OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 11 APRIL 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management 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.
HORNING – TPO 867 1 Parkland Crescent
To consider whether to visit the site of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
Background
Following a pre-application enquiry regarding an extension at 1 Parkland Crescent and
subsequent meetings with the applicant, Officers considered that a significant Beech
tree at the site could be under threat. The applicant was at the time about to complete
the purchase of the property. The Landscape Officer carried out a tree evaluation
assessment and recommended that the tree clearly merited a TPO. It was considered
that the proposed development, in its current form, would have a significant
detrimental impact on the roots of the tree.
The tree is an individual Copper Beech situated in the front garden and is considered
to have high amenity value.
Representations
One letter of objection to the Order has been received from the owner of the property,
this is set out in full in Appendix 1.
In summary, the owner of the property has objected to the TPO on the following
grounds:
1. The TPO is draconian and insensitive.
2. The justification for making the TPO was both unnecessary and questionable.
3. The tree is not significant in the local area and local opinions were not
considered.
Human Rights Implications
The serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8 Human Rights Act: The
right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to
peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Development Committee
1
11 April 2013
Appraisal
The Planning Officer indicated that during the site meeting that she had discussed with
the applicant the Landscape Section‟s response and their requirement to retain the
tree as part of any proposals and the property purchaser‟s concern that the tree was
potentially causing damage to the property and the potential desire to remove the tree.
Due to the potential threat of the removal of the tree by the applicant as prospective
purchaser of the property and the lack of any current protection the Landscape Section
followed standard procedure and instigated Tree Preservation Order proceedings
The Landscape Officer evaluated the tree, used his judgment and carried out a formal
tree evaluation method for Tree Preservation Orders (TEMPO). The TEMPO
assessment confirmed that the tree clearly merited a TPO. As an individual tree and
one of the mature trees on the estate it contributes significantly to the amenity of the
area.
Horning Parish Council and the Local Member were notified of the service of the TPO
on 6 December 2012, when the confirmation process was explained
Main Issues for Consideration
(1) Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
(2) Whether or not the Order has been served on a tree of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
It is considered that the Copper Beech tree has high amenity value sufficient to merit
protection by a Tree Preservation Order. However in the light of the representations
received from the owner it is recommended that the Committee visits the site before
determining whether to confirm the Order.
Recommendation:That a site visit be made.
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer, Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road for Mr D
Oliver
Major Development
- Target Date: 06 May 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
2
11 April 2013
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Principal Routes
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the formation of a woodland burial ground in woodland known as Barn
Plantation that lies adjacent to and north of the A148. The proposal seeks the
erection of two single storey buildings; a maintenance building that would house a
woodchip boiler and provide storage of site vehicles, woodchips and tools and a work
bench/area for routine maintenance. This building would comprise an octagonal
section spanning approximately 13.5m with a section off one side of approx. 9m x
5.5m which would take the total length of the building to approx. 22.5m. The
octagonal section would have the highest part of the roof at 8.3m with a flat roof
proposed to the other section at 4.1m. A proposed flue for the woodchip boiler would
be at approx. 8m from ground level.
The main building would comprise 3 principal sections; an octagonal 'ceremonial hall'
with a link from one side to a rectangular 'reception' building. The octagonal hall
would be approx. 19m x 19m with the link being 15m long by 8m wide. The reception
would be a further 25m long by 17m wide. The total length of the proposed building
approx 59m. Materials proposed for the buildings are timber log walls stained to an
approved tint with natural cedar shingles to the roof. The buildings are proposed to
be grouped together to the south east of the site with associated parking.
A new access is proposed to the site from Tower Road. A short section of new road
into the site would be needed from the proposed access which would then connect to
an existing network of access roads within the woodland.
The proposed burial ground would provide burial plots and ash interments.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the nature of the
proposal and the complexity of the planning policy issues involved.
PARISH & TOWN COUNCILS
Runton Parish Council: Support the proposal in principle but have major reservations
about the access point. Members are concerned that extra traffic using an access
onto Tower Lane and subsequently Sandy Lane is not acceptable. These narrow
roads are not suitable to take traffic to this kind of venue which would generate at
times possibly 30 or more cars in convoy travelling slowly. There is a caravan site
which uses these roadways also and the congestion would be greater in summer.
We strongly recommend that the access be reassessed.
Aylmerton Parish Council: Following consultation with members of the public during
public participation, consideration of letters from residents, and a lengthy discussion,
members agreed to support the use of the site for woodland burials but object to the
proposed access from Tower Road. Members of Aylmerton PC ask that Highways
reconsider the access to the site.
Development Committee
3
11 April 2013
Cromer Town Council: Supports the application and ask if there is any opportunity to
discuss S106 funding.
Felbrigg Parish Council: no objection - wish to make the following comments:
1.
A number of the residents of Holt Road have concerns about the proximity of
potential burial sites to the rear gardens of their properties. The Parish
Council considers these concerns might be allayed through the imposition of
an appropriate Condition on any Planning Permission granted to prevent
burials taking place within a specified distance from the rear gardens of these
properties.
2. The proposed access to the proposed Burial Ground from Tower Road will
lead to an increase in the amount of traffic using Tower Road and Sandy
Lane, if that traffic is approaching the Burial Ground from the A148.
Furthermore, the acute angle of the junction of Sandy Lane and Tower Road
is not conducive to hearses and corteges.
3. Development of the proposed Burial Ground will inevitably increase the
amount of traffic needing to egress from the B1436 (Felbrigg Road) on to the
A148 (Cromer Road). That junction already experiences substantial tailbacks of traffic through the inadequate capacity to separate left and right
turning vehicles in the approach to the junction. The Parish Council consider
that improvements to that junction, ideally the construction of a roundabout,
are essential to ensure that the junction does not become gridlocked entirely.
To that end, the Parish Council would request your Council to enter into
negotiations with Applicant for the completion of a Section 106 Agreement
under which the Applicant would make a substantial contribution to the costs
of road improvements at this junction. In making this request, the Parish
Council are aware that, taken in isolation, this Application in itself may not
merit fully such action. However, having regard to other developments off the
Cromer Road that have already taken place, eg Homebase and Lidls Stores,
or are known to be forthcoming, eg the Crematorium, the Parish Council
considers strongly that it is now time to “think outside the box” and develop
some joined-up thinking to ensure that the overall picture is not lost by each
Application being treated individually, leading to an incremental deterioration
in the traffic situation at the junction.
REPRESENTATIONS
104 representations received. 46 objecting, 53 in support, and 4 commenting only. A
petition of 204 signatories in support of the proposal has been submitted by the
agent.
Summary of objections:
Roads already congested
Reduction in value of nearby properties
Not appropriate in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Unsuitable access
All traffic to site would have to use Sandy Lane which is extremely narrow and
has few passing places
Tower Road is one way and very narrow with high banks
Cross roads into Sandy Lane has historically been one of the worst accident
spots in the country
Development Committee
4
11 April 2013
Recent reduction in the speed limit has reduced accidents but has resulted in
queuing traffic on the A148
Proposal will add significantly to the volume of traffic at this junction and
impact on highway safety
Lanes often get blocked by caravan owners/holiday makers
Hold-ups at the crossroads particularly by traffic trying to enter Sandy Lane
from the Cromer direction (by funeral corteges will cause serious problems for
pedestrians trying to use the new pedestrian crossing/refuge)
Access should be direct from the A148
Could access be from the existing cemetery?
Road from West Runton to Sandy Lane not suitable for funeral corteges
Would cause further erosion of Sandy Lane (naturally fragile banks) and add
to the growing concern of exposure of tree roots leading to loss of trees /
drainage problems from silt
Difficult to exit from Tower Road
Increased risk of entering Tower Road from the A148 despite the 'no entry
sign' this already happens now
Additional large vehicle traffic to build, maintain and staff the burial ground
No mention of construction traffic access or tree logging vehicles if they can
use the existing forestry access then there is no reason why funeral traffic
should not
The amount of traffic generated could not be accommodated by the existing
road network without being detrimental to the amenity of the character of the
surrounding area and highway safety and the proposal is therefore contrary to
Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy
No transport assessment has been submitted
Suggest proposal considered against CT5 as a 'type of development that
requires a Principle Route location
Increased traffic would make it too dangerous for cyclists, especially
children/families
Hall is designed for 120 people which does not square with the overly modest
number of projected burials per day
Could be up to 60 vehicles but plans only provide for parking for 38 including 7
staff
Parking has not accounted for visitor numbers outside of actual funerals
Figures given for number of internments appear very conservative and
contradictory particularly from a business perspective of employing 8 staff
No medium or long term business plan provided
Colney Heath experiences parking problems despite having 80 spaces
Application should be considered in the light of the maximum number of funerals
possible per day not the understated projection by the applicant
Likelihood of considerable and rapid development of the business
Proposal is contrary to the NNDC Norfolk Coast Transport Strategy
Tourists visit to forget their troubles and will be horrified to see regular funeral
processions
Proposal detrimental to tourist trade
Movement of wildlife in the area and between woodlands will be severely affected
Government guidelines state woodland burial grounds should be developed as
close to urban settlements as possible to allow easy access by foot or public
transport
Proposed lighting will be intrusive
Decision should be delayed and considered in conjunction with the proposed
crematorium
Development Committee
5
11 April 2013
Development would destroy the woodland between Aylmerton and Cromer
effectively merging the two
Light and noise pollution
Proposal may be contrary to Policy EN3 - Undeveloped Coast
Construction of the proposed buildings would destroy the woodland aspect of the
area forever
Proposed two way road over a mile long through the woodland would be very
destructive
There has been no great demand locally for such a facility and any benefits
would be limited to a few individuals
Would not like to have bodies buried at the bottom of my garden
Would not like to have funeral processions at the back of my property
Public access to the site would create loss of privacy and loss of security to
nearby properties
My property which abuts the site is within Felbrigg Parish and the Clerk has
informed me that the plans were debated on 11th February and no objections
were raised - however the application was not advertised on site until 13th
February
Delays at the Felbrigg Road junction could be solved by the provision of a
roundabout which could also provide safe access to the site (and proposed
crematorium) - the developer could fund this
No fixed limit to the number of burials a week
Traffic will be encouraged to ignore the one way aspect of Tower Road by means
of taking a short-cut
Already difficult to exit Tower Road when turning right across the A148
Concern as to 'ancillary' usage of the buildings
Opening times should be more restricted
Building is too large and out of keeping with the locality
No pedestrian or public transport access to the site
Protected species survey indicated presence of Firecrest and any disturbance or
removal of habitat will have a detrimental impact on the current population
Protected species survey needs to be carried out on more than one day insufficient
Explanation required for any further plans for cemetery expansion beyond what
has been indicated
No indication given of potential impact/numbers of return visitors
Applicant is related to a Local Councillor on the Planning Committee and who
lives adjacent the site. Application should be called in given this relationship
Traffic lights on Station Road would cause funeral cortege to queue back to
where on street parking begins creating traffic jams
Plenty of available burial grounds already in the area
Loss of trees
Unclear as to why such a site is needed
Summary of representations in support:
Sensible plan as there is a worrying lack of land for expansion of burial
sites/offers natural expansion to the existing cemetery
Plans appear pleasing, allowing various different burial options (religious or nonreligious)
Lack of traditional churchyard and cemetery space, together with change in view
point has resulted in increased demand for woodland/green burial facilities
As a funeral director I like the proposed location and its accessibility
Development Committee
6
11 April 2013
From experience any funerals from West Runton to St. Faith or Earlham
Crematoria the usual route is from Sandy Lane to Tower Road and onto the
A148. In my experience there has never been an occasion whereby the funeral
cortege has had to reverse
Given the comparatively low numbers of funerals which would take place I feel it
is unlikely that there would be any noticeable increase in traffic
At present there is no opportunity for families, or the dying, wishing to arrange
this gentle and positive style of burial on the north coast of Norfolk
The site would benefit the community and the improved woodland habitat would
help support diverse and vibrant wildlife in the Cromer area
Site is ideal venue
Cannot imagine that the site would be over-used
Level of use would not adversely affect the traffic or residents living in Tower
Road
Would provide jobs, which in this economic climate must be good for the area
Will help local businesses
Well thought out; ECO friendly and sustainable. Low carbon footprint when
compared to a crematorium.
Offer opportunity to local residents to be buried in North Norfolk without having to
go to Colney
Proposed buildings have been thoughtfully designed
Proposed siting of buildings would ensure little or no visual impact on any
surrounding residents
Access is acceptable and the approach along Tower Road is a particularly
pleasant one
Local need
Understand that the access has been discussed and agreed by Norfolk County
Highways and the applicant so where is the problem?
The woodland would quite literally recycle itself
Disappointed that at Aylmerton PC meeting discussion was one-sided focusing
on letters of objection with no discussion of letters of support
Hearses unlikely to be used for the carrying of ashes to be interred, therefore
high traffic impact unlikely
Proposal would benefit the local community especially Aylmerton
The roads are not over burdened with traffic, particularly in the winter when
unfortunately most people are likely to meet their maker
Preferable to travelling to the other side of Norwich
Summary of representations providing comment only:
Make Tower Road two way up to the burial ground access so that hearses can
turn off the A148 so that the traffic does not affect the residential area of Sandy
Lane
Existing access from A148 could be used as entrance to the site with exit from
the proposed Tower Road access
Access from the A148 would be visually preferable to those using the site rather
than the proposed route past the water tower
Traffic will be greater than suggested 38 cars per day
Consider woodland burial grounds acceptable and popular
Sensible and attractive design/plan
Site appears suitable both ecologically and concerning accessibility re transport
details
Development Committee
7
11 April 2013
Although not public rights of way, a number of footpaths cross the site at various
points. It is suggested that such routes be maintained, with public access made
available where possible
This woodland location was originally heathland and pasture. Consequently there
is no objection to the removal of conifers from the site and it is suggested that
original vegetation be allowed to recover rather than carry out any inappropriate
'cosmetic' landscaping.
In support of the application the agent has submitted a bio-diversity survey; flood risk
assessment; land contamination assessment; tree survey summary report; and a
supporting statement outlining the proposal, a copy of which is attached (Appendix
2).
Further comments received from the agent in response to consultation (see
Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency: No objection.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator: No objection; condition requested.
Norfolk Coast Partnership: Comment; would like to see more evidence that it is a
proven local need that would be met and what alternative sites have been
considered. If the proposal is considered acceptable in principle, I would wish to be
assured that the woodland cover would be retained and its screening ability
strengthened and the development effectively screened from view at all seasons,
although I consider that the design of the buildings is appropriate for the setting.
Some concern over the lighting proposals, even if it is solar it is not clear how it is
justified. No design details for the boundary post and wire fence have been
submitted. Depending on the design this could be obtrusive along road boundaries
and possibly other visible parts of the site boundary.
Environmental Health: No objection. Requests the imposition of Conditions E14 and
E32 and note N08. Requests that the applicant is advised that they will need to apply
to the Environment Agency regarding a consent to discharge from the package
treatment plant.
Historic Environment Service: Objects; The proposed development site is located
within a wider area of significant heritage assets including a pre Napoleonic military
site and regionally significant medieval iron working sites to the north west. A series
of earthworks has also been recorded in the adjacent woodland. The site itself is a
large area of uncertain potential and it is likely that the lack of heritage assets
recorded on the site is the result of a lack of investigation rather than a genuine
absence. Consequently there is potential that heritage assets with archaeological
interest (both earthworks and buried archaeological remains) will be present at the
site and that the significance of these may be adversely affected by the proposed
development.
No heritage statement was submitted with the application therefore it is not currently
possible to establish the significance of the heritage assets present. Consequently,
we recommend the applicant is asked to withdraw then resubmit the application with
a heritage statement that describes the significance of any heritage assets affected
(in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para. 128). The heritage
statement should include a rapid archaeological earthwork identification survey.
Development Committee
8
11 April 2013
The Historic Environment Service will provide a brief for the heritage statement on
request. We recommend that a draft of the heritage statement is submitted to the
Historic Environment Service before the planning application is resubmitted.
County Council (Highways): No objection; subject to the imposition of requested
conditions.
The Highway Authority (HA) has provided the following response: The proposal has
been the subject of informal advice during 2012, regarding the position of and
requirements of the access onto the public highway. The proposals have been
discussed with the Project Engineer (Network Analysis and Safety) who comments- 'I
have had a look at the accident record at the three junctions directly affected by the
proposed woodland burial ground. In the last 3 years, 2 injury accidents have
occurred at the Sandy Lane/A148 crossroads junction and none at the Sandy
Lane/Tower Lane and Tower Lane A148 junctions. Of the two accidents at Sandy
Lane/A148 one involved the junction to the south and the remaining is inconclusive
as to whether it involved Sandy Lane. This does not represent an accident record
that would cause me undue concern given the volume of traffic using A148. In view
of the modest increase in traffic using these junctions to access the woodland burial
ground and the limited accident record, in my view the proposals do not present any
significant safety concerns.'
The HA are aware of numerous varied local concerns, however the HA considers
that the traffic impact from the proposed development is unlikely to be material or
impact significantly in peak hours or as detailed above, present any significant safety
concerns.
Suggestions have been made regarding the siting of the new entrance directly from
the A148 Holt Road and the provision of new roundabouts at the Felbrigg Road
junction and the new site entrance, if located on the A148 Holt Road. Dealing with
these suggestions in reverse order; Planning Policy issued by Central Government
makes it very clear conditions should not be imposed on development unless they
are both necessary and effective and also do not place unjustifiable burdens on
applicants. Conditions should only be imposed where they are:
Necessary;
Relevant to planning;
Relevant to the development permitted;
Enforceable;
Precise; and
Reasonable in all other aspects.
Conditions can only be imposed where they are required to make an application
acceptable in planning terms. The proposed woodland burial site is not of a sufficient
size to generate the volumes of traffic associated with the provision of a new
roundabout. Accordingly any such request or condition requiring a roundabout to be
provided as part of this development would not fulfil the tests of planning as set out
above.
With regard to the use of, or creation of, an access on the A148 Holt Road, which is a
busy and important stretch of the highway network designated a Principal Route
under the County Council‟s adopted Route Hierarchy and a Corridor of Movement
under the North Norfolk District Council Core Strategy and is witness to large
volumes of traffic and has the primary function of carrying traffic safely and freely
between centres of population. Norfolk County Councils' own guidance in relation to
the creation (or increase in use) of accesses is contained within the document 'Safe,
Development Committee
9
11 April 2013
Sustainable Development - Aims and Guidance notes for Local Highway Authority
requirements in Development Management' and aligns with the NNDC Core Strategy
Policy CT5.
Aim 7 -To protect the Principal road network from any detrimental effects of
development
which, if not restricted, would reduce their ability to carry traffic freely and safely
between
centres of population.
7.1 Need - Outside of urban areas with high connectivity, Principal Routes have a
strategic
role to play in carrying traffic between centres of population. Development in the
vicinity of
these roads or their junctions adds significant local traffic movements, which
prejudice the
ability of these roads to carry out this function.
For this reason these roads are additionally designated “Corridors of Movement”
where development is resisted. On Corridors of Movement, drivers do not generally
expect to encounter slowing; stopping; turning; manoeuvring or parked vehicles; nor
do they expect to encounter pedestrians. This lack of expectancy increases the
hazards caused by any access that exists isolation.
7.2 Requirements - Development needs to avoid creating a new access, or to
increase or
change the use of an existing access onto a corridor of movement. Development
contrary
to this aim will be liable to attract a recommendation of refusal from the Highway
Authority.
This is strictly applied.
Exceptions may be made where the development is of overriding public / national
need or the access is required to serve essential agriculture or minerals development
that has been proved incapable of being sited elsewhere. In such instances the
development must be served by a safe means of access. Where improvements to
transport infrastructure are necessary developers may be required to enter into
agreements to secure their provision. The proposed woodland burial site is not
considered fall to within the above exceptions, therefore it would not be acceptable, if
proposed to be accessed directly from the A148 Holt Road.
These matters were discussed during the informal meetings, resulting in the access
location of the proposed development being sited on Tower Road. Access from the
Principal Road network is by an existing, improved highway junction (Sandy Lane) on
the A148 Holt Road, which resulting from significant improvements, benefits from a
reduced accident history. The Sandy Lane Junction is within a reduced 40 mph
speed limit which is further enhanced by Vehicle Activated Signage (VAS), Central
Hatching, pedestrian crossing facilities and backed warning signs, at a location
where slowing stopping and turning movements are already in existence, which is
considered by the Highway Authority to be the most appropriate position for the
modest increase in vehicular traffic to access the site from the wider road network.
It is recognised that some funeral corteges from West Runton may use the narrow
and sinuous route from West Runton up to Tower Road, but it is highly likely that
these corteges would already use this route to access Tower Road, the A148 and
onto the existing Cemetery beyond the proposal site and therefore, as these
movements would not be altered by the proposed development, this would not
Development Committee
10
11 April 2013
represent a sustainable reason to resist the proposed development. Comments
regarding the parking provision have also been made, and the applicant has,
following highway advice, widened the access track to enable any overflow parking to
take place within the site. Given the distance of the burial site and parking area from
the public highway, any overflow parking can be accommodated and would not
cause any highway issues.
