OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
HOLT CONSERVATION AREA: ADOPTION OF CHARACTER APPRAISAL AND
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
Approval is sought for the adoption of Holt Conservation Area Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals (February 2010) for statutory planning purposes and as
a material consideration in the planning process.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Council’s Corporate Plan Changing Gear 2008-11 identifies the preparation of
character appraisals as a key target with the aim now of completing 30% coverage of
the District’s 81 Conservation Areas by March 2011. This work is seen as central to
the Council’s corporate aim of protecting and enhancing the natural and built
environment of North Norfolk.
An up to date Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan provides the
backcloth, together with the planning policies contained in the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework, to good decision-making, particularly in respect of
applications for development. All good Local Planning Authorities should ensure that
not only are the character and setting of Conservation Areas maintained but that they
are also enhanced.
At the meeting of the West Area Committee on 2nd April 2009, Members gave
approval for the Draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management
Proposals for Holt to be taken forward for public consultation. Subsequently
consultation was undertaken and an open meeting to discuss the document held on
16th September 2009. The Draft Appraisal document has now been amended to
accommodate changes put forward during the consultation period.
Note: A copy of the latest version ‘Holt Conservation Area: Character Appraisal &
Management Proposals’ (February 2010) is available for inspection in the Member’s
Room; copies can also be produced on request.
2.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
A six week consultation took place from August 14th to 25th September 2009. This
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A public exhibition on display in the Holt Library.
An open meeting held at the Community Centre, attended by 15 members of the
public.
Leaflets delivered to every property within the town via the ‘Holt Times’.
The appraisal document being made available to the public on the Council website.
A press release.
Posters displayed throughout the Town.
Development Control Committee
1
11 February 2010
25 written responses were received.
Appendix 1 (attached) summarises comments received through the consultation
process from both members of the public and Council Officers and shows how they
have been incorporated into the revised document.
3.0 OVERALL ASSESSMENT
The Holt Conservation Area was designated by North Norfolk District Council in the
first year of the Council in December 1974. It covers the historic core of Holt, and
includes primarily early-mid Victorian housing to the north and green spaces
bordering the town to the east and west of the town. The original village was centred
on the parish church, but after the great fire of 1708, the focus for rebuilding became
the Market Place. For most of its history the growth of Holt was gradual, and its
historic architecture was retained and re-used, rather than being threatened by any
large scale developments. As a consequence, the general character of the centre
remains very much that of a late-Georgian market town with two and occasionally
three-storey buildings.
The Conservation Area boundary has an axis running east to west. The northern
boundary incorporates The Fairstead in the west, parts of Mill Street, the whole of
Albert Street and Bull Street, finishing around the curtilage of No.29 Cromer Road.
The eastern boundary is marked by the grounds of St Andrews Church and
Gresham's Preparatory School. In the south the boundary sweeps out to incorporate
Holt County Primary School and then finishes in the west with open fields linking to
the Glaven Valley which contribute greatly to the town’s landscape setting.
3.1 Key Characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For much of the town’s history, agricultural markets were the main source of
income. Their importance is reflected by the rebuilding of the town around the
market place after the fire of 1708.
Most of the buildings within the Conservation Area date from the Georgian and
early Victorian periods; they have a similar character and scale and use a
common range of building materials.
The historic core of the town is rectangular in plan, bordered by Market Place,
Bull Street, White Lion Street and Shirehall Plain. The High Street extends away
to the west from this, encouraging more linear development.
The principal thoroughfare through Holt is Market Place and High Street, which
comprise the main commercial centre.
The Conservation Area is enclosed on the northern, southern and western sides
by 20th century development.
A range of small independent shops.
A medium sized supermarket and car park situated on the south side of the town
centre.
There is a sharp division between the streets and open fields on the eastern and
western sides.
3.2 Key Issues
•
•
•
Need to review the Conservation Area boundary.
Some poor modern shop fronts and signage lowering the quality of the
streetscape.
Widespread on-street parking
Development Control Committee
2
11 February 2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Indifferent quality and myriad of street surfaces and street furniture.
Neglected alleyways and uncoordinated street lighting.
Permitted development resulting in the loss of architectural detail.
Permitted but detrimental alterations and extensions.
Need to improve the quality of design for new developments.
Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest.
Need to ensure quality of ‘visitor’ experience.
4.0 MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
4.1 Boundary review
It is proposed that the following four areas be removed from the Conservation Area:•
•
•
•
Town Close estate and part of 2-18 Letheringsett Hill
20 Valley Lane, south end
Norman Cockaday Court
Supermarket, Kerridge Way
The retention of built form of indifferent quality will only serve to undermine the
purpose of the Conservation Area. It is important that the Council as Local Planning
Authority can justify its Conservation Area designations.
4.2 Alterations to unlisted buildings and Article 4(2) Directions
Recent years have witnessed the serious erosion of architectural character through
incremental change. Throughout the Conservation Area there has been a significant
loss of original architectural detailing such as timber sash windows, doors and
general coherence. Front enclosures on private dwellings have been lost owing to
permitted development rights being exercised and parking spaces formed.
It is recommended that Article 4(2) Directions be used for the main streets of the
town, including roads linked to the centre such as New Street and the Norwich Road.
A number of courtyards have groups of buildings of sufficient interest to justify Article
4(2) Directions, such as Carpenter’s Cottages and Weston Square. A further report
on this matter will be brought before Committee in due course.
4.3 Protection of buildings of local architectural and historical interest
Holt contains a number of historic buildings that are unlisted, but which make a
positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. This is either due to
their age, materials, relation to surrounding historic buildings, architectural detailing,
‘townscape’ value or to a combination of these factors. Planning Policy Guidance15
(PPG 15) (paragraph 6.16) makes provision for local authorities to draw up lists of
locally important buildings which make a valuable contribution to the local scene or
local history, but which do not merit national listing. Although they will not enjoy the
full protection of statutory listing some further protection will be achieved.
The following buildings are proposed to be included on the local list:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7 Albert Street
9 Albert Street
10 Albert Street
11 Albert Street
1 Cromer Road (Post Office)
8 houses at The Fairstead
Church Lane (public library)
Development Control Committee
3
11 February 2010
•
•
•
•
30 High Street
15 Market Place
13 New Street
41-3 Norwich Road (Old Stables)
4.4 New Development
The advantage of ‘hindsight’ suggests that some developments in the Conservation
Area are now considered to be out of character with the area due to their
inappropriate design, siting, scale, or materials. The inherent building styles and
types characteristic of Holt are a strength and should be reflected in new
development. The scale and siting of new development should be considered with
particular care, as should the architectural quality and detail. It is recommended that
all new development conforms to the advice in this Appraisal, as well as to the
adopted North Norfolk Design Guide.
