spa Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 01 December 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
PF/09/1271 PF
Change of use from residential to D2 (spa retreat) and erection of single-storey rear
extension,
sauna and entrance canopy
Withdrawn by applicant 26/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the change of use and refurbishment of Squirrel Wood Farm House, which is
a substantial 6 bedroom house to a luxury spa/wellness retreat. The accommodation,
which is intended for a maximum of 20 guests per day, with 12 at any one time,
would include a reception, 5 treatment rooms, changing facilities and relaxation room
Development Committee
25
10 November 2011
coffee bar and kitchen contained within the original dwelling. On the southern
elevation a new orangery having a floor area of 37 sq metres would accommodate a
dining area. In addition a 133 sq metre flat roofed extension clad in timber is
proposed to the eastern end of the farmhouse which would accommodate a
hammam room, hydrotherapy suite and plant room. It is also proposed to erect a 6
person sauna which would be of timber construction under a clay pantile roof.
Access to the highway network would be via a new roadway constructed between the
paddocks at Squirrel Wood Equestrian Centre, linking into the road network through
Kelling Heath Holiday Park to the main park entrance at Sandy Hill Lane, which
connects to the A148 via Gypsies Lane to the south and the A149 to the north.
Parking for 11 guests and 6 members of staff would be provided in a new car park
which would be constructed adjacent to the Squirrel Wood Equestrian Centre with a
gated access route across the driveway to the stables which would be used by
delivery vehicles. In addition there would be 12 cycle stands adjacent to the spa
building.
Further information has been received from the applicants' agent clarifying the
numbers of day spa guests and also addressing the issue of potential bat activity on
the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issues:
The potential impacts of the development on the area and the amenities of local
residents by reason of traffic generation and likely disturbance.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application but would like to ensure that the pond in retained.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventeen letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. The use is not a health spa but a beauty parlour of which there 12 in the North
Norfolk area, as such there is not a “desperate shortage”.
2. The application would remove a substantial residence in the AONB from the
housing stock.
3. It will be virtually impossible to restrict traffic using the spa from accessing the
site via Warren Road.
4. The separation between the riding stables which uses Warren Road and the spa
should be via a permanent fence and not a gate.
5. Delivery vehicles that are familiar with the area will use the Squirrel Wood name
and post code if they are guided by Sat Nav which will direct them along Warren
Road.
6. The proposal will only work if all traffic to the Squirrel Wood site, including the
riding stables uses the proposed new access route.
7. The new access road has the potential to open the way for a one way system to
and from Kelling Heath Holiday Park.
8. The opening hours of 12 hours a day 365 days a year are too long and need to
be reduced.
9. External lighting should not pollute the night skies or impact on the AONB.
10. The Planning Department should avoid presenting arguments to embellish its
use of hypothetical data which has previously been the case at this site.
11. Inappropriate use within the AONB.
12. No mains sewage.
13. Increased traffic noise in High Kelling.
Development Committee
26
10 November 2011
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Will result in noise and disturbance to residents of Pineheath Road.
Will result in increased light pollution.
Could lead to a change of use to put caravans/mobile homes on the site.
The extensions have nearly doubled the ground floor area of the building,
excluding the 6 person sauna.
Proposal will affect the peace and tranquillity of the area.
In the event of the trees within the Forestry Commission ownership being felled
the proposed development at Squirrel Wood Farm would be exposed to views
from houses in Pineheath Road.
The proposal would have a considerable effect on wildlife; there are lots of deer
in the woods which would be driven away.
The spa should be built within the holiday park.
Could lead to a future expansion of the holiday park.
The proposed roadway will adversely affect the enjoyment of park residential
who have caravans on the route, increasing the number of vehicles, bicycles
and footfall.
Three letters of comment have been received which are as follows (summarised):1. A site notice should have been posted in Pineheath Road as most property
owners in this area use the bridle paths around the site.
2. A site notice should have been posted along the route of the proposed access
driveway.
3. Whilst not objection to the spa retreat I am concerned that it could result in
further plans for the Kelling Heath site in terms of mobile homes and caravans.
CONSULTATIONS
Kelling Parish Council – Object on the grounds that it would be an urbanisation of the
open countryside in the AONB and the possibly of encroachment of further
development after the tarmac roadway is constructed.
Weybourne Parish Council – Strongly supports the application as the development
will further enhance the already excellent and imaginative provision of the Holiday
Park. However they would like to see the installation of passing places on Sandy Hill
Lane/Gypsies Lane to the south of the park entrance.
Bodham Parish Council – No response
County Council (Highways) – No objection on the grounds that given the scale of the
existing holiday park and the current volume of traffic on the C310, it is felt that the
proposed development and method of operating, to predominantly cater for existing
park residents during the peak seasons, would be acceptable and would not be
considered to generate significant increases in traffic along the C310 Sandy Hill
Lane.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Confirms that the
Arboricultural Implications Assessment submitted with the application is satisfactory
and that there would be no significant impact on trees as a result of the development.
However in order to maintain the woodland cover on the site, it is recommended that
a condition is placed on any permission requiring that the trees are protected during
the course of construction.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager also concurs with the findings of
the Arboricultural Report an Ecological Assessment that the development will not
have any adverse impacts on biodiversity or protected species and recommend that
a condition is placed on any permission requiring the development to be carried out
in accordance with the mitigation measures of the ecological report.
Development Committee
27
10 November 2011
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Awaiting comments
Environmental Health – No objection subject to a condition regarding external
lighting.
Ramblers Association – No objection subject to footpaths remaining unrestricted
other than via pedestrian or a suitable kissing gate to prevent stock escaping. In
addition it is suggested that speed restriction signs be placed alongside the new
roadway together with signs highlighting the presence of pedestrians.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No response
Open Spaces Society – No response
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way – The application affects a number of
rights of way. Drivers should be made aware that they share pedestrian use of the
driveway through the park whilst delivery vehicles serving the development would
cross footpath Kelling FP9 immediately to the north of the Health Spa. Appropriate
signage should therefore be erected to ensure that both walkers and drivers are
aware of each others presence.
Environment Agency – 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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy 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 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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Development Committee
28
10 November 2011
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Access and car parking.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Landscape impact.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policies
SS2, SS5, EC2 and EC5 are applicable. Policy SS2 states that in areas designated
as Countryside, development will be limited to that which requires a rural location and
includes the re-use and adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes and
recreation and tourism.
Policy SS5 states that the tourist industry will be supported by retaining a mix of
accommodation and encouraging new accommodation and attractions which will help
diversify the offer and extend the season. However in so doing proposals need to
demonstrate that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on the
environment, and cycling walking and heritage tourism will be encouraged.
Policy EC2 states the re-use of buildings in the countryside for non-residential
purposes will be permitted where in the case of economic uses (including holiday
accommodation) the proposal is appropriate in terms of its scale and nature to the
location; also that the building is capable for the purpose without substantial
rebuilding or extension and would also protect biodiversity, amenity and the character
of the area. In terms of the location of retail and commercial leisure development
Policy EC5 states that proposal for such leisure development in the countryside will
not be permitted unless they comply with other Development Plan policies.
In this case the Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the application
states that the location is an extremely important component in creating the spa
retreat with the essential ingredients being the creation of the right setting and
landscaping, together with seclusion, peace and tranquillity, Furthermore the
statement points to the fact that the NNDC Tourism Sector study published by Scott
Wilson in November 2005 identified that the Health and Wellness sector was
relatively under exploited in North Norfolk for day visitors and that “facilities need to
be associated with high value landscapes and environment, with a degree of
exclusivity and remoteness to complete the full ideology of a health and wellness
visitor”.
In the submitted Design and Access Statement the applicants suggest that such a
development requires a quiet and tranquil setting. Given that the site is well
screened and some 270 metres from the nearest dwellings in Pineheath Road it is
considered that in principle the reuse of the building as a small scale spa retreat
would accord with Policy EC2.
Development Committee
29
10 November 2011
As far as the design of the extensions is concerned the Hydrotherapy Suite to the
eastern end of the building, although modern in form, would be recessive in its
appearance due to the use of timber cladding to the external walls. The Orangery on
the southern elevation would follow a more traditional conservatory-style appearance
painted a blue green colour. Although there is public access in the vicinity of the site,
given the fact that the building is fairly well screened by adjoining woodland and
mature trees and shrubs within the grounds, it is not considered that either extension
would have a significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area. In respect
of the sauna within the grounds, this would also be recessive in nature. It is therefore
considered that the physical alterations and extensions to the building would comply
with the requirements of Policy EN4.
In terms of access arrangements and vehicular movements to the site, the Design
and Access Statement indicates that traffic would be encouraged to use the route to
and from the A148 which is the current tourist signed route to the holiday park.
However during the holiday season it suggests that the majority of guests using the
spa would come from the holiday park and its availability would be actively promoted
as a leisure activity for visitors. Non-park residents wishing to make a booking during
peak periods would be encouraged to use one of the applicants' other spas at
Blofield and Kings Lynn. Outside the main holiday season the spa would attract
additional visitors which could bring additional revenue into the area.
In addition non-park residents would be provided with written information and a plan
describing how to access the spa in advance of their visit, which would specifically
state that there is no route to the spa from Bridge Road. The information would also
include the address and post code of the Kelling Health Holiday Park and advice
regarding the use of satellite navigation devices to try and ensure the correct route is
followed. The Design and Access Statement also indicates that, although it is
considered that there is adequate parking provision to cater for the facility, guests
and staff will be encouraged not to use private cars. Furthermore the applicants are
investigating setting up an electric shuttle service to transport staff and guests. In
addition 12 cycle stands would be provided, which together would be in line with the
holiday park’s sustainability ethos.
The Design and Assessment Statement also indicates that there would be morning
and afternoon sessions, with 12 guests per session, and a maximum of 20 per day,
but it is anticipated that many guests would stay all day. As a result it is anticipated
that the spa would attract around 4,000 guests per year. In addition each day there
would be laundry, food and postal deliveries with other provisions being delivered
every three days from and in conjunction with the park. Based on these figures it is
suggested that the development could generate a maximum of 66 vehicular
movements per day assuming each guest travelled separately. However given that
during the peak season may of those using the spa would be staying on the adjacent
park and that based on the experience of their other facilities, guests often share
transport it is suggested that it is extremely unlikely that the facility would generate
this number of traffic movements.