Turning back to the proposed development information, the recent plans show the
swept paths of a large vehicle accessing and exiting the site access on Tower Road,
which has resulted in some localised widening of the access. The HA has also
compared the recent drawings with transparent overlays from the Freight Transport
Association (FTA) document 'Designing for Deliveries', which compare with the
submitted track runs but also detail the position of the vehicle wheels throughout the
turning manoeuvres. These overlays indicate that the exit manoeuvre could cause
verge overrun, as such the HA would seek to condition that approximately 15m of
carriageway widening (haunching) of the northeastern verge is carried out prior to
first use of the site. These works would be required to be carried out under a Small
Highways Work Permit.
As set out above, the Highway Authority considers that the increases in traffic flows
will be modest and the proposed route to the site from the Principal Road Network is
acceptable and in line with the informal advice given in 2012, at a position where
drivers would expect to encounter slowing; stopping; turning; manoeuvring or
pedestrians, and which is well signed to advise drivers in both directions. Therefore, I
am able to comment that in relation to highways issues only, as this proposal does
not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk County
Council does not wish raise any highway objection subject to the imposition of
requested conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): Requests the
submission of additional information in respect of the following in order to properly
consider the proposal.
1. The full tree survey is required so that the Council can identify exactly how many
trees, and exactly which trees, will need to be removed as a result of the
development (it is not necessary to know which trees will be felled as a result of the
tree thinning required for the management of the forest as this will be dealt with by
the Forestry Commission under a Felling Licence). The basis of the tree survey
required for the planning application should allow for the identification of tree removal
for the access/visibility splays, any buildings or car parking and any service
installation/drainage or roadways. As it currently stands, we only have an indication
of how many trees will need to be removed for the buildings and car parking (stated
as 52) but not the exact details of each tree (as per BS5837:2012). In addition, by
clearly identifying which trees will need to be removed, an assessment can be made
of the bat roost potential for each tree. The Protected Species Report by Wild
Frontier Ecology states that some trees within the woodland have good bat roost
potential, and given that it is known that rare Barbastelle bats roost in the
neighbouring Felbrigg Wood SSSI it is highly likely that they will also roost within
Barn Plantation in favourable trees. Therefore, each tree allocated for removal should
be surveyed for bat roost potential.
2. Clarification of the proposed number of burial plots to be located around „chosen‟
trees and detailed information as to how the burials would relate to the Root
Protection Area (RPA) of the trees and how this will affect the longevity and health of
Development Committee
11
11 April 2013
the tree. Information is also required for the method of excavation of the plots
location and duration of storage of the removed top and sub soil.
3. Confirmation as to whether timber harvesting from the plantation will continue once
the burial site is operational.
4. Clarification of the actual number of burials that the woodland can sustain
including how many „chosen trees that the site may contain and how these relate to
the access paths and rides. In regard to the access rides, these need to be clearly
marked on the plan and marked if they are to be upgraded or re-surfaced as part of
the development.
5. Details of drainage and services that will be required for the buildings and where
will these be located.
6. Clarification of the proposed on-site parking arrangements as the submitted
documents provide conflicting information in this respect.
7. Clarification/details of the intended woodland management programme.
In addition he has advised that if fifteen burials are intended around each tree, the
use of 450mm x 450mm wooden burial plaques would appear excessive in a „natural‟
situation.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 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).
Development Committee
12
11 April 2013
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Planning policy context
2. Principle of development
3. Highway safety and accessibility
4. Design
5. Sustainability
6. Biodiversity
7. Landscape
8. Heritage assets
9. Pollution and hazard prevention
10. Summary
APPRAISAL
Planning Policy Context
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan
currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS) (adopted Sept 2008). At
regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May 2008) no longer
remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke the EEP being
laid before Parliament on the 11 December 2012 and which took effect on 3 January
2013.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy
SS2 which permits in principle the development of community services and facilities
within the designated Countryside area provided the proposal meets a proven local
need.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance. Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law
requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance
with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Paragraph 214 also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local
Plans adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the
Framework. The definition of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy (CS) and
other current development plan documents. The CS was adopted as recently as
2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the Framework and the relevant
provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the determination of this
application. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.
The Framework policy for supporting the rural economy is set out in Section 3 of the
Framework. Paragraph 28 states:
'Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create
jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.
To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:
Development Committee
13
11 April 2013
...support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well
designed new buildings...'
Section 4 of the Framework which is concerned with the promotion of sustainable
transport states at Paragraph 32:
'...development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the
residual cumulative impacts of development are severe...'
Section 11 of the Framework which is concerned with the preservation and
enhancement of the natural environment states at Paragraph 115:
'Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in ...Areas
of Outstanding Natural Beauty... The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are
important considerations in these areas.'
Paragraph 116 states:
'Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated
areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they
are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an
assessment of:
the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations,
and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or
meeting the need for it in some other way; and
any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational
opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
In this particular case Officers consider that the proposal should be treated as an
'exceptional circumstance' within the definition of a 'major' development as the
majority of the site area is proposed to remain as woodland with the intention of its
enhancement. Therefore provided the proposal can demonstrate compliance with
other relevant National and CS policies the principle of a development of this type is
considered acceptable in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Principle of Development
Policy SS2 of the CS states that community services and facilities are an acceptable
form of development within the designated countryside subject to meeting a proven
local need. It is considered that the provision of burial services is a community facility
and therefore the application must adequately demonstrate the need for the facility.
The applicant has submitted a supporting document (see copy attached at Appendix
2) which seeks to demonstrate need. This includes statistics in relation to the number
of deaths annually in the District and percentages of deaths that result in internment
or cremation. It is highlighted that after cremation a need also exists for the
internment of ashes.
It is recognised that this is not a conclusive demonstration of the need for the
proposal. However the applicant has been asked to provide some additional
information relating to the expected capacity of the burial ground and additional
analysis of the availability of burial facilities in the area and their expected capacity.
Development Committee
14
11 April 2013
Furthermore, it is considered that the nature of the proposal is such that a definite
need would be difficult to evidence; however, it is accepted that there is a growing
demand for woodland burials both locally and nationally which is well documented
and it is anticipated that this will increase as the environmental credentials of such
sites become more evident. On balance it is considered that subject to the provision
of additional supporting information demonstrating local need the requirements of
Policy SS2 would be met. Further information was submitted shortly before this
report was finalised (Appendix 2). Officers‟ assessment of this will be reported orally
to the Committee.
Highway Safety and Accessibility
The applicant undertook pre-application discussion with the Highway Authority and
the access arrangements proposed are in conformity with the advice given by the
Highway Authority at that time. By far the majority of objections in relation to this
proposal centre on the location of the proposed access and the route to it. However,
the Highway Authority has given thorough consideration to the concerns raised,
provided direct response to those concerns and has concluded that subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions in the event of an approval, that there are no
highway objections to the proposal.
The Committee is reminded of the advice referred to above within paragraph 32 of
the NPPF which states, amongst other things that '...development should only be
prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of
development are severe.' This is clearly not the case with the current proposal.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
Policies CT5 and CT6 of the CS.
Design
It is considered that the proposed buildings associated with the use have been
sympathetically designed and located within the site; being some 110m from the road
(A148) and some 290m from the nearest residential property.
There are no built structures within the immediate area and therefore the buildings
would be stand alone with no immediate architectural context. The buildings would
be restricted to single storey and therefore would remain well below tree cover so
that they would not 'compete' within the landscape. The footprint of the proposed
buildings would be quite significant but it is considered that the use of traditional
materials, with the emphasis on timber construction, helps to tie the buildings into
their surroundings which are more than capable of accommodating the scale and
layout without detriment to the wider landscape and AONB. Details in respect of
colour finish to the buildings could be dealt with by condition.
In response to concerns raised by people living adjacent to the south eastern corner
of the site in respect of proximity of burials to the boundary of those dwellings the
applicant has submitted an amended layout plan which proposes a 10m 'buffer' zone
in which no burials or internments would take place. It is considered that this 'buffer'
zone should be increased to 30m in order to protect the amenity of the neighbouring
properties. This could be achieved by way of condition.
Sustainability
The Council's Sustainability Co-ordinator considers that the proposal complies with
policy EN6 based on the information supplied in the Sustainability Checklist and
recommends that any approval of the proposal should impose a condition to ensure
the development is carried out in accordance with the measures stated within that
document.
Development Committee
15
11 April 2013
Biodiversity
The agent had been requested to identify the specific trees that would need to be
removed in relation to the development of the proposed buildings, parking areas and
new access/road in order to give proper consideration to the potential presence of
bat roosts. The applicant had previously advised that presently the woodland is an
operational timber plantation currently undergoing 'thinning' works under licence from
the Forestry Commission. Until those works have been completed the applicant was
unable to identify which trees remain to be removed for the proposed development.
He has recently reiterated those comments. He states that all trees needing to be
felled will be removed as part of the thinning, as will many of those on the footprint of
the buildings and car park. Once the thinning has been completed, identification will
begin. He considers most of the trees remaining will be Scots Pine and that all will
be part of the commercial crop. He does not believe that any of the trees to be felled
have bat roost potential. Officers will be further considering this response and
Members will be updated at the meeting in respect of this matter and whether
Officers consider that any issues relating to removal of trees could be adequately
addressed by way of the imposition of conditions.
Whilst the further comments from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
will be required following receipt of further information from the agent in respect of
protected species concerns, it is generally accepted that the nature of the proposal,
subject to the approval of a long term Woodland Management Plan, is such that the
biodiversity and quality of the woodland, in the long term, could be enhanced as a
result of the development.
Landscape
The site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); Policy EN1
requires that the impact of proposals on the AONB should be carefully assessed and
development 'will be permitted where it is appropriate to the economic, social and
environmental well-being of the area... does not detract from the special qualities of
the AONB... and seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management
plan objectives...' The Norfolk Coast Partnership (NCP) has no objection to the
proposal but has advised that the woodland cover should be retained and its
screening ability strengthened. It considers the design of the buildings to be
acceptable for their setting, provided they are effectively screened from view at all
seasons. It further advises that details of the proposed solar lighting and boundary
fencing should be agreed to ensure minimal impact on the area. Subject to the
submission of additional details by way of condition the proposal is considered to
comply with Policy EN1.
Part of the northern area of the site is also situated within the designated area of
Undeveloped Coast. Policy EN3 only allows developments within the area of
Undeveloped Coast that demonstrate that they require a coastal location and would
not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character. As the woodland is
proposed to remain as a woodland and the buildings would be situated some
distance outside that designated area the proposal is not considered to conflict with
Policy EN3.
As discussed above the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's full
consultation response will not be received until after this report has been written; it is
however, generally accepted that the nature of the proposal, subject to the approval
of a long term Woodland Management Plan and the submission of plans that address
any concerns that may relate to landscaping, boundary treatments and detailed
methods of burial (in relation to impacts on the trees) is likely to comply with Policies
EN2 and EN9 of the CS. The Committee will be updated at the meeting in respect
of these matters.
Development Committee
16
11 April 2013
Heritage Assets
The Historic Environment Service (HES) has raised an objection to the proposal on
the grounds that there is potential that heritage assets with archaeological interest
(both earthworks and buried archaeological remains) will be present at the site and
that the significance of these may be adversely affected by the proposed
development.
The HES have advised that as no heritage statement was submitted with the
application it is not currently possible to establish the significance of the heritage
assets present. The HES advised that the application be withdrawn. This matter has
been drawn to the attention of the applicant and Officers will be discussing the matter
further with the HES to determine whether pre-commencement conditions, for the
carrying out of the recommended rapid archaeological earthwork identification survey
and for any works required as a result of such a survey could be imposed that would
satisfy its concerns. The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
Pollution and Hazard Prevention
An assessment of potential risk to groundwater was carried out by the applicant and
the Environment Agency has reviewed the report and has raised no objection to the
proposal. They have confirmed that a surface water management plan is not required
in this instance.
The Council's Environmental Protection Officer has no objection to the proposal. The
proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy EN13 of the CS.
Summary
The proposed development seeks to create a woodland burial ground within a 24ha
area of an existing wider woodland. The proposal includes the development of two
timber buildings and associated car parking, access route and the creation of a new
access onto Tower Road.
Officers consider that the principle of this type of development in a woodland setting
within the AONB is acceptable and, subject to the applicant satisfactorily proving
local need, the proposal would also comply with Policy SS2 of the CS.
In respect of impact of the development on the road network, whilst a number of
objections have been received the Highway Authority has no objection.
At the time of writing this report additional information was awaited from the applicant
particularly in relation to the detailed woodland management proposals. Subject to
the submission of satisfactory information that addresses the outstanding concerns of
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and those of the Historic
Environment Service, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to address those
concerns where necessary, the proposal is considered to be compliant with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and the Historic Environment
Service in the light of further information awaited from the applicant, and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those suggested
by consultees.
Development Committee
17
11 April 2013
3.
CROMER - PF/13/0060 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 March 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Enforcement Notice
Primary Retail Frontage
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 Part Allowed/Part
Dismissed 11/10/2010
PF/11/1082 PF - Installation of replacement shopfront
Refused 11/11/2011 Appeal Dismissed 21/11/2012
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the installation of a new shopfront to replace the existing unauthorised
shopfront. The proposal includes new entrance/exit arrangements to provide
symmetry to the front elevation together with the addition of pilasters to provide
greater relief to the shopfront. Furthermore the applicant proposes to reduce the
depth of the front fascia by introducing opaque glazing below.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the planning
history of the site and the need to resolve outstanding enforcement matters.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society (CPS) – Strongly objects to the installation of the
proposed new shop front. Whilst this amended proposal is a slight improvement over
the unauthorised installation, it does not go far enough to address the objections
already raised by ourselves and the Planning Inspectorate.
Iceland occupies a prominent position within Cromer‟s Conservation Area, it adjoins
a Grade II listed building and is sited opposite a Grade I listed church. Shop front
design should have a positive impact on the street scene and high quality design
plays an important part in the viability and vitality of shopping areas.
This new proposal is a minor modification of the unauthorised shop front and retains
many of the existing features including a lack of detailed moulding. Corporate
signage and colour are not always appropriate to a building or its setting and Iceland
Development Committee
18
11 April 2013
should be willing to adapt their standard style in order not to compete with the wider
area.
CPS maintains that the current proposed application neither preserves nor enhances
the Conservation Area and does not conform to adopted policies EN 4 and EN 8.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – The
latest proposal does address the three main areas of concern which led to the refusal
of the earlier applications; namely:
1. The unbalanced shopfront design.
The revised plan now shows a symmetrical configuration to match the building
above.
2. The lack of depth in the shopfront.
The additional entrance and pilasters would provide greater relief to the shopfront.
3. The depth of the fascia.
This has been reduced back to the original depth by introducing the opaque glazed
fanlight.
As a consequence, it has to be accepted that the end result would be to the overall
benefit of the building and the wider conservation area.
In offering this confirmation, however, it has to be recognised that the new shopfront
would still have the same standard appearance and functional qualities of the
existing frontage. By virtue of its square sectioned aluminium framing and general
lack of visual interest, it would certainly not enliven the street scene. Instead it would
simply return the building back to its former state of supporting a well-balanced but
essentially average looking shopfront.
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):
Land allocated for retail development in the Site Specific Allocations Development
Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011.
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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).
Development Committee
19
11 April 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Background
2. Principle of development
3. Design consideration, including impact on Conservation Area
4. Other material considerations
APPRAISAL
Background
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 Committee considered the planning application on 26 November 2009.
The planning application was refused by way of decision notice dated 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 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.
On 10 February 2010 appeals were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in relation
to the planning application, advertisement consent and enforcement notice and dealt
with by the Planning Inspector by way of Informal Hearing.
Whilst the Inspector allowed part of the 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
from 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.
On 21 July 2011 the Development Committee considered the position at that time
and resolved „That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
commence prosecution proceedings under section 179 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland Foods Ltd for failure to comply with
Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002 unless acceptable plans have been submitted as a
formal application within 28 days‟.
Following the Committee resolution on 21 July 2011, a further planning application
was submitted by the applicant on 06 September 2011 under planning ref:
PF/11/1082 for „Installation of replacement shopfront‟. The application was
considered by the Committee on 10 November 2011 where it was resolved „That this
application be refused on the grounds that the design for the replacement shopfront
would continue to damage to the character and appearance of this highly prominent
Development Committee
20
11 April 2013
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‟.
The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of the Council and the
Planning Inspectorate subsequently dismissed the written-reps appeal by way of
decision dated 21 November 2012 (Copy attached at Appendix 3).
The application before Committee seeks to address the concerns raised by the
Planning Inspector.
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) and on the basis that it
was compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
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."
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.
In respect of the most recent appeal decision attached at Appendix 3, the key areas
of concern to the inspector were in relation to:
The unbalanced shopfront design.
The lack of depth in the shopfront.
The depth of the fascia.
The applicant has sought to address these concerns and the revised plans now show
a shopfront scheme which has a symmetrical configuration to match the building
above and the additional entrance and pilasters would provide greater relief to the
shopfront. In addition, the overly deep fascia has been reduced back to the original
depth by introducing the opaque glazed sections.
Having regard to the advice of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
and also the representation received from the Cromer Preservation Society, whilst on
the one hand the amendments to the shopfront would appear to address the
concerns raised by the Inspector, the end result would still be a shopfront with a
standard and functional appearance.
Development Committee
21
11 April 2013
Other Material Considerations
A valid Enforcement Notice is in force which seeks removal of the unauthorised shop
front. The key issue for the Committee to consider is whether any further
improvements could be reasonably sought to further enliven the shopfront and
ensure full compliance with Core Strategy policies EN 4 and EN 8. The Committee
will also need to consider whether the proposal accords with the principles set out
within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in respect of conserving and
enhancing the historic environment.
Notwithstanding concerns that the shopfront would continue to have a standard and
functional appearance even after these changes are made, in view of the fact that the
concerns of the Planning Inspector have been substantially addressed, the
Committee would need to satisfy itself that the impact on the wider Conservation
Area after these changes could be considered to amount to substantial harm.
Officers are of the opinion that once the proposed changes are made, whilst there
may still be harm, it would be very difficult to argue that substantial harm would result
to the Cromer Conservation Area. Whilst this is not to say that the scheme is wholly
acceptable in planning terms, the Committee would nonetheless need to balance any
harm against the public benefits of the proposal.
In light of this, consideration would need to be given to the realistic prospect of
success at appeal if the Committee were minded to refuse the application and the
further public expense that would be incurred in defending likely further appeals and
any possible prosecution.
Summary
Having considered the available evidence, Officers are of the opinion that,
notwithstanding the concerns that the shopfront would continue to have a standard
and functional appearance, on balance the changes are such that refusal of the
application could no longer be considered to be reasonably justified.
The applicants have indicated that, if permission were granted, then they could
complete the works with a matter of a few months.
Committee would also need to confirm, if it is minded to approve the application, that
the Enforcement Notice be withdrawn once the remediation works have been
satisfactorily completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of the following condition:
1
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the details set out on drawing number 2528 (Sheet No.5)
dated 17/01/2013, as received by the Local Planning Authority on 31 January
2013.
Reason:
To ensure the remediation works are carried out in accordance with the
submitted plans and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
22
11 April 2013
4.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1299 - Variation of Conditions 2, 7 and 8 of planning
permission reference: 11/0344 to permit revised design and siting of dwelling
and to regularise the removal of the hedge along the eastern boundary; Land
to rear of 75 Norwich Road for Mr J Hammond
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 January 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1346 HOU - Formation of vehicular access
Approved 14/01/2011
PF/11/0344 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 17/06/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to amend the design for a two-bed detached single-storey dwelling approved
under PF/11/0344. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 141sq. m
(an increase of approximately 28sq. m from the original footprint).
The dwelling would have a maximum height of 5.5m to ridge. A section of the site
has been submitted indicating that the majority of the ground level would be lowered
to a maximum depth of 0.8m, given the existing varying ground level across the site.
However, at the southern end of the dwelling the ground level would be raised
approximately 0.15m.
The height of the previously approved dwelling design was approximately 4.3m to the
ridge.
Access to the site would remain as previously approved from Orchard Close.
Application amended to remove previously shown rooflights.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ward having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on visual amenity, over-development of the plot and loss of residential
amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
12 representations have been received (11 objections from 7 objectors and 1
comment), raising the following representations (summarised):
Objections:
Suitability of Orchard Close and Norwich Road access for additional traffic;
Increased size, height and massing for latest application. No longer a modest
bungalow;
Development Committee
23
11 April 2013
Size of footprint and orientation within plot. Significant increase in footprint;
Addition of an extra storey;
Parking with larger garage and additional car park space. Concern over mention
to raise roofline of garage - why?