4.5 Public Realm Issues
The Council will work with other agencies, residents and land owners to ensure the
public open spaces continue to be maintained and enhanced.
It is proposed that a maintenance regime be established in conjunction with Norfolk
County Council Highways, other statutory undertakers and the Council’s own
Property Services team, to make sure that street surfaces are properly repaired and
cleaned, that street furniture is kept in good order and that street lighting which
conforms with the character of Holt is chosen.
Obelisk Plain and Shirehall Plain, located in the heart of the town, have good
surroundings and enormous potential to become better public spaces, provided that
traffic management and parking issues are resolved.
5.0 BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The next stage in this process is to produce a programme for delivery of the agreed
Management Proposals and the related enhancement schemes. At this point specific
budgetary implications will need to be assessed and agreed. The implementation of
any enhancement scheme will of course be subject to the availability of resources.
However much can be achieved through more effective and integrated use of current
budgets at all levels within the Council and beyond with partners at the County and
Town Councils, as well as the statutory undertakers.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Despite the development pressures of the last four decades Holt has managed to
retain a unique ‘sense of place’ with its exceptional townscape quality. Its buildings
have a common scale, palette of materials and encompass a strong late
Georgian/early Victorian character. The town’s traditional street plan with
interconnected alleys and yards give added interest and character. Holt has changed
its role, no longer being the archetypal market town. However it still continues to
remain a very important town centre with its diverse retail use and its impressive
landscape setting. Fundamentally the town’s historic settlement pattern and context
has been preserved, despite substantial pressures for development. However there
is no room for complacency. Holt’s special architectural character and historic
interest needs to be preserved and enhanced not least for its future economic wellbeing and prosperity. Very special care should therefore be taken through the
application of planning policy and public realm management to conserve the quality
of the town’s architectural heritage for future generations to enjoy and for business to
thrive. A balance is needed between economic development and retention of built
character. Holt’s architecture and setting provide the perfect environment for
businesses to thrive and tourism to flourish.
Development Control Committee
4
11 February 2010
Lastly the District Council should take an active approach in the future development
of Holt and work together with all those with an interest in the town’s future.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 That the Final Draft of the Holt Conservation Area. Character Appraisal and
Management Plan (February 2010) be formally adopted by the Council for statutory
planning purposes and as such be a ‘material consideration’ in the planning process.
7.2 That the proposed boundary changes as recommended in the draft Appraisal
document be adopted and publicised in accordance with the Planning (Listed
Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
7.3 That a programme of enhancement and improvement schemes is prepared for
the Conservation Area and that appropriate budgetary provision is sought.
7.4 That a further report be brought before the Committee relating to the introduction
of Article 4(2) directions.
Source: (Paul Rhymes, Extn 6367– File Reference: Holt CAA)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
ARTICLE 4 (1)/(2) DIRECTION DRAFT PRACTICE NOTE
Approval is sought for the adoption of an article 4 (1)/(2) Direction Practice Note for
applications within Conservation Areas.
1.0 Summary & Purpose
In recent years North Norfolk District Council has witnessed the gradual erosion of
architectural character within many of its Conservation Areas. This is a worrying
trend which if not mitigated could lead to a significant loss in quality of our historic
environment and building stock. The situation is made more pressing by the changes
made in the Town and Country Planning (General Planning Development Order)
(GPDO) in 2008. The latter amended and extended ‘permitted development rights’
for those who live in dwelling houses.
As Members are aware the Council is undertaking a major programme of review of
its Conservation Areas by means of bringing forward Conservation Area Appraisals
and Management Plans. The express purpose of an Appraisal is to define the special
character of a Conservation Area, identify issues which may threaten it, and to bring
forward proposals for future management, primarily through its powers as a Local
Planning Authority (LPA). The focus is normally on measures which will prevent the
diminution of character and local architectural distinctiveness. An Article 4 Direction
offers a particularly useful tool for the LPA to achieve this aim.
Where considered appropriate permitted development rights can be withheld under
Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995 as amended 2008. The removal of permitted development rights using an
Article 4 Direction means that planning permission must be obtained before
alterations can be made or works carried out. There is no fee payable by applicants
required to submit an application for development under such a Direction.
Development Control Committee
5
11 February 2010
The purpose of this report is to seek approval for adoption of an Article 4 (1)/(2)
Direction Draft Practice Note. The Practice Note will set out the Council’s strategy
and procedure for the application of Article 4 Directions across the District.
Note: A copy of the ‘Article 4 (1)/(2) Direction Draft Practice Note (February 2010)’
is attached as Appendix 2 to the Committee Agenda and is also available for
inspection in the Members’ Room. The Note includes details of the proposed
procedure for the serving and confirmation of Directions.
2.0 The need for Article 4 Directions in North Norfolk
In North Norfolk the most common and widespread unsympathetic changes being
made include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The loss of original architectural features
Replacement of windows and doors usually in uPVC
Loss of enclosures (boundary walls)
Removal of chimney stacks
Inappropriate treatment of historic elevations
Installation of satellite dishes
3.0 Procedural and Legal Issues
On a Direction being approved by Development Committee, all owners and occupiers
affected will be notified in writing and the Direction will published in the local press. A
minimum of 21 days will be given in which representations may be made to the
Council in relation to the Direction. The Direction will come into force as soon as it is
served but the Council must consider any representations received. It may then
confirm the Direction not less than 28 days after the last notice is published and not
more than six months after it was made. Consequently there are ample opportunities
for members of the public and others to make representation.
It is possible that the serving of an Article 4 Direction can give rise to compensation
for the owners of the properties concerned where it has led to a financial loss for the
owner. However such cases are extremely rare. In almost every instance a claim for
compensation would not be sustained. This is because normally the use of traditional
materials and design will increase the value of the property not reduce it.
Furthermore the contents of the Article 4 Direction are normally so minor that a claim
to retrieve the costs would not be worthwhile.
4.0 Resource Implications
There are no foreseeable budgetary or financial implications.
There will be costs in the processing of additional planning applications associated
with the removal of permitted development rights. They do not attract a planning fee.
However it is anticipated that the number of extra applications being submitted will be
small in number. The financial impact on the Development Control Service’s income
is expected to be minimal.