The Highway Authority has indicated, given the scale of the existing holiday park and
the current volume of traffic onto Sandy Hill Lane, that the proposed development
and method of operating, to cater predominately for existing park residents during the
peak seasons, would be acceptable and would not generate significant increases in
traffic. In terms of the amount of car parking proposed this would comply with the
Parking Standards contained in the Core Strategy. However the Highway Authority
and Footpath Officer have suggested signage along the access driveway warning
drivers of potential conflict with pedestrians.
Development Committee
30
10 November 2011
In terms of the potential use of Warren Road to access the site clearly it is the
intention of the applicant to take all practical measures to prevent this. The way in
which the scheme has been designed with the car park to the north of the track
leading to Warren Road, coupled with double gates which would be used solely for
deliveries to the spa, means that it would be difficult for guests leaving the facility to
use this route. Furthermore there is a further controlled gate along the track which
restricts access to the Equestrian Centre. However it is recognised that whilst those
using the spa would be actively encouraged to use the route through the park it is
impossible to legislate against guests attempting to use Warren Road, particularly
when arriving at the spa, or local delivery vehicles using this route.
In terms of the potential for noise and disturbance from the site, the nearest
properties to the site are dwellings in Pineheath Road, some 270 metres to the south,
whilst other residential properties are some 430 metres to the west at Warren Farm.
The Design and Access Statement indicates that guests would normally arrive
between 9.30 and 10.00 am and leave at 1.00 pm, whilst the afternoon session
would be from between 1.30 -2.00 pm until 5.00pm. The 7 or 8 staff at each session
would be employed on a shift basis from 8.00am to 3.00pm and then 2.00pm to
9.00pm depending on session times. Furthermore whilst there would be a degree of
outside seating and use of the sauna within the grounds the majority of the spa
facilities would be contained within the premises.
As far as external lighting is concerned, although the Design and Access Statement
indicates that there would be a need for a degree of lighting especially within the car
park, this would be kept to a minimum and designed for a rural location in order to
avoid unnecessary glare. It is therefore considered, given the likely relatively low use
of the site, the proposed operating times, distance from dwellings, its enclosed nature
and its use which promotes peace and tranquillity, that the development would have
no significant impact on the amenities on neighbouring properties in terms of noise,
disturbance or light pollution. Environmental Health has confirmed that they have no
objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the submission of full details
of external lighting.
As far as the landscape impact is concerned, the development would involve the
removal of 12 trees which are approximately 20 - 25 years old within the Holiday
Park to accommodate the roadway. Within the Squirrel Wood site itself it is proposed
to remove a Maple, Thorn, Holly, Cypress and Almond tree. In addition it is proposed
to manage the eastern boundary of the existing garden, which currently consists of a
stand of 43 semi-mature sycamore trees, which the Arboricultural Implication
Assessment states exhibit numerous defects and structural problems, by the phased
coppicing or removing the trees. A woven Willow fence would also be erected to this
boundary and planted with a mix of beech and hazel hedging along the fence line.
Overall it is considered that the removal of the trees would not have a significant
impact of the site which would remain well screened by mature trees to the western
boundary of the site and the dense conifer woodland to the east. The Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that subject to appropriate conditions
there is no objection to the scheme.
In terms of concerns raised in respect of potential bat activity on the site, further
information has been received from the applicant’s agent who points to the fact that
the nature of the application does not trigger a requirement for a bat survey as the
works would not disturb the roof of the existing house or roof void. The trees in the
vicinity of the building to be removed are all under 15 years of age and an inspection
has indicated that they do not display any features used by bats for roosting and
shelter.
Development Committee
31
10 November 2011
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
In summary it is considered that the use of the building as a spa retreat would accord
with adopted Development Plan policy, in that whilst it would require travelling to the
site the nature of the use proposed requires a semi-remote and tranquil location
which could not be found in a town centre or more urban location. Similarly such a
use would contribute to the rural economy of North Norfolk and at the same time offer
a tourism-related use which is relatively lacking within the District. It is considered
that it would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment. In terms
of the access arrangements, based on the relatively low level projected usage, and
Development Committee
32
10 November 2011
the fact that given the nature of the development and the experiences of similar
facilities where in practice visitors share transport, vehicular movements are likely to
be less than predicted and the Highway Authority considers the proposal to be
acceptable.
In response to local concerns that the approval could lead to the further extension of
the park in terms of the provision of static caravans, any such proposal would need to
be the subject of a further application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
HOLT - AI/11/1066 - Display of illuminated/non illuminated advertisements;
Budgens Store, Kerridge Way for Musgrave Retail Partners GB
- Target Date: 25 October 2011
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Advertisement Illuminated and non-illuminated
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060028 AI - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements
Approved 31/03/2006
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to display various illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements at the
Budgens site in Holt.
Of the illuminated signs on the store building, lettering only would be lit by LED lights,
to a maximum static illumination level of 450cd/m2.
The signs would be of aluminium construction primarily of white text on green
background.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The owner of the site the subject of this application is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection or comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received from The Holt Society making the following comments:
Concern over the recent increase in illumination of the town centre signs.
Lighting after dark should be confined to premises that are trading at that time and
that such illumination should not be florescent and garish.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection as the proposals are essentially to replace
the existing signage with new signs, some incorporating low level illumination.
Requests conditions limiting the level of illumination and requiring that the source of
Development Committee
33
10 November 2011
illumination would not be directly visible to users of the adjacent public highway and a
note reminding the applicants/developers that the development involves signage that
may affect the public highway.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - No objection. The proposed
advertisements would not harm the character and appearance of the adjacent Holt
Conservation Area. If anything, they would freshen up the site to the benefit of the
wider townscape.
Environmental Health - No objections
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 Design Guide (Adopted December 2008):
Chapter 8: Shopfronts and Advertisements
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the visual amenity of the Conservation Areas.
APPRAISAL
In the absence of highway safety objections, the issue for consideration relates to the
impact the illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements would have on amenity,
taking into account the location of the site in a Conservation Area.
The Design Guide aims to allow businesses to advertise themselves successfully
whilst also having regard to the wider street scene in terms of the scale, form,
detailing, lettering, scale, colour and illumination of the advertisements.
It is considered that the visual impact of the illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements would be minimal, would not detract from the visual amenities of the
area and would preserve the character of the Conservation Area in accordance with
the requirements of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objection being received on
expiry of the press notice and to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
34
10 November 2011
9.
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 - Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway Triangle
Site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
Major Development
Target Date: 11 April 2011
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Allocation
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the erection of 50 dwellings comprising 43 houses, 1 bungalow
(mix of 2, 3 & 4 bed units) and 6 flats (1 & 2 bed units).
Sixteen of the dwellings (32%) are proposed as 'affordable' dwellings.
The majority of dwellings are to be two storey, the exception being 4 terraced, 4
detached and a pair of semi-detached units incorporating third floor 'dormer'
accommodation in the roofspace, and the one single storey unit.
The proposal also includes provision of a revised junction between The Avenue and
Norwich Road together with off-site highway improvements including extension of the
30mph zone along Norwich Road. When originally submitted the draft heads of terms
accompanying the application referred to a payment of £22,000 to be paid to facilitate
the widening of an existing length of footway adjacent to Norwich Road, due north of
the site. This payment is no longer proposed for reasons explained later in this
report.
Two areas of open space are proposed, one adjacent to the new road junction with
Norwich Road and the other located centrally within the site. In addition the
applicants are proposing to offer £25,000 towards the enhancement of play facilities
at Suffield Park.
The application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including the
following:
Design & Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Transport Statement
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Noise Assessment
Archaeology Evaluation
Statement of Community Involvement
Report on Development Viability (confidential)
Amended plans (layout and design details) submitted on 11 July 2011 have been
subject to re-advertisement. Further amended plans (dwelling design details) were
submitted on 21 September 2011.
The latest sets of amended plans include a variation to certain of the house types
and designs, a slight re-alignment to the central estate road, deletion of direct
vehicular access onto The Avenue, inclusion of a small lay-by on the re-aligned part
of The Avenue and other minor layout changes. Those proposed dwellings which
have three floors of accommodation are proposed to be moved further away from
existing properties which back onto The Avenue.
Development Committee
35
10 November 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objected to the originally submitted plans on grounds that Plots 2, 3 and 4 would
dominate existing properties on The Avenue and plots 47, 48 and 49 were objected
to by residents of Stevens Road. Site density is too high and results in an abrupt
transition from urban to rural landscape. More planting required along Norwich
Road.
Access and egress at The Avenue and Stevens Road is already difficult due to the
railway bridge. Extra traffic will worsen this situation. The Avenue is already used
as a rat-run when Norwich Road is congested. Site access via The Avenue will
increase this rat-running. Adequate arrangements must be made for foul and surface
water drainage.
In response to the amended plans, comments that some of the previous issues have
now been addressed but there is still concern that plots 2,3 & 4 will still dominate the
existing dwellings which back onto the Avenue. The existing dwellings are sited on
lower land which would make the new properties even more overbearing. It is
suggested that the garages to plots 2,3 & 4 are swapped with the dwellings.
REPRESENTATIONS
14 letters of objection were received from nearby residents to the originally
submitted application raising the following concerns:
1. The proposed access onto Norwich Road is unacceptable and very different from
that outlined in the Site Allocations DPD (which suggests that it may be accessed
through site C07/08).
2. Concerns that site access is directly opposite properties on The Avenue and will
affect safety of children who cycle on The Avenue.
3. The development will increase traffic in the area, where it is already difficult and
dangerous to exit onto Norwich Road..
4. Plots 2-4 are three storey buildings which overlook the rear aspect of properties
on the Avenue and will compromise privacy and block sunlight. The proposed
dwellings are over 11 metres tall and as properties on The Avenue are 2 metres
lower than the site level, residents are concerned about the impact.
5 further letters of objection received in response to the amended plans raising
following issues:
1. Concerns that despite the amendments to plots 2 - 4 these properties which will
be on higher ground will still be too close to existing dwellings which back onto The
Avenue, resulting in loss of light. This is exacerbated by a change in orientation of
the roof pitch on plot 2.