Rooflights overlooking and reflection;
Closeness of proposed dwelling to boundaries (north and west);
Hedging - concern that western boundary hedge has already been cut back
below 2.5m and thinned out. Request that this is rectified. Request that height of
hedge is increased in proportion to new proposed height of dwelling;
Visually intrusive (illumination and impact on view) and acoustic impact;
Impact of residential amenities including loss of light, privacy, tranquillity,
enjoyment;
Loss of view;
Impact on character of area;
Application aims to achieve a two-storey dwelling by stealth;
Detrimental to principle of woodland dwelling;
Out of balance both within plot and within surrounding area;
Materials less in keeping with natural woodland surroundings and more obtrusive
than original materials proposed, particularly aluminium windows and drainpipes;
Cannot properly and legally be called a single-storey dwelling. This is not a
variation;
Application site must be smaller than originally anticipated given earlier scheme
assumed that significant boundary hedges were in control of site;
Required loss of hedge and replacement with fence means that changes are
even more significant in terms of view and privacy;
Over development;
Asked that application be brought before Planning Committee and site visited;
Parking concerns of large vehicles;
Concerns over pedestrian safety;
Contrary to P53 of NPPF which requires inappropriate development of residential
gardens to be resisted.
Comments:
Why are rooflights needed for storage areas?
Is the dwelling too big for such a small plot?
Traffic concerns
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority - No objection
Building Control 1. Unprotected area appears excessive on the North and East boundary
elevations, where walls are 1m from the boundary the maximum area should
be 5.6m2 and where 3m from the boundary this should be limited to 18m2.
2. There is insufficient detail on the plans to assess B5 access provisions but
consideration should be given to the width of the access drive and turning
areas.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Further to the
amended documents received and the subsequent removal of the Cupressus hedge
on eastern boundary resulting in the requirement to vary the conditions of the
previous approval, the Council's Landscape have no option but to accept the removal
of the hedge and consent to the variation of the condition. The particular dimensions
and environmental conditions of the site do not render themselves sympathetic to the
Development Committee
24
11 April 2013
reinstatement of a hedge along the eastern boundary therefore it is not worthwhile
considering this option. The character of the site is changing from what was originally
envisaged for the development and this is regrettable and unfortunate.
Condition requiring compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement should be
imposed as per reference PF/11/0344.
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and scale and impact on the form and character of the area
2. Impact on amenities
3. Parking
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Fakenham Settlement boundary and within an established
residential area, where proposals for the erection of new dwellings are acceptable in
principle, providing compliance achieved with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
This application seeks to amend a previously approved scheme.
In respect of design, Policy EN 4 requires all development to be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. In addition proposals should have regard for
the North Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide
acceptable residential amenity.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, sufficient private garden
areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended purpose would be achieved
on the proposed plot and, in line with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations,
the area of the plot given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint
of the dwelling.
In terms of the design proposed, it is considered to be acceptable and compatible
with the setting and nature of the site. In terms of materials, natural timber cladding
(horizontal, feather edge, stained basalt grey) with brick plinth and smut weathered
coloured pantiles have been proposed. Whilst it is unfortunate that joinery would be
aluminium as opposed to timber, it is not considered that this change in materials
Development Committee
25
11 April 2013
makes the scheme refusal, especially given that the plot is not overly visible within
the wider landscape.
The site is bordered by hedging to the northern, southern and western boundaries. In
a variation to the previous scheme, the mature conifer hedging to the eastern
boundary indicated to be retained on the original application, has since been
replaced with timber fencing by the neighbours. Whilst it is considered unfortunate
and regrettable that this hedge has been removed, changing the character of the site
somewhat, it is not considered that the change in boundary treatment makes the
scheme unacceptable. It is not considered that the environmental conditions of the
site render themselves sympathetic to the reinstatement of a hedge along that
boundary. The condition in relation to the northern and western boundary hedging
being retained and maintained at a minimum of 2.5m above ground level would be
re-imposed.
In respect of the residential amenities of adjacent dwellings, the dwelling would be
single-storey and window-to-window distances between the proposed dwelling and
neighbouring dwellings are considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
recommended Basic Amenity Criteria distances. Previously shown rooflights serving
a storage space/attic have been removed to try and alleviate neighbour concerns.
The property to the east is a two-storey dwelling. The proposed secondary kitchen
windows would not face directly towards the neighbouring dwelling. There would be
approximately 18m between the proposed secondary bedroom 2 window and the
neighbouring dwelling to the east. Even with facing windows on the neighbouring
property serving Primary rooms, the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations would
be met.
In respect to the garden to the north, a neighbouring outbuilding is sited close to the
boundary. However, this is considered acceptable given that the building is purely an
ancillary building and given that the proposed dwelling would be single-storey and
fairly well-screened by existing boundary treatment.
Relationships with properties to the south and west would be in excess of the
requirements of the Basic Amenity Criteria. In addition, any overlooking would be
minimal, given that the dwelling proposed would be single-storey and given existing
boundary treatment (hedges and fence).
It is recognised that the height and size of the proposed dwelling would be increased
under this scheme. Eaves height would, however, remain modest, with the main roof
then sloping away from eastern and western boundaries. Whilst it is recognised that
the northern gable would be presented to the northern boundary, there would be little
bulk above 3.7m, with a modest apex. Further, this scheme proposes lowering of the
ground level across the majority of the proposed site, which would, again, help to
minimise any impact on neighbouring properties.
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
aims of Policy CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposals, subject to the previous
conditions being imposed.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with
adopted Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
26
11 April 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions including the retention and
maintenance of the existing hedgerow along the northern and western
boundaries at a minimum height of 2.5m from ground level and the compliance
with the Arboricultural Implications Assessment document, with the exception
of the retention of the eastern boundary hedge.
5.
LANGHAM - PF/13/0076 - Erection of one and half storey rear extension; 2
Marryats Loke for Mr Banks
- Target Date: 19 March 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Outstanding Natural Beauty
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a one and a half storey rear extension measuring approximately
4.95m wide by 5.45m deep, maximum eaves height of 2.5m and maximum height to
ridge of 5.4m
Additional living space would create a garden room at ground floor level and a
bed/study at upper floor level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Terrington having regard to the following planning issue:
Overbearing impact and loss of light to neighbour.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection received on the following grounds:
Concern regarding upper floor window in southern elevation, request that it is
obscure glazed. Concern that it could, in the future, be re-glazed;
Ownership Certificate incorrect (foundations across boundary with number 4,
notice not served);
Location drawing does not show existing conservatory, close to boundary with
number 2. Location of number 4 domestic oil tank omitted as is brick and flint wall
(running full length of conservatory, parallel to, but not touching, boundary line) to
which the oil pipe is attached;
Drawings are sketchy and do not inspire confidence as there are no dimensions
on plan. Reliant on printing drawing to scale, which is unsuitable;
Ownership of hedge; property deeds do not specify who owns boundary hedge,
but contend that is jointly owned and do not consent to its removal as it provides
sufficient amenity;
Contend that proposed height is full two-storey and not one and a half storey as
claimed;
Effect of height and positioning of proposed extension; excessively deep along
boundary will be oppressive while sitting in conservatory, would dominate outlook
and have adverse effect on plant growth in garden;
Development Committee
27
11 April 2013
Would significantly reduce light from conservatory and also the kitchen area,
especially in evenings;
Full-height gable end would be particularly oppressive;
Slope of roof would shed excess rainfall and snow onto property, particularly
endangering the conservatory and oil tank;
Proposed guttering would overhang conservatory, although this is not properly
show on the sketchy drawing;
Digging footings would require access onto neighbour land, to which the
neighbour does not consent;
Maintenance of guttering would require access onto neighbour land and would be
hazardous due to location of conservatory and oil tank;
Health and safety; building wall and roof in close proximity to neighbour
conservatory, garden wall, oil tank and oil tank will almost certainly damage them.
Moreover, there will be at all times serious risk of personal injury to anyone in or
near conservatory particularly arising from work on second storey;
Health of neighbour is extremely precarious as has multiple disabilities which
require maximum peace and quiet in daily life. Above objections have serious
implications for continued ability to cope.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on residential amenities of neighbours
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Langham Settlement Boundary, where proposals for
extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle,
providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies. The site also lies within an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where development proposals should not harm
the special qualities of the area.
The property is a semi-detached, single-storey property facing onto Marryats Loke.
Development Committee
28
11 April 2013
It is not considered that the scale of the proposed extension would dominate the
original building, nor harm its architectural character. The proposed extension would
have a ridge-height to match the existing property, however, in this instance, it is
recognised that the extension would be sited to the rear of the main dwelling to avoid
competing with the main dwelling.
In terms of impact on neighbouring dwellings, the first floor window on the southern
elevation would be obscure glazed.
In terms of impact on the adjacent neighbour to the east, it is recognised that the rear
extension would be sited close to the boundary and approximately 0.9m away from
their conservatory with facing windows. The Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC)
recommend 8.5m between a secondary window and blank elevation.
In this case, whilst it is recognised that this is a substantial shortfall in the BAC
recommendations, the properties are semi-detached and, in their nature, already
share a fairly close relationship. In addition, no directly facing windows have been
proposed. There is also a mature hedge currently separating the properties.
In assessing this proposal, consideration must be given to what the applicant could
build without planning permission under the General Permitted Development Order.
Under Class A, a single-storey extension could extend up to 3m from the rear of the
original dwelling, providing its eaves height does not exceed 3m nor its total height
4m. The Local Planning Authority cannot control the removal of the hedge. A
boundary treatment of up to 2m could be erected without planning permission.
In terms of overbearing/loss of light, it is recognised that the side extension would be
built close to the boundary and due west of the neighbouring property. The eaves for
the proposed extension would be at approximately 2.5m. It is recognised that this
permission would result in a solid wall, rather than hedging as existing, and there
would be some loss of light in the evening. In this case, however, given what could
be done under Permitted Development, and the existing substantial hedgerow, the
siting and the relationship with the neighbouring property are considered to be
acceptable.
It is not considered that the proposed development would harm the special qualities
of the AONB.
Given the considerations above the proposal is considered to comply with the
policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the conditions below.
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Development Committee
29
11 April 2013
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the originally submitted 'PART GF'
and 'FIRST FLOOR' plan, and the amended plans (drawings titled 'LOCATION',
'BLOCK', SITE PLAN SHOWING RELATIONSHIP TO ADJOINING PROPERTY
and 'REVISED ELEVATIONS DRAWING NO 368/08' received by the Local
Planning Authority on 22 March 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no window or rooflight shall be
inserted in the eastern elevation or roofslope of the one and a half storey rear
extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first granted by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
5. The first floor bed/study window on the southern elevation of the one and a half
storey rear extension hereby permitted shall be installed with obscured glazing
with a degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall
thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6.
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1441 - Formation of artisan education centre/holiday
development consisting of the erection of 7 residential/holiday lodges,
camping area and change of use of dwelling to communal facilities/holiday
accommodation, retention of two static caravans for holiday accommodation;
67 Cromer Road for Kiln Cliffs Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 February 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
30
11 April 2013
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050689 PF - Erection of fifteen two-storey dwellings
Approved 15/07/2005
PLA/19860749 PO - Private dwelling to replace existing wooden building
Approved 05/08/1986
PLA/19881725 PM - Erection of chalet bungalow and detached garage
Approved 06/10/1988
PLA/20031613 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Approved 14/11/2003
THE APPLICATION
Is for the formation of an artisan education centre/holiday development consisting of
the erection of 7 residential/holiday lodges, camping area, change of use of dwelling
to communal facilities/holiday accommodation and retention of two static caravans
for holiday accommodation.
The site area is approximately 6800sqm. It is bounded by the disused railway line to
the south and residential properties to the north, west and east. Seven "pods" of
accommodation are proposed, five of which would be for permanent residential use
by artisans that will form members of staff on the site. The pods measure
approximately 3.16m wide, 5.4m long and 2.8m high. They would be constructed of a
timber framework with a shingle roof finish with a glazed entrance door in one gable
end and a small window and ventilation opening in the opposite gable. Whilst the
external appearance of the chalet bungalow on the site would be unchanged, some
minor internal alterations being required to form the communal facilities. Ten car
parking spaces are proposed.
Amended plans and an amended Design and Access Statement have been received.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement is contained in Appendix 4. The
amendments include reducing the number of proposed pitches in the proposed
camping area from six to three, reduction in the width of the pod access track by
750mm, bin store relocated away from eastern boundary, relocation of one of the
static caravans from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The other
static caravan would be moved further away from northern boundary by
approximately 500mm, with hedge planting proposed in between caravan and
northern boundary. The car parking area would be moved to the south east to create
a more compact and closer relationship to the chalet. Further clarification is also
provided in response to objections received in relation to noise, smell, levels of
occupancy, light pollution, loss of privacy and loss of habitat.
A further amended plan has been received proposing relocation of the second static
caravan off the northern boundary and adjacent to the southern boundary. The
agent has also confirmed that the pods would be moved 0.85m away from the
northern boundary due to the reduction in width of the access pathway around the
pods. The agent has also confirmed that only the pods and communal buildings
would be used all year round, and that up to 2 new full-time jobs with an additional 34 seasonal jobs would be created.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Committee
31
11 April 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: Object on the following grounds:
1. Smell from open fires and cooking
2. Noise
3. Parking
4. Unknown number of visitors
Comments on amended plans: Object on the same grounds as above. Although the
Parish Council admire the proposed principles of the application they strongly feel it
is in the wrong location as it is too close to neighbouring dwellings.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received from local residents in relation to the
original proposal on the following grounds:
1. Loss of privacy
2. Noise disturbance
3. Smell from camp fires, cooking outdoors
4. Light pollution
5. Security
6. Impact on wildlife
7. Inappropriate location
8. Conflict between proposed use and close proximity of residential properties
9. Unsuitable use of the land
10. Inaccurate information
11. Lack of information
12. The site could provide residential properties with less negative impact on
residents
13. Disturbance from increased use of gravel driveway
14. Siting of refuse storage area a concern
15. Lack of car parking
16. If approved conditions should be attached in relation to restricted working times
for site preparation, restriction on noise, lighting, on site opening, and times of use for
zip wire, all trees to be retained, Tree Preservation Orders to be placed on all trees
on the site, protective fencing to be placed around trees during building works.
17. Site too small for the development
18. Narrow access
19. Static caravans too close to people‟s houses and gardens
One letter of support has been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - Comments on original plans: Taking account of the proposed
improvement works to the junction of the track serving this site from Cromer Road I
have no objection to the granting of permission. Should your Authority be minded to
approve, conditions are required in relation to widening of vehicular access as shown
on approved plan and access and on site parking areas to be in accordance with
approved plan.
Comments on amended plans: Proposed vehicular parking is now more dispersed
around site which I am not particularly enamoured with , however, the parking
remains apparently to same numbers as previously shown and any likelihood of
parking overflowing onto highway is remote therefore no objection and previously
requested conditions still applicable.
Development Committee
32
11 April 2013
Building Control - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments on original
plans: No objection. The site is between the old railway line and the recent housing
estate on Cromer Road on the approach into Mundesley. The site contains several
mature trees and various shrubs that are a result of planting and natural regeneration
and lies to the East of the AONB boundary. The hedging around the site is made up
of various species including Elm which will have a limited life.
The open land adjacent to the east of the site is currently used as informal
recreational space and is also situated between the old railway and the housing.
The proposed pods are low impact in terms of landscape and effect on the
environment and are significantly less visible than static caravans.
The Arboricultural Method Statement included with the application is acceptable and
will ensure that the trees are protected during the development on the site. Although
it is not clearly specified in the documentation the services to the pods will be run
outside the root protection areas of the trees.
The landscape impact of the development will be local due to the “hidden” nature of
the site and further planting along the access and northern boundary would help
soften any impact and reduce any noise.
If approved conditions are required in relation to the submission of a landscaping
plan detailing boundary planting and to replace the Elm and maintain a screen, that
the pods can only be replaced by other wood pods of the same size and specification
thus reducing the possibility of caravans replacing the pods in the future, and details
of any external lighting to agreed.
The only potential for protected species on the site would be for bats roosting in the
trees and roof space of the current dwelling and the garage. The current application
does not disturb the roof space and any tree works will be carried out in line with
BS3998 and therefore it is the opinion of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
section that a protected species survey is not required for this application.
Comments on amended plans: No further comments.
Environmental Health - Comments on original plans: No objection. Condition required
to prevent any fires on the site due to the close proximity to residential properties. In
relation to noise due to the locality the applicant should be made aware that they
should ensure planned activities on the site do not cause disturbance to their
neighbours.
Comments on amended plans: As above.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
33
11 April 2013
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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 EN13:Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC10: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).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of principle of development
2. Policies HO1 and HO2
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties
4. Landscape impact and Protected Species
5. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this site following a recent site visit.
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area (Policy SS3) as designated in
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy where appropriate residential development
and compatible non-residential development including small scale business,
community, leisure and social uses will be permitted. Given that the mixed uses
proposed as part of this development fall under all of these categories the principle of
this proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location.
Whilst permanent residential accommodation is proposed it forms part of the wider
use of the site as an educational facility which will provide accommodation for visitors
and therefore complies with Policy SS5 in relation to the economy. This policy
supports job growth achieved through tourism as well as the tourist industry retaining
a mix of accommodation and encouraging new accommodation and attractions which
help diversification and extend the season. Up to two full-time jobs and 3-4 additional
seasonal jobs would be created as a result of this proposal. At the time of writing this
report clarification was being sought from the agent on the total number of new jobs
proposed and if this is intended to be an all year round use. The site is owned by the
owners of the caravan site on the opposite side of the Cromer Road. However, the
agent has confirmed that the uses of these two sites are not associated and they
would not share facilities.
Development Committee
34
11 April 2013
There are several parts to this application the first of which is the seven
accommodation "pods" of which five are intended for permanent residential use by
artisans who would be employed at the site. Permanent residential use is acceptable
in this location given the site's designation in the Residential Policy Area as
explained above. Therefore, there is no policy objection to this part of the proposal.
The remaining two pods, three tent pitches, two static caravans and two bedrooms
provided within the existing chalet are intended for holiday accommodation/visitor
use. Such uses are considered to be acceptable in this location and in accordance
with Policy EC10 in relation to Static and Touring Caravan and Camping sites, where
new sites are considered against other relevant Core Strategy policies. The
educational use of the site is also a use which is acceptable in principle in this
location, and is determined against other relevant Core Strategy policies.
The other relevant policy issues are primarily in relation to visual impact, impact upon
neighbouring properties and their residential amenities and privacy and highway
safety.
Objections have been raised in relation to how the site may be used and impacts on
the adjoining neighbouring dwellings given their close proximity from noise, smell,
light pollution, loss of privacy, impacts on wildlife and highway safety. The applicant
and agent have sought to attempt to address the objections raised through the
submission of the amended plans and amended Design and Access Statement.
In response, Environmental Health still raise no objection. A condition would be
required in relation to preventing outdoor fires due to the close proximity of the
development to nearby residents. It is not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of adjoining properties, nor
the privacy of the adjoining properties. If anything, in terms of privacy, the
surrounding dwellings overlook the application site. There is good screening along
the northern boundary which limits views between the residential properties off
Anson's Close and the site. This can also be said of other neighbouring properties to
the east.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has raised no
objection to the application subject to conditions. It is considered that the proposal
would have minimal impact in terms of landscape given the enclosed nature of the
site. It has also been confirmed that a protected species survey is not required in this
case following the receipt of concerns from local residents. This is because the only
potential for protected species on the site would be for bats roosting in the trees and
roof space of the current dwelling and garage. The proposal does not disturb the roof
spaces and tree work will be carried out in line with BS3998.
The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application. Conditions have
been suggested in relation to the widening of the access and the car parking. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact
upon highway safety.
The agent had been asked to clarify a number of points including the distance that
the remaining static caravan was to be moved away from the northern boundary, and
whether this static caravan could be re-located within the site; if the whole of the site
is proposed for all year round use; how many new jobs will be created as part of the
proposal; and how far the pods have moved away from the northern boundary. A
response has been received from the agent along with an amended plan relocating
Development Committee
35
11 April 2013
the remaining static caravan to the southern boundary adjacent to the other. The
agent has also confirmed that only the pods and communal building are to be used
all year round, up to 2 new full-time jobs and an additional 3-4 seasonal jobs would
be created and the pods would be moved 0.85m further from the northern boundary.
Following receipt of the amended plans and additional details, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including the use, access, parking, landscaping,
external lighting, restricting siting of any additional caravans, no outdoor fires it is
considered that the overall layout and proposed uses for the site are acceptable and
in accordance with Development Plan policies for the reasons explained in the report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the use,
access, parking, landscaping, external lighting, restricting siting of any
additional caravans, no outdoor fires, and limiting the residential occupation of
the units to those employed at the site.
7.
NORTHREPPS - PO/13/0117 - Demolition of buildings and erection of up to 32
dwellings and conversion of frontage building to 2 dwellings; Former
Cherryridge Poultry Site, Church Street for Christchurch Property Company
Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 01 May 2013
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land Buffer
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071895 PO
Demolition of Buildings and Redevelopment of Site for Residential Development and
Retention of Two Units to Include Retail Convenience Store
Application undetermined
THE APPLICATION
Is for residential development for up to 32 dwellings on a 1.4 hectare (approx) site. A
flint faced building to the front of the site would be retained and converted to two
dwellings. Access is the only matter of detail being formally applied for at this stage.