One area where there is likely to be some increase in the allocation of staff time will
be in the enforcement and control of development subject to an Article 4 Direction
and this will need to be considered as part of the review of the Council’s Enforcement
Policy.
Development Control Committee
6
11 February 2010
5.0 Corporate Issues
The adoption of the Article 4 Direction Practice Note will not raise any significant
equality and diversity or crime and disorder issues. Council policies on sustainability
and climate change will also not be infringed. On the contrary the Council’s corporate
aims as expressed in the Council’s Corporate Plan: Changing Gear – The Road to
Excellence, will be augmented and supported.
6.0 Conclusion
The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans programme is highlighting
the need to introduce Article 4 Directions in various towns and villages. The Practice
Note will provide a policy support and framework for their introduction and also
establish a fair and equitable process for the Council’s consideration of such
Directions in respect of local residents and other interested parties.
7.0 Recommendation
1. That the ‘Article 4 (1)/ (2) Direction Practice Note (February 2010)’ be formally
approved.
Background Papers
North Norfolk District Council Article 4 Directions Practice Note (Guidance on the use
and implementation of Article 4 Directions 2010)
Source: (Paul Rhymes, Extn 6367 and Phil Godwin Extn 6131– File Reference: Article 4
Direction Draft Practice Note)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
NORTH WALSHAM (EAST WARD) - NNDC TPO (North Walsham) 2009 No. 12
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order to protect two Oak trees
at the above site.
Background
In December 2009 the Conservation, Design and Landscape Section was contacted
by a tree surgeon concerned that proposed work to two oak trees at 61 Yarmouth
Road would be detrimental to the trees and poor constitute arboricultural practice.
The Landscape Officer visited the site and made an assessment of the trees using
the nationally recognised Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO)
and the result was that the trees definitely merit a TPO.
The 2 Oak trees are in a front garden of 61 Yarmouth Road and can be clearly seen
from the road and side road, Legrice Crescent. The front gardens of the properties
along this part of Yarmouth Road contain mature trees providing an attractive
“avenue” leading into the town. It was assessed that the proposed work to these
trees would have a detrimental impact on amenity as individual trees and reduce the
impact of the informal avenue.
The Tree Preservation Order was duly served on 7 December 2009.
Development Control Committee
7
11 February 2010
Representations
Objections to the Order:
One letter objecting to the Order has been received from the neighbour at 63
Yarmouth Road, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 3.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
(Numbers below correspond to the paragraphs in the objector's letter)
(1) The TEMPO assessment is objective and does not consider individual species.
The TEMPO assessment recorded that the trees have high amenity value and
contribute positively to the local landscape. The Council is committed to Biodiversity
under Policy EN 9 of the Core Strategy and considers Biodiversity as a key factor in
the justification of a TPO under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
(2) The Order does not prevent appropriate management.
(3, 4) No comment
(5) The Oak trees are to the North of the drive. The main light loss to the drive is
caused by the Lawsons Cypress and the large Lleylandii hedge on the road
boundary of No.63 Yarmouth Road.
(6) No assessment of the Lawsons Cypress was made. The “Lawsons Cypress” is
generally considered to have less amenity and biodiversity value compared to the
native Oak. It is unfortunate that the Lawsons Cypress was planted in the position it
was.
(7) The Order does not prevent appropriate management.
(8, 9) The problem of leaves is considered to be a maintenance issue and should not
affect the justification for a TPO.
(10) No Comment.
(11,12) The Court of Appeal Case: Perrin and Ramage V Northampton BC made the
judgement that a nuisance in relation to section 198(6) of the Town & Country
Planning Act 1990, had to be an “Actionable Nuisance” and did not apply to
overhanging branches or leaves.
(13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) Appropriate management of the trees will reduce the risk
of branch failure. The application for tree work is straight forward and is usually
carried out by the tree surgeon on behalf of the owner.
(20) If the crown were reduced to match a reduction of branches over the drive it
would have a considerable impact on amenity.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
8
11 February 2010
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s 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
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 is considered that proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
It is considered that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the local
environment and its enjoyment by the public in this part of North Walsham and that
they therefore have high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 - File Reference 09/0795)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
AYLMERTON - PF/09/1217 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent,
Walnut Cottage, The Street, Aylmerton for R J Bacon Builders Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 29 January 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061703- Outline Planning Permission - Erection of single detached dwelling
Approved 2 March 2007
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a contemporary style three bedroom two-storey house that includes a
mono-pitch, sedum clad roof. A lean-to conservatory is proposed along the majority
of the length of the west elevation. Two parking spaces are proposed from a shared
access with two existing dwellings which are both in the current ownership of the
applicant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Eales having regard to the following planning issues:
Design and impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and character of the
area.
Development Control Committee
9
11 February 2010
PARISH COUNCIL
Raises concerns with regard to the design of the proposed dwelling and conflict with
Policies EN 4, EN 1 and EN 2 of the Core Strategy, as well as surface water
drainage issues (see full comments in Appendix 4).
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team - Confirms that the proposal complies with Core Strategy Policy
EN 6. Recommends standard condition requiring the dwelling to achieve a Code
Level 2 rating or above of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Council (Highways) - Requires confirmation regarding the surface water drain
that runs through the site and connects to an existing highway drain. Recommends
refusal in the absence of this matter being resolved.
Environment Agency - No objections but recommends a condition to ensure the
provision of water efficiency methods are incorporated.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Raises no objection. Considers the
proposal makes best use of the site and the contemporary design is acceptable in
this particular location (see full comments in Appendix 4).
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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design concept.
2. Impact on character of area.
3. Surface water drainage disposal.
Development Control Committee
10
11 February 2010
APPRAISAL
The site has the benefit of outline planning permission for a single detached dwelling
granted in 2007 with reserved matters to be submitted before March 2010. Despite
Aylmerton not now being identified as a settlement for further housing development
the principle of developing this site therefore remains valid. Although the outline
permission only reserved the submission of details for the appearance of the dwelling
for subsequent approval, the current application has been submitted as a full
application and therefore all matters are required to be considered. Any permission
granted would need to be time limited to ensure that changing the design does not
prolong the life of the permission beyond its existing limit.
The plot is set back from the main village street and therefore has limited impact
upon the street scene. It is accessed by a shared driveway which presently serves
two dwellings.