2. Apparent loss of the existing hedgerow along the site boundary with The Avenue.
3. Highway safety. The entrance to the site has not been altered. Prospect of The
Avenue becoming a 'rat run'.
4. The layby provided on The Avenue would only be sufficient for one vehicle, with
no parking restriction and could result in problems for vehicles manoeuvring from it.
5. Overlooking from large 3 storey properties towards dwellings on Stevens Road.
Scale of properties would be out of keeping with the area.
6. No reference to local architecture, the proposed development could be anywhere.
Development Committee
36
10 November 2011
The applicant's agent has written in response to the comments of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager, expressing disappointment that he still does not
support the application despite noting that he no longer has concerns regarding the
site layout and recognises that for the most part the amendments to the house types
have been positive. "Hopkins Homes Ltd is a multi-award winning regional house
builder and it should be noted that what also makes their homes distinctive is the
quality of the materials used and the craftsmanship applied in constructing these
units. These are qualities which are difficult to show on a plan but can perhaps best
be illustrated by the fact that this house builder continues to deliver sites and sell
homes when its competitors are struggling or no longer exist. They are homes people
want to live in."
CONSULTATIONS
Cromer Town Council - Comments that the amended plans have addressed previous
concerns, however some properties are still overlooking others and requests whether
these can be moved.
Anglian Water - Advises that the site falls within the catchment area of Cromer
sewage treatment works which presently has available capacity to cater for the
proposed development. However recommends a condition requiring approval of a
foul water strategy to avoid the risk of downstream flooding.
Also recommends submission and approval of a surface water strategy/flood risk
assessment.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition requiring submission of a
detailed surface water drainage scheme.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Has provided a brief for archaeological evaluation
by trial trenching which is recommended should be undertaken prior to the
application being determined (in accordance with PPS 5 - Planning for the Historic
Environment). The trial trenching will inform whether further investigations
(excavation) are required.
Network Rail - Requests informative note requiring the developers to inform Network
Rail of their intention to start works 6 weeks prior to proposed commencement.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Confirms that the amended plans are
acceptable. Recommends conditions to be attached in the event of planning
permission being granted.
Norfolk County Council (Planning obligation requirements) - Advises that there is
currently sufficient capacity at local nursery, primary and high schools to
accommodate extra children arising from the development, so no financial
contribution is required for education. Contributions are required for the fire service (1
hydrant at a cost of £766) and library provision (£3,000). Additional contribution
(commuted sum) may also be required for future maintenance of landscaped areas
within the adopted highway land.
Norfolk Constabulary - Provides a number of detailed 'designing out crime'
comments. No overall concerns regarding the proposed layout.
Building Control - Submitted soil investigation appears to conclude that there are no
contaminants or landfill gas issues.
Development Committee
37
10 November 2011
Environmental Health - Advises that no further works are required in respect to
ground contamination. The site is deemed suitable for residential use with gardens.
Refers to previous complaints (dating back to 2000) regarding noise from nearby gokart track, but no complaints have been received for several years.
Strategic Housing - Now supports the application on the basis that it will provide
32% affordable housing, all 50 dwellings will be built to Level 3 of the Code for
Sustainable Homes and the scheme will be delivered early. There is a viability issue
on this site which prevents 45% affordable housing being provided, the most
significant cause being the land value. The viability has been discussed with the
applicant and 32% affordable housing has been negotiated which represents the
amount of affordable housing the scheme can support at this time. If this application
is approved, a Section 106 Agreement will be required which will provide details of:
• Number, type, size and tenure (affordable rent or intermediate/shared
ownership) of the affordable dwellings.
• Phasing arrangements for the delivery of the affordable housing.
• Confirm that there is no public subsidy in the provision of the affordable
housing.
• Require early development of the site.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Design) - Commenting on the latest
sets of amended plans, states that there can no longer be any sustainable objections
to the layout. Whilst some of the improvements are relatively modest in terms of their
impact on the scheme as a whole, the changes to the alignment of the main access
road and to the arrangement of properties in the north-east corner are more
noticeable. Cumulatively, it is considered that the various changes made would
create a layout which should have sufficient layering and interest to produce a
qualitative end result.
In terms of the overall form and massing of the proposed development, criticisms
were originally made to certain of the individual plot proposals. Some progress has
now been made; namely i) Plots 2-4 have been scaled down and no longer have
such a domineering effect, ii) Plot 45 provides a better gateway into the site, iii) there
is slightly better continuity across Plots 46-50, iv) the prominent side elevation of Plot
50 has been enlivened, and v) the requested gable has been introduced on Plot 33.
Taken together, these changes effectively overcome the earlier general concerns
about form and massing.
In terms of the house types proposed, criticisms have been levelled from the outset
about the lack of real local distinctiveness in the individual designs. Allied to this,
concerns have also been expressed about the appropriateness of having standard
neo-Georgian house types on the outskirts of Cromer and how well these would be
integrated into the settlement. In response to this critique, the applicants have
submitted the latest set of amendments to some of the units and some of their
curtilage structures. Of these some of the amendments are welcomed (lattice-style
porches, brick corbelling, introduction of flint panels and oculus windows). However
other changes to certain of the window styles are considered to be a retrograde step.
Bringing together the revisions made, one cannot deny that the overall impact upon
the units has been positive. Unfortunately, these gains have been relatively modest
ones which have largely been confined to 'dressing'. As a result, the perception of the
scheme as a whole would be little altered. Fundamentally, the house types are still
relatively conventional compositions which are familiar both within and outside our
Development Committee
38
10 November 2011
district. Whilst generally polite and proportionally correct, the majority of the units
follow a predetermined formula which could be built anywhere but ultimately belongs
nowhere. This is perhaps best illustrated by the Georgian pastiche properties which
occupy the most prominent positions on the site. By virtue of their regular and
regimented bay widths and facades, these are the most difficult to make site specific.
They are perhaps also symptomatic of a more general deficiency in imagination and
architectural flair which pervades the scheme.
For these reasons, and because such a prominent site within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty deserves rather more, Conservation and Design are still
unable to support the scheme. Until such time as the development genuinely aims to
"respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings" (as required
in the draft National Planning Policy Framework), this situation is unlikely to change.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
amended plans, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Countryside & Parks Manager - Comments that the site as a whole does not provide
the amount of open space that would be required under the Council's standards
referred to in the Core Strategy, but appreciates the difficulty in providing more within
the development. Suggests that the natural green space at the entrance to the site
should be slightly decreased as it has little recreational value and the formal open
space within the centre of the site increased by a similar extent. Suggests also that
the formal open space is slightly mounded to deter ball games in favour of more
passive pursuits.
Supports the proposed payment of £25,000 towards improving play facilities at
Suffield Park rather than on this site.
Sustainability Officer - The preference is that the development should fully comply
with Policy EN 6 in terms of both compliance with level 3 of the code for sustainable
homes and 10% on site renewable energy provision. However if it was decided to
reduce the EN 6 requirement in relation to the provision of affordable housing the
preference would be to require all dwellings to meet code level 3 and relax the
renewable energy requirement. Meeting the code level will ensure better compliance
with the overall aims of Policy EN 6, as the code covers 9 elements of sustainability
including energy use, water use, ecology and materials and not just renewable
energy. It should provide a more sustainable outcome for the development in the
long term as many of the features will be 'built-in' to the dwellings rather than 'boltedon' as in the case of PV panels.
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 (refer to comments
from Norfolk Constabulary above).
Development Committee
39
10 November 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February
2011):
Policy C17: Railway Triangle, Norwich Road. (land allocated for approximately 50
dwellings subject to safe access, off-site highway improvements, retention of
hedgerows and suitable boundary landscaping, adequate sewerage capacity and
mitigation against visitor pressures on the Norfolk Coast).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
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 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).
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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (all developments should incorporate beneficial
biodiversity conservation features where appropriate).
Policy En 10: Development and Flood Risk (appropriate surface water drainage
arrangements required to cater for surface water run-off from new developments).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (new development should be supported by,
and have good access to, infrastructure, open space, public services and utilities).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
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).
North Norfolk Design Guide - Supplementary Planning Document. December 2008.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Housing mix
3. Layout and Design
4. Landscaping
5. Other matters
6. Sustainable construction / energy efficiency, development viability and provision of
affordable housing
7. Other material considerations.
Development Committee
40
10 November 2011
APPRAISAL
Background
This application was deferred at the meeting in April to allow negotiations in respect
of relocation of the three storey dwellings, design and layout issues and compliance
with Policy EN6 (Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency). As submitted at
that time the applicants were not proposing to meet the requirements of Policy EN6,
but were proposing 36% (18 units) affordable units.
Since that meeting amended plans have been submitted and these are referred to
below under the headings of highway safety, housing mix, layout and design, and
landscaping. Furthermore detailed discussions have been taking place with the
applicants regarding compliance with Policy EN6. These discussions have been
intricately linked to development cost and viability and in turn the provision of
affordable housing. These issues are dealt with towards the end of this appraisal.
The site is located adjacent to the southern built-up boundary of Cromer, bordering
Norwich Road (A149) along its western boundary, The Avenue (a narrow lane) to the
north, the Norwich to Sheringham railway line cutting along its south-western
boundary, and an abandoned former railway cutting (now a well-established
woodland) to the east. The site (1.7 ha.) is triangular in shape, narrowing to a point at
its south-eastern corner. It currently comprises arable farmland and lies within the
designated Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The site is allocated for the development of 'approximately 50 dwellings' in the now
adopted North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) - Policy
C17. Accordingly the principle of residential development on this site and the amount
proposed is considered acceptable. (50 dwellings on this site represents a density of
30 dwellings per hectare). Consideration of the application therefore needs to be
confined to the details of the proposal and whether or not these comply satisfactorily
with the policy relating to the allocation and with those relevant policies of the Core
Strategy.