An 'illustrative masterplan' submitted with the application indicates a site layout
including an area of open space to the front of the site.
The Design and Access Statement
indicates that the properties would be
predominantly two storey with some single storey, however again this is only
indicative.
Vehicular access is proposed from a single point direct from Church Street, on the
southern site boundary. An existing boundary wall to the front of the site is to be
Development Committee
36
11 April 2013
removed to accommodate a 1.8m wide footway and improve visibility at the existing
access.
In addition off-site highway works involve a new 1.2m wide pedestrian strip along the
southern side of Church Street, westwards from the application site, to facilitate
pedestrian movement between the site and the school; the provision of pedestrian
crossing points adjacent to the site and the school; and the formalising of existing
passing places along New Road (between the A149 and the village of Northrepps).
A draft S.106 Obligation has been prepared. This covers the following matters:
50% affordable housing (subject to viability to be demonstrated at reserved matters
stage)
£60 per dwelling library contribution
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Statement of Community involvement
Transport Technical Note
Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment
Heritage Assessment
Habitat Report
Contamination Report
Structural Demolition Report
Utilities and Drainage Report
Sustainability Statement
Affordable Housing Delivery Plan
Section 106 Heads of Terms
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management as the development would be a
departure from policy.
PARISH COUNCIL
Members are pleased to note that many of the issues raised during pre-submission
have been taken on board. However members ask that all of the properties include
rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling. Members would also like renewable
energy to be incorporated where economically viable. Any lighting should meet the
Parish Council‟s adopted Dark Skies Policy.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
1. No objection to the principle but consider the number of dwellings is too many
considering the amount of extra traffic would be generated.
2. Pedestrian safety is an issue as there are no paths in this part of the village and
the roads are narrow.
3. Questions whether affordable housing is actually affordable to locals.
4. Number of dwellings is too many - would prefer fewer, luxury dwellings and no
affordable dwellings.
The agent has submitted additional supporting information in response to the Norfolk
Coast Partnership objection and County Council Highway comments which can be
found in Appendix 5.
Development Committee
37
11 April 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency - Recommend a number of conditions in respect of
contamination.
In respect of surface water drainage and flooding, states that provided the Local
Planning Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority are satisfied with the proposed
mitigation measures to ensure the safety of the proposed development from the
surface water flood risk, and based on the revised Flood Risk Assessment, no
objection is raised subject to conditions. These conditions are to require a surface
water drainage scheme be submitted as part of the reserved matters application and
a detailed design scheme to demonstrate how the site shall be designed and
landscaped to route existing surface water flows through the site without flooding
buildings or increasing flood risk elsewhere.
Anglian Water – There is sufficient capacity in the waste water and foul sewerage
network for the development. The surface water strategy proposed indicates it will
not impact on the Anglian Water assets.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-ordinator) - Advises that there is
sufficient space at the local nursery, Primary and High School to accommodate for
the proposed development and therefore no education contribution is required. A
contribution of £2,040 towards library provision is required (£60 per dwelling) in
addition to a condition for 1 fire hydrant.
County Council (Highways) - In considering the previous planning application on
this site (Ref 20071895 PO), the County Council Highway Authority recommended
refusal, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or
others with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and local services.
2. The proposed development does not have adequate access to an appropriate
level of public transport provision as set out in the adopted Norfolk Bus Strategy
published by the Transport Authority.
3. All roads that lead to the site are country lanes that do not provide adequate
access to the route hierarchy, due to their width, alignment and lack of forward
visibility. Therefore, they are unsuitable to cater for the vehicular movements
generated by the proposal, which, if consented would be likely to give rise to
conditions detrimental to highway safety.
4. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway.
North Norfolk District Council subsequently resolved to approve the application for 33
dwellings subject to "the applicant undertaking a study of the road safety implications
and providing a package of appropriate measures to accommodate vulnerable
highway users in the centre of the village together with a package of measures to
provide intervisible passing places along the C291 New Road between Northrepps
village and the A149".
Whilst Norfolk County Council as Highway Authority contends that the proposals
represent a significant increase in the amount of traffic generated by the previous use
of the site and would be willing to maintain a recommendation of refusal it is
appreciated that the Local Planning Authority takes other factors into consideration
when determining applications and therefore indicates that if the Council is still of a
mind to approve the application, it is recommended that a number of amendments
be made to the layout and that conditions be imposed to include the submission of
Development Committee
38
11 April 2013
full highway / footpath / drainage details (both on-site and off-site) and to require the
off-site works to be completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
Norfolk Police (Crime Prevention Design) - Comments are based on the
illustrative masterplan and the design and access statement. The proposed
masterplan appears to have been put together with some thought and care to some
of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
Recommends early consultation with the advisor when detailed plans are being
prepared.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - As
with the previous submissions on this site, Conservation & Design have no objections
to the principle of residential redevelopment. With the right scheme, it is considered
that there is a big opportunity to enhance the appearance and character of the village
core.
The following comments are made on the basis that only access is a matter to be
considered at this stage: Off Site Works
Formalising the passing places on New Road has no implications for any heritage
assets.
By contrast, the resurfacing work and the footway extensions in the middle of
Northrepps would have an impact upon the village‟s Conservation Area.
Following pre-application discussions, however, the original concerns about the
artificial and engineered nature of these interventions have largely been allayed.
Although the changes are still less than ideal in an historic context, they now
represent a reasonable balance between preserving the designated area and
ensuring pedestrian safety.
Access to the Site
The access point is logically positioned in the middle of the site frontage and
raises no particular concerns per se.
The removal of the roadside wall is considered unfortunate in conservation terms
given it features attractive coursed flintwork and provides traditional enclosure
hard on the edge of the carriageway. This said, it is not in good condition and
would be replaced by a new inset wall. Providing this is: a) similarly coursed, b)
features reused or matching copings, and c) is positioned directly behind the
footpath (and not behind an additional verge as shown on the Illustrative Site
Access), the level of harm associated with this change would be minimal.
Under this heading, it is not clear at what point “access” becomes “layout”. If it
literally just means the first few metres into the site, then there need be no objections
to the application as a whole. If, however, it includes the whole roadway in, then
there would be real concerns about how this would shape the development. As
illustrated, the rather exaggerated shifts of alignment appear to have produced a
rather suburban looking layout which lacks the kind of informality which would enable
the scheme to sit comfortably within a rural village context. If this is relevant at this
stage, it would need to be addressed before an approval is issued.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Advises that the
Landscape Section does not object in principle to the re-development of the site for
housing in respect of the AONB, Landscape Character or ecology (policies EN1, EN2
and EN9).
Development Committee
39
11 April 2013
The site is located within the AONB, therefore Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy is
relevant. The policy indicates that development proposals should take into
consideration the guidance contained in the Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan.
Furthermore, small developments that may be considered harmful to the AONB, by
virtue of their scale, design and/or location; and will cause significant adverse
impacts will not be permitted.
The 2009-2014 Management Plan for the AONB refers to the use of the Integrated
Landscape Character Guidance (ILCG) as a method for achieving a co-ordinated and
consistent approach to managing the development pressures across the area. The
ILCG closely mirrors the advice contained in North Norfolk District Councils own
Landscape Character Guidance document, therefore if proposals are seen to accord
with one document it is likely that it will be reflected in the other and be compliant
with both policies EN1 and EN2.
The proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the key
characteristic features identified in either of the Landscape Character studies. A key
proponent relevant to this application is the desire to protect the edge of smaller
settlements by retaining small pastures adjacent to settlement edges. As the
development is using existing derelict brownfield land, where landscape
enhancement is possible, the proposals will not result in the loss of small pasture
land, will not encroach further into the countryside and have the possibility of
improving the appearance of the settlement edge. It is therefore considered that the
development will not have a significant adverse impact on the AONB and is
compliant with policy EN1.
An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been conducted at the site and no
substantive issues were found as a result of the survey work. Recommendations
have been made to ensure that biodiversity is mitigated or compensated for as a
result of the development and this should be made a condition of planning. If an
application for reserved matters is not secured within a certain timeframe, further
survey work may be necessary to ensure that the environmental parameters of the
site haven‟t changed.
A landscape scheme is also requested as a condition.
Environmental Health - Recommends that a full investigation of the site to
determine the presence of contamination is carried out and this should be a condition
of planning permission.
Comments that the structural demolition report produced and submitted with the
application is very comprehensive. An advisory note is requested to draw the
developers attention to their duty of care in respect of the Control of Asbestos
regulations and that a demolition note is required. The details with the demolition
notice need to include a scheme for the method of demolition and means of
controlling noise and dust during demolition.
In respect of sewerage, there is no objection as connection is proposed to the main
foul drain.
Requests a condition requiring that no development is carried out until details of
surface water disposal from the development have been submitted and approved.
Development Committee
40
11 April 2013
Countryside and Parks Manager - Advises that the area of open space indicated
(on the illustrative layout plan) is adequate for this relatively small site. The open
space proposed would provide an attractive entrance feature and it is suggested that
it is gently mounded to deter ball games and planted with a few trees. It is not
anticipated that NNDC would adopt the open space as it has no wider recreational
value outside the immediate area.
There is an existing recreation ground and equipped play area at the nearby village
hall, operated by the Parish Council, which is in good condition and has had the
benefit of some recent investment. As such it is not considered that any contribution
towards off-site open space or play equipment is required.
Strategic Housing - Advises that as the application is in outline form with only
means of access for consideration, and as the viability assessment has been
provided on the basis of 32 new builds and 2 conversions of only a notional size and
mix of houses, flats and bungalow, it is not possible to complete an assessment of
the applicant's case for a reduced provision of affordable housing.
The requirement on this site would be 50% affordable housing, subject to viability. A
viability assessment should be submitted and considered at reserved matters stage
when the type of housing is known and when an accurate financial assessment can
be made as to whether the policy requirement can viably be provided. Appropriate
wording in the draft S106 obligation has been included to accommodate this.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Raises no objection to the proposal subject to a
condition requiring compliance with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes as
proposed, and at least 10% on site renewable energy to be provided, details and a
timetable of which should be secured by condition and agreed at reserved matters
stage.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Objects to the application on the grounds of serious
inconsistency with both national and local planning policy and the lack of sufficient
justification to override these inconsistencies.
The application is not consistent with Core Aim 2 of the Core Strategy which is 'to
concentrate development in the settlements that have the greatest potential to
become more self-contained and to strengthen their roles as centres form
employment, retailing and services' and 'in the rural area to retain and reinforce the
role of selected villages that act as local centres for the surrounding areas to provide
for housing in selected villages and to provide for affordable housing in other
locations.'
The proposal is not consistent with policy SS1 of the Core Strategy which focuses a
small amount of new development in service villages and coastal service villages to
support rural sustainability and indicates in all other areas, designated as
countryside, development is restricted to particular types of development only to
support the rural economy, meet affordable housing needs and provide renewable
energy.
The proposal does not meet any of the criteria for development in the Countryside
and exceeds the amount of housing envisaged as acceptable even in Service
villages under Policy SS3.
In addition, as the site is located in the AONB the benefits of housing development
on this site would need to be very exceptional in order for it to be acceptable under
the NPPF, but benefits of this order have not been demonstrated in the application.
Development Committee
41
11 April 2013
The proposal is not consistent with the Core Strategy or NPPF principles of
sustainable development.
Although it could provide some affordable housing that the area needs, the Site
Specific Allocations of the LDF have identified the housing allocations required to
meet this need, which do not include Northrepps.
Although the redundant farm buildings are something of a village eyesore and impact
on the Conservation Area, they could be removed without developing the site for
housing and this is not sufficient justification for the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
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).
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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Development Committee
42
11 April 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Policy considerations
2. Affordable Housing
3. Highway issues
4. Landscape impact
5. Impact on the Conservation Area
6. Flood risk and drainage
7. Other issues
8. S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
Policy considerations
The proposal represents a departure from the Development Plan. Northrepps is not a
selected Service Village. The Core Strategy designates the village as within the
Countryside policy area. Development of the site for residential purposes, other than
as an „exceptions‟ affordable housing site, would be contrary to current Development
Plan policy.
However, the site has a relevant planning history. A Committee resolution dating
back to 2008 (Application ref: PO/07/1895) was to grant permission for residential
development (33 dwellings and conversion of an existing cottage) subject completion
of a S.106 Agreement to secure affordable housing and to resolve highway issues.
The site subsequently went into receivership and that application was never formally
determined. At the time of considering the application Northrepps was a selected
village under the formerly operative Local Plan, but the majority of the site was
allocated for employment use. The previous Committee resolution is a material
consideration in the determination of the current application, notwithstanding present
development plan policy.
Factors relating to the abandoned and derelict state of the site, the detrimental
impact this has on the site's surroundings and the appearance of the Conservation
Area, together with the unlikelihood and undesirability of the site being used in the
future for commercial or industrial purposes, (all of which were influential
considerations at the time of previous application), still apply today.
The Town and Country Planning Act requires planning applications to be determined
in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other
material considerations which indicate otherwise. In addition to those factors
indicated above, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material
consideration in planning decisions.
The NPPF indicates that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable
development and indicates that this involves seeking positive improvements in the
quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of
life (Para 9). Furthermore it indicates that plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas (Para 10).
It suggests that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should
be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (Para
55).
The NPPF is also supportive of development that encourages the effective use of
land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided
that it is not of high environmental value (Paras 17 and 111).
Development Committee
43
11 April 2013
Whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore needs to be questioned, Northrepps is not without certain facilities. There
is a public house, community centre and primary school and development of this site
would help to support these facilities. Furthermore Northrepps is located in
reasonable proximity to the more major facilities and services offered in Cromer.
The circumstances relating to this site are extremely unusual, and in view of the
combination of factors referred to above it is considered that a departure from the
Development Plan can be made in this case, without causing harm to issues of
acknowledged importance or the setting of precedents elsewhere.
Affordable Housing
Assuming the principle of the development is accepted, it is considered that the
equivalent affordable housing requirements for allocated sites in the selected
villages of the District should apply to this site, in which case Core Strategy Policy
HO2 would require residential developments of this size to comprise 50% affordable
housing (subject to viability). The applicant has indicated that the redevelopment of
the site could not meet this requirement and remain economically viable. A viability
assessment has been provided with the application for 32 new dwellings and 2
conversions, but it is based only on a notional size and mix of houses, flats and
bungalows and on such a basis it is not possible to complete a thorough viability
assessment. The applicants have since accepted this and provision has now been
made in the draft S.106 Obligation to require 50% affordable housing subject to
viability. This approach is consistent with other outline planning permissions recently
approved in the District. This allows for the issue of viability and affordable housing
provision to be properly considered at the time when the full details are submitted
with a reserved matters application.
Highway issues
The Highway Authority objected to the 2007 application (07/1895), the objection
being that Northrepps is an unsustainable location for further residential
development, given its remoteness from principal services and facilities, its lack of
public transport links and the consequent reliance by residents upon the use of the
car. In addition it was considered that the road network within and leading to the
village is substandard. Based on their estimate of what the historic traffic movements
of the former poultry business use were, the Highway Authority raised an objection to
any more than 17 dwellings on the site. It indicated that if the Council was minded to
grant permission in excess of this number then consideration should be given to
additional highway improvements within the village and leading to it.
The Committee resolved to give delegated authority to Officers to approve the
application subject to a number of matters which included the requirement for
applicant to undertake a study of road safety implications and providing a package of
appropriate measures to accommodate vulnerable users in the centre of the village
along with a package of measures to provide intervisible passing places along the
C291 New Road between Northrepps village and the A149.
That 2007 application was never determined and the current application supersedes
it.
The current application proposes a package of measures for on and off-site highway
works which include:
1. The existing boundary wall to the front of the site to be removed to accommodate
a 1.8m wide footway and improve visibility at the existing access.
Development Committee
44
11 April 2013
2. A new 1.2m wide pedestrian strip along the southern side of Church Street,
westwards from the application site to facilitate pedestrian movement between the
site and the school.
3. Pedestrian crossing points both adjacent to the site and to the school.
4. Existing passing places along New Road to the west of the application site
(between the A149 and Northrepps village) to be formalised as part of the
constructed highway.
The Highway Authority's position remains that it would support a refusal based on the
increase of traffic movements which would be generated by this proposed
development. However the Highway Authority acknowledges that the Local Planning
Authority takes other factors into consideration when determining planning
applications. In the event of the Council being minded to approve the application the
Highway Authority recommends certain amendments to the layout and the
imposition of conditions to include the submission of full highway / footpath / drainage
details (both on-site and off-site) and to require the off-site works to be completed
prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
Landscape impact
Physically, the site is an integral part of this small village. It is vacant and has been
since the poultry processing business closed in January 2007. Its derelict industrial
appearance does not sit easily with its designation within the AONB (Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty) or its partial inclusion within the village Conservation
Area.
The Committee will note the objection raised to this application by the Norfolk Coast
Partnership which comments that as the site is located in the AONB the benefits of
housing development on this site would need to be very exceptional in order for it to
be acceptable under the NPPF, but considers that benefits of this have not been
demonstrated in the application.
The Committee will also note the comments of the Council's Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager who considers that as the development is using existing
derelict brownfield land, where landscape enhancement is possible; that the
proposals would not result in the loss of small pasture land; would not encroach
further into the countryside; and would have the possibility of improving the
appearance of the settlement edge, the development would not have a significant
adverse impact on the AONB and would be compliant with Policy EN1.
The site is relatively low lying within the wider landscape and sits on the north-east
side of the village. The immediate landscape is characterised by predominantly flat
arable farmland divided by hedgerow boundaries. The site itself has varying levels
with the higher level in the northern half of the site. The boundaries to the north and
east are steeply banked rising over 3m to meet the adjoining arable field beyond. As
such the site sits fairly low within the surrounding landscape. This helps the visual
containment of the site and should help ensure that views from the wider landscape
are only glimpsed. This, coupled with the improvement to the site as a result of the
demolition of the existing derelict industrial buildings, is considered to outweigh any
harm that would result to the special qualities of the AONB from the development of
the site for residential. Therefore it is considered that the re-development of this site
would not have a significant impact on the AONB.
Impact on the Conservation Area
Part of the site also lies within the Northrepps Conservation Area. The Committee will
note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on this
Development Committee
45
11 April 2013
issue, where it is considered that with the right scheme, there is a good opportunity to
enhance the appearance and character of the village core. Whilst concerns have
been raised in respect of the layout of the development as shown on plans
accompanying the application, as these are only illustrative, consideration of such
details can be dealt with at the future reserved matters stage.
Flood risk and drainage
The application indicates that surface water can be discharged on the site as the
ground primarily consists of a permeable sandy subsoil. No precise system for the
containment of the surface water drainage on the site has been submitted at this
stage but the submitted Utilities and Drainage Report states that this will be
confirmed by further infiltration tests. In addition a SUDS based system could be
utilised requiring permeable paving and rainwater harvesting incorporated where
possible. The Council's Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency
have confirmed no objection to the revised Flood Risk Assessment subject to
conditions requiring a detailed scheme for surface water drainage from the
development to be submitted and approved. This is a matter which would need to be
resolved at reserved matters stage.
In respect of foul water, the application indicates that it would re-use the existing
connection to the foul drain. The Committee will note Anglian Water has confirmed
sufficient capacity within the system to accommodate the development.
Other issues
The application has indicated the dwellings would be constructed in accordance with
Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and that 'opportunities for utilising
on-site renewable energy technologies to provide at least 10% of predicted energy
usage will be explored as part of the development of the energy strategy for the site
at the detailed design stage.' The Council's Sustainability Co-Ordinator has
confirmed that subject to this achieving at least the 10% target for on-site renewables
and being incorporated in the eventual development, which can be secured by way of
condition, there is no objection and the proposal would comply with Policy EN6.
In respect of land contamination, the Committee will note the comments of the
Environment Agency and the Council's Environmental Health Officer who confirm
that conditions are required in order that the contamination risks associated with the
site and remediation strategy are appropriately addressed.
Other issues associated with housing development on the site (eg. layout, design,
scale and relationships with adjoining development) would be addressed at the
submission of reserved matters stage, and is considered that the site could
accommodate this level of development, subject to the detail being approved at
reserved matters.
S.106 Requirements
If planning permission is to be granted for this development, a S.106 Obligation will
need to be completed to secure the following:
The provision of affordable housing which would be 50% subject to viability at
reserved matters stage and include its phasing and other detailed requirements.
County Council contributions towards library provision
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and negotiations are continuing in
order to reach final agreement.
Development Committee
46
11 April 2013
Conclusion
As with the determination of any planning application, account needs to be taken of
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 Act which states as
follows:
"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination
to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
In other words, when determining planning applications, where a Plan is up to date
and contains specific policies in relation to the proposed development, the
Development Plan must be the primary consideration of the decision maker.
However, the reference to „unless material considerations indicate otherwise‟ allows
for the possibility that in some circumstance a decision which does not accord with
the Development Plan may be justified. What constitutes a material consideration for
planning purposes and the weight to be attached to such considerations lies at the
heart of the decision making process.
The planning history of this site is a material consideration to the determination of the
application, to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give the material considerations in this case.