In view of the extant permission the overriding issue is the design of the dwelling and
how it will impact on the immediate character of the area and the wider Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The submitted Design and Access Statement describes
the design concept. It states: ' the over-arching approach to the new house is to
build an environmentally friendly and energy efficient property, using sustainable
materials and minimising energy input, both in use and construction'. This concept is
supported by the policies of the Core Strategy. The Committee will note that no
objections are raised to this design approach by the Council's Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager or the Sustainability Team. The position of the site between
and to the rear of existing dwellings means that the proposed building will have no
impact in the wider landscape and therefore will not detract from the special qualities
of the AONB nor have any significant adverse impact on its character or setting.
Although the contemporary design approach differs from the existing traditional built
dwellings and that illustrated with the original outline planning application, it is
considered that the scale, massing and general design would not adversely affect the
amenities of existing properties or character of the area. Indeed the design is seen as
a complimentary approach to the constraint of a site that is relatively narrow and
which avoids any direct impact on neighbouring dwellings either in terms of
overlooking or scale. The energy efficient strategy is also regarded as a positive
factor in favour of the development.
Following the comments of the Highway Authority in respect of the existence of a
highway drain that runs through the site written confirmation has been received
regarding the route of this drain and the fact that the Highway Authority has given
written agreement to connection to the highway drain. A plan indicating the route of
this drain has also been received and the further comments of the Highway Authority
are awaited, however the existence of this drain does not impact on the extant
permission and is a matter that should be resolved with the Highway Authority. The
Highway Authority has raised no objections to the principle to the development but
clearly requires the drain to be safeguarded.
Granting permission in this case would comply with the relevant policies of the
adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to the further comments of the Highway Authority
and subject to the imposition of conditions to include restricted time limit,
materials, access and parking details.
Development Control Committee
11
11 February 2010
5.
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane Bodham for Mr D Knowles
Minor Development - Target Date: 26 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an agricultural building and formation of access roadway.
The proposed building measures approximately 9.1m x 18.3m, and 2.8m to the eaves
and 4.8m to the ridge.
The steel portal frame building would be clad in green painted finish steel box section
cladding to the roof and walls, with a rainwater collection point for recycling and
irrigation on adjacent small holding. The doors to the building would have a dark
brown finish.
The access roadway would be constructed in concrete.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
1. Scale of building.
2. Whether an agricultural holding.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Intensification of traffic.
2. Applicant not a farmer.
3. Is the building genuinely agricultural?
4. Proposal would detract from the rural beauty of the area.
5. Would be an eyesore.
6. Little justification has provided for the development.
7. Concerns over land being used for other uses.
8. Concerns over how any waste from site will be dealt with.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority – No objection, subject to the development being constructed in
accordance with drawing no 03 10 2009 submitted with the planning application.
Conditions would be required in relation to access being constructed in accordance
with Norfolk County Council industrial access specification and details to be
submitted to show sufficient space to enable vehicles to turn and re-enter the
highway in a forward gear.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection, but have
the following comments and recommendations to make.
Development Control Committee
12
11 February 2010
The section of Hart Lane where the application is located is relatively enclosed by
mature hedging and trees. Therefore, the site itself is quite noticeable within the
surrounding rural landscape (as an average agricultural holding). However, the
location of the site is announced through the presence of very large obtrusive gates
which do not fit well with the rural and agricultural nature of the lane.
The application proposes an agricultural building to the north-east of the field with an
access track running along the northern edge of the field. Landscaping is proposed
along the ‘new’ southern boundary. As the application involves installing a new
access from the current site access, I would suggest that this would be an opportunity
to improve the appearance of the site from Hart Lane, through the installation of
traditional agricultural gates. I do not consider that an agricultural building of this
scale will result in a significant detrimental impact on the landscape.
I would therefore recommend that a condition is attached to any permission given
requesting a landscaping scheme incorporating all hard and soft landscaping and
boundary treatments at the site entrance.
Environmental Health – No objections, subject to conditions to ensure that no
extraction/ventilation is installed without permission, and that the building shall not be
used for accommodation of livestock.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of this development in countryside.
2. Impact on character of the area.
3. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where agricultural development
is permitted in principle providing it accords with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Development Control Committee
13
11 February 2010
However, at the time of writing this report clarification was being sought from the
agent regarding the agricultural justification for the proposal as the Agricultural
Holdings Certificate submitted with application has been signed by the agent stating
that ‘None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural
holding’.
In terms of the siting of the proposed building it would be located to the north west
corner of the site, which is fairly well screened to the boundaries and set back from
the road. The design and materials are considered to be acceptable. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the rural character of the area.
The relationship of the proposed building to surrounding neighbouring properties is
considered to be acceptable. The proposed building would be some 300m from
Franklins Farm to the south and approximately 190m from the dwellings to the north.
The committee will note that subject to conditions no objections have been raised by
the Highway Authority, Landscape Officer and Environmental Protection Officer.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact upon highway safety, the rural character of the landscape, nor that there
would be a significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of local
residents.
Subject therefore to clarification of the need for the proposed building then the
proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the receipt of satisfactory
information to clarify the need for the building and imposition of appropriate
conditions.
6.
HOLT - PF/09/1127 - Change of Use from B1 (Light Industrial) to A1 (Retail); The
Tithe Barn, Letheringsett Hill, Holt, NR25 6RY for Cley Spy Ltd
Target Date: 05 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Countryside Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950234 - (Full Planning Permission)- Change of use to B1 - light industrial
Approved, 16 May 1995
19950983 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from industrial to holiday
accommodation
Withdrawn, 20 Nov 1995
19951425 - (Full Planning Permission)- Erection of extension to provide living
accommodation in association with existing workshop
Approved, 21 June 1996
Development Control Committee
14
11 February 2010
19980317 - (Full Planning Permission)- Continued use of barn for a mixed use of B1,
light industrial and A1, retail
Refused, 05 June 1998
20080499 - (Full Planning Permission)- Conversion and extension to provide six units
of holiday accommodation
Approved, 28 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to change the use of part of the barn from B1 (light industrial) to A1
(retail). The existing attached residential unit would be retained to the rear as part of
the development.
The retail use would be open to the public 10am-5pm Mon-Sat and 10am-4pm on
Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10 Staff would be employed (7 Full Time Equivalents)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker having regard to the following planning issue:
Retail use in a countryside location
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection on the grounds of increased traffic congestion and out of town
development.
CONSULTATIONS
Letheringsett Parish Council - No objection or comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - no
objection providing the imposition of a note advising the applicant that any future
alterations would require Listed Building Consent.