Highway Safety
DPD Policy C17 requires the provision of safe access to Norwich Road. Pedestrian
and vehicular access to the site would be from a revised junction arrangement
between The Avenue and Norwich Road. The primary road leading from the rearranged junction would be the spine road serving the development with the partially
re-aligned route of The Avenue served off it. The Avenue would be widened,
provided with a footpath along its length adjacent to the site, and also, as a result of
the latest amendments, provided with a small vehicle lay-by. Combined with these
junction arrangements it is proposed to extend the existing 30 mph speed limit on
Norwich Road to beyond the road frontage of the site to the far (southern) side of the
railway bridge. The Highway Authority has confirmed no objection to the amended
plan subject to conditions in respect of highway construction details.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO 1 requires at least 40% of dwellings to comprise not more
than 70sqm internal floorspace and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The intention
of this policy is to ensure that new residential developments help to reduce an
identified imbalance of larger house types in the District. As proposed 16 (32%) of
the dwellings would fully meet this criterion, and a further four of the three bedroom
dwellings proposed would only have 73sqm floorspace, which if included in the
calculation would equate to 42%. Of the affordable dwellings proposed, these are
compliant with the advice provided by the Council's Strategic Housing Team. The mix
of dwellings proposed is considered reasonable in the context of this policy objective.
Development Committee
41
10 November 2011
Layout and Design
In terms of the layout of the development, this is to a significant degree dictated by
the triangular shape of the site and the position of the reconfigured road junction onto
Norwich Road. The principal elements of the layout as proposed comprise a
predominantly straight spine road running north-south through the site; a linear
arrangement of dwellings along the eastern side of the spine road backing onto the
boundary with the adjacent woodland; a more informal arrangement of dwellings on
the larger portion of the site to the west of the spine road; and the two areas of open
space, one being more formal within the centre of the development, and the other, a
natural green space immediately south of the road junction, having the effect of
setting dwellings back from the frontage with Norwich Road. The Committee will note
that the amended plans, which include a slight re-alignment of the spine road and
exclude any direct driveway access onto The Avenue, now address previous
concerns expressed by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager regarding
the site layout.
The amended plans also revise certain of the house type designs, notably the scale
of a small terrace of three dwellings (plots 2 - 4) closest to existing properties which
back onto The Avenue. These would now be two storey only. Whilst there still remain
local objections to the position and scale of this terrace it is considered that its
relationship with existing development would be acceptable and would be is in
compliance with the Council's Design Guide guidelines. These plots would have a
roof height of approximately 8.7m, fairly typical of other two storey dwellings
proposed elsewhere on the site. The tallest building would be a terrace of six units
(plots 27 - 32) the central four units of which would incorporate three floors(roof
height approximately 11.2m). Four other detached dwellings and a pair of semidetached dwellings would incorporate three floor levels with roof heights of
approximately 9.1m. The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager now acknowledges that the amended plans overcome his
previous concerns regarding the overall form and massing of the development but
they still fall short of gaining his support in terms of the design approach taken to the
dwellings which are still considered to lack local distinctiveness.
Landscaping
Policy C17 requires the 'retention of mature hedgerows and provision of suitable
boundary landscaping and areas of open space to retain a 'green' approach to
Cromer'. Parts of the existing hedgerows would be lost as a result of the new road
junction arrangements, but this would be compensated by the area of natural green
open space at the site entrance together with new hedgerow planting along the
boundary of Norwich Road (now indicated on the amended plans). Subject to the
imposition of a condition requiring a full planting scheme there are now no objections
to the proposal on landscape grounds.
Other Matters
Policy C17 requires demonstration that there is sufficient local sewage treatment
capacity to cater for the development. Anglian Water has confirmed that this is the
case subject to an agreed strategy which is likely to involve some improvements to
the drainage network in the vicinity of the site.
Policy C17 also requires the prior approval of a scheme to monitor and, if necessary,
mitigate possible impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA and Ramsar site as a
result of increased visitor pressure. This arose as an issue during the preparation of
the Site Allocations DPD following representations by Natural England and the
RSPB. A number of other housing allocations are subject to this requirement. The
Development Committee
42
10 November 2011
principle of requiring developers to mitigate against harmful effects upon these
environmentally sensitive sites is therefore established. However further work is still
required to determine how this should be implemented and exactly what the level of
contributions should be. Joint working is being carried out on this issue with
neighbouring authorities. Given this current situation it was considered premature
earlier on in the course of this application to impose such a requirement in relation to
this proposed development.
Sustainable construction / energy efficiency, development viability and provision of
affordable housing
Following deferral of this application in April and the Committee's request for
negotiations to seek compliance with Policy EN 6, detailed discussions have taken
place with the applicants. Their position is that full compliance with this policy
represents a significant cost which will impact on the viability of the scheme and the
provision of affordable housing.
Policy EN 6 requires all new dwellings to achieve a code level 3 rating under the
Code for Sustainable Homes and on developments of 10 dwellings or more that 10%
of the predicted energy usage is sourced from on-site renewable energy technology.
It is normal practice on all permissions for new housing development to include a
condition requiring compliance with code level 3.
Policy HO 2 requires developments of 10 or more dwellings to provide 45% of the
dwellings as affordable housing, where it is viable to do so. The policy accepts that in
cases where it is demonstrated that it would be unviable to require this proportion of
affordable housing, the requirement could be reduced by an appropriate amount.
Following the previous deferral the applicants presented four scenarios to Officers for
initial consideration. These were as follows:
1) Optimum affordable - 15 plots (30%). Inclusion of some water, energy and
resource measures, but not to code level 3.
2) Policy EN 6 compliant (code level 3 & 10% renewables).
proposed.
No affordables
3) Code level priority - 6 affordable plots (12%). Affordable units to be code level 3.
Remainder to include water, energy and resource measures but not to code level 3.
4) 10% renewable priority - 6 affordable plots (12%). 10% on site renewable energy.
Inclusion of some water, energy and resource measures, but not to code level 3.
A confidentially submitted viability report assessed each of these scenarios. The
report concluded that scenario 2 (EN 6 compliant) was not viable and therefore was
not one which the applicants were proposing.
The applicants subsequently wrote formally to propose scenario 4. Officers
responded by making it clear that the application would be recommended for refusal
on such a basis, the reasons being non-compliance with code level 3 (which has
been a standard requirement since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2008 for all
new housing development in the District), and the low proportion of affordable
housing being proposed. On both of these issues there was disagreement on
aspects of the development viability report which had been submitted by the
applicants.
Development Committee
43
10 November 2011
It is pertinent at this point to explain the role of, and different types of, development
viability reports. Because the policy relating to the provision of affordable housing
(Policy HO2) requires 45% of the dwellings to be affordable ('subject to viability'), in
cases where less than 45% is being proposed, the applicant is expected to
demonstrate, financially, the reason for the deficiency. There are generally two types
of development viability assessment. The 'residual land value method', firstly
calculates all the build and associated costs, and secondly, predicts sales revenues
with the inclusion of a developer profit. The difference between the two (sales + profit
- costs) establishes a 'residual' value of the land (i.e. the price a developer will
potentially pay for the site). The alternative is the 'residual developer's margin
method'. This is when the land has already been purchased by the developer and is
included as a cost. In such cases (sales revenue - costs) establishes the level of
developer profit. The latter method applies in the case of this planning application as
the applicants have confirmed that they are now owners of the land.
During the negotiation process of this application there has been dispute regarding
the costs put forward in the report (in particular the additional cost of meeting Code
Level 3) as well as the sale values of some of the dwellings. The implication of this is
that if costs are over-estimated and / or sale values are under-estimated, fewer
affordable dwellings are proposed than arguably should be.
As a result of further recent discussions with the applicants and the subsequent
submission of further amendments to their viability report, their position has now
changed. They are now offering 32% (16 units) affordable housing and all dwellings
to meet Code Level 3. This 'offer' is on the basis of not providing 10% on-site
renewable energy (a requirement of Policy EN6) or contributing the originally
proposed payment (£22,000) to widen the section of existing footpath along Norwich
Road north of the application site.
This is clearly a much improved offer than initially put forward following deferral of the
application in April. The Committee will note that following this offer the Council's
Strategic Housing Officer now supports the application.
Nevertheless there still remains some concern that the application proposes a lesser
proportion of affordable housing than expected by both Core Strategy Policy HO2
and the Site Allocation Policy C17. The Committee will recall that at the meeting in
October approval was given to an application for residential development on another
allocated site in the District which proposed 45% affordable housing (as well as full
compliance with Policy EN6). The principal reason for this difference would appear to
be the price paid for the current application site (which it is understood is subject to a
contract which provides for the bulk of the payment to be settled on the grant of
planning permission). This is despite the fact that when the site was purchased the
applicants would have been aware of the adopted Core Strategy Policies which
would apply to development of the site, in particular Policies HO2 and EN6, and the
costs associated with these requirements. It has been previously established at
planning appeals that land value is a material planning consideration and that there is
an onus on developers to take on board the consequences of affordable housing and
other policy requirements at the time of purchasing a site. Indeed the Site Allocations
Development Plan states 'developers and land owners should expect the Council to
require the specified proportion of affordable dwellings on each of the allocations and
this should be reflected in realistic land purchase prices and valuation' (para 2.1.6).
There is therefore a potential risk to the future provision of affordable housing
elsewhere in the District by the Council being seen to accept what is considered to
be an over-valuation of this particular site.
Development Committee
44
10 November 2011
Officers have suggested to the applicants that a reduction in the land price should be
negotiated. The applicants have subsequently responded by stating that they have
been unsuccessful in achieving this.
In support of their current offer the applicants point to the fact that they are prepared
to accept a lower than normal profit margin on the development. They have implied
that the reasons for this are to enable the company to maintain an active financial
turnover, to retain their workforce and to help meet the early delivery of housing in
the area. In recent correspondence they state that, " It is very much recognised that
your Authority would be making concessions however we trust that the risk and
commitment Hopkins Homes are making is also recognised in attempting to try and
bring forward a high quality development from an award winning developer and thus
delivery of both much needed market and affordable housing."
The applicants have also stated that they would also be prepared to consider a 12
month planning permission as a sign of their commitment to the early development of
the site . Such a permission would require a start of the development to take place
within 12 months to keep the permission alive, although it would be unable to
guarantee how long it would take to complete. A Section 106 Obligation could
however secure the early phasing of the affordable dwellings in relation to the
remainder of the development.