Officers consider that the principle of re-development for housing represents an
acceptable solution taking into account the combination of the planning history, the
particular circumstances of the site and the satisfactory provision of off-site highway
works and that these material considerations, when taken together, are sufficient to
outweigh the conflict with policy SS1 and SS2 of the Core Strategy in respect of the
sustainability of the location, and the objections raised by Norfolk County Council
Highways and Norfolk Coast Partnership.
Accordingly delegated authority to grant outline planning permission is recommended
subject to the imposition of conditions and completion of the S106 obligation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to:
1) The completion of a S.106 Obligation.
2) The imposition of conditions including the following:
1. Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Approval of these
reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the Local
Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two
years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on
different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance, landscaping, layout and
scale of the proposed development and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any
indication as to these matters which have been given in the current application.
3. No works shall commence on the site until such time as detailed plans of the
roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans.
Development Committee
47
11 April 2013
4. No works shall be carried out on roads, footways, foul and surface water sewers
otherwise than in accordance with the specifications of the Local Planning Authority
in consultation with the Highway Authority.
5. Before any dwelling is first occupied the road and footways shall be constructed to
binder course surfacing level from the dwelling to the adjoining County road in
accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority.
6. All footways shall be fully surfaced in accordance with a phasing plan which shall
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority prior to the commencement of development.
7. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings, no works shall
commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement
works as indicated on drawing number 0505/SK/001 RevG and 0505/SK/002 RevA
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority.
8. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site
highway improvement works referred to in condition number 8 shall be completed to
the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
9. Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a scheme for
the future management and maintenance of any areas of public open space and
landscaped areas on the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Thereafter management and maintenance of such areas shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
10. No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the provision of one
fire hydrant (on a minimum 90mm main) has been submitted to, and agreed in
writing, by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk Fire Service. No
dwelling shall be occupied until the hydrant has been provided in accordance with the
approved scheme and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with Norfolk Fire Service.
11. Notwithstanding the position of the replacement inset boundary wall indicated on
the submitted Illustrative Site Access Plan, precise details of the replacement inset
boundary wall (including its position, materials, height and design) shall be submitted
as part of the reserved matters application.
12. The dwellings subject to this permission shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or
above in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design that
replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate
has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that Code
Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an alternative timescale is first agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. At least 10 percent of the energy required by the development shall be secured
from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources (as described in the
glossary of Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change (December
2007)). Details and a timetable of how this is to be achieved, including details of
Development Committee
48
11 April 2013
physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority as a part of the reserved matters submissions required by
condition 1. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved timetable and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning
permission (or such other date or stage in the development as may be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to
deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted
to
and
approved,
in
writing,
by
the
Local
Planning
Authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified;
all previous uses;
potential contaminants associated with those uses;
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors;
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2)
and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details
of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete
and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning
authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
15. Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the
effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the
local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring
carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the
site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term
monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the
verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority. The longterm monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
16. Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in
accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be submitted to
the local planning authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring
programme a final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation criteria
have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
17. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has
submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, a
remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt
with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Development Committee
49
11 April 2013
18. As part of the reserved matters planning application a surface water drainage
scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of
the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the
development is completed and any of the dwellings are occupied.
19. In association with the requirements of Condition number 2, a scheme for
landscaping and site treatment to include grass seeding, planting of new trees and
shrubs, specification of materials for fences, walls and hard surfaces, and the
proposed maintenance of amenity areas, shall be submitted to and approved as part
of the application for reserved matters.
The scheme shall also include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the
land, and details of any to be retained (which shall include details of species and
canopy spread), together with measures for their protection during the course of
development.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further period
as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
20. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations made in the submitted extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared
by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys on 20th September 2012 and received by the Local
Planning Authority on 30th January 2013.
8.
SCOTTOW - PF/13/0033 - Erection of two wind turbines each with a maximum
blade tip height of 126.5 metres together with substation and control building,
access tracks and other infrastructure; Scottow Estate, Land off Potspoon
Hole, North Walsham Road for Airvolution Energy Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 01 May 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1328 - Erection of 60m high wind monitoring mast at Land off Church Street,
Sco Ruston
Approved: 12 January 2011
PF/12/0528 - Continued siting of wind monitoring mast at Land off Church Street,
Sco Ruston
Approved: 20 July 2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of two wind turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of
126.5 metres and a maximum rotor diameter of 93 metres. Turbine 1 would be
Development Committee
50
11 April 2013
located at Easting: 627537.7457, Northing: 322353.6662 whilst Turbine 2 would be
located at Easting: 627674.7275, Northing: 322119.1627. The base of the turbines
would be at approximately 15m AOD.
The proposal also includes other associated infrastructure to support the turbines
including a substation and control building, access tracks and crane hard standing
and turning areas.
The applicant has indicated that the turbines likely to be used would be either Vestas
V90 or Repower MM92 models. The Vestas V90 has a blade length of 44m (rotor
diameter of 90m) whilst the Repower has a blade length of 45.2m (rotor diameter
92.5m). Both turbines would be likely to have a hub height of 80m. Both turbines are
designed to be suitable for use in locations where there is medium or weak winds.
The proposed substation building would have a footprint of approximately 84sqm. It
would have a height to eaves of 3m and a height to ridge of 5.5m. No indication has
been given as to the type of materials to be used in the construction of the
substation. The proposed on site access tracks would have a maximum functional
width of 6m wide with additional swept areas for overrun where the track turns
through 90 degrees. Adjacent to each proposed turbine, a crane hard standing and
turning area would be created which will enable construction and decommissioning of
the turbines. A temporary construction compound is also proposed.
The proposed turbines would have to conform to current safety standards.
The applicant has submitted a number of reports to support their view that the
proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection – The Council has particular concerns regarding noise, height,
environmental impact and impact on house prices. The Council were also concerned
that the wind turbines may have a detrimental effect on any future planning on the
former RAF base.
REPRESENTATIONS
110 Representations have been received to date, 108 in objection and 2 in support.
Summary of comments in objection:
1. Wind turbines are not an option for this area;
2. Solar panels would be better;
3. This will prevent future use of the former RAF Coltishall site;
4. Will be expensive to build and only viable through subsidy;
5. Would be of little benefit;
6. Would harm wildlife;
7. Would be a blot on the landscape;
8. Wind turbines should be out at sea;
9. Would adversely affect flights to and from Norwich Airport
10. There are a lot of helicopters which fly low over the application site;
11. Impacts outweigh the benefits;
12. The visual impact would adversely affect tourism related businesses;
13. Would adversely affect Broads National Park;
14. Would create an eyesore for miles around;
Development Committee
51
11 April 2013
15. Very concerned as a local resident about potential impact on aircraft safety;
16. What will happen when the turbines are no longer needed;
17. The proposal would adversely affect the Bure Valley Railway;
18. Would likely prevent aircraft use of runway at Coltishall;
19. Would affect property values;
20. Concern about potential risk of collapse of turbines;
21. Local wind speeds are light and not suitable for being harnessed by wind
turbines;
22. Tall turbines are needed because there is little wind in the area;
23. Gaining access to deliver turbine components would be very challenging;
24. Tall turbines will be a distraction to road users on the B1150;
25. Turbines will be noisy for nearby residents;
26. Turbines are inefficient and ugly;
27. Waste of tax-payers money;
28. They would be 30m taller than Norwich Cathedral;
29. Will adversely affect Coltishall Conservation Area;
30. Construction Traffic will be very disruptive and possibly dangerous;
31. Would be wholly out of character and context of the area;
32. Good agricultural land is being lost;
33. This is environmental vandalism for financial gain;
34. Concerned about the effects of low frequency noise;
35. No amount of landscaping could mitigate the visual impact of these turbines;
36. Will cause shadow flicker for nearby residents;
37. Will cause noise pollution and general anxiety/stress for nearby residents and will
have a detrimental impact on health;
38. Turbines will be seen by walkers, cyclists, bird watchers from a very large part of
North Norfolk including from The Broads;
39. Will industrialise the landscape;
40. Tourism is the lifeblood of Norfolk and any reduction of its revenue would be
catastrophic;
41. Danger to birds, bats and other wildlife;
42. House price reduction will result in lowering of tax bands and less revenue for the
Council;
43. Approval will open the floodgates for other projects;
44. Will adversely affect geese which fly over the site;
45. This will benefit very few;
46. Farmer are having to diversify into projects like this because of poor quality
imports making their business unviable;
47. They will produce very little electricity for their size;
48. Will adversely affect radar systems;
49. Possible interference with TV, mobile and other electronic equipment;
50. An indemnity bond should be secured if permission is granted to make sure the
turbines are removed once no longer required;
51. Other back-up power sources will always be required;
52. There are no viewpoints submitted close up to the proposed turbine – I wonder
why;
Summary of comments in support:
1. Would add drama to the landscape;
2. Concerns appear to be greatly exaggerated;
3. These are vital for our energy security;
Development Committee
52
11 April 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Broadland District Council – Objection - I have had particular regard to the RAF
Coltishall Conservation Area Designation and BDC Draft Landscape Character
Assessment. The adopted Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 is also
relevant - Policies GS1; ENV14; ENV16; ENV17; and CS7 and the Joint Core
Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (adopted March 2011) - Policies 1
and 2.
The site lies within a wider area which can be described in various terms as: a
uniform landscape pattern with little diversity and an open, rural character; long
uninterrupted views across a generally flat rural landscape; wide expansive views,
which are contained by distant wooded horizons; and generally uninterrupted skyline
(BDC Landscape Character Assessment).
It is considered that the impact of the proposed turbines will fundamentally and
unacceptably undermine the visual integrity of the landscape by virtue of their scale
and moving blades which will be a totally alien feature within their surroundings.
Residential properties which are in the local area and which have relatively open
views of the turbines are likely to suffer an unacceptable visual impact which cannot
be mitigated due to the scale of the proposal and the open nature of the surrounding
landscape.
I also set out below the comments of Broadland District Council‟s Conservation
Officer (Design):
“Having now received Richard Maguire‟s report on the former RAF Coltishall, it is
clear that setting of some of the most significant individual elements of the site
(particularly the ready for use sheds and the non-scheduled set of blast walls) will be
affected by the proposal.
The report says:
„The eight pairs of Cold War blast walls that have been scheduled are good
examples of 1950s airfield defensive structures at a moment when aircraft were
being equipped with guided missiles. They also have associated concrete aprons
that provide insight into the operation of such dispersal areas. Other examples exist
in the UK, but the Coltishall blast walls are significant in that their original dispersed
nature is clearly visible. This contrasts with those at RAF Wattisham, for example,
which are surrounded by later HASs, or those at Waterbeach which are in poor
repair. The existence of another set of blast walls to the south west makes the
concept of dispersal very clear. This effect is enhanced by the close proximity of the
perimeter track to all of the blast wall complexes. This makes it clear both how
aircraft could move from the locations to the main runway and also how the station‟s
assets were divided to provide protection. This effect is further heightened by the
close proximity of the missile ready-for-use sheds in the ESA, which were
constructed at the same time, and held the new weapons that would have armed the
aircraft protected by the blast walls. The aim of these alterations, to enable air
defence aircraft to get successfully airborne in an age of nuclear weaponry is clear.
This entire ensemble of structures and features – blast walls and hard standings,
ready-for-use sheds, and perimeter track constitute a regionally, and indeed
nationally, rare example of 1950s and 1960s fighter operations in a nuclear age that
are in very good condition.‟
Development Committee
53
11 April 2013
At present, the landscape context of these structures is emphatically horizontal, and
the only man-made vertical features close at hand are those which relate to the
defence function and therefore form an integral part of that context.
The construction of two very large wind turbines adjacent to this site would have a
major impact on the present well-preserved layout and on perceptions of the site as a
whole from both within the conservation area and for a considerable distance
beyond. This impact would amount to considerable harm to the heritage assets,
designated and undesignated, related to the former RAF Coltishall.
Turning to the effect on other heritage assets, while accepting that the Zone of
Theoretical Visibility will be limited in many cases by vegetation and buildings, it is
clear that there will be considerable intervisibility, at relatively close range, from
within the Horstead and Coltishall Conservation Area, and at a greater distance from
within the Wroxham Conservation Area, neither of which is addressed in the
simulated views.
There will also be a significant visual impact on listed buildings of all grades at
Buxton, Lamas, Great and Little Hautbois, Horstead, and Coltishall (particularly St
James).
Obviously, from much more than a couple of miles, this effect will be limited except in
cases where much of the height of the turbines will be visible above the land or tree
horizon, and so the effect on most listed buildings further afield will be less significant
though still tangible.
The cumulative impact of this proposals on a variety of heritage assets, both
designated and undesignated, and in particular on the assets contained with (and
including) the RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, is such that I do not believe the
public benefit of the proposal outweighs the harm that would be done.”
Broads Authority - No objection - The development lies approximately 1.5 km to the
north of the village of Coltishall, approximately 2.5 km at the nearest point to the
executive boundary of the Broads Authority.
The application has been supported by an Environmental statement which includes
an assessment of landscape character and visual amenity.
These character areas all being within 15 km of the proposed development. The
Local character areas 22, 23,24,29,28,27,30,31, and 12 have been assessed as
having a high sensitivity to change from a development such as this. This concurs
with the Broads Authority‟s own study
LCA‟s 10 and 11 have been assessed as having a low sensitivity to change from
development such as this. This assessment does not concur with the findings of the
Broads study.
Given the mitigating effects of distance of the proposals the following comments have
been limited to those character areas which lie within 10km of the development.
Those Character areas within approximately 10km of the development are those that
lie within the Ant and Bure valley. There may be views available of the proposed
turbines from the perimeter of these character areas. These views however, are only
likely to be available from more elevated viewpoints on the valley sides or crests.
Development Committee
54
11 April 2013
There are unlikely to be many opportunities to see the structures from the valley
bottoms.
Given that the available views will be extremely intermittent as a result of intervening
vegetation, buildings and landform. I concur with the Applicants evaluation that the
significance of the impacts will be slight when applied to the scenic and special
qualities for Local character area 22 - Bure Valley Wroxham to Horstead. From other
character areas the significance of the impacts on the scenic and special qualities, is
likely to be negligible
There will be slight impacts on the skyline potentially for LCA 22. There will be no
significant effects on Broads historic landscape patterns.
Because of the narrowness and the enclosed nature of the valleys, there are unlikely
to be any significant long distance views of the development from valley bottoms.
Generally I consider the landscape impacts generated by the development are likely
to be negligible to slight and confined to local character areas 22 and possibly 28.
This is as a result of the mitigating effect of distance from the development
viewpoints.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Policies EN2, EN7 and EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Development
Framework are the relevant local planning policies to be applied to this application.
From an assessment of the documentation received from the applicants‟ agents and
in particular Chapter 12 (Heritage) and the Design and Access Statements and
Planning Statements as prepared by Airvolution Energy, the impact on the bulk of the
designated heritage assets would appear to be minor.
In assessing the proposal and its impact on built heritage the key designated assets
would appear to be the Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments within the
immediate setting and up to approximately 2 kilometres from the proposed site.
These are:
- All Saints Church, Scottow (Grade I)
- Scottow Hall and Stables (Grade II)
- The Fairstead (Grade II)
- Three Horse Shoes PH (Grade II)
- St Michael‟s Church, Sco Ruston (Grade II)
- Colk‟s Farmhouse (Grade II)
- Cold War Blast Walls (SM)
- World War II Fighter Pens (SM)
The impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings identified above would seem to be
minor or negligible. None of the churches or other buildings appears to be
compromised in terms of their immediate or wider settings.
However, probably the most affected designated heritage asset is the Former RAF
Coltishall Conservation Area. This of course encompasses the above Scheduled
Monuments. Furthermore not mentioned in the applicants‟ documentation are the
undesignated heritage assets within the site of the former air-base. These are the
control tower, several aircraft hangers, sergeants and officer‟s mess and the base
water tower. The latter along with the hangers are especially significant in respect of
Development Committee
55
11 April 2013
the skyline and roof scape of the base. The consultants consider the impact on the
character and presumably the setting of the Conservation Area and its structures to
be „moderate‟. This is debateable. „Significant‟ or „substantial‟ impact may be closer
to the mark.
Whilst the photomontages and other documentation are extensive in their coverage
of the Listed Buildings and to a lesser degree the Scheduled Monuments the impact
of the turbines on the setting of the Conservation Area and its complex of buildings
would seem to be less well analysed. The Council adopted a Conservation Area
Appraisal for the Former RAF Coltishall in September 2010. Views out of the airbase
and across the runways were seen as important. Views into the Conservation Area
from across the runway and for instance in front of Scottow Hall and along the
perimeter fence in the area of Durrant‟s Grove are of specific interest. This may be
one of many vistas of the airbase and its buildings and structures that could be very
much affected and changed. At present it is the hangers and water tower and control
tower which are the prominent features. The two wind turbines proposed would
dominate the skyline in future.
As the application currently stands it is difficult to come to a conclusion on the merits
of it without some further information. To this end it is recommended that the
applicants be requested to submit further photomontages, consistent with the key
views within the Conservation Area and out of the Conservation Area and as
identified in the District Council‟s adopted Conservation Area Appraisal(a plan
showing these views can be made available to the applicants by the CD&L Service).
The final assessment of the application will be based on the adopted policies in the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework and the guidance contained in the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Given that the proposed wind turbines
are unlikely to result in „substantial harm‟(Paragraph 133 of the NPPF) this
application will need to be measured against Paragraph 134, where a development
proposal which „leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset, needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal, including its optimum viable use‟; and Paragraph 135, wherein „a balanced
judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the
significance of the heritage asset‟.
The additional information required is needed before a formal opinion can be made
from a conservation and design perspective. This information will be needed before a
recommendation can be made. At this stage it can be said that the turbines would
dominate the former RAF Coltishall site and its structures. Against this it can be
argued that the „technological nature‟ of the turbines is consistent with that of the
base. It can also be argued that in the longer-term the turbines could be accepted as
such and just as another contribution to the landscape and as landmarks. Given that
the historic landscape beyond the twentieth century in the form of churches and other
buildings is hardly affected the turbines may well therefore be acceptable.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection - The
Landscape Section have sought to critically appraise the documents contained in the
Environmental Statement in relation to the landscape and visual impact and the
ecological impact within North Norfolk District Council‟s administrative area, and offer
opinion on the perceived impacts of the development in relation to Council policy,
national guidelines and relevant legislation.
The Landscape Section considers that the significant issue of the proposed
development is the impact on visual amenity. The impact of the wind turbines is far
greater for visual receptors within the immediate vicinity of the development than for
Development Committee
56
11 April 2013
the wider landscape character. This is important in the context of Policy EN2 which
aims to preserve, and where possible enhance, the landscape character of North
Norfolk in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (NNLCA) Supplementary Planning Document.
The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) concludes that
although there would be localised significant impacts, the overall effect on the
landscape resource of the study area is not considered to be significant. Although
the Landscape Section considers that some aspects of the LVIA could be analysed
or interpreted differently, the overall conclusions are generally agreed with. The
Landscape Section concurs with the assessment and suggests that the proposals
are compliant with Policy EN2. However, in the determination of the application the
impact on residential receptors should not be underestimated and the benefits of the
development in terms of renewable energy must be balanced with the significance of
the impact to residents.
In respect of ecological impact, including impact on birds, the turbines have not been
assessed as having a significant impact under the EIA Regulations, and the
Landscape Section considers that the application is compliant with Policy EN9 of the
Core Strategy.
The Landscape Section does not therefore object to the application with respect to
the impact on Landscape Character (policy EN2) and biodiversity (policy EN9). See
Appendix 6 for complete response.
County Council (Highways) – Objection - There are a number of technical and
environmental constraints that need to be considered as guided by national policy
statement for renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (DECC, 2011b) and also best
practice. Several factors are identified including land availability and also road
access. It is the County Councils contention that neither of these two prime
considerations has been adequately demonstrated.
In order to show project viability there must be adequate access for the large delivery
vehicles used during the construction, particularly the blades as the longest turbine
element and the ring generator as the widest element.
The delivery route is defined in detail within Chapter eleven “Transport and Access”.
The intention is to leave the A47(T) at Postwick interchange and travel west along
Yarmouth Road. Within 600m of the Postwick interchange, Yarmouth Road passes
under bridge number TG 20201, Yarmouth Hospital Bridge. The applicants record
this as a vertical constraint with a...
"4.8m height restriction on arch bridge at Francis Stone Court Road/A1042. 4.1metre
at edges, load must straddle the centre line…”
The applicants conclude at paragraph 11.22 of chapter eleven that:“it is anticipated that the vertical loads should pass under the height restricted bridges
with care but checks should be made prior to movement to ensure that the load does
not exceed the restrictions.”
No detail is provided to demonstrate the loads can actually pass under Yarmouth
Hospital Bridge even if the loads do straddle the centreline. A caveat that checks
should be made prior to movement is not sufficient. Without detailed analysis, the
route is currently judged by the Highway Authority as being of insufficient width and
height to allow the loads to pass.
