Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
3 February 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 11 February 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 3 March 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 14
January 2016.
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of Planning
was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in this
agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of
the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1655 - Demolition of existing dwelling, barn and outbuildings
and erection of two and a half-storey dwelling (re-submission); Three Owls Farm,
Saxlingham Road for Mrs K Cargill
Page 1
(Appendix 1 – page 94)
(2)
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1584 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden and erection of studio/office/store; 3 Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for
Page 11
Blue Tile Farm Barns Ltd
(3)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr & Mrs M Goff
Page 16
(Appendix 2 – page 124)
(4)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal- Full planning permission for
erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of
commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road for Peter Foster Tofts,
Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon
Page 23
(5)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1536 - Installation of 5MW solar farm with ancillary
buildings, security fencing, CCTV, access tracks and landscaping; Land at
Wayside Farm for YGE Solar Field 6 Limited
Page 32
(6)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1551 - Retention of entrance walls and gates.; Norfolk
Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Page 51
(7)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1552 - Retention of submerged gas tanks and fence;
Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Page 53
(8)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1556 - Retention of building for gym and hair and nail
salon; Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Page 56
(9)
RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg
Road, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish
Page 59
(10) SCOTTOW - PF/15/1829 - Temporary change of use of Hangers 1, 2 and 3 to
storage of processed sugar (retrospective); Hanger 1, 2 and 3, Scottow
Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield for Greenheath Limited
Page 62
(11) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1468 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and
access road; Plot 6, Land at 20 Abbey Road for Mr Clark
Page 67
(12) SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1565 - Erection of three detached dwelling houses.; Land
at Beechlands Park for Mr Codling
Page 72
(Appendix 3 – page 152)
(13) WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension to outbuildings to
provide an additional unit of holiday accommodation; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr Gilligan
Page 75
(14)
(15)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
Page 81
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
Page 82
(Appendix 4 – page 157)
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
(16)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 83
(17)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 91
(18)
NEW APPEALS
Page 92
(19)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 92
(20)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 92
(21)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 92
(22)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 93
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 11 FEBRUARY 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1655 - Demolition of existing dwelling, barn and outbuildings
and erection of two and a half-storey dwelling (re-submission); Three Owls Farm,
Saxlingham Road for Mrs K Cargill
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 January 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
13/0828 PF - Erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling - Withdrawn by
Applicant 19/09/2013
14/0785 PF - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two and a half storey
replacement dwelling - Refused 04/09/2014 - Appeal dismissed 16/04/2015
14/1566 PF - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and erection of two and a
half storey dwelling - Refused 27/04/2015 - Appeal dismissed 05/11/2015
15/0762 PF - Demolition of bungalow and outbuildings and erection of a two-storey
dwelling and detached three car garage - Approved 04/09/2015
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a 1950’s bungalow, associated outbuildings and barn and the
erection of a vernacular style two and half storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling which would be “L” shaped in form would be sited some 40
metres to the east of the existing bungalow at its closest point and would have a total
floor area of 445.61 sq. metres of habitable accommodation and would comprise 5
bedrooms. In addition there would be an integral double garage comprising a further
44.21 sq. metres of floor space, giving a total floor area of 489.82 sq. metres.
It is envisaged that the materials to be used would consist of a mix of soft Norfolk red
bricks, flint and horizontal timber cladding to the walls, whilst the roof would be of red
Norfolk clay pantiles.
Development Committee
1
11 February 2016
As part of the scheme a new driveway is envisaged this would utilise the existing
southern access to the site and curve round the south edge of the existing bungalow to
the proposed new dwelling.
In addition a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed both for the holding
which runs to some 16 hectares and the proposed curtilage of the dwelling which is
shown to be some 0.58 hectares. This would be based on the 20 year vision as
expressed in the Integrated Landscape Guidance for the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) and include the removal of a three poplar trees, remediation of the
former nursery to managed heathland, and extension of the lowland heath habitat. In
addition, the planting of species rich meadows and the management and replanting of
hedgerows in order to provide an interconnecting matrix for wildlife are proposed.
As part of the scheme, three existing holiday cottages adjacent to the northern
boundary of the site would be retained.