The proposal as it currently stands would only partially comply with Policy EN6, in
that although all dwellings would meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes,
10% renewable energy would not be achieved. It is possible that in order to comply
with the Code there would be some level of renewable energy included and
clarification on this is being sought from the applicants. On this issue the
Committee's attention is drawn to the comments of the Council's Sustainability
Officer who, whilst not advocating reduced compliance with the policy, has a
preference towards meeting the Code Level rather than the 10% renewable
requirement, if it is decided that this is necessary in the interests of achieving a
greater amount of affordable housing.
Other Material Considerations
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
Development Committee
45
10 November 2011
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
Conclusions
As referred to above this application was deferred at the meeting in April to allow
negotiations in respect of relocation of the three storey dwellings, design and layout
issues and compliance with Policy EN6.
Insofar as the amendments now made to the layout of the development and the
location of the three storey dwellings, these are now considered acceptable. In terms
of the design approach the Committee will note the reservations of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager who still does not support the scheme on the basis
of the dwellings lacking local distinctiveness. Members will no doubt draw their own
conclusions on the quality of the designs and whether they consider what is
proposed is an acceptable approach to this particular site. The applicants have made
clear their unwillingness to negotiate further on this issue. In their view the design
approach taken is appropriate for this site, it reflects a successful formula adopted
elsewhere and their developments are popular with the purchasing public.
The proposal is still not fully policy compliant in terms of Policy EN6 (in terms of
meeting the 10% renewable energy target) or with Policy HO2 (in terms of the
optimum 45% affordable housing requirement). These deficiencies can, in the main,
be attributed to the difficulties of delivering viable developments in the current
economic climate, although in the case of this proposal they also stem from the
purchase price that has been agreed for land. Nevertheless there have been
significant advances during the course of negotiation concerning this application and
it seems clear to Officers that a position has now been reached where further
improvements will not be offered.
It is increasingly important to deliver new housing in the District not only affordable
housing, but also market housing, in order to deliver economic benefits to the District
through house building activity. On the basis of the proposals now put forward,
Development Committee
46
10 November 2011
following negotiations and the prospect of early delivery of the scheme, including the
affordable housing, approval of the application is recommended.
Recommendation:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to:
1) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure the provision and
phasing of the 16 units of affordable housing, a payment of £25,000 towards
local play facility provision together with payments towards library and fire
hydrant provision.
2) A condition requiring the commencement of development within 12 months
of the date of approval.
3) The imposition of conditions to include materials, landscaping, highway
works,
open space provision / future maintenance, Code Level 3 compliance, foul and
surface water details, together with any other conditions considered necessary
by the Head of Planning and Building Control.
10.
THURSFORD - PF/11/0879 - Siting of mobile home for use of Equestrian Yard
Manager; Land at Lime Kiln Farm, Hindringham Road for T F Lee & Son
Minor Development
- Target Date: 08 September 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060553
PF - Change of use of land and buildings from agricultural to
equestrian
Approved 18/09/2006
PLA/20080973
PF - Erection of extension to equestrian arena, detached toilet
block, siting of caravan to provide office and construction of outdoor arena
Approved 18/08/2008
PF/10/0895 PF - Erection of lean-to extension to indoor arena, retention of lorry
parking area and erection of 2 floodlights to lorry parking area
Approved 16/02/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the continued siting of mobile home for use of an equestrian yard manager.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green on the following planning reasons:
Security, safety and the need for the proposal.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, subject to being temporary
REPRESENTATIONS
A supporting letter has been submitted by the applicants explaining their reasons for
submitting the application. A copy of that letter is contained in Appendix 5.
Development Committee
47
10 November 2011
In summary, given the number of horses (20) in the yard, they feel that more than
one person needs to be available all of the time. Often involves late night working
and can be dangerous. Viable enterprise, with no other dwelling to meet the
functional need.
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.
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 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area where agricultural, forestry and
other occupational dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle subject to
complying with the criteria set out in Policy HO5, and Annex A of Planning Policy
Statement 7.
For the purposes of Policy HO5 the mobile home is for the use of the full time livery
yard manager which is deemed as an 'other occupational dwelling'. Policy HO5
requires that:
1. It is demonstrated that it is essential for one or more full time workers to be
available at most times for the enterprise to function properly.
2. The functional need could not be met by another existing dwelling on the site or in
the immediate vicinity of the site.
3. The enterprise has been established for at least three years and is, and should
remain, financially viable.
4. The proposal does not represent a replacement of another dwelling on the site that
has been sold on the open market in the last five years.
5. The proposed dwelling is no larger than that required to meet the functional needs
of the enterprise.
Annex A of PPS 7 states that when considering proposals for 'other occupational
dwellings' the same criteria and principles should be applied to those used to assess
the acceptability of agricultural and forestry workers dwellings.
Development Committee
48
10 November 2011
The Committee will note the contents of the letter submitted by the applicants in
support of their application, which is contained in Appendix 5. The applicants, who
live on the site, state that there are 20 horses residing at the livery, that the working
hours are long, and explain the unfortunate and regrettable personal circumstances
of the applicant and his wife. The daughter of applicant also lives on the site and
works in the livery.
Whilst there is no financial supporting information submitted with the application the
applicants state that the Equestrian Centre has been established for three years and
has proved itself to be financially viable, with all the profits being ploughed back into
the business.
The mobile home is of a standard size and is not considered to be larger than that
required. It is positioned to the south of a large farm building on the site, and given
the other buildings and structures on the site it is not considered that the positioning
has a significant detrimental impact on the character or quality of the area.
The principal issue relates to whether there is a functional need for a further dwelling
on the holding, given that the applicants' daughter already lives on the site and works
in the livery yard business.
Whilst it is understood that the applicant and his wife are unable to assist their
daughter with the running of the business, it is not considered that the applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated that it is essential for more than one full time worker to be
available at most times for the enterprise to function properly and therefore there is
no functional requirement for an additional dwelling.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable or in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that, for the proper functioning of the enterprise, there is an
essential need which requires more than one worker to live on the site and be
readily available at most times.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that any functional need
for the business could not be fulfilled by other accommodation in the area.
As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy SS 2 and HO 5 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and contrary to the requirements of
Planning Policy Statement 7: Annex A.
It is considered that there are no material circumstances submitted by the
applicant that would outweigh the conflict with Development Plan Policy in this
case.
Development Committee
49
10 November 2011
11.
TRIMINGHAM - PF/11/0720 - Extension of caravan site to provide additional
touring pitches; Land at Woodlands Holiday Park for Mr E Harrison
Major Development
- Target Date: 05 September 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19741351 PF - 100 static caravans and 92 touring caravans
Approved 12/02/1975
PLA/19781485 PF - Additional 54 static caravans and 21 touring caravans
Approved 13/03/1979
PLA/19810619 HR - Additional 25 touring caravans
Approved 11/05/1981
PLA/20020990 PF - Extension of opening period to include from mid-February to
following first week of January
Approved 04/09/2002
PLA/20061869 PF - Siting of sixteen static caravans to replace nineteen semi-static
caravans
Approved 01/02/2007
PLA/20081543 PF - Change of use of land from siting of fourteen semi-static
caravans to siting of eleven static caravans
Approved 10/12/2008
PLA/20090803 PF - Erection of eleven timber holiday lodges
Approved 27/10/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for an extension to this caravan site by providing 48 touring
pitches on land to the north of the site. In association with this proposal a vehicular
access track and service roads would be created, along with alterations to the
topography of the application site in order partially to level it.
A landscaping scheme has also been submitted which includes the creation of a new
woodland, a woodland link to an existing woodland plantation and a heathland. It is
also proposed to create a permissive footpath to link up the existing footpath
network.
Each of the touring pitches would measure approximately 10m x 10m, surfaced with
grass to accommodate a touring caravan and vehicle. The access tracks would be
approximately 3m wide and surfaced with agreed crushed and bound material to
provide a permeable finish. All plots would be fully serviced with water, electric and
drainage connections. Drainage would be pumped into the existing mains system.
Lighting is to be provided by agreed low level bollard downlighters. Refuse bins with
timber screening are proposed in three locations.
An amended plan has been received indicating removal of all trees and other new
structures within 9m of the river banks of the River Mun, and showing the land
between the river bank and new woodland to be a wildflower meadow.
Development Committee
50
10 November 2011
The amended plan and letter from the agent also confirm the intention to erect signs
and small map boards to show route of permissive path through site with connections
to the Public Right of Way, to be placed in agreed locations.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
Comments on amended plans - No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
There are too many breaches of planning control on this site.
Trees are being cut down without permission.
They had plenty of touring pitches but turned them into static pitches later on and
concerned that they will do the same again.
Site already too large for a small village.
The site contains one of the largest populations of the rare plant Orobanche purpurea
(Yarrow broomrape).
Loss of trees inappropriate.
On behalf of the applicants a Design and Access Statement has been submitted,
which provides an introduction to the proposal and sets out the background, explains
the development proposal, addresses benefits to the local community, planning
policy context, justification of need and a conclusion. A copy is contained in
Appendix 6.
In addition to this a Landscape Impact Assessment has been
submitted and addresses alternative sites that have been considered, as well as the
submission of a Landscaping Schedule and Landscape Management Plan,
Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan.
A full Ecological Statement has also been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Following the receipt of the amended plan and letter from the agent referred to
previously, relevant consultees have been re-consulted and their comments
provided.
Sidestrand Parish Council - No objection
County Council Highways - No objection, subject to condition regarding on site
parking and turning and cycle parking facilities.
Environment Agency - Following the receipt of amended plans the Environment
Agency is able to remove their objection to the application. It is requested that a
suitable condition is appended to any approval that no new planting or construction of
new structures shall take place within 9m of the banks of the River Mun.
Anglian Water - No response
Ramblers Association - Original comments - no objection. The new permissive path
from the west alongside the old railway is welcomed, as this will open up walking
routes for holidaymakers towards Overstrand. Together with the permissive path to
the cliffs and the Coastal Access Route, the possibilities for circular walks are
widened.
Development Committee
51
10 November 2011
Comments on amended plans - No response received.