Development Committee
57
11 April 2013
I recognise details of each transport vehicle will depend on the technical
specifications of the turbine manufacturer and also the vehicle types used by the
logistics company that manages the transporters. However, even accepting this
point, the applicant must surely be able to provide worst case scenarios and provide
minimum width requirements, including unhindered horizontal space and also vertical
clearance for the anticipated Vestas V90.
Additional problems are encountered within Coltishall Village. Drawing CWF-SP-03
Revision00 very clearly shows that neither the anticipated V90 blade nor the Vestas
V90 Base tower can negotiate the 90 degree bend outside the petrol filling station
without over-sailing and overrunning third party land. This point is not mentioned
within the text to the application and it is not clear if the third party concerned has
been approached and given consent to their land being used in this manner.
Taking the above points collectively, I have no hesitation recommending refusal for
the following reasons: It has not been demonstrated that the proposed construction traffic by reason
of its width and height can negotiate the local highway network even allowing
for works that may be able to take place within the highway boundaries.
Accordingly the applicants have not assessed the full effects that the project
could have (as required by EN-1 paragraph 4.2.8) to ensure that the project
as it may be constructed has been properly assessed.
The application is not supported by sufficient information to demonstrate that
the development will not be detrimental to highway safety or the satisfactory
functioning of the local highway network.
Defence Estates Organisation (MOD) – Objection - I am writing to inform you that
the MOD objects to the proposal. Our assessment has been carried out on the basis
that there will be 2 turbines, 126.5 metres in height from ground level to blade tip and
located at the grid references below as stated in the planning application or provided
by the developer:
1 TG 27537 22353
2 TG 27674 22119
Air Defence (AD) radar
The turbines will be 16 km from, detectable by, and will cause unacceptable
interference to the AD radar at Trimingham. Trials carried out in 2005 concluded that
wind turbines can have detrimental effects on the operation of radar which include
the desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines, and the creation of "false"
aircraft returns. The probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying over or in the
vicinity of the turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be unable to provide a
full air surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm.
English Heritage – Objection - This application proposes the erection of two wind
turbines which have the potential to impact on the setting of a number of designated
heritage assets. Further information is required to allow full assessment of this
impact.
This application proposes the erection of two wind turbines, with a maximum height
of 126.5 metres. These visually prominent structures will bring a significant change to
the landscape and be seen from some considerable distance around. This has the
potential to impact on the setting of a number of designated heritage assets. It is the
remit of English Heritage to comment on the settings of Scheduled Ancient
Development Committee
58
11 April 2013
Monuments (SAMs), grade 1 and 2* listed buildings and conservation areas and that
will form the focus of our advice. However, grade 2 listed buildings and undesignated
heritage assets may also be affected. The Council should require appropriate
assessment of the significance of all types of heritage asset and consider the impact
of the proposed development on their significance.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies protection and
enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of sustainable
development and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development in
the planning system (paragraphs 6,7 and 14). The NPPF also states that the
significance of heritage assets can be harmed or lost by development in their setting
(paragraph 132) and that the conservation of heritage assets is a core principle of the
planning system (paragraph 17). Furthermore, paragraph 137 states that proposals
that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or
better reveal the significance of the heritage assets should be treated favourably. We
have considered the current proposals in light of this government policy and relevant
English Heritage guidance on the setting of heritage assets.
The heritage assessment submitted with the application has identified designated
heritage assets in the vicinity of the application site. Closest to the site are the SAMs
(fighter pen and blast walls) at the former Coltishall Airfield and the conservation area
that includes the airfield itself. The north eastern edge of Coltishall village
conservation area is also relatively close to the site, including the part that contains a
group of listed buildings at Ling Common. However, it is not just close proximity that
could result in harmful visual impact. Due to the height of the turbines they would be
visible from some distance. Heritage assets where long-distance views form part of
their setting (such as churches) could also be affected, even though at greater
distance from the application site.
The viewpoint graphics submitted with the application give a helpful indication of the
possible visual impact when viewing the turbines from a number of directions, but do
not allow a full assessment. In terms of general views, there is a lack of viewpoints
from the south west of the application site (between Coltishall and Aylsham). Views
from this area would be particularly helpful in determining the visibility of the turbines
from the southern side of the Bure valley and the vicinity of the historic sites at
Horstead, Great Hautbois/Largate, Little Hautbois, Buxton and Lamas.
The viewpoint images that have been submitted indicate the level of impact that is
likely on the airfield itself, on All Saints' parish church, Scottow and the countryside
north of Coltishall. It appears that there will be an impact of some considerable
concern in these locations, but the images do not allow full assessment. In addition to
general images from the south west, as mentioned above, we would wish to see
images from inside and close to the airfield and the SAMs, from All Saints' church
and close to the Ling Common part of the conservation area. The objective in
generating all these images should be to show the turbines at their most prominent.
The assessment of the historic environment that accompanies the application does
not seem to be comprehensive or in some places wholly accurate. The full extent and
complexity of the military heritage found near the application site has not been
assessed (for example the presence of Second World War runways and the
explosive storage area, which is the closest heritage asset to the development site).
The identification, assessment of significance and of impact needs to be substantially
reviewed and strengthened if it is to accord with paragraph 128 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
59
11 April 2013
Recommendation
The scale and nature of the proposed wind turbines will have a significant visual
impact for some distance around the application site, including the setting of several
designated heritage assets. Based on some of the information supplied with the
application we are concerned that this could result in considerable harm to the
significance of some assets (as identified in paragraph 132 of the NPPF) and which
could be objectionable. However, the information submitted so far does not allow a
full assessment of significance of setting (as required in paragraph 128 of the NPPF).
Improvement of the written assessment and further viewpoint images (as described
above) are needed to allow a full assessment of the application. We would therefore
recommend the application is withdrawn, or at least not determined until this
information has been secured. We would like to be consulted further on the
application when new information is received. If the Council is minded to determine
the application despite the lack of information, we would also wish to issue further
formal advice before determination.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions - We have no objection to
the proposal subject to the inclusion of a condition to protect Controlled Waters.
The site is underlain by superficial Brickearth deposits of designated as a Secondary
B Aquifer, which in turn overlie the solid geology of the Wroxham Crag Formation
designated as a Principal Aquifer, which forms a part of the Broadlands Rivers Chalk
and Crag Drinking Water Protected Area (DrWPA). The nearest surface water
features are: an unnamed drain located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the
application site, and an unnamed pond located 10m to the northeast. The site is also
located within the River Bure drinking water protected area (DrWPA).
Protection of Groundwater Quality
The development proposal is to include a substation, which may involve the storage
of pollutants on site (such as transformer oil). As such, appropriate pollution
prevention measures should be included in the design and construction of the on-site
facilities to avoid the release of pollutants into the environment under normal
operation conditions as well as in case of a leak incident. The measures should
include impermeable hard-standing and a bund of sufficient volume to contain any
potential leaks or spills.
Contaminated Land
The application site currently comprises an agricultural field. It is understood that the
site is located outside the former RAF Coltishall boundary, and therefore the
presence of historical contamination is not considered very likely.
However, due to the vicinity of the airfield, it is possible that historical operations
associated with the airfield such as fuel delivery, or even burial of waste could have
affected the soil and groundwater quality beneath the site.
As such, due to the sensitivity of the Controlled Waters beneath the site, we consider
that planning permission could be granted for the proposed development subject to a
specific condition Without this condition, the proposed development on this site
poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the
application.
Surface water drainage
Soakaways or other infiltration systems shall only be used in areas on site where
they will not present a risk to groundwater, with the depth of soakaway kept to a
minimum to ensure that the maximum possible depth of unsaturated material
remains between the base of the soakaway and the top of the water table, ensuring
that a direct discharge of surface water into groundwater is prevented.
Development Committee
60
11 April 2013
Infiltration systems shall not be constructed in land affected by contamination, where
they may promote the mobilisation of contaminants and give rise to contamination of
groundwater. The use of infiltration drainage would only be acceptable if a phased
site investigation showed the presence of no significant contamination.
Only clean water from roofs shall be directly discharged to soakaway.
Systems for the discharge of surface water from associated hard-standing, roads and
impermeable vehicle parking areas shall incorporate appropriate pollution prevention
measures.
Environmental Health - I have noted the information submitted by the applicant, and
I have the following comments:
Contaminated Land
Please add the following note for unexploded ordinance “On the basis that the site was previously associated with a Military Airfield, there is a
possibly of unexploded ordinance (UXO) existing on site. Applicants have a legal
duty under Construction Design and Management Regulations (2007) to provide
contractors with health and safety information need to identify hazards and risks
associated with construction work. In view of this it is advised that prior to the
commencement of development, an investigation and assessment into the presence
of possible unexploded ordinance affecting the site should be undertaken.”
Noise
I have read through the noise report which is Chapter 8 of the Airvolution Energy
application.
I accompanied the noise consultant from Ion Acoustics Ltd when he set up the noise
meters, and I agreed the monitoring locations with him. I also asked that the noise
consultant consider a number of things in his report, and he covered all points.
I am satisfied that the noise investigation and report was carried out following the
ETSU-97 assessment and taking into consideration the WHO sleep disturbance
guidance.
It is more than likely that the nearest residential properties to the proposed turbines in
Scottow are likely to be able to hear the wind turbines from time to time, dependant
on wind direction and wind speed there may be some noise from blade swish and
gearbox noise. The turbines shall create some noise. However, the aim of using
ETSU-97 and the WHO guidelines is to ensure that the noise from the turbines does
not intrude on residential amenity and sleep disturbance of the area and the nearest
residents. This does not mean that the turbines will not create noise.
If the turbines were to be approved and in the event of the Environmental Protection
Team receiving complaints we still have powers to investigate the turbines under our
nuisance powers under section 79 (g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
If the wind turbines are installed and maintained in accordance with the findings of
the noise report (Chapter Eight) I do not wish to object, as our noise concerns can be
satisfactorily addressed by the application of planning conditions.
Development Committee
61
11 April 2013
National Air Traffic Services - No objection - The proposed development has been
examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our
safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company
("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Natural England - No objection - Natural England is a non-departmental public body.
Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved,
enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby
contributing to sustainable development.
Natura 2000 site – No objection
The applications site is also approximately 5km from Broadland SPA (Natura 2000
site), which is designated for overwintering migratory birds and breeding birds.
Natural England advises your authority that the proposal, if undertaken in strict
accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the
interest features for which Broadland SPA has been classified. It is noted that an
ornithological assessment has been completed, including vantage point surveys and
collision risk modelling. No significant numbers of birds were recorded that would be
associated with the SPA. Natural England therefore advises that your Authority is not
required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this
proposal on the site‟s conservation objectives.1
SSSI – No objection
The application site is in located approximately 5km from Westwick lake Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is inter alia designated for overwintering
wildfowl. However, based on the results of the ornithological assessment, Natural
England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a
result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the
application as submitted. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not
represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this
application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to reconsult Natural England.
Protected species
It is noted that a bat survey has been undertaken in support of this proposal and that
a 50m standoff has been adopted in relation to potential bat features. Natural
England does not object to the proposed development. On the basis of the
information available to us, our advice is that the proposed development would be
unlikely to affect a European Protected Species.
The measures proposed to further mitigate and prevent adverse impacts on
protected species, including hedgerow management, should be secured through
appropriate planning conditions.
Designated Landscapes
The proposal is located at approximately 2.3km from the Broads National Park, at its
closest point. It is noted that a landscape and visual impact assessment has been
completed which included viewpoints within and close to the Norfolk Broads. Natural
England is satisfied that there are no significant impacts on this designated
landscape. Natural England further advises that The Broads Authority is consulted to
ensure that the development is in accordance with the purpose of the designation
and the aims of the National Park.
Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters - No response
Development Committee
62
11 April 2013
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service – Objection - The
application contains an Environmental Statement, Chapter 12 of which discusses the
impact of this development on the historic environment, including the impact on
designated heritage assets. It also contains a number of photomontages illustrating
the proposal site from a number of viewpoints.
Chapter 12 discusses the direct impacts of the wind farm on undesignated heritage
assets, noting moderate potential for Bronze Age activity, and low to moderate
activity for later activity. A recent assessment of the area by the National Mapping
Programme (Horlock, S. (August 2012, revised January 2013) Former RAF Coltishall
and its Environs. Results of an aerial photographic assessment and mapping project.
Unpublished Norfolk Air Photo Interpretation Team report, held in the Norfolk Historic
Environment Record) indicates extensive later prehistoric and/or Roman co-axial field
systems, enclosures and major boundary systems surrounding the airbase, with the
implication that they continue into the airbase itself. For the avoidance of doubt, the
January 2013 revision regarded the interpretation of a feature within the airbase and
is not material to this application. I appreciate that this is very fresh evidence, dating
to August 2012. However, in our response to the screening opinion in December
2010, we recommended that the applicant approach us for a brief detailing the
requirements of a desk based assessment. Such a brief generally includes a
requirement to assess aerial photographic evidence. We have not been asked to
provide a brief for this site.
Section 12.45 states that the Second World War runway and associated airfield
structures will have disturbed or truncated earlier deposits. Cropmarks (including
those visible on Google Earth) elsewhere on the site suggest that this may, in fact not
be the case as heritage assets with archaeological interest clearly survive elsewhere
within the flying field. The grass runway at Coltishall was reinforced with Sommerfield
tracking - a system of iron rods and mesh which was laid over the existing ground
surface, and pegged down, again, suggesting little disturbance due to runway
construction. The 1946 aerial photographs of the site suggest that the only other
ground disturbance in this area was the installation of the perimeter track.
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that archaeological deposits in this area
were particularly disturbed or truncated by military activity. Hence the application
does not contain enough information to assess the impact of this development on
heritage assets with archaeological interest (contra paragraph 128 of the NPPF).
Chapter 12 goes on to discuss the impact of the development on the setting of a
number of designated heritage assets, including the conservation area and the
scheduled fighter pen and blast walls.
Contrary to section 12.49, the closest scheduled monument to the turbines is
the perimeter track and Cold War blast walls, situated c. 250m from the nearest
turbine (not 800m, as stated in the ES).
As stated in the ES, the main impact of this development will be on the significance
of the designated heritage assets through harm to their settings.
Appendix 12.4 states that the two turbines will be most obvious when viewed from
the runway and control tower of the former airfield - three views identified as key
views of the conservation area. It is highly likely that the turbine will be a major focal
point in a fourth of the six key views of the conservation area (immediately outside
the Sergeant's Mess - the topography is such that the development site will be
largely visible over hangars 1 and 4). Appendix 12.4 states that "they will not appear
jarring given that they are also 20th century structures appearing alongside the 20th
century defence structures". The two structure types are so different in purpose,
Development Committee
63
11 April 2013
design and character that the coincidence of them both being designed in the same
century is irrelevant: The airbase predominantly comprises low, visually unobtrusive
structures designed to be difficult to target from the air, whereas the turbines are
large, vertical structures that draw the eye due to their movement. The scale of the
turbines both in terms of mast height and blade sweep would dominate four of the six
key views of the conservation area, which would then become subservient to the
turbine development. Hence it is hard to see how the impact of the proposed
development could be anything other than major.
On that basis, using the matrix provided by the applicant, the harm done to the
significance of the conservation area through damage to its setting is substantial.
The arguments regarding the impact of the development area on the conservation
area also apply to the scheduled blast walls, in that the key views of these assets are
from the control tower and from the runway. However, in addition, the relationship
between the blast walls (and their associated dispersals) and other heritage assets
within the proposed development site must be considered. The relationship between
the dispersals and the Explosives Storage Area (in between the scheduled blast
walls and the proposed development site) is particularly clear. It is notable
that despite blast walls surviving at three other airfields (Waterbeach, Wattisham and
Leuchars), only those at Coltishall have been scheduled, predominantly due to their
condition and setting: Those at Waterbeach have been partially demolished, whilst
the blast walls at Wattisham and Leuchars have been compromised and partially
replaced by the addition of later hardened aircraft shelters.
The Explosive Storage Area itself, although currently undesignated, is a highly
significant heritage asset with historic interest: It comprises a set of Expansion Period
magazines, a set of Ready Use sheds contemporary to the scheduled Blast Walls
and three "igloos" (late 20th century magazines designed for the storage of nuclear
weapons). The Explosives Storage Area at Coltishall is unusual not only for its state
of preservation, but also for the concentration of magazine types in one place. In
particular, the relationship between the Ready Use sheds (constructed to store
Firestreak air to air missiles in 1958) and the scheduled Blast Walls is particularly
clear.
The proximity of the proposed development to the scheduled blast walls will subject
the monuments to disruption from the noise of the turbines, and also from shadow
flicker. The monuments form an arc from due east to almost due north, and so would
be within the shadow of the turbines for half of the day. The effect of this additional
movement on the monuments has not been assessed, nor has the threat of physical
damage from ice shed by turbine blades, or indeed the blades themselves, in the
event of a turbine malfunction.
The applicant may wish to address the issues raised in this response through the
provision of additional photomontages from key viewpoints within the former airbase,
together with an assessment of the effect of noise and shadow on the monuments.
However, it is our view that this development constitutes substantial harm to the
significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance
(scheduled monuments) to a designated conservation area and to highly significant
but currently undesignated heritage assets, and on that basis is unacceptable on the
grounds of its impact on the historic environment.
We therefore recommend this application be refused, in accordance with paragraph
132 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
64
11 April 2013
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
The proposed development has certain elements that continue to cause us some
concern. With this in mind we would require that the following conditions be applied
to the grant of Planning Permission.
1. No development shall commence unless and until an agreement has been
reached between the wind farm operator and Norwich Airport Limited with respect to
a Radar Mitigation Solution and the existence of such an agreement has been
confirmed in writing by both the wind farm operator and Norwich Airport Limited and
has been submitted in writing to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. For the purposes of this condition 'Radar Mitigation Solution' means a
technical solution put in place to fully mitigate the impact of this development upon
the current radar equipment and replacement plot extracted radar equipment at
Norwich International Airport and the air traffic control operations of Norwich
International Airport, that rely on this radar to provide a safe and efficient air traffic
control service. The Radar Mitigation Solution shall take whatever form the wind farm
operator and Norwich Airport Limited agrees and shall include measures for its
retention and maintenance at all times during the lifetime of the development.
2. No turbines shall be erected or operated until the requirements of the Radar
Mitigation Solution have been implemented in full, as confirmed in writing by the wind
farm operator together with written confirmation from Norwich Airport Limited to the
Local Planning Authority.
We confirm that the above condition has been discussed and agreed between
Norwich Airport Limited and the applicant although you may wish to establish this
independently.
3. The wind farm operator shall give in writing 6 months prior notice to Norwich
Airport Limited of the intended construction of the Development.
4. If the construction phases of the Development require the use of mobile or tower
cranes, they should be operated in accordance with British Standard 7121, and the
Airport shall be notified in writing of plans to erect such cranes at least 21 days in
advance. The notification shall include OSGB grid coordinates of the crane‟s
proposed position to 6 figures each of Eastings and Northings, the proposed height
of the crane above ordnance datum, the anticipated duration of the cranes existence,
and contact telephone numbers of the crane operator and the site owner for use in
an emergency.
5. The wind farm operator shall provide a minimum of 21 days prior written notice to
Norwich Airport Limited prior to commencing erection of the development to allow for
adequate notification to airspace users.
Provided the grant of Planning Permission includes the requirement to comply with
the conditions indicated above, Norwich International Airport would offer no
aerodrome safeguarding objection to the Planning Application.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No response
Ofcom - Comments only, setting out details of fixed-link operators likely to be
affected by the proposal.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No response
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - I support the proposal for the wind turbines, which will
deliver a contribution to the generation of renewable energy in the District. I
Development Committee
65
11 April 2013
recommend that the application be approved, subject to Conservation Design and
Landscape and Environmental Health officers confirming no significant adverse
effects as outlined in Policy EN7.
Surrounding Parishes
Brampton & Oxnead Parish Council (Broadland) - Objection
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council (Broadland) - Objection
Coltishall Parish Council (Broadland) - Objection
Skeyton Parish Council - Objection
Sloley Parish Council - Objection
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - Objection
Tunstead Parish Council - No objection
Westwick Parish Council - 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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant and an individual who has objected.
However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public,
refusal of the application for the reasons 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.
Equalities Act 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the
application raises no significant equality 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 SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Development Committee
66
11 April 2013
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 the Development
2. Landscape and Visual Impacts
3. Impact on The Broads
4. Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
5. Impact on Residential Amenity;
6. Impact on Wildlife/Ecology
7. Impact on Aviation;
8. Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
9. Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
10. Impact on the future use of the former RAF Coltishall site
11. Grid Connection;
12. Benefits of the Proposed Development;
13. Overall Summary
APPRAISAL
Members will have visited the site on 4 April 2013 in order to view the proposal from
a number of significant local vantage points.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement prepared,
submitted and advertised in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The standing of the
Environmental Statement and the procedure followed has not been challenged.
Planning Policy Context
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). At regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May
2008) no longer remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke
the EEP which took effect on 3 January 2013.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EN
7 which states:
„Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
Development Committee
67
11 April 2013
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not
be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are
not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area‟.