County Council (Highways) - Objection on the grounds of sustainability.
Environmental Health - Given the former/current use of the site, Environmental
Health would like an advisory note added to any approval.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATION
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee
15
11 February 2010
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on the form and character of the listed building.
3. Highways on sustainability grounds.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where proposals for new retail
development are not normally permitted unless they comply with other relevant
Development Plan Policies or there are other material considerations that would
outweigh Development Plan policy.
Policy EC5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy generally seeks to ensure
that new retail development is located in the Principal and Secondary Settlements
across the District, primarily to maintain the shopping hierarchy and to help maintain
the vitality and viability of these centres. Holt is the closest Principal settlement and is
approximately 700m on foot from the site (to Obelisk Plain).
The applicants are proposing to relocate their existing business, currently selling
optical equipment at Manor Farm Barns, Glandford, because they consider that their
existing observing facility is being compromised by a neighbouring business, which
has also created an increase in airborne dust which can be detrimental to optical
equipment. In respect of the justification for the proposed change of use, whilst
business premises may be available within Holt Town centre, the applicants state
that the nature of the business requires a rural location benefiting from natural light
away from sodium or other street lights to allow customers to choose and compare
optical equipment and the location at Tithe Barn is considered to be ideal in this
respect.
In response to this it is considered that the shop is specialist in nature and the scale
of retail use proposed would not be one which would detract from the vitality or
viability of Holt Town Centre. However, if permission were to be granted it would
require the imposition of a specifically worded condition so as to ensure that any
alternative future retail use could be controlled in the interests of ensuring that it
would not have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre of Holt.
The proposal involves the re-use of a rural building for economic purposes. The main
building, which has a prominent elevation facing the A148, is Grade II Listed with the
other adjoining buildings listed as curtilage buildings. The site lies within the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area and it is considered that the building contributes positively
to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would not involve any
alteration to the fabric of the listed building and it is considered that the proposal
would help secure the optimum viable use for the listed building compatible with the
fabric, interior and setting of the building, which has remained vacant for some
considerable time, as well as preserving the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
16
11 February 2010
The Highway Authority has raised objections concerning the sustainability of the site
and considers that the remoteness of the site would conflict with the aims of
sustainable development; the need to minimise travel and the ability to reduce the
reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy. It considers
that the site is outside the reasonable walking distance of Holt Town Centre, the
nearest centre of population and that it is unlikely that visitors to a retail use would
walk or cycle from Holt or Letheringsett 0.7 kilometres (0.4 miles) away and it would
mean that visitors would need to travel to the site by private car. However, these
objections are raised on the grounds of sustainability and not highway safety.
Planning permission to provide six units of holiday accommodation was granted
under planning permission 20080499. This permission remains valid and capable of
implementation. Given that the site has a valid permission for the conversion to six
units of holiday accommodation which are predicted to generate in the region of 24 to
48 vehicle movements per day, it is unlikely that the proposed retail use would
generate more than this number of daily movements. The applicants predict that on
average they currently have 10 visitors (20 vehicular movements a day), excluding
staff and deliveries. As such unless the number of visitors significantly increases, the
proposals are unlikely to create significant traffic. In any event, the existing Cley Spy
is located at Manor Farm Barns, Glandford which is considerably further from Holt
Town Centre than Tithe Barn.
In summary, it is considered that, on balance, the proposed use would involve
relocation to a more sustainable location and would be likely to involve fewer traffic
movements than the approved holiday use already granted at Tithe Barn. Whilst the
general principle of encouraging retail proposals to locate in town centres is
supported, it is considered that, because of the specialist nature and the scale of the
proposal, it would not have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town
Centre nor would it undermine its role as a Principal settlement. It is also considered
that the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the listed building
is a significant material consideration and the proposal would also bring this
important Grade II Listed building back into a viable use that would be compatible
with the fabric and setting of the building. As such, the proposal is considered to be
acceptable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
limiting the use of the building to the sale, manufacture and repair of optical
equipment and for no other purpose.
7.
OVERSTRAND - PF/09/1074 - Erection of One-and-a-Half-Storey Dwelling; 20
Cromer Road Overstrand for Ms J Parkin
Target Date: 24 December 2009
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Development Control Committee
17
11 February 2010
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a chalet style bungalow behind a roadside tree belt on land forming part of
the garden of 20 Cromer Road, together with a new access drive through the tree
belt.
An amended plan has been submitted to reposition the dwelling further back on the
plot.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Tillett on the grounds of the loss of trees in relation to cliff
instability from groundwater changes.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. Site is in a Conservation Area and proposal would involve felling a number
of fine specimen trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of
conditions to secure visibility splay, access and parking facilities, as indicated on the
submitted plans.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objections to
amended siting showing dwelling clear of shade zone of trees. Tree works method
statement and replanting proposals shown in the Arboricultural Implications
assessment will need to be subject of a condition to be submitted and agreed before
work starts.
Sustainability Team - Proposal complies with Policy EN 6. Recommends standard
condition.
Coast Protection Engineer - comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee
18
11 February 2010
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. Impact on Conservation Area.
2. Loss of Trees.
3. Coastal erosion from groundwater changes
APPRAISAL
The application site is within the defined settlement boundary for the village and thus
there is no objection in principle to a new dwelling in this location. The site forms part
of a large garden belonging to a detached bungalow. That bungalow is set well to the
rear of the site in extensive (0.5ha) grounds, and the proposed dwelling would have
no significant impact on the setting of the existing dwelling. The site is adjoined on
either side by bungalows and although set slightly further back (to avoid the shade
zone of the trees) the proposed dwelling would not be out of character with its
surroundings. The majority of the roadside tree belt would be retained and as a result
the dwelling would have little impact in the street scene. The proposal would therefore
meet the test of preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The trees on the site frontage are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The
application is accompanied by a detailed arboricultural assessment of the condition
and importance of the trees on the site. The wooded frontage is an important
component of the street scene in this part of the Conservation area and it is clearly
important that this be retained. The assessment identifies that a total of nine trees will
need to be removed for arboricultural reasons seven of them small decorative and
fruit trees, and two larger specimen trees (Holm Oak), with a further four specimen
trees required to be removed to achieve a new access to the site. These four trees
are a hornbeam, sycamore and holly (all classed as category C - poor or impaired
condition - not normally regarded as a constraint on development) and a beech
(category B - suitable for retention). The route of the new access has been identified
so as to minimise adverse impact on the trees and a 'no-dig' form of access
construction has been specified so as to avoid compaction and root damage to other
nearby trees. With these precautions the appearance and amenity value of the tree
belt will be largely retained. The arboricultural report commits to replacing any tree
removed with an equivalent heavy standard in an appropriate position.