Open Spaces Society - Comment on original plan - object. It is considered that the
proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the unspoilt nature of the
countryside. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and the proposed
extension fails to respect the character of this very sensitive landscape.
Comments on amended plans - A detailed response has been received confirming
that the previous view remains unchanged. In addition it is strongly contended that
any undertaking by the applicant to provide "permissive paths" should be given
absolutely no weight whatsoever by the Local Planning Authority in the determination
of this planning application. This is because the use of such routes by the public
would merely be by the permission of the landowner, and this permission could
subsequently be withdrawn at any time and for any reason , or indeed none. If the
applicant is serious about making provision for meaningful public access, then public
rights of way should be dedicated, as opposed to mere permissive paths.
The routes of "existing permissive paths" and "proposed permissive paths" indicated
appear to be dead-ended and limited in their extent of their connections with existing
highways, including rights of way recorded on the definitive map of public rights of
way and therefore limited too in terms of their potential value to the public. In
particular, there does not seem to be any link proposed with the existing Trimingham
public footpath number 4, situated to the east of the site.
For these routes to be of any significant benefit to the community whatsoever, we
would contend that they should provide for better links with the existing
highway/public right of way network than currently appears to be proposed, including
the Trimingham Footpath number 4 to the east of the site. We would also strongly
represent that the creation of public rights of way to bridleway status or above would
benefit a wider section of the community than would the creation of mere footpaths.
Should your authority be minded to grant planning permission on the basis that the
provision of public access over the site would make a contribution, in terms of benefit
to the community, that would help to weigh against potential landscape impacts of
the proposal, then that permission should be conditional upon the creation of new
public paths, well integrated with the existing network, by agreement under Section
25 of the Highways Act 1980.
Public Rights of Way (NCC) - A new permissive footpath would be created to provide
off road access between two existing areas with registered public rights of way. This
missing link would therefore be a welcome addition to the network. However, the
application states that the site closes for 2 months of the year during January and
February. Is it intended that the permissive access would also be unavailable at this
time? It is hoped despite the site closing that the access would remain available for
the public to the use at all times. As the permissive access is proposed to be for all
users, i.e. not just those in the accommodation provided by the park, it would be
expected that the routes should therefore be well advertised at the 3 exit points onto
the public highway to ensure that the general public are made aware and welcomed
onto the site.
Comments on amended plans - No response.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Awaiting comments
Development Committee
52
10 November 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection, subject
to conditions requiring the implementation of the Landscaping Schedule and
Landscape Management Plan. The comments received cover the Landscape and
Visual Impact, Arboricultural Impact, Ecological Impact, and other policy
considerations such as the impact upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
Undeveloped Coast and extensions to Existing Businesses in the Countryside. Given
the detailed nature of the response a full copy of the comments are contained in
Appendix 6.
Environmental Health - Applicant should be advised to consult with Anglian Water
regarding the increase in sewage discharged from the caravan site to the main
sewer.
Economic Development and Tourism Manager – The Economic Development Unit
has considered the application for changes to the site and has taken into account the
additional comments made by the owner in support of the case. In providing officer
comments in respect of this application, the following statements are made:
1. Holiday trends have changed over the past decade during which the Woodlands
Leisure Park has been operating. The site owner has tried to maintain a detailed
understanding of the market for holidays in the North Norfolk area. Caravan holidays
have seen a massive resurgence in interest and with the demand over the past few
years due to the economic downturn we have seen a doubling of the number of
active caravanners in the District.
2. That the Economic Development Unit recognises that the Woodland Leisure Park
in Trimingham continues to make a significant contribution towards the Tourism and
Leisure activity in the East of the District.
3. That the mix of activity has continued to develop since they have begun the
Leisure Park.
4. The level of good will toward the Leisure Park remains at a very high level, with a
large number of people from the Trimingham Village itself using the facilities
available.
5. The only concern the Economic Development Unit would have is with regards to
the main access to Woodlands Leisure Park. There would be an increase in traffic on
the main road with cars trailing caravans and the Woodlands Leisure Park is situated
in a large farming community, so at certain times of the year the road is very busy
with heavy farming equipment being moved about and the main coast road going into
Trimingham is very narrow with a steep hill with very little area for traffic to pass each
other.
Apart from the concern with the access to the site the Economic Development Unit
has no hesitation in supporting the above application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
53
10 November 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy 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 EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for
new sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
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
2. Design and layout of site
3. Landscape impact
4. Impact on the AONB and Undeveloped Coast
5. Ecological impact
6. Economic impact
7. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site following a recent site visit.
1. The Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area, Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) and Undeveloped Coast.
The application involves the creation of 48 touring pitches on land directly to the
north of the existing Woodlands Park. Of the 48 pitches 18 would be relocated from
within the site, where there are currently 35 pitches. Therefore, an additional 30
pitches in total would be provided.
Development Committee
54
10 November 2011
Policy SS2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy permits the principle of
development in the Countryside policy area for recreation and tourism uses, as well
as extensions to businesses. The application has been submitted on the basis that it
is an extension to the existing Holiday Park. As stated in the Design and Access
Statement submitted by the agent this application has been submitted following the
identification of a need to provide additional accommodation for touring pitches in
order to retain market share, provide for changes in holiday requirements of visitors
to the area and to enable future essential development to the be accommodated to
the clubhouse and central entertainment area of the site.
Officers had expressed concerns in earlier informal discussions with the applicant
over whether such a proposal constituted an extension or whether it would result in a
new touring site, which would be contrary to policy given its Core Strategy
designations within an AONB and Undeveloped Coast.
However, having considered this matter further, given that the land to which this
application relates is in the same ownership as the existing Park, would be run by the
same operator (the applicant), that the site is adjacent to the existing Park (despite a
fairly significant mature tree belt) and that the vehicular access to the proposed site
would be the same as the existing, it is considered reasonable that this application
should be considered on the basis of an extension to the existing site.
Therefore, in accordance with Policy EC10 on Static and Touring Caravan and
Camping Sites the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to demonstration
of a very high standard of design and landscaping and minimal adverse impact on its
surroundings, and its appropriateness when considered against the other policies of
the plan.
Furthermore Policy EC3 regarding extensions to businesses in the countryside states
that such proposals will only be permitted where of a scale appropriate to the existing
development and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
This is an established local tourism business and given the overall area of the
existing site it is considered that the scale of the proposed extension is acceptable in
comparison. Whilst the proposal would result in some visual impact in the short and
medium term, the overall impact on the landscape character in the long term would
be beneficial; this issue is examined in more detail below. However, it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the
character of the area.
2. Design and Layout of site
Some of the pitches would be in a fairly regimented arrangement. However, the
general design and layout of the proposed site appears quite informal with some
semi circular and staggered groups of pitches. These pitches would be interspersed
with planted areas that would be raised by approximately 1m above the surrounding
pitches and roadways. These areas of planting within the proposed site would help to
break up the overall area given over to the touring pitches, and create 'green'
landscaped areas which would relate to the character of the existing mature wooded
site, and the proposed woodland and landscaped areas. No objections have been
received from Environmental Health, and there are no near neighbours that would be
affected by the proposal. It is therefore considered that the design of the site would
be acceptable and has the potential to create a pleasant environment for the
occupiers in accordance with Policies EN4, EN13 and EC10 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
55
10 November 2011
3. Landscape Impact
In terms of landscaping, and demonstrating “minimal adverse impact on its
surroundings” as required by Policy EC10, the applicants have applied a sequential
approach in submitting the application for the proposed site. Besides the application
site, three alternative sites have been considered. The application site is referred to
as Site 1, with two other sites located to the west of the existing Park, adjacent to
Clapham Dams Farm (sites 2 and 3), and one to the south of the Park (site 4).
The appropriateness of all four sites has been considered by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager in the Landscape Impact Assessment submitted
with the application. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager confirms
that the assessment of the baseline landscape character surrounding the site is
acceptable, generally concurs with the assessment of the alternative sites and
agrees with the conclusions reached.
Given the existing topography of the land, which is a sloping site rising upwards to
the east, levelling of the site will be required in order to create an appropriate base
for touring caravans to be parked. The plans and information submitted with the
application state that this will be achieved by 'gently remodelling the landscape' by
moving earth to the lower areas of the site. This would increase the levels of the site
to the west and lower them to the east. The agent has confirmed that the removal of
material would lower the eastern parts of the site by no more than 1.8m, and the
material added would be no more than 1m and would be graded at 30 degrees.
Slightly differing levels would be created as a result of the changes required to the
topography of the site.
The applicant is proposing a significant amount of landscaping which would increase
and strengthen the boundaries of existing trees and planting to the north along the
dismantled railway and to the west, and a new screen of native woodland species
would be planted on the eastern boundary. The new access track to the site is
proposed to be screened by a suitable hedge. In addition to this a more extensive
area of landscaping would be created on land to the west of the site linking the
existing tree lined western boundary with an existing block of woodland known as
Rome Plantation. The agent has confirmed that this is intended to screen the site and
improve habitat linkages as recommended in the Mun Valley Landscape Character
and North Norfolk Core Strategy Landscape Character Assessments.
The creation of a new habitat is also proposed by seeding and planting the remaining
eastern part of the arable field on which the application site is located to form a new
large area of lowland heathland. A new Permissive Path is proposed to link the
western (Hungry Hill area) to the Trimingham area. The agent has advised that this
part of the Mun Valley has been identified in the Mun Valley Landscape Character
Assessment as being deficient in footpath linkage. This improvement in linking the
area will improve overall use of the area for walking and as a walking destination.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan have been submitted
with the application. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager states that
despite the significant numbers of trees needing removal to facilitate the
development, the overall impact of the proposal on trees would be fairly limited,
primarily due to the dense plantation nature of the woodland affected and the
replacement planting. The main impact would be felt by existing users of the
Woodlands Holiday Park who would experience reduced levels of woodland cover in
the vicinity of the access track. The proposed planting adjacent to Rome Plantation
would increase the woodland cover in the general area, linking up Rome Plantation
with Woodlands Holiday Park and the dismantled railway. It is therefore considered
that the proposal is in accordance with Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
56
10 November 2011
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the Landscape
Impact Assessment is a fairly robust assessment of the impact of the proposed
development. It highlights correctly that the landscape restoration and enhancement
measures, and permissive footpath proposals included in the development, feature
prominently in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and as such
accord with Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy. Whilst it is acknowledged that the
proposed planting would contribute to the landscape restoration, it should be noted
that these improvements or similar could be made without increasing the touring
caravan provision and causing further intrusion into the landscape.