The application is supported by plans showing the proposed dwelling, a Planning
Statement containing a Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement, a
Protected Species Scoping Survey (incorporating a Bat Survey), and Landscape and
Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA). In addition a draft Section 106 Agreement has been
submitted which seeks to restrict the applicant to constructing either the dwelling
proposed under this application or the dwelling consented under planning reference
15/0762.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning given the planning history of the site and the
representations received.
PARISH COUNCIL Wiveton Parish Council - Strongly objects in that the application is
the same as that previously refused by North Norfolk District Council and all the policies
relevant to that refusal still apply.
This proposal would replace a modest single storey bungalow with a three storey
building, sited in a large open area where it will be visible from across the Glaven Valley.
It contravenes all the applicable policies in the LDF as well as those of the AONB, which
have quite rightly, been enforced on similar, albeit more modest proposals locally.
The decision that NNDC will take in relation to this submission is of the utmost
importance. This location in this lovely valley has unique unspoiled views and to allow
an enormous new building, with no particular claim to architectural merit would be a
desecration of all the policies which seek to protect the countryside, and it is most
important that NNDC ensure that all applications are assessed even handedly and the
Council’s decisions are fair and consistent.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty five letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns,
(summarised):1. The development will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding countryside,
AONB and heritage assets.
2. It is well established in case law that previous decisions are highly relevant, crucially
to ensure a consistency in decision making. A 1992 Court of Appeal decision stated
that, previous decisions are material “like cases should be decide in like manner” so
that there is consistency in the process.
3. In disregarding the judgement of the first appeal the Inspector has clearly
demonstrated an inconsistent approach in making his decision and this must be
challenged by the Council.
Development Committee
2
11 February 2016
4. The Planning Inspector admitted that this proposal would be similar in scale and
massing to the one dismissed earlier on appeal because of “the effects the
proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding
area, Glaven Valley Conservation Area and AONB”.
5. It is hard to understand why the Inspector takes such a favourably view of the
application. At three storeys high the proposed building is considerably taller than
a bungalow, and should not receive planning permission.
6. The Inspector questions whether the building would be disproportionately larger in
comparison with the prevailing character of the area, yet all nearby dwellings are
single storey and there are no three storey buildings. Therefore to argue that it
would not be disproportionately larger is absurd.
7. I object strenuously to the Inspectors decision, which seems to have little
appreciation of the beauty of the north Norfolk countryside and the lasting damage
that would result if this application is approved.
8. The Inspectors assertion that the proposed house would be too far from the listed
churches to be regarded as part of their setting overlooks the obvious in that their
setting owes its very character to the fact of its being undeveloped.
9. The dwelling is not on the footprint of the original property, but some way forward,
thus giving greater prominence in the surrounding area by virtue of its size.
10. NNDC refused an earlier application and little has changed since then.
11. The Council for the Protect Rural England (CPRE) have found that planning reforms
are threatening National Parks and other landscape and consider that national
planning policy should be strengthened by giving great weight to protection of
nationally designated and locally valued landscapes.
12. It is proposed to fell 4 to 5 poplar trees opposite barn 2 and ultimately fell them all.
These trees afford a good screen to the bungalow and holiday cottages.
13. The proposed house is too large and obtrusive for the location.
14. The applicant has already been granted permission for an acceptable scheme
within the footprint of the old house.
15. The application contravenes very clear planning guidelines and policies designed to
protect this very special area.
16. The statement that the landscape of the holding is not of great intrinsic value is
incorrect as it actually contains unimproved calcareous grassland which is a
relatively scarce and biodiverse habitat.
17. It is our understanding that an application such as this requires a full Environmental
Impact Assessment.
18. The drawings are too vague and not-specific and should be submitted in greater
detail before they can be considered.
19. The Design and Assess Statement makes reference to a “two storey building” and a
“two and half storey building” whereas in fact the proposal is for a three storey
building.
20. The application should not be treated as a replacement dwelling as it is not on the
same footprint as the existing dwelling.
An eight page letter has been received from the Council for the Protection of Rural
England (Norfolk) which is the same document as submitted under planning reference
PF/14/1566, see Appendix 1. They have also raised the additional points:

It is implicit in Policy HO 8 that a replacement of an existing dwelling means a
replacement, and based on the existing footprint, and not another building an
indeterminate distance away.
Policy HO 8 refers to the replacement of a residential dwelling; the up-scaling to a
‘replacement’ should not include one or more other buildings or structures on a
site. In this case 126 sq. metres of barn are included in the baseline calculation for
a bungalow of 160 sq. metres. Further the 126 sq. metres seems never to have
been used for garaging or storage.