National Policy
The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding reduction in carbon
emissions of 80% by 2050. Towards that goal, the UK Renewable Energy Strategy
2009 includes a 30% national target for renewable electricity production by 2020.
That would contribute to a 15% target for all energy to come from renewable sources
by that date. These goals were restated in the recent National Policy Statement for
Energy (EN-1)(July 2011). Of that 30% electricity target, the Renewable Energy
Strategy expected 35% to come from offshore wind and 29% from onshore wind, with
the remaining 36% from other sources such as solar power, tidal and wave power,
landfill gas and incineration. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy
Infrastructure EN-3 (EN-3) is directed mainly at larger schemes of over 50MW, but is
also stated at paragraph 1.2.3 to be potentially material to other proposals.
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy,
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of
the previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework,
the wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has
been retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 –
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict
between the Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters
relevant to the determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
„Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development‟.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
„To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
Development Committee
68
11 April 2013
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed
satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers‟.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
„When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for
commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the
proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas‟.
In considering this proposal, the Committee should have in its mind the advice set
out within paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
„At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted‟.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
Development Committee
69
11 April 2013
„Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance.
The continuing production of „greenhouse gases‟, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims
of sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation‟.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
„The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy‟.
Principle of the Development
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there are no significant adverse effects (individually or
cumulatively) on the surrounding landscape and historical features; on residential
amenity or on highway safety and on the basis that there are no other significant
Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other material considerations
that would warrant a departure from Development Plan policies.
Landscape & Visual Impacts
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also
advice within Policy EN 2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and
Settlement Character) which states:
„Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
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)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and
geological features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map‟.
The application site is located on a 13.7ha arable field on land adjacent to the former
RAF Coltishall. The site is bounded by small woodland belts on the north-eastern and
Development Committee
70
11 April 2013
south-western boundaries with a low hedgerow along the south-eastern boundary.
The north-western boundary is open in character adjacent to Potspoon Hole with the
boundary of RAF Coltishall beyond. The site lies at an elevation of approximately
15m AOD.
The site lies within the Low Plains Farmland (LP3) character type as defined in North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (Supplementary Planning
Document) (June 2009). This landscape type extends across a large part of the
surrounding area apart from a section of land to the north characterised as Wooded
with Parkland (WP6) and numerous pockets of surrounding land classified as Small
Valleys (SV 4 and SV 7).
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that one of the
significant issues of the proposed development is the impact on visual amenity. It is
considered that the impact of the wind turbines is far greater for visual receptors
within the immediate vicinity of the development than for the wider landscape
character. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers this
important in the context of Policy EN2 which aims to preserve, and where possible
enhance, the landscape character of North Norfolk in accordance with the
recommendations outlined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
(NNLCA) Supplementary Planning Document.
Comments received from Broadland District Council suggest that the impact of the
proposed turbines will fundamentally and unacceptably undermine the visual integrity
of the landscape by virtue of their scale and moving blades which will be a totally
alien feature within their surroundings.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has commented that the
submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) concludes that although
there would be localised significant impacts, the overall effect on the landscape
resource of the study area is not considered to be significant. Although the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that some aspects of the
LVIA could be analysed or interpreted differently, the overall conclusions of the
applicant are generally agreed with. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager concurs with the assessment produced by the applicant and suggests that
the proposals are compliant with Policy EN2. However, in the determination of the
application the impact on residential receptors should not be underestimated and the
benefits of the development in terms of renewable energy must be balanced with the
significance of the impact to residents.
Notwithstanding the views expressed by Broadland District Council, Officers concur
with the views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager that the
landscape impacts are acceptable and, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan policy.
Other Landscape/Arboricultural Impacts
Other landscape impacts relate to the transportation of turbine components to site
which will, in some instances, necessitate works to existing trees and hedgerow to
enable larger transportation vehicles to reach the site with turbine components onboard. The applicant has set out the proposed route for the turbine components
which would arrive at site from a southerly direction via Norwich on the B1150
passing through Coltishall and up Potspoon Hole to the application site.
The Landscape Officer is of the opinion that any properly pruned vegetation would be
likely to recover relatively quickly and would not have a permanent detrimental visual
impact on the rural lanes and wider landscape along the specified route.
Development Committee
71
11 April 2013
Summary of Landscape & Visual Impacts
It is evident from the number of representations received that the surrounding
landscape is highly valued by local residents as open countryside. It is inevitable
given the scale and location of the turbines that they would be prominent features in
the landscape. The smooth lines of the turbines and their somewhat utilitarian
appearance would create a degree of harm in this essentially rural location.
The key policy test within CS Policy EN 7 is whether the proposal would have
„significant adverse effects‟ whilst CS Policy EN 2 suggests that development
proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will
protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance, amongst other things, the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has not raised objections to the
proposal and therefore subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the
proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan policy.
Impact on the Broads
The Norfolk Broads are approximately 2.3km (1.43 miles) to the south of the site of
the proposed turbines. CS Policy EN 1 (Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty & the Broads) states:
„The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;
is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the
area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted‟.
In respect of national guidance, Paragraph 115 of the Framework states:
„Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of
wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and
should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads‟.
In considering the possible impact of the proposed turbines, the Broads Authority
have been consulted and, having considered the available evidence, the Broads
Authority indicated that the application site lies some 10km from the nearest point of
the Broads Executive Area and it is considered that any views of the turbines from
Development Committee
72
11 April 2013
within this area would be extremely intermittent as a result of intervening buildings,
landform, vegetation. Accordingly, any landscape impacts on the setting and
character of the Broads area are considered to be negligible to slight.
In light of the response from the Broads Authority, Officers consider that the proposal
would not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Broads and the proposal
would be broadly compliant with the requirements of CS Policy EN 1.
Impact on designated Historic Assets
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also Policy
EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment) which states:
„Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development
that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest
will not be permitted‟.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which specifically addresses the need
for conserving and enhancing the historic environment at paragraphs 126 – 141.
Paragraph 132 states:
„When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset‟s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should
require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II
listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade
I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional‟.
Paragraph 133 states:
„Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary
to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership
is demonstrably not possible; and
the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into
use‟.
Development Committee
73
11 April 2013
Paragraph 134 states:
„Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use‟.
Taking account of the above policy advice it is therefore a matter of planning
judgement for the Committee as to whether or not the proposed turbine would result
in harm/adverse impacts to designated heritage assets, either individually or
cumulatively. However, notwithstanding the adverse impact threshold within CS
Policy EN 8, the threshold test in CS Policy EN 7 (which is supported by the
Framework) is whether or not the proposed turbine would have significant adverse
impacts on heritage assets or, using the Framework terminology, whether the
„proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of
a designated heritage asset‟.
The fact that modern high structures such as a turbine might be visible in the same
view as a listed building or scheduled ancient monument or would be seen from,
towards or across a conservation area does not necessarily make them
unacceptable. In considering whether a proposed development would lead to
substantial or less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage
asset, paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework, put simply, require the harm to be
weighed against any public benefits – the greater the negative impact the greater the
benefit required to justify approval.
There are many designated heritage assets within 5 km of the application site
including 8 scheduled ancient monuments, 78 listed buildings, 4 Conservation Areas
and 1 registered park and garden. In particular these include:
- St Michael‟s Church, Sco Ruston (Grade II)
- Colk‟s Farmhouse (Grade II)
- Three Horse Shoes PH (Grade II)
- The Fairstead (Grade II)
- All Saints Church, Scottow (Grade I)
- Scottow Hall and Stables (Grade II)
- Cold War Blast Walls (SM)
- World War II Fighter Pens (SM)
- Former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with English Heritage (EH), Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services (HES) and with the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (CDLM).
Whilst the proposed turbines would be visible from and within the context of a
number of heritage assets in the surrounding area, consultees have not raised
specific objections to the proposal in respect of impact on specific listed buildings but,
in the case of English Heritage, some further clarification has been requested to
ensure the full impacts on listed buildings can be assessed. Concern has also been
expressed by English Heritage and Norfolk Historic Environment Services in relation
to the impact on the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monuments (Cold War Blast Walls
and World War II Fighter Pens). Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the
possible impacts on the setting of the former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, the
impact of which has not been specifically defined by the applicant because they were
unable to gain access to the airbase site.
Development Committee
74
11 April 2013
Whilst further information is awaited from the applicant in respect of assessing the
impact on the Former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, the applicant has
responded to the concerns of English Heritage in respect of impact on listed
buildings.
Having considered the advice from English Heritage, County Council Historic
Environment Services and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager,
Officers consider that the impact of the proposed turbines on listed buildings, whilst
adverse in a small number of cases, could not be considered to amount to
substantial harm.
The key policy tests when considering whether proposed development would lead to
substantial or less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage
asset are set out within paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework which, put simply,
require the harm to be weighed against any public benefits – the greater the negative
impact the greater the benefit required to justify approval.
In respect of impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) the WWII Fighter
Pens are located approximately 1.2km away from the proposed turbines and are less
likely to be affected by the proposed development However it is accepted by Officers
that the proposed turbines could well affect the setting of the Cold War Blast Walls
which are located within 300m of the turbines.
Whilst consultees have indicated that the turbines would have an adverse impact on
the SAMs, it is less than clear that the turbines would result in substantial harm.
Further information is awaited which will need to be referred back to Heritage
Consultees for their further comments. It is a matter of planning judgment for the
Development Committee in weighing the degree of harm to these heritage assets
against the wider benefits of the proposal.
In respect of impact on the Former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, whilst further
information is still awaited from the applicant, Officers consider that the primary
impact relates to the visual impact of two vertical rotating turbines which would
contrast with the general vertical emphasis of the former RAF Coltishall site and this
would be likely to alter the backcloth of the airbase, particularly when viewed from the
north western side of the airfield. Whilst the addition of two turbines onto the skyline
is likely to result in some harm to the RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, Officers
question whether such additions would be likely to amount to substantial harm. It is
therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Development Committee in weighing
the degree of harm to the setting of the Conservation Area against the wider benefits
of the proposal.
On balance, whilst some harm to heritage assets would result from the proposal,
Officers do not consider that substantial harm would arise and the proposal would be
broadly compliant with NPPF and Development Plan policy.
Impact on Residential Amenity
The turbine would be sited in a predominantly rural area. There are no properties
within 500m of the turbine but 15 properties within approximately 1km. The closest
residential properties are located immediately to the north and east of the proposed
turbines T1 and T2 including (as the crow flies):
North of the Turbines
Malthouse Farm at approximately 644m from T1;
Glynville at approximately 720m from T1;
Development Committee
75
11 April 2013
Apple Cottage at approximately 725m from T1;
The Laurels at approximately 1,130m from T1;
Rookery Farm at approximately 1,140m from T1;
Ivy House at approximately 1,112m from T1;
North View at approximately 1,104m from T1;
Brooklands at approximately 1,163m from T1;
The Ponderosa at approximately 1,163m from T1.
East of the Turbines
The Lodge at approximately 600m from T2;
Sco Ruston Hall at approximately 625m from T2;
Cordon Lodge at approximately 650m from T2;
Rose Cottage at approximately 670m from T2;
The Laurels at approximately 680m from T2;
1 Church Cottages at approximately 690m from T2;
2 Church Cottages at approximately 700m from T2;
South Hall Cottage at approximately 800m from T2;
North Hall Cottage at approximately 800m from T2;
Newlands at approximately 845m from T2;
Manor House Farm at approximately 957m from T2;
South of the Turbines
1 to 4 (Ling Common) at approximately 1,402m from T2;
Pausan (Ling Common) at approximately 1,400m from T2;
West of the Turbines
Colk‟s Farm at approximately 960m from T2 (977m from T1);
Herne‟s Farm at approximately 1,136m from T2 (1,100m from T1);
Impact on Residential Amenity – visual intrusion
It is obvious that the addition of two wind turbines with anticipated hub heights of 80m
and heights to blade tip of up to 126.5m would be clearly visible to a number of
surrounding residents. There are no other existing features of comparable height
within the immediate area, although some small radio masts are present on a
number of surrounding farms.
However consideration needs to be given as to whether the turbines would give rise
to significant adverse or overbearing impacts for existing residents. In the case of
Sco Ruston Hall and The Lodge (located approximately 600m to the east of the
proposed turbines), the buildings are already surrounded by substantial farm
buildings. Whilst the proposed turbines would likely be visible above the adjacent
farm buildings from areas within the garden and also from some first floor windows of
the properties, Officers are of the opinion that the impacts on occupiers of these
properties could not be considered to be significantly adverse nor would it result in
overbearing impacts. In the case of Malthouse Farm (located approximately 640m to
the north of the proposed turbines) the rear garden of this property contains a large
evergreen tree and there are also a number of other trees on adjacent land which
screen direct views of the application site. Nonetheless it still may be possible to view
the turbines from the rear garden and upper floor windows of the property but again
Officers are of the opinion that the impacts on occupiers of this property could not be
considered to be significantly adverse nor would it result in overbearing impacts. This
assessment would also apply to Glynville and Apple Cottage which are located in
excess of 700m from the proposed turbines.
In respect of other properties within the immediate area, whilst the turbines would be
clearly visible to many local residents as tall structures in the landscape and could
Development Committee
76
11 April 2013
interrupt existing views, it is considered that the proposal would not result in
significant overbearing impacts, particularly given the general distances from the
turbine base to residential properties.
Impact on Residential Amenity - Noise and general disturbance
When considering issues relating to noise and general disturbance, the Committee is
advised to take account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable
Energy) but also advice within Policy EN 13 (Pollution and Hazard Prevention and
Minimisation) which states:
„All development proposals should minimise, and where possible reduce, all
emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution…Proposals
will only be permitted where, individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable
impacts on [amongst other things] the natural environment and general amenity;
health and safety of the public; and the need for compliance with statutory
environmental quality standards.
Exceptions will only be made where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
environmental benefits of the development and the wider social and economic need
for the development outweigh the adverse impact‟.
In respect of noise, paragraph 123 of the Framework includes the general aim that
planning policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant
adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
Paragraph 124 goes on to seek that planning policies sustain compliance with and
contribute towards EU limit values and national objectives for pollutants (which may
include noise). A footnote refers to the national Noise Policy Statement for England
(2010) (NPSE) which seeks to promote good health and a good quality of life through
the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on
sustainable development. Its aims seek to both avoid significant adverse impacts and
to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts. Its Explanatory Note refers to how
significant adverse effects might be defined but acknowledges that it is not possible
to have a single objective noise-based measure that is applicable to all sources of
noise in all situations. No such measure is offered and further research is advised. In
that context the main national policy on control of noise from wind farms was
previously set out in the former PPS22 and its Companion Guide continues to
provide guidance.
PPS22 confirmed at paragraph 22 that the ETSU-R-97 report – „The assessment and
rating of noise from windfarms‟ ETSU for the DTI (1996) (ETSU) should be used to
assess and rate noise from wind energy development and this is repeated both at
paragraph 39 of the Technical Annex to the extant PPS22 Companion Guide and at
Paragraph 2.7.56 of the current National Policy Statement EN-3. Whilst 15 years old,
ETSU-R-97 nonetheless gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable
degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable
restrictions on wind farm development. The ETSU report recommended limits to
turbine noise as summarised below:
Normally, 5 dB above background subject to lower limiting values of:
Daytime: 35 to 40 dBA in low noise environments (e.g. rural areas)
Night time: 43 dBA, assuming bedroom window(s) open
(Limiting values defined as LA90,10mins,free-field)
It follows that compliance with ETSU recommended noise limits should avoid noise
from giving rise to significant adverse impacts.
Development Committee
77
11 April 2013
The applicant has submitted various reports in relation to noise which have been
considered by the Environmental Protection Officer.
Whilst a number of residents have raised concerns about noise impacts and the
validity of using ETSU, together with concerns about its effectiveness as way of
minimising noise impacts in relation to larger wind turbines, until such time as
government guidance indicates otherwise, the ETSU guidance remains valid and is
used by the Planning Inspectorate when determining wind turbine appeals. As such,
given that the Environmental Protection Officer has now confirmed, subject to the
imposition of conditions, that the proposal complies with the requirements of ETSU,
refusal on noise grounds would be very difficult to substantiate. Officers therefore
consider that, in light of compliance with ETSU and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with CS Policies EN 13
and the relevant section within CS Policy EN 7 in relation to noise impacts.
Impact on Residential Amenity - Shadow Flicker
Guidance with the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for Renewable Energy
A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
„Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known
as „shadow flicker‟. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a
narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from
the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site….Only properties within 130
degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes
in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side…. Shadow
flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distance from residences
likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor
diameters of a turbine‟.
The proposed turbines would have a maximum rotor diameter of 92.5m (based on
the use of Repower MM92 turbines) and therefore, using the guidance within the
PPS22 Companion Guide, only properties within 925m (10 x 92.5m) of the turbines
and within 130 degrees either side of north would be likely to be affected.
The applicant has modelled the likely effects of shadow flicker and has produced a
plan and table of results which suggest that seven properties could theoretically be
affected by shadow flicker and these are to the east of the turbines (Officers are of
the view that the number of theoretically affected properties could actually be ten as
some properties have been omitted which fall within the modelled area). The
properties indicated by the applicant could be affected by the shadows caused by
late afternoon/evening sun. However, as the applicant has pointed out in their
submissions, the properties indicated to be most affected are screened from the
turbines to an extent by existing farm buildings and, in reality the effects of shadow
flicker would be much less than the model (which does not take account of existing
vegetation or other buildings).
There are no known public rights of way affected by the proposal.
Having considered the available evidence, Officers consider that the likelihood that
the proposal would give rise to instances of shadow flicker affecting neighbouring
residential properties would be extremely low and would be of relatively short
duration. Nonetheless, if the Committee are minded to approve the application, a
Development Committee
78
11 April 2013
condition would be recommended to ensure that, if shadow-flicker were to occur, the
applicant would be required to address such impacts.
Impact on Television and Telecommunications Systems
Guidance with the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for Renewable Energy
A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
„Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions in two ways: by
blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or microwave links, or by the „scattering‟ of
transmission signals.
There are a plethora of line of sight radio and microwave signals throughout England,
including radio and TV links to local transmitters (Rebroadcast Links or RBLs),
telecommunication links and police and emergency service links. Generally, turbine
siting can mitigate any potential impacts, as the separation distance required to avoid
problems is generally a matter of a few hundred metres. In some cases, it may be
possible to effectively re-route the signal around the development, at the developer‟s
expense, to overcome the problem.
Scattering of signal mainly affects domestic TV and radio reception, and the general
public may be concerned that a wind farm will interfere with these services.
Experience has shown that when this occurs it is of a predictable nature and can
generally be alleviated by the installation or modification of a local repeater station or
cable connection‟.
In considering the impact of the turbine of television reception, since the Tacolneston
transmitter and its relays completed digital switchover in November 2012, the BBC
„Windfarm Tool‟ is no longer considered to be a reliable tool in assessing potential
impacts.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the impact on television reception, if the
Committee were minded to approve the application, Officers suggest that a suitably
worded condition should be imposed requiring the applicant to submit a scheme to
secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV
and radio reception caused by the operation of the turbines. This is common practice
in wind turbine decisions allowed at appeal.
Residential Amenity – overall conclusions
Whilst the proposed turbines would be a significant addition to the skyline and would
be visible to a significant number of residents at a variety of distances from the
turbines bases, given the distance from the closest residential properties it is not
considered that the turbines could be said to result in significant adverse overbearing
impacts, they are not likely to result in significant adverse noise impacts, nor are they
likely to result in significant instances of shadow flicker at the closest residential
properties. In addition, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the
proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on television or radio
reception. Therefore, in respect of impact on residential amenity, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
relevant Development Plan policies.
Impact on Wildlife/Ecology
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, Committee are advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also Policy
EN 9 (Biodiversity and Geology) which states:
Development Committee
79
11 April 2013
„All development proposals should:
protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise
fragmentation of habitats;
maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of
natural habitats; and
incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to
nationally designated sites [including AONB] or other designated areas, or protected
species, will not be permitted unless;
they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm;
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features
of the site and the wider network of natural habitats; and
prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the nature
conservation interests of nationally designated sites will not be permitted.
Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle.
Where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications
should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the
proposal must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs‟.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which specifically addresses the need
for conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the Framework states:
„The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation
interests and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity
where possible, contributing to the Government‟s commitment to halt the
overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological
networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.‟
In considering the application, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the likely
impacts of two large scale wind turbines on wildlife and ecology are known and
understood to ensure that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on protected
species or other important flora and fauna either on the site or passing over the site.
In support of their proposal the applicants have submitted a number of ecology
reports and survey results which have been assessed by consultees. Consultees
have raised no objections subject to conditions, the proposal would comply with
Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
80
11 April 2013
Impact on aviation
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National
Air Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. Whilst NATS and Norwich
Airport have raised no objection to the proposed turbines subject to the imposition of
conditions, the MOD have objected. The MOD have indicated that the turbines would
be 16 km from, detectable by, and will cause unacceptable interference to the Air
Defence radar at Trimingham. The MOD have indicated that trials carried out in 2005
concluded that wind turbines can have detrimental effects on the operation of radar
which include the desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines, and the
creation of "false" aircraft returns. The probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying
over or in the vicinity of the turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be unable
to provide a full air surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm.