4. Impact on the AONB and Undeveloped Coast
The impact of the proposal upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is a key
issue. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is concerned with those
elements of Policy EN1 that seek to ensure that the development does not detract
from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and seeks to facilitate the delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan.
Policy EN1 requires consideration to be given to individual proposals as well as their
cumulative effect on the AONB. To date the expansion of the Holiday Park has been
contained within the mature woodland boundaries of the site. The impact on the
AONB has therefore been minimal due to the well-screened nature of the site.
However, the current application is seeking to develop to the north of the site outside
the established wooded coverage onto a field which is more open in character.
Therefore, the potential for the proposed development to impact negatively on the
AONB and erode the landscape character is a real concern for the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. However, the views of the site within the AONB are
limited, given that the site is located to the south of the coast road behind the
dismantled railway embankment which screens views from this direction; the existing
wooded Park is to the south, also acting as a screen in the wider landscape; and the
topography of the land and existing planting to the boundaries means the site would
not be visible from the east.
The only possible view of the site would be from the narrow country lane to the west.
However, the applicant is proposing significant landscaping particularly to the
western boundary by strengthening the existing tree planting and creating a new
woodland to link to Rome Plantation. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager considers that the significant landscaping proposals and creation of
heathland would help to restore the landscape in accordance with the Landscape
Character Assessment and ecological networks that would prevent the development
from having a significant detrimental impact in the long term. The visual effects of the
development would be felt for many years, but in time these would be minimal, given
that it has been established that the overall impact on the landscape would be
beneficial, through the assessment of the application against Policy EN2. On balance
the development is also considered to accord with Policy EN1 and would not
significantly detract from the special qualities or setting of the AONB.
In terms of Policy EN3 regarding the Undeveloped Coast only development that can
be demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly
detrimental to the open coastal character will be permitted. A coastal location is
required in this instance as the proposal is for an extension to the existing site.
Alternative sites outside the Undeveloped Coast have been considered through a
sequential approach but are not deemed acceptable for other landscape and visual
impact reasons. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that
the designation should not be undervalued, and has concerns over this application
Development Committee
57
10 November 2011
leading to further expansion that is unsuitable in terms of the overall location,
together with the ability of the landscape to absorb the growth, given the extensive
planning history for this site and proposals to extend and increase accommodation at
the site. However, given the position of the site in relation to existing landscape
features which screen it in the wider landscape and limited view of the site the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers the impact of the
development on the area of Undeveloped Coast to be insufficiently detrimental to
conflict with the requirements of Policy EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
5. Ecological Impact
An Ecological Statement has been submitted, assessing the ecological impact of the
proposal. This followed concerns being raised by an objector that the site contains a
significant population of the flowering plant Orobanche purpurea (Yarrow or Purple
broomrape), which has nationally important populations associated with the cliff top
habitat along this stretch of coastline. However, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has advised that the statement confirms that the plant is not
present on the site.
The methodology, conclusion and limitations of the survey have been prepared in
accordance with standards set out by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management and appear sound.
The report concludes that there was no evidence of protected species on the site and
the site did not contain any significant habitats for protected species. Mitigation for
nesting birds has been suggested as have precautionary mitigation measures for
Great Crested Newt and reptiles. Overall the impact on protected species is deemed
negligible. The recommendations of the report would be made a condition of
planning if permission is granted.
The planting and landscape restoration proposals that form part of the development
will enhance the ecological connectivity of the area in the long term, therefore the
development accords with Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
6. Economic Impact
Whilst the comments of the Open Spaces Society are appreciated, in accordance
with Policy SS1 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy within the Countryside
development will be restricted to particular types of development that support the
rural economy. Policy SS5 supports the tourist industry by retaining a mix of
accommodation. Under that policy proposals should demonstrate that they will not
have a significant detrimental effect on the environment and cycling, walking and
heritage tourism will be encouraged by promoting and enhancing long distance
walking and cycling routes and heritage trails. Policy SS5 also makes reference to
the rural economy being supported by extensions to existing businesses.
The applicant is proposing a new permissive footpath to link up existing footpath
networks, which would improve the overall use of the area. It is considered that this
would accord with the requirements of Policy SS5.
The agent has advised that the site employs 25 full time staff, and around 10 part
time staff. It is estimated in the Design and Access Statement that the additional
business generated by the proposal would create a further 7 full time equivalent staff
posts as well as securing those already in operation. There is clearly an economic
and employment benefit to consider. The Committee will note the comments of the
Economic and Tourism Development Manager, who has no hesitation in supporting
Development Committee
58
10 November 2011
the application, given the change in holiday trends which has seen a massive
resurgence in caravan holidays, that the Park makes a significant contribution
towards the Tourism and Leisure activity in the East of the District, that a mix of
activity has continued to develop, and the good will towards the Park is very high with
a large number of local people using the facilities on the site. The Economic and
Tourism Development Manager has raised concerns over the vehicular access and
increase in traffic. Notwithstanding these comments the Committee will note that the
Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, which is addressed below
under point 7. Highway Safety. It is therefore considered that the proposal would help
to support the rural economy in accordance with Policies SS1 and SS5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7. Other Material Considerations
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
Development Committee
59
10 November 2011
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
8. Highway Safety
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
application. The visibility at the access is unimpeded and accords with the
requirements of the DETR document ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’. The
site is located within a 40mph speed restriction order, and the premises have an
established use as a holiday park. There are extensive car parking facilities within the
site and provision of local services. The proposal is therefore considered to accord
with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9. Conclusion
The principle of such a proposal in this location is considered to be acceptable.
However, given the site's location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
Undeveloped Coast, the visual impacts on these designations as well as the rural
character of the area have been carefully considered in accordance with the relevant
Core Strategy policies.
It is considered that the acceptability of this application is finely balanced between
the visual impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
Undeveloped Coast and rural character of the area and the significant landscaping
proposals, habitat creation, permissive path, employment generation and benefits to
the local economy.
However, in view of the fact that public views of the application site can only be
obtained from the lane to the west, that the site is not visible from the Cromer Road
or surrounding wider landscape, that the topography of the site and proposed ground
level alterations, existing tree planting and wooded areas and significant landscaping
proposed, the visual impact upon the wider views in the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and Undeveloped Coast would be limited. Whilst it is considered that there
would be a short to medium term visual impact, this would diminish in the long term
and would not, on balance, be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character
or the special qualities or setting of the area. The addition of habitat creation by
planting of a 'link woodland' and lowland heath as well as the permissive path,
employment generation and impact on the local economy are also seen to be
enhancements and benefits which would outweigh the disbenefits.
Therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including details
of existing and proposed levels across the site to be submitted and agreed.
Development Committee
60
10 November 2011
12.
APPLICATION 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.
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application has generated over 1,000 representations and a site visit is
recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control prior to the
consideration of a report at a future meeting to enable to the Committee to appreciate
the proposal from various locations in the District, particularly in respect of the
context of the proposed turbine within the wider landscape.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
13.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/11/1028 - Erection of conservatory; The Pines, Stalham
Road, Beeston Saint Lawrence for Mr & Mrs Applegate
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0858 - Formation of lay-by; Land at Church Road for
Anglian Water Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0895 - Construction of pitched roof to flat-roofed
extension; Heatherway, Sandy Lane for Mr & Mrs B Buck
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - AN/11/1068 - Display of village sign; The Village Hall, Church
Road for Aylmerton Parish Council
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BACTON - PF/11/0968 - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference
PF/07/1523 to allow use of car-park between 06.30 and 20.00 hours; Shell (UK)
Ltd, Paston Road for Shell (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/11/0984 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions; 12
Newlands Estate for Mr P Reynolds
(Householder application)
Development Committee
61
10 November 2011
BACTON - PF/11/1017 - Enlargement of compound and siting of modular
buildings, dog kennels and associated development; National Grid, Paston
Road for National Grid
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - LA/11/1135 - Installation of flue; The Old Vicarage, Church Road for
Mrs A Edwards
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARSHAM - PF/11/0635 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Meadow
Barn, Off Water Lane, East Barsham for Mr J Goodley
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/0874 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Point Farm Barn, The Street for Mr & Mrs R Lamb
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - LA/11/1064 - Repair works to tower; All Saints Church, The Street,
Cockthorpe for Norfolk Churches Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0933 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to Sedges, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs R Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1054 - Raising of entrance wall and installation of flint
cladding and erection of three detached outbuildings; The Coast House, Back
Lane for Mr M Mooreland
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1080 - Removal of front door and infilling of opening; 93A
High Street for Mr & Mrs Burlison
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1158 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 10/1440 to permit a second garage space and enlarged sunroom area;
South View, 59 New Road for Novus Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - LA/11/0461 - Internal alterations and re-furbishment; Manor Farm,
Manor House Road, Lower Bodham for W Cubitt & Son
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRINTON - PF/11/0971 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Moorecroft,
The Ashyard, Sharrington for Mr & Mrs Moore
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NMA1/11/0675 - Non-material amendment to change external finish
from brick to render; Briston Lodge, Holt Road for Mr R Simmons
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0894 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference:
82/0503 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural restriction;
Spinney View, New Road for Mr & Mrs N Gower
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
62
10 November 2011
CATFIELD - NMA1/11/0281 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
4 rooflights; Nuholme, Ludham Road for Mr D Lowe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CATFIELD - PF/11/1100 - Installation of 1 no. replacement 600mm microwave
dish (existing 300mm dish to be removed) & installation of 1 no. additional
600mm dish.; Catfield Water Tower, Watering Piece Lane for T-Mobile (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/1092 - Erection of conservatory; 1 The Fairstead
for Mr Barron
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/1007 - Erection of two-storey side
extension and porch; Suffields, Heydon Road for Mr Beales