Development Committee
3
11 February 2016

Our objections are based on non-compliance of Core Strategy Policies: HO 8, EN
1, EN 2, EN 4, and paragraph 115 of the NPPF; and we also have concerns as
regards EN 8 and 9.
CONSULTATIONS
Blakeney Parish Council - Object for the following reasons, as per the previous
application PF/14/1566 which is identical to this one.
a) The new building is too far from the existing bungalow that it is replacing to be
considered as a ‘replacement dwelling’. As a new dwelling in the countryside it does
not comply with NNDC’s Core Strategy Policies HO4 and HO5 as it is not for Travellers
or Essential Workers in the countryside.
b) If considered to be a replacement dwelling it is totally contrary to Policy HO8 as it
represents a disproportionately large increase in the height and scale of the original
dwelling (the dilapidated outbuilding remote from the existing bungalow cannot be
considered as part of the existing dwelling as suggested by the applicant), and will
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside, given its scale and position moved to the rear of the site where it will be
very visible in the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
c) It is contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy, which has been adopted in order to
protect the Norfolk Coast AONB. The policy states that 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. The proposal clearly fails this test
as there are no benefits to outweigh the damaging impact the development will have on
the appearance of the surrounding countryside, and a house of this size and scale could
clearly be accommodated on a less sensitive site.
d) It is contrary to Policy EN2 which has been adopted for the protection and
enhancement of landscape and settlement character. The policy states that
development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance
• Visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological features
• The setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas.
This proposal, because of its height, scale and prominent position within the AONB and
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area will have a seriously damaging impact on the
landscape, standing out obtrusively within this very sensitive landscape and in no way
can be considered to enhance it.
This is a highly sensitive site which the above Policies have been designed to protect,
and a proposal such as this one cannot be allowed to over-ride them. If approved, it
would set a dangerous precedent for further, equally damaging, developments in the
North Norfolk countryside. The Norfolk Coast AONB is an important resource for
those living in the area and, equally importantly, for the tourism on which so much
employment relies and it should be protected with great care and vision.
The district Council have had the vision to set out, in their LDF, clear policies to protect
the special character of the countryside, and proposals for development within the
countryside must follow these policies if this character is to be preserved.
As this application is identical to the previous application, refused by the Development
Committee, the Parish Council considers that nothing has changed and the proposal is
still contrary to Policies HO8, EN1 and EN2 and should be refused on the same grounds
as before. It would be inconsistent to do otherwise and would undoubtedly create a
Development Committee
4
11 February 2016
dangerous precedent for similar large replacement houses in the countryside, in spite of
the strange comments to the contrary by the Inspector at the latest Appeal.
The Inspector did concede that this proposed dwelling would be similar in scale and
massing to the one refused on the earlier Appeal, and it is the Parish Council’s view that
it would still be disproportionately large in relation to the bungalow it is meant to replace
(Policy HO8) and would have a damaging impact on the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area and the Norfolk Coast AONB which Policies EN1 and EN2 are there to protect.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - My comments on planning application PF/14/1566 remain
relevant to this application as it is a resubmission. In summary, these are:

The application is not consistent with Policy HO8 as it would constitute a
disproportionate increase in height and scale compared to the existing dwelling; it
would also materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside compared to the existing dwelling, exacerbated by the
proposed relocation of the site of the dwelling.

It is also not consistent with Policy EN1, part of which states with regard to impacts
on the AONB: “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.” The approval of PF/15/0762 demonstrates that there is an alternative site
that would result in less harm.
The District Council was correct in its decision to refuse PF/14/1566 and should
maintain consistency in its approach by refusing this resubmission. I believe that the
Planning Inspectors appeal decision was incorrect and failed to take proper account of
the wording, meaning and intention of Policies HO8 and EN1.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The application
replicates a previous application (ref. 14/1566) that was dismissed on
appeal. However the appeal decision is relevant as the Inspector found no issue with
the impact of the proposal on the landscape. The Landscape section agrees with the
Inspector and raises no objection with respect to Policies EN1 and EN2.
It is requested that a condition be attached to any permission given requiring the
submission of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan based on the mitigation
and enhancement proposals identified in the SheilsFlynn LVIA.