Whilst the applicant has indicated that the issues raised by the MOD could be
resolved through the imposition of planning conditions, the MOD do not agree with
this approach and have indicated that the only likely way to address their concerns of
adverse impact on the Air Defence radar at Trimingham would be through a
reduction in the height of the turbines. Whilst no specific height reduction has been
suggested by the MOD, Officers understand from the applicant that the wind turbines
would be likely to be rendered unviable if a significant reduction in turbine hub height
is required.
Whilst ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement for the Committee in weighing
the benefits of the proposal against any adverse impacts, in this instance and in view
of the fact that the proposed turbines could pose a risk to national security through
desensitisation of the air defence radar system at Trimingham, the Officer advice to
Committee would be to take a precautionary approach. The available evidence
suggests that the benefits of the turbines would not outweigh the risks to national
security and this would mean that the turbines would have to be recommended for
refusal.
Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way
The applicant has submitted details setting out how the turbines, associated
components and other materials would be transported to site. The largest
components would be the turbine blades which, at 45.2m long, would require special
transportation and would be classed as abnormal loads.
Having considered the proposed information submitted by the applicant the Highway
Authority have raised objections primarily on the grounds that there is uncertainty
that the applicant can transport the required components to site without causing
detriment to highway safety or the satisfactory functioning of the local highway
network.
Ultimately if the turbine cannot be safely transported to the site then the project would
not be able to proceed
In seeking to address the issues raised by the Highway Authority, Officers consider
that it may be possible to resolve the concerns through the imposition of a suitable
planning condition which requires details of the proposed method of transportation to
be agreed in advance with the Highway Authority. This position is currently being
discussed with the Highway Authority.
The applicant has been made aware of these concerns and Committee will be
updated further as appropriate.
Development Committee
81
11 April 2013
In respect of matters relating to highway safety, subject to the imposition of
conditions the proposal is considered to accord with Development Plan policies.
Impact on Tourism & Other sectors
A number of representations have suggested that the proposed turbine would have
an adverse impact on tourism and this in turn would have an adverse economic
impact on the area.
Whilst there is no doubt that the addition of a turbine would have some adverse
impacts, a decision to refuse the turbines based on the potential to reduce tourism in
the area would be very difficult to substantiate without hard evidence. Officers have
not been made aware of any evidence to support a link between the introduction of
turbines and a reduction in tourism numbers and, in any event, there are many
factors outside the control of the Local Planning Authority which would influence
tourism in the North Norfolk Area. In respect of the impact on the wider tourism offer
and the image of North Norfolk as an unspoilt area are difficult to gauge. In
considering the impact on tourism, without firm evidence to substantiate a significant
adverse impact, officers would advise against refusal on those grounds.
Impact on the future use of the former RAF Coltishall site
The former RAF Coltishall site is located immediately west of the application site and
the proposed turbines would be located approximately at the mid-point of the runway
(approximately 900m away). A number of representations have been received which
question whether the erection of two turbines would affect the future use of the
airfield.
The airfield was purchased in 2013 by Norfolk County Council and, whilst a number
of options are being considered for its future use, at the time of writing this report no
specific master plan has been prepared and Officers understand that it is unlikely that
the future use of the site will be decided until after the County Council elections on 02
May 2013.
Nonetheless the Ministry of Defence have informally indicated that the presence of
two large turbines could compromise the future use of the Coltishall runway.
No representations have been received on behalf of Norfolk County Council and
Officers therefore consider that the Development Committee would be entitled to
reach a decision based on current Core Strategy policies and the advice within the
National Planning Policy Framework, particularly as the former RAF Coltishall site is
not safeguarded in planning terms for any specific use.
Grid Connection
The applicants have indicated that the proposed turbine would be connected to the
electricity grid either via an existing 33KV overhead power line some 1.3km to the
east of the site or via an 11KV network 0.7km to the west. The applicant has
indicated that it would be feasible to connect to the 33KV network via underground
trenches but such connections would be subject of a separate planning application.
Benefits of the Proposed development
Taking account of the requirement under CS Policy EN 7 that turbines above 15m
should „deliver economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are
directly related to the proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to
the local area‟ and taking account of the advice within the Framework that, when
considering renewable energy proposals, any identified harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, the applicant has set out the following
benefits attributable to the proposed development.
Development Committee
82
11 April 2013
Renewable Energy Benefits
In considering the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, the applicant has
indicated that meteorological data from the met mast on site has not yet been
analysed at this stage of the project. The applicant has therefore relied upon wind
speed data sourced from GL Garrad Hassan to predict the likely energy generation
for the application site. This indicates that two wind turbines, each with a generation
capacity of 2.0MW would generate approximately 10,917,000kWh of electricity per
year (this is based on an average wind speed of approximately 6.5m/s (14.5mph)).
Officers estimate that the predicted output of the turbines would equate to an
efficiency factor of about 31% and this would seem broadly in line with the expected
efficiency of wind turbines in the UK. However, account has to be taken for times
when the turbines are shut-down for maintenance and repair and this could typically
be in the region of 1 day per month per turbine and this could reduce the output by a
further 3%.
Putting the electricity generation into context and using the latest Department for
Environment and Climate Change (DECC) figures, approximately 4715.5 kWh of
electricity were used per consumer (household) annually in North Norfolk. Using this
figure the proposed wind turbines would generate enough electricity to power
approximately 2,315 homes annually. This would make it the second largest onshore renewable energy project in the District and would make a significant
contribution towards meeting national renewable energy targets, to which significant
weight can be attached.
The applicant has indicated that the generation of 10,917,000kWh of electricity could
displace the equivalent of approximately 4,694 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year
when compared with conventional forms of energy generation (derived using a CO2
offset ratio of 430g CO2 per kWh of wind generation). Whilst officers consider some
weight can be given to CO2 savings, the savings would only be realised if other
conventional powers stations were to be close.
The Sustainability Team have considered the application in relation to CS Policy EN
7 and support the proposal, which will deliver a significant contribution to the supply
of renewable energy in the District.
Subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal would
broadly comply with these further requirements of Policy EN 7.
Other Community Benefits
The applicant has indicated that, if planning permission is granted, financial
contributions would be made to local community groups throughout the 25 year
lifetime of the development.
In February 2011, the trade body for renewable energy (RenewableUK) issued a
press release which set out details of the industry's Protocol on payments from wind
farms to community benefit funds. The Protocol specifies a £1,000 minimum payment
per year per megawatt of installed wind power during the lifetime of the wind farm.
In this case the applicant proposes to provide an annual payment of £3,000 per MW
of installed capacity, index linked to inflation. This would equate to £12,000 per year,
totalling £300,000 over the projects 25 year operating period. The applicant has
indicated that this could be secured by way of S106 agreement, but regardless of
whether this is in place, the applicant has indicated they are committed to delivering
this fund for operating projects.
Development Committee
83
11 April 2013
The applicant has indicated that the fund would be administered by a separate
independent charity who work with the local community to set up a panel of local
representatives to manage the fund. The applicant has indicated that how the fund is
spent is up to the local community, within some basic overall conditions set out (e.g
the fund is not to benefit one individual or commercial organisations, cannot support
party political campaigns or causes, or fund works considered a statutory
responsibility). Generally the fund allocations would be made once a year and all
funding recipients are published for transparency.
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements with applicants, often referred to as planning obligations,
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
financial contribution, is set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy
Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
In considering the proposed community benefits, whilst additional funding may well
be appreciated by local community groups, Officers consider that offer of such
payments would not be required to make the development acceptable in planning
terms. Therefore, whilst some weight can be given to the community benefits offered,
Officers consider that these benefits should attract limited weight when balancing the
benefits of the proposal against any adverse impacts.
Summary of Benefits
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify
approval or refusal or a departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
The proposed turbines would deliver renewable energy benefits through the
generation of renewable electricity, enough to provide the equivalent electricity for
2,315 houses and which would make a valuable contribution towards meeting the
national legally binding reduction in carbon emissions of 80% by 2050 and the 30%
national target for renewable electricity production by 2020. Officers considers this
benefit attracts significant weight in favour of the application.
In addition the proposal would also provide financial benefits for the local community
totalling £300,000 over the projects 25 year operating period. However, Officers
consider that this benefit should attract limited weight when balancing the benefits of
the proposal against any adverse impacts.
In reaching its decision the Committee must weigh the identified benefits of the
proposal against any identified harm associated with the proposed development.
Overall Summary
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The proposal seeks to erect two wind turbines each with a maximum blade tip height
of 126.5m and an anticipated hub height of 80m on land adjacent to the former RAF
Coltishall site, located at approximately 15m AOD.
Development Committee
84
11 April 2013
Officers have sought to set out the relevant policy tests within this report and having
considered all of the evidence available, it is considered that the key planning issues
hinge on an assessment of the impact of the proposed turbine on Air Defence radar
systems operated by the Ministry of Defence and impacts on the heritage assets
within the adjacent RAF Coltishall site balanced against the benefits of the proposal.
Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan policy in relation to impacts on residential
amenity (including noise impacts), impacts on wildlife and ecology, highway safety
and tourism, as detailed above, such that refusal in relation to these matters alone
could not be substantiated or justified.
In relation to landscape impacts, there is no doubt that turbines of the size proposed
would have an adverse impact on the wider landscape. The smooth lines of the
turbine and somewhat utilitarian appearance would create a degree of harm in this
essentially rural location. However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager concludes that although there would be localised significant impacts, the
overall effect on the landscape resource of the study area is not considered to be
significant and refusal could not therefore be justified.
In relation to heritage assets, whilst the proposed development would not physically
result in loss of historic fabric some consultees consider that the proposal would
result in harm to the setting of historic assets, including Scheduled Ancient
Monuments (Cold War Blast Walls and World War II Fighter Pens) and the wider
Conservation Area within the former RAF Coltishall site. Nonetheless whilst the
impact on historic assets and the wider landscape is considered to be adverse,
Officers have doubts as to whether this is sufficiently compelling in itself to constitute
a significant adverse impact or, using the language within the National Planning
Policy Framework, whether the impacts would be substantially harmful and it is
therefore a matter of planning judgement for the Committee in weighing the identified
harm against the public benefits of the proposal – the greater the negative impact the
greater the benefit required to justify approval. Officers consider that the renewable
energy benefits of this proposal could outweigh the adverse impacts on the identified
heritage assets, however, further information is awaited which will need to be
referred back to Heritage Consultees. Members will be updated verbally on this
matter at the meeting.
The applicants have indicated that a turbine of the size proposed would generate
approximately 10,917,000kWh of electricity per year which would be enough to
supply approximately 2,315 homes.
In addition the proposal would also provide financial benefits for the local community
totalling £300,000 over the projects 25 year operating period. However, Officers
consider that this particular benefit should attract limited weight when balancing the
benefits of the proposal against any adverse impacts.
Notwithstanding the considerable renewable energy benefits associated with the
proposal, in view of the strong objection received from the Ministry of Defence on the
grounds that the turbines would be 16 km from, detectable by, and will cause
unacceptable interference to the Air Defence radar at Trimingham, Officers consider
that the turbines would pose a significant risk of compromising national security
through the desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines, and the creation of
"false" aircraft returns. The probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying over or in
the vicinity of the turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be unable to
provide a full air surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm.
Development Committee
85
11 April 2013
The MOD have indicated that the only likely way to address their concerns of
adverse impact on the Air Defence radar at Trimingham would be through a
reduction in the height of the turbines. Whilst the applicant disagrees with the
viewpoint of the MOD and whilst ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement for the
Committee in weighing the benefits of the proposal against any adverse impacts,
based on the available evidence Officers to do not consider it appropriate for the
Committee to support this proposal. This is because Officers consider that issues of
national security and the protection or residents within and around the area would
outweigh the requirement to provide renewable energy generation facilities. There
are no other material considerations which would outweigh the identified reasons for
refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse on the grounds that that the turbines would be 16
km from, detectable by, and would cause unacceptable interference to the Air
Defence radar at Trimingham and therefore would pose a significant risk of
compromising national security through the desensitisation of radar in the
vicinity of the turbines, and the creation of "false" aircraft returns. The
probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying over or in the vicinity of the
turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be unable to provide a full air
surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm.
It is considered that issues of national security through the maintenance of
effective air defence radar systems and the protection or residents within and
around the area would outweigh the requirement to provide renewable energy
generation facilities.
In addition, in the event that Heritage consultees conclude that "substantial
harm" to heritage assets would result this should form an additional reason for
refusal.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/12/0927 – Erection of first floor rear extension,
installation of first floor front balcony, removal of pitched roof and installation
of solar panels and screens to provide roof terrace and erection of attached
garage to facilitate conversion to single dwelling; Marshlands and Travellers
Rest, Coast Road for Mr S Scamell-Katz.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Committee Chairman in the light of the proposed contemporary
design and its context.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/12/1219 – Erection of two storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs M
Warren.
Development Committee
86
11 April 2013
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Committee Chairman in the light of the proposed contemporary
design and its context.
CROMER – PF/13/0247 - Erection of 145 dwellings with access road, public
open space and associated works; land west of Roughton Road for Norfolk
Homes Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application and to enable Members to appreciate fully this major
development proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
10. APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0043 - Installation of roof lights and solar panels; Park
Farm, Park Road for Mr Howes
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0022 - Erection of extension to clubhouse to provide shop and
reception facilities and replacement of roof including increase in height to
provide first floor bed and breakfast accommodation; Castaways Holiday Park,
Paston Road for Castaways Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1403 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
reference: 07/1333 to permit erection of paddock-style timber fence and removal
of conditions 2 & 3 to delete requirement for planting scheme; Land at Fox Hill,
Sheringwood for Mr E Denny
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0134 - Erection of single-storey side extension with
accommodation in roofspace; 22 Hillside Road for Mrs C Howell
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/12/1011 - Retention of agricultural storage building; Land adjacent
to Langham Road for Taylor Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0052 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Robin
Cottage, Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs A Wolfe
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/13/0102 - Erection of two-storey side extension with front porch
and single-storey rear extension; 1 Tithe Barn Cottages, Tithe Barn Lane for Mr
R Lubbock
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1317 - Installation of replacement windows; The
Old Byre, Barn Drift, Coast Road for R J Bacon Builders Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
87
11 April 2013
COLBY - PF/13/0029 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
side conservatory; The Crown Inn, Colby Road, Banningham for Mr & Mrs M
Feneron
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/12/1347 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Colby Hall Farm
for Stratton Streles Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/1303 - Erection of side/front extension with rear dormer
window; 2 Colne Road for Mr S Thompson
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1438 - Re-location of air-conditioning units and installation of
additional unit and protective railings; 29A Church Street for HSBC Bank
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/1450 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Charles
Close for Mr & Mrs Dennis
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/1314 - Conversion of garage to holiday accommodation
and retention of garage as built; The Old Chapel, Chapel Road for Mr J Branch
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0115 - Continued siting of portable buildings; Fakenham
Town Gasworks Museum Trust, Hempton Road for Fakenham Museum of Gas
and Local History
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0159 - Change of use of part of ground floor from D1
(osteopathy clinic) to C3 (dwelling); 1-3 Wells Road for Mr R Willis
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0065 - Erection of rear canopy to provide smoking shelter;
The Garden House, 30 Bridge Street for JD Wetherspoon PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0051 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Broad
Lawns, 5 Rudham Stile Lane for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0105 - Erection of entrance porch; 13 George Edwards Road
for Marston & Langinger Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0034 - Removal of mobile home and conversion of redundant
agricultural buildings to residential dwelling; Boundary Farm, Felbrigg Road for
Mr C Harrold
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0035 - Continued use of former stable block as holiday
accommodation; Former Stables, Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs M
Alabaster
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
88
11 April 2013
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/0100 - Installation of front dormer window; 67-69
Langham Road for Mr & Rev Newton
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/12/1363 - Conversion of former agricultural building to single
unit of holiday accommodation; Hall Farm, Hall Road for Mr & Mrs Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - PF/13/0113 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension and
detached car port/outbuilding; Loke End Cottage, The Loke for Mr & Mrs Kirk
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/12/1178 - Erection of side conservatory; Yeoman Barn,
Grub Street for Mr J Dean
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/12/1247 - Installation of stand alone solar array; Manor
Cottage, The Street for Mr J Webster
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/13/0053 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Field View,
The Street for Mr N Lawes
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0128 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0869 to permit full residential occupation; 10 Hindringham High
Barns, Blakeney Road for Mr Harris
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0047 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 02/0434 to provide full residential occupation; 6 Hindringham High
Barns, Blakeney Road for Mr M Carnell
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - NP/13/0178 - Prior notification of intention to alter agricultural/
forestry building; Holkham Estate, Holkham Park for Coke Estate Limited
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HOLT - PF/13/0074 - Change of use from B1 (office) to D1 (osteopathy clinic);
High Silver Unit 8, 35-37 High Street for Mr Lidgley
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/12/1420 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Broome
Cottage, Itteringham Road, Oulton for Ms A Martineau
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/12/0795 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Hillside,
Wolterton Road for Court Investments Limited
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/0482 - Retention of extension to cattle building;
Flintfields, The Street for Mr Fish
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
89
11 April 2013
MATLASKE - LA/13/0107 - Stabilisation works to gable wall of barn; Barn at,
Manor Farm House, Barningham Road, North Barningham for Mr J M de Bunsen
(Listed Building Alterations)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1068 - Erection of front extension and installation of roof
lights; 30 Sea View Road for Mr H Hicks
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0008 - Cladding of porch and construction of balcony with
first floor French doors; 16 Paston Road for Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0123 - Erection of extension to front dormer window
and single-storey rear extension; 2 Mayfield Way for Mr B Turner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/12/0931 - Non material amendment request to
revisions of doors and windows to ground floor rear/side elevations; 21 Station
Road for Mr & Mrs Dyke
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1448 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
single-storey side extension; 12 Lime Tree Road for Mr & Mrs Thurston
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0011 - Alterations to office area and construction of
lobby (revised design); The Lawns Site, Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane
for Paston Sixth Form College
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0025 - Erection of rear conservatory; 13 Meadow
Close for Mr Ward
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/12/1239 - Conversion to residential dwelling; The Coach House,
Green Farm, The Green for T Purdy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/13/0079 - Renovation and extension of shower block including reroofing and cladding; Manor Farm Camp Site, Top Common, East Runton, for
Manor Farm (East Runton) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/13/0109 - Renovation of detached annexe including
installation of replacement part-pitched roof and external cladding; Greenacres,
Cross Street for Mr M Wilson
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0094 - Erection of front porch; 2 West End Terrace,
Stalham Road for Mrs K Hall
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1098 - Installation of satellite dish; The Little Theatre, 2-4
Station Road for Sheringham Little Theatre
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
90
11 April 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0086 - Installation of irrigation holding tank; Sheringham
Golf Club, Sweet Briar Lane for Irrigation Services UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/0003 - Conversion of store/workshop to residential dwelling
and annexe; Welholme Barn, Yarmouth Road for Mr Blackwell
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/13/0087 - Erection of detached garage; Brick Kiln Farm,
Mundesley Road for Mr M Ibbotson
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/1435 - Retention of garden room as built and continued use of
garden room as one unit of holiday accommodation; The Pines, Trunch Road
for Mr & Mrs G Bensley
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - NMA1/11/1435 - Non material amendment request to permit raising
of two-storey extension ridge height to be in line with the existing ridge height
of dwelling; Holly Cottage, Anchor Street for Mr Withers & Mrs Bruce
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WALCOTT - PF/12/1439 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling;
Medwyn, 4 Ostend Gap for Mr & Mrs Starkings
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0141 - Erection of 27m high telecommunications mast
and ancillary equipment cabinets; Land adjacent Windfarm Place, Edgar Road
for Scira Offshore Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0038 - Erection of side extension and rear
conservatory; Heritage House, Mill Road for Heritage House Caring Group
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0039 - Raising of roof to facilitate installation of
over-rafter insulation, revisions to approved door details, reduction in number
of approved rooflights and repositioning of rooflights and sunpipes; The
Sackhouse, Jicklings Yard for Wells Maltings Project
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/13/0126 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Mill Farm, Mill
Common Road, Ridlington for Mr P Tompkins
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - LA/13/0122 - Installation of first floor to pantry, insertion of
loft staircase and creation of storage room above.; The Grange, Church Road
for Mr & Mrs Kennedy
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0050 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension to provide
annexe accommodation; Damson House, Station Road for Mr Bray
(Householder application)
Development Committee
91
11 April 2013
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
MUNDESLEY - AN/13/0152 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement;
Mundesley Post Office, 15 High Street for Mr A D Thiruchelvam
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
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
INFORMAL HEARING 29 January 2013
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Rememberance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PO/12/0546 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land
adjacent Astley, Coast Road for Mr T Baker
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
Development Committee
92
11 April 2013
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Committee
93
11 April 2013