In order to reduce the amount of surface water discharged to the ground there is
normally a requirement in Overstrand that it discharge to the public sewer. This can
be required by condition in this case. In the circumstances it is not considered that the
removal of the number of trees necessitated by this development would be likely to
have any long term impact on the stability of the cliffs, but the Coast Protection
Engineer's comments are awaited on this point.
The visibility splays required can be achieved without any additional impact on the
trees, requiring only the removal of a concrete post and metal rail fence.
The amended proposal (re-siting) has been re-advertised and the consultation period
does not expire until after the meeting. Consequently any decision will need to be
made under delegated powers.
It is considered that granting permission in this case would comply with the relevant
policies of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
19
11 February 2010
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no adverse comments from the
Coast Protection Engineer, subject to no new points of objection being raised
to the amended siting and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
in respect of visibility splays, access and parking area, tree protection,
landscaping and sustainability issues.
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1105 - Erection of Single-storey Dwelling with
Accommodation in Roofspace; Land at 7 Norfolk Road Sheringham for F W
Smith (Builders) Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 01 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19821270 – Erection of detached bungalow
Refused, 08 Nov 1982
20081283 – Erection of single-storey dwelling with accommodation in roofspace
Refused, 12 Mar 2009
20090658 – Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused, 1 Oct 2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two/three-bed detached dwelling with rooms in the roof on land to
the rear of No.7 Norfolk Road. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately
120sq.m and would include an integral garage.
The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 2.5m and a height to ridge of 6.7m.
Access would be gained from Norfolk Road via the existing private driveway which
runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site. The access would be widened to
4.5m over what is currently part of the garden of 7 Norfolk Road.
The new dwelling would have a garden depth of approximately 10m and a width of
approximately 14m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Would be detrimental to the character of the area.
2. The site is a haven for wildlife.
3. Widening of the access opens up the area, undermining the security and privacy of
the dwelling accessed off The Loke.
Development Control Committee
20
11 February 2010
4. Would result in overdevelopment of the site.
5. Would result in overlooking of adjacent properties.
6. The use of the access road for turning vehicles would cause detriment to the
existing vehicles and pedestrians using the road.
7. Would exacerbate current surface water issues experienced by No.5 Norfolk
Road.
8. Previous proposal refused on this site.
9. Insufficient space for parking on site would lead to parking on the private access
road and Norfolk Road.
10. Loss of view.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Coordinator – No objection subject to conditions ensuring compliance
with the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Council Highways – The improvements to access width and parking/turning
areas overcome my concerns of application 2009/0658, therefore I can confirm there
are no highway objections to this proposal subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Impact on the form and character of the area.
4. Design.
5. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
Development Control Committee
21
11 February 2010
This is a resubmission of a previous application, refused on highway grounds,
specifically the inadequate width of the access and the failure of the applicant to
demonstrate that sufficient on site parking and turning for a vehicle could be
achieved.
The site is located within the residential area of Sheringham within which the
principle of erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable.
Whilst the site is located to the rear of 7 Norfolk Road it is considered that, subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, the dwelling would not have a significantly
adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining properties.
In respect of amenity space requirements, whilst the dwelling is fairly tight on the plot,
sufficient private garden areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended
purpose are achieved 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.
The proposal complies with the housing density requirements in accordance with
Policy HO 7.
The design of the dwelling reflects the simplicity of the design of the adjacent
properties to the north. In respect of external materials, it is considered that the
proposal would preserve the architectural character of the area, in compliance with
Policy EN 4.
In respect of sustainable construction and energy efficiency, suitable conditions are
required to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes requirements are met, in
accordance with Policy EN 6.
Policy CT 6 requires two parking spaces for a 2/3 bed property. A car port is
proposed and there is sufficient space in front of the dwelling for a further car. In
addition sufficient space for turning within the application area is achieved. The
proposal therefore complies with the parking standards in accordance with Policy CT
5.
With regard to the access to the site, this is intended via the un-adopted access road
leading from the site to the public highway, which currently serves three dwellings
with a constricted width for its entire length. This revised application proposes
increasing the width of the access for approximately the first 30m from the highway to
4.5m. The Highway Authority has advised that the improvements to the access width
and parking/turning areas overcome previous concerns, and therefore confirms there
are no highway objections to this proposal subject to the imposition of conditions.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy CT 5.
In summary the revised proposal proposed widening the vehicular access to the
satisfaction of the Highway Authority. No detrimental adverse impact is considered
on the amenities of the adjacent occupiers and the design is considered appropriate.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those requested by
Highway Authority, the Sustainability Co-ordinator and the removal of
permitted development rights.
Development Control Committee
22
11 February 2010
9.
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1165 - Change of use from residential to B1 (office); 1
Huntley Crescent, Sheringham, NR26 8QQ for Victory Housing Trust
Target Date: 12 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to change the use of a dwelling to an office.
The ground floor would be used as a 'Smart Home' to demonstrate how Assistive
Technology can support independence and safe living within a person's own home.
Assistive Technology encompasses a wide range of electronic, telecare or stand
alone equipment which is specifically aimed at supporting people with physical or
learning difficulties, dementia or other cognitive impairments.
The first floor would be used as an office for a Sheltered Housing Officer 5 days a
week and an Assisted Technology Practitioner.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue:
Principle of change of use from a residential unit within a designated Residential
Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of potential loss of social housing unit.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from Sheringham and District Preservation
Society on the following grounds:
1. Loss of sheltered housing to create an office and show house.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways- No objection.
Environmental Health- No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATION
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Development Control Committee
23
11 February 2010
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of the development.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a designated Residential Area where proposals for nonresidential development will be considered acceptable providing they are appropriate
and compatible such as for a community or social use.
Information submitted by the applicant indicates that 1 Huntley Crescent is a former
member of staff's residential accommodation, which has not been in use since March
2009. The unit is a three bedroom unit and the size of the accommodation is not
considered suitable for sheltered accommodation where one bedroom units are
typically required.
The unit would be used as a 'Smart Home' and an office and would be ancillary to the
surrounding sheltered housing units. Supporting information submitted by the
applicant indicates that there is demand for a 'Smart Home', which would be one of
only four in Norfolk.