In addition, an Ecological Report was submitted with the earlier applications for the site
and the mitigation and enhancement recommendations identified in the report will also
need to be conditioned as part of any approval.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation and Design) - In light of
the Inspector’s appeal decision on PF/14/1566, Conservation & Design do not have any
objections to this particular resubmission.
In essence, having taken into account the statutory duties under the Planning (Listed
Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, the Inspector previously found that the
proposal would;
1) preserve the appearance and character of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and,
2) would be sufficiently far removed from any listed buildings to not affect their settings.
As this affectively vindicates our earlier advice, approval of this application is now
recommended.
Development Committee
5
11 February 2016
In this event, conditions covering the facing materials and joinery are recommended.
Historic England - No objection on the following grounds - Our previous letter of advice
on application PF/14/0785 dated 15 July 2014 raised no objections to the impact of the
proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The current
proposal is for a new dwelling that is broadly similar to the previous proposal in size,
scale and massing, although the ridge line is described as being slightly higher to
accord with the proportions of a threshing barn (the agent notes this is not an increase
above the datum). The footprint of the new building has been moved to within the
existing residential curtilage of the property. The most significant change is the
architectural approach which takes its inspiration from a traditional threshing barn. This
is in contrast to the contemporary approach used in the previous scheme. The design
now takes a more traditional approach and uses local vernacular materials.
The revised siting of the building brings it closer to the existing built complex. The more
traditional architectural approach is less contemporary than earlier versions. However,
the familiarity of the vernacular language and materials could be said to result in a
building which is less assertive in its setting than the previous schemes (although it
might be possible to achieve both a contemporary approach and close affinity with the
local context. We therefore have no objection to the proposals. If your authority is
minded to grant consent, this should be conditional upon approval of detailed drawings,
samples of the proposed materials and the proposed landscaping scheme.
Environmental Health - No response.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
Development Committee
6
11 February 2016
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 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. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2. Background to current application.
3. Acceptability of scheme in view of appeal decision PF/14/1566
APPRAISAL
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
As part of the registration process the application was considered under the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance
within Circular 02/99. Having assessed the proposal Officers concluded that it is not
considered to be EIA development and the potential impacts could be properly and
rigorously assessed through the standard planning process.
Background to current application
On the 5 July 2013 the Local Planning Authority received an application, PF13/0828 for
the erection of a contemporary style two and half storey replacement dwelling situated
on land at Three Owls Farm some 76 metres to the south east of the existing dwelling.
Due to concerns raised by English Heritage this was withdrawn by the applicant and
further consultation undertaken prior to the submission of a revised scheme.
The revised scheme PF/14/0785, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and barns
and erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling in the same location as the
previous application was received on 20 June 2014. Due to the level of local concern
officers requested that Members visit the site prior to taking a full report to the meeting of
the Development Committee on 4 September 2014. Members resolved to refuse the
application on the grounds that “the replacement dwelling by reason of its scale,
massing and siting would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
surrounding countryside. The location of the proposed dwelling further away from the
retained buildings on the site would result in a detrimental intrusion into the open
countryside. Furthermore, its overall appearance and location would detract from the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adversely
effect the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area”. This
application was dismissed at appeal on 16 April 2015, ref APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878,
when the Inspector concluded that from a number of “points within this area the building
would have a significant visual presence”. Whilst he concluded that “this in itself would
not necessarily be harmful, due to scale and mass the proposed dwelling would have a
materially greater impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside and, in the
light of the above, would be harmful to it”.
A further application PF14/1566 was received on 29 November 2014, for the demolition
of dwelling and barns and erection of a vernacular style two and half storey dwelling
some 40 metres to the east of the existing bungalow. Following a site visit, the
Development Committee on 24 April 2015 resolved to refuse the application on the
same grounds as the previous application (ref: PF/14/0785).
On 25 May 2015 a further application PF15/0762 was received for the demolition of the
bungalow and outbuildings and erection of a two-storey dwelling and detached three car
Development Committee
7
11 February 2016
garage partly on the footprint of the existing dwelling. This was approved under
delegated powers on 4 September 2015.
Prior to this decision being issued an appeal against refusal PF/14/1566 was lodged by
the applicant on 17 August 2015, ref APP/Y2620/W/15/3087216, see copy of decision
notice at Appendix 1. In arriving at his decision the Inspector makes reference to the
planning history of the site, including the proposal for a replacement dwelling, previously
dismissed at appeal. In addition, the granting of the more recent planning permission in
September 2015, for a replacement dwelling partly on the footprint of the existing
bungalow proposed for demolition (Ref PF/15/0762).