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0801 - Siting of portable office building and erection of 1.8m
high security fence; Carter Concrete Ltd, Stonehill Way for Carter Concrete
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0925 - Insertion of rear dormer window; Ashwell House,
Harbord Road for Mr & Mrs D Newson
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0985 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension; 24
Links Avenue for Mr & Mrs R West
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0997 - Erection of pitched roof, two-storey rear extension and
single-storey rear extension; Blencathra, Metton Road for Mr & Mrs G Duncan
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/1018 - Erection of two-storey side extension, porch and
conservatory; 2 Howards Hill Close for S Seekins & C Wilkin
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/11/1059 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 29 New Street for
Triangle Amusements Limited
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0707 - Non-material amendment request for relocation of
wall and railings; 29 New Street for Triangle Amusements Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0790 - Re-location of boundary fence; 51 Barbers Lane for
Mr T Bird
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/04/0129 - Non-material amendment request for omission of
flint panels and installation of roof light; 4 Garden Court for H C Moss (Builders)
Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
63
10 November 2011
FAKENHAM - NMA1/09/0118 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions of side extension; J W Automarine, Enterprise Way for North
Norfolk District Council
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FIELD DALLING - PF/07/0474 - Conversion of Barns to Three Residential Units;
Bluetile Farm, Holt Road, Field Dalling for Mr D Loads
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/1121 - Erection of two-storey extension (revised scheme);
Fen Farm House, Sandy Lane, Trimingham for Mr Harrison
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/11/0443 - Alterations to barns to provide two residential
dwellings; Castle Farm, The Loke for Mr J Mermagen
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/1089 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension
and replacement garage; 17 Sharrington Road, Bale for Miss B Moss
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - LA/11/0851 - Installation of solar panels; West Wing, Gunton Hall,
White Post Road for Mr & Mrs Thaxton
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0962 - Erection of single-storey studio room; The Walled
Garden, Gunton Park for Mr & Mrs Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - DP/11/1120 - Prior notification of intention to demolish nine
dwellings; Arcadia, Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
HICKLING - PF/11/0871 - Erection of double garage with store; 1 Lilac Cottages,
The Street for Mr B Butcher
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1044 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and double
garage with link extension; Braemar, 51 Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs B Leech
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0935 - Change of use of land to residential garden open
to visiting members of the public for up to 75 days per year; Hindringham Hall,
Blacksmiths Lane for Mr & Mrs C Tucker
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/11/0704 - Alterations and extensions to outbuildings to provide retail
units; 1 Bull Street for Greenways Holt Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/11/1050 - Demolition of lean-to outbuilding, reduce size of dormer
windows, installation of replacement porch roof, French doors, gable window
and replacement windows and front door; 5 Pearsons Road for Mr N Weston
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
64
10 November 2011
HOVETON - PF/11/1029 - Erection of extension to conservatory; Pretty Corner,
Marsh Road for Mr W Fraser
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/11/0906 - Alterations to access and erection of entrance gates and
wall; The Old Village Hall, Sea Palling Road for Mr K Barker
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/1048 - Erection of first floor side extension; Dane House,
The Street for Rev P McCory
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0291 - Erection of cart shed/garage and creation of new vehicle
access; The Beeches, Horse Fen Road for Mr Dixon
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0940 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Reference 97/0999
to permit permanent residential occupancy; 7 The Barns, Fritton Road for Mr R
Rowlingson
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/1088 - Erection of replacement covered way; 23 Latchmoor
Park for Mr & Mrs Wellock
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - PF/11/1033 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory;
Blacksmiths Cottage, The Street for Mr J Shepherd
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/1167 - Erection of extensions to agricultural
building; Land off Melton Road for G W Harrold & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - PF/11/0928 - Installation of solar panels; Middle Barn, The Street for
Mrs A Rolfe
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/11/0975 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 2 The
Street for Mr & Mrs P Tibbetts
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0897 - Use as a gunsmith with associated storage
and sales of field sports equipment; 10 Folgate Road for Mr R Dunham
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0931 - Erection of replacement rear extension and
insertion of roof lantern into existing flat roofed extension; 20 Norwich Road for
Mr & Mrs Hornby
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0976 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 114
Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Rodwell
(Householder application)
Development Committee
65
10 November 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1027 - Erection of building to provide four
replacement classrooms; Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane for Paston
Sixth Form College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1104 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
100 Norwich Road for Mr Spencer
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/0803 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 17
Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs R Coward
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1067 - Installation of solar panels; The Byre, 4 Flaxmans
Farm, Felbrigg Road for Mr P Rump
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/0828 - Erection of single-storey laundry room extension with
storage above; The Links Hotel, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mackenzie Hotels
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/1008 - Installation of first floor bay window; Caritas, Boulevard
Road, West Runton for Mr J Steel
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/1108 - Retention of side porch; Woodstock, The Hurn, West
Runton for Mr K Phillips
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1030 - Retention of garden shed and log cabin; 21
Foundry Close for Mr J Smith
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1046 - Variation of conditions 2, 3 & 8 of permission
reference PF/05/0592 to permit revised layout to provide function room with
kitchen and toilet facilities; Manor Farm, Creake Road for Mr A J W Pointer
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0625 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 42
St Austins Grove for Mr F Chandler
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0923 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 47 Station
Road for Mrs A Pope
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0054 - Non material amendment request for the
installation of ducting to tower elevation and minor changes to elevations; 56
Cromer Road for Gordon White & Hood Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0830 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 19 Pit Street
for Mr Myhill
(Householder application)
Development Committee
66
10 November 2011
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1032 - Erection of replacement front conservatory; The
Flint House, Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs Marriner
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/0705 - Erection of conservatory; Olus Barn 16 West End
Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr J Grint
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - LA/11/0956 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of
replacement, replace ground floor windows of rear extension and north
elevation, insulation of roof over bedrooms 3 and 4 and apply localised lime
render; The Lodge, Moor End Road for Mr Ashworth
(Listed Building Alterations)
STODY - PF/11/0834 - Conversion of storage area to habitable accommodation;
Granary Cottage, Kings Street, Hunworth for Mr D Slegg
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/11/0942 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Forge Cottage,
The Street for P J Cutting & Sons
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0868 - Removal of Conditions 12, 13 & 14 of permission
reference: 09/0464 to permit permanent residential occupancy; The Barn, Off
Trunch Road for Cargill Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/11/0884 - Installation of air source heat pump, erection
of detached car port/garage and raised roof with dormer window to garage; Oak
Tree Cottage, The Street for Mr J Hurrell
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/0814 - Variation of condition 1 of permission reference:
10/1120 to permit installation of front and rear roof lights and side windows and
relocation of side window; Land adjacent 3 Wellington Crescent, Sculthorpe for
Ms White
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/1057 - Retention of vehicular access; 9 Towerside,
Tattersett Road, Syderstone for Mr C Smith
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0860 - Raising height of section of roof to provide first floor
bed and breakfast accommodation and erection of single-storey rear extension;
The Olive Branch, Market Street for Heritage Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - NP/11/1172 - Prior notification of intention to install solar panels to
agricultural building; Church Farm, Church Road for Place UK
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
67
10 November 2011
WALCOTT - PF/11/0979 - Conversion of outbuildings to provide 7 units of
special needs and staff accommodation and erection of extension to provide
communal room and toilet; Barrington Farm, Rookery Farm Road for Incatern
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0852 - Alterations including installation of 2 rear dormer
windows and first and second floor gable windows; St Augustine's, Knight
Street for Walsingham College Trust Association Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/0853 - Internal and external alterations to provide
additional bedroom accommodation; St Augustine's, Knight Street for
Walsingham College Trust Association Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/1081 - Installation of double doors to kitchen; Berry Hall,
Westgate for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0856 - Re-siting of timber garage, erection of
replacement store, and erection of gates and boundary wall; Seaview, The Quay
for Mr C Lyle
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0857 - Re-siting of timber garage, erection of
replacement store, and erection of gates and boundary wall; Seaview, The Quay
for Mr C Lyle
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1004 - Change of use of first floor from A1
(retail) to D1 (beauty salon); The Present House, The Buttlands for Mrs G Hurn
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1103 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
19 Waveney Close for Mr & Mrs T Wright
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0727 - Non-material amendment request to
replace two south facing first floor inverted dormer windows with opening
French windows onto balcony; Land to east of The Old Rectory, Church Street
for Mr & Mrs Griffiths-Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/0977 - Retention of first floor enclosed roof terrace
balcony; Weybourne Stores, 2 Beach Lane for Mr Joll
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/1001 - Erection of double garage and garden store;
Keepers Cottage, Sandy Hill Lane for Mr & Mrs Fenn
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/1006 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension; 15 Pine Walk, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HJ for Mr Wells
(Householder application)
Development Committee
68
10 November 2011
WIGHTON - PF/11/0496 - Installation of two 10kw tracking solar pholtaic arrays;
Whey Curd Farm, Copys Green for T B Green & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - LA/11/0993 - Construction of replacement porch; Manor House, 21
Kirkgate Lane for Mr and Mrs Lazell
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/11/0765 - Conversion of barn residential dwelling (extension of
period for commencement of permission reference: 20080593); White's Barn,
Old Hall Farm for Messrs F M, T J & T W M Sands
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - NMA1/10/0414 - Non-material request for installation of two
windows; Two Oaks, Withergate Road for Mr C Greavner
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/0859 - Erection of buildings to provide shop and coffee
shop facilities; Hadfield Market Gardens, Yarmouth Road, North Walsham for Mr
S Pegge
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/1086 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 13
Woodview for Ms C Paul
(Householder application)
14.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FAKENHAM - PO/11/0824 - Erection of single storey dwelling; 209 Norwich Road
for Mrs MacBrayne
(Outline Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/11/0996 - Erection of two-storey side
conservatory; 7 The Old Dairy, The Street for Mr M Flisher
(Householder application)
extension
with
APPEALS SECTION
15.
NEW APPEALS
SUSTEAD - PF/11/0804 - Conversion of building to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
16.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No Items
Development Committee
69
10 November 2011
17.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
SITE VISIT:- 02 November 2011
18.
APPEAL DECISIONS
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0515 - Retention of balcony; 31 Beeston Road for Mr H
Ahrens
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
70
10 November 2011