There is no Core Strategy policy preventing the loss of housing or in particular the
loss of a social housing unit. In this case the proposed use would not result in the
loss of a social housing unit. It would be in compliance with Policy SS 3 of the Core
Strategy on the basis that it would be a compatible community use in conjunction
with the sheltered housing complex.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including one
limiting the occupation of the office to staff employed in association with the
Assistive Technology initiative.
10.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
Please also note that site inspections will take place on 25 February 2010 and not as
stated in the published Schedule of Meetings.
HOVETON - PO/09/1244 - Erection of C2 (care home), neurological unit and 24
residential with care apartments; Tilia Business Centre, Tunstead Road,
Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8QN for Tilia Business Park Ltd
Development Control Committee
24
11 February 2010
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order to
expedite proceedings and for Members to appreciate access and siting details of the
proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
NORTHREPPS – PF/09/1082 – Removal of conditions 1 and 3 of planning
permission ref: 20081434 and variation of conditions 4, 5 and 8 to continue use
of land as aerodrome with a phased increase in aircraft movement from 1,780
to 3,500 per annum and to permit take-off and landing at any time in an
emergency and limited banner towing; Northrepps Aerodrome, North Walsham
Road, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 9LF for Gurney
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the
contentious nature of the application and for Members to appreciate access
arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - AN/09/1104 - Display of Non-illuminated Direction Sign;
Erpingham Post Office and Service Station Norwich Road for Martin Service
Station Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/09/1224 - Erection of rear conservatory; Tollbar,
Thwaite Common for Mr and Mrs Moore
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/09/1194 - Erection of Rear Extension; The Pastures, Mill
Lane for Mr J Neill
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/09/1222 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions;
Rodavia, Church Road for Mr and Mrs D Wilson
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/09/1191 - Erection of two-storey extension and
conversion of garage to provide annexe; Fox Hill, Sheringwood for Mr E Denny
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/09/1203 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Garden Cottage,
Langham Road for Mr and Mrs M Chapman
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
25
11 February 2010
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1108 - Construction of Rear Balcony; 19 Kingsway for Mrs J
Lewis
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1157 - Installation of Photovoltaic Panels to Garage Roof;
Far House, Coronation Lane for Ward Jones
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1144 - Erection of replacement single-storey extension with
roof terrace above; Quayside Barn, The Quay for Mr E Ewing
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/09/1145 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
replacement extension; Quayside Barn, The Quay for Mr E Ewing
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1146 - Erection of Garden Wall; Quayside Barn, The Quay for
Mr E Ewing
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/09/1147 - Erection of Garden Wall; Quayside Barn, The Quay
for Mr E Ewing
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/09/1212 - Internal alterations; 87 High Street for Neighbourhood
Housing Society
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/09/1158 - Erection of two-storey office/rest room building and
single-storey refrigeration building; 24 Church Street for H V Graves Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/09/1197 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and garage;
Land rear of 34 Church Street for Mr A Kirk
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/09/1205 - Erection of first floor extension with balcony; 4 Bleak
House Cottages, The Street for Mrs B Godfrey
(Householder application)
COLBY - PM/09/1198 - Conversion of Barns to Three Dwellings; Highbury Farm,
Colby Road for Mr D Pestell
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/09/1232 - Erection of two-storey side extension and replacement
single-storey rear extension; Common Farm, Mill Road for Mr R Lewis
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/09/1133 - Erection of Single-storey Rear Extension; 11 Vicarage
Road for Mr and Mrs Wharam
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/09/1215 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; First
Floor, 9 Mount Street for Mr C Coates
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
26
11 February 2010
CROMER - PF/09/1229 - Erection of double garage; 10 Cliff Drive for Mr M
Platten
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/1169 - Erection of Extension to Porch and Balustrading to
Provide Balcony; Corner Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr C Chambers
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1032 - Erection of Single-Storey Front Extension; 56, Gwyn
Crescent for Mrs Bottomley
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1091 - Continued Siting of Portable Building Used as
Workshop/Store; 65 Norwich Road for Wensum Dental Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1168 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; 19
Salmons Way for Mr C Register
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/09/1200 - Erection of double garage; Middlemarch, Metton Road
for Mr G Mann
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/09/1119 - Erection of Single-storey Extension; The Old
Station House, Church Road for Mr R Walker
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/09/0977 - Removal of Two Dormer Windows to Rear and
Reinstatement of Roof and Internal Alterations; The Manor House, Barsham
Road for Dr Schmidt
(Listed Building Alterations)
GREAT SNORING - LA/09/1143 - Removal of and Alterations to Beams and ReInstatement of En-suite Bathroom; The Manor House, Barsham Road for Dr G
Schmidt
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - PF/09/1045 - Conversion of Barn to Holiday Accommodation;
White Horse Farm Barns, Sharrington Road, Gunthorpe, Norfolk for Hartley
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - LA/09/1046 - Alterations to Barn to Facilitate Conversion to
Holiday Accommodation; White Horse Farm Barns, Sharrington Road for
Hartley
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - PF/09/1233 - Erection of detached garage with first floor storage;
Orchard House, The Common, Bale for Mr M Lewin
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/09/1089 - Conversion of buildings to 5 units of holiday
accommodation and swimming pool; Hanworth Timber Co, White Post Road for
Hanworth Timber Co
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
27
11 February 2010
HANWORTH - PF/09/1152 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; 2 Thatched
Cottages, White Post Road for Mrs Goddard
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - LA/09/1153 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; 2 Thatched
Cottages, White Post Road for Mrs Goddard
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/09/1156 - Construction of External Staircase; West Barn,
Church Farm, Church Street, Happisburgh for Mrs P Baldwin
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/09/1159 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; 48 Pineheath
Road for Mrs J Parish
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/09/1206 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to D1 (dental
practice); Nurses Home, Kelling Hospital, Cromer Road for Muller & Plant Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/09/1115 - Erection of bus shelter; Land at Cromer Road for
High Kelling Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/09/1225 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and a micro brewery; The Grange Farm, Harvest Lane for
Agricultural & Commercial Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/09/1132 - Extension of Outbuilding to Provide
Accommodation; The Lawns Hotel, 26 Station Road for Mr D Rees
(Full Planning Permission)
Bedroom
HOLT - PF/09/1208 - Erection of single-storey extension to administration
building; Gresham's Preparatory School, Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/09/1253 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at 27,
Pinewood Drive for Mr Garner
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/09/1220 - Change of use of redundant signal box to museum;
Land off Belaugh Road for Wroxham Signal Box Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/09/1122 - Erection of Extension to Reception Area and Linen
Store and Re-location of Service Road; Kelling Heath Holiday Park for Timewell
Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/09/1118 - Proposed Side and Rear Extension and Erection of
Replacement Timber Garage, Dog Kennel and Wood-Store; West View, Knapton
Road for Mr Wait
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
28
11 February 2010
KNAPTON - PF/09/1178 - Continued siting of portable building and storage
container; Mundesley & District Recreation Association Hall Lane Knapton for
Mundesley & District Recreation Association
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/09/1186 - Erection of first floor side extension and two-storey
rear extension; York Cottage, North Street, Langham for Mr Hutton
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/09/1110 - Conversion of Ground Floor from A1 (Retail) to a
Mixed Use of A1 (Retail) and One Unit of Holiday Accommodation; 15 Beach
Road for Mr S Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/09/1193 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions;
59 Cromer Road, Mundesley for Mr K Keast
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/09/1182 - Construction of front dormer window and erection
of replacement garage; The Spinney, School Lane, Butchers Common,
Neatishead for Rev N and Mrs V Khambatta
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1111 - Erection of Rear Conservatory and Detached
Hot Tub Room; 12 Maybank for Mr Sewell
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/09/1135 - Display of Illuminated Advertisements; Rossis
Leisure Tungate Farm Aylsham Road for Rossis Leisure Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1084 - Erection of Two-Storey Side Extension; 15
Foxglove Close for Mr R Kirk
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1179 - Erection of single-storey extension to garage
to provide annexe; Brunswick Lodge, Bacton Road for Mr T Quigley
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1161 - Use of Land for Stationing Seventeen
Woodland Lodges and Construction of Access Track and Parking Area; Land at
Marshgate for Dream Lodge Group
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/09/1120 - Erection of Fence, Gate and Access Ramps; The
Pleasaunce, Harbord Road for Christian Endeavour Holiday Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/09/1160 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; 3
Cromer Road, Overstrand for Mr P J Wegg
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/09/1187 - Conversion of first floor of garage to one unit of
holiday accommodation; The Old Mill House Mill Road for Mr A Bartman
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
29
11 February 2010
RUNTON - PF/09/1177 - Erection of first floor side extension; Constantia Cottage
Restaurant High Street for Constantia Cottage Restaurant
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PM/09/1189 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Plot 63, Renwick
Park West for A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
RUNTON - PF/09/1214 - Erection of bus shelter; Land at High Street for Runton
Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/09/1139 - Erection of First Floor Side Extension; 1 Farmside
Cottages, Clink Lane, Sea Palling, Norwich, NR12 0UL for Blyth
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1114 - Conversion and extension of dwelling to provide 4
flats; 9 Vincent Road for Mrs Whitaker
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/09/1216 - Display of illuminated window advertisements; 19a,
High Street for Subway Realty Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SMALLBURGH - PF/09/0978 - Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of
Two-Storey Dwelling; 1 Union Road for Mrs A Willits
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/09/1154 - Construction of Pitched Roof to Flat Roofed Extension,
Raised Roof to Rear with Dormer Windows and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Fern Cottage, Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/09/1239 - Erection of first floor infill extension; 2 and 3 West End
Cottages, Wayford Road, Stalham for Mr and Mrs Lowe and Mr and Mrs Jeary
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/09/0962 - Alterations to Two Internal Doorways in North Wing;
Stiffkey Old Hall, Church Street for Mr and Dr Bell
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUFFIELD - PF/09/1113 - Re-location of Wall to Provide Pedestrian Access; Barn
7, Cooks Farm Cottage, Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/09/1148 - Erection of Replacement Conservatory; 34
Mundesley Road, Trimingham for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/09/1211 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions; Fir
Tree Farm, Anchor Street for Mr M Powles
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
30
11 February 2010
TUNSTEAD - PF/09/1213 - Variation of condition 9 of planning reference
20080628 to permit revised access; Menwyth House, Market Street for Mr A
Rowe
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/1164 - Demolition and Re-building Part of
Boundary Wall; The Old Rectory, Church Street for Mr R Griffiths-Jones
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1106 - Erection of Replacement Timber Garage; Archway
Cottage Station Road for Mr P Humphreys
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1184 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 40 Pine
Walk, Weybourne for Mr J Fennel
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1183 - Partial demolition and rebuilding of boundary
wall; All Saints Church Church Road for All Saints Church
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1207 - Erection of extensions to agricultural building;
Mill Barn Farm, Holt Road for Mr J Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - LA/09/1174 - Installation of second floor window; Hotel De Paris,
High Street for Leisureplex Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
OVERSTRAND - PF/09/1123 - Conversion of Garage to One Unit of Holiday
Accommodation; The Old Rose Garden 3 Harbord Road for Mr and Mrs N Allsop
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1163 - Erection of Detached Garage with Domestic Office
Above and Replacement Gates; 22A Hooks Hill Road for Mr S Spence
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way NR26 8NF for Mr P James
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PA/09/1246 - Prior notification of intention
telecommunications pole; Land at Wyndham Street for Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
Development Control Committee
31
to
erect
11 February 2010
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/09/1149 - Conversion of Coach House to Ancillary
Residential Accommodation including Raising Roof; Swanton Cottage, The
Street for Papa Architects Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/1142 - Internal Alterations, Installation of Two
Roof Lights and Removal of Chimney; Drift Cottage, 60 Freeman Street for Mrs
P Granger-Brown
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
No items.
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker Drive
for Newhall Properties Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 16 February 2010
HOLT - PF/09/0053 - Use of Land for Siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk
Railway, Holt Station, Cromer Road for Miss Jones
INFORMAL HEARING 19 January 2010
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 April 2010
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One-and-a-Half-Storey Side Extension;
73, Norwich Road for Mrs Rose
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road for Mrs Buxton
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including New
Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Jolly
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
Development Control Committee
32
11 February 2010
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CROMER - PF/06/1254 - Demolition of Buildings and Erection of Retail Unit and
Twelve Flats; Bus Station, Prince of Wales Road for Ortona Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HANWORTH - PF/09/0727 - Re-Construction of Derelict Dwelling; Taylor's
Lodge, Gunton Park, White Post Road for Sawyer
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
LANGHAM - PF/09/0197 - Part Retention and Erection of 2 Metres High
Boundary Fence; Langham Lodge, Cockthorpe Road for Mr Blackwell
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
33
11 February 2010