In considering the effect of the development on the surrounding area the Inspector
recognises that the proposed dwelling would have a considerably greater floor area and
be taller than the existing bungalow, furthermore in accordance with Policy HO8
whether this would be disproportionately large in comparison depends, amongst other
things, on the prevailing character of the area. The Inspector took this to mean that a
replacement dwelling which might be regarded as too large in one area might not be in
another subject to the individual circumstances of the site and its surroundings.
In recognising that the proposed dwelling would be similar in scale and massing to the
replacement dwelling previously dismissed at appeal, the Inspector considers that due
to revisions in the design, materials and location of the dwelling, collectively these are
positive features which set the proposal apart from the previous scheme and would
reduce its sense of presence in the landscape.
In terms of the extent of visual influence from various viewpoints around the site the
Inspector concludes that whilst the dwelling would appear larger and more visible than
the existing bungalow the visual impact would however be mitigated by the traditional
design of the building and the fact that it would appear predominantly below the skyline
with a landscape backdrop. In addition, the locations from which these views are
possible are along routes generally characterised by tall boundary hedges and the
available views would in the main be limited to fleeting glimpses through intermittent
gaps and field accesses. Whilst from Bridgefoot Lane to the east although there are
very attractive open views looking westwards across the Glaven Valley the Inspector
considers that whilst visible, the proposed replacement dwelling would be too distant to
constitute an imposing feature in the landscape.
The Inspector has also taken into account the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the statutory duty under section 72(1) to pay special
attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of
the Conservation Area.
In arriving at his decision, the Inspector considers that the proposed development which
would include the removal of the two barns, which are in poor condition, would preserve
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst the dwelling would be
too far away the churches in Wiveton, Blakeney and Cley, all Grade 1 listed buildings, to
detract from their setting.
In conclusion, the Inspector considers that the proposed replacement dwelling would
not be in conflict with the development control, design and landscape and heritage
protection objectives of Policies HO 8, EN 1, EN 2, EN 4 and EN 8 of the CS or with
paragraph 115 the National Planning Policy Framework. However given the extant
permission PF/15/0762 in the event of the appeal being allowed, he recognises that it
would be possible to develop two independent dwellings which would contravene North
Norfolk Core Strategy Policies SS2 and HO8. Although in its Statement of Case the
Council suggested a planning condition to prevent such a scenario the Inspector
considers a planning obligation to be necessary in order to achieve this. Given that no
Development Committee
8
11 February 2016
such obligation was submitted as part of the appeal, the Inspector concluded that he
had no option other than to dismiss the appeal.
The current application 15/1655 arises from that decision.
Principle of development
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The current application is virtually identical to the proposal submitted under application
ref: PF/14/1566. The key planning policies and principles were set out in that report to
Committee and are attached at Appendix 1 for ease of reference. These key policies
and principles remain relevant to the determination of this application and the
Committee must therefore give these policies and issues appropriate weight as they
form part of the development plan.
Whilst Officers recognise that the Committee previously disagreed with the advice of its
Officers in regard to determination of application ref: PF/14/1566, the Planning
Inspector subsequently adopted a view which was generally consistent with the advice
of Officers.
The conclusions of the Planning Inspector when assessing the appeal against
application ref: PF/14/1566 (appeal ref: APP/Y2620/W/15/3087216) are a material
consideration and the Committee will need to consider the weight to be afforded to this
material consideration. Officer advice is that the Planning Inspectors conclusions
should be afforded substantial weight in determining the current proposal. If the
Committee are minded to reach a different conclusion and not to afford appropriate
weight to the Inspectors Decision, there would need to be good planning reasons for
doing so otherwise such action could be considered unreasonable.
Summary and Planning conclusions
Whilst Officers understand the previous views expressed by the Development
Committee when considering application ref: PF/14/1566, the Planning Inspector
reached a different conclusion. In arriving at his decision the Inspector concluded that
the proposed dwelling, whilst considerably larger than the existing bungalow, would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the countryside and
would preserve the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
He also concluded that the proposal would not detract from the setting of nearby listed
buildings. This view has previously been expressed both by Historic England and the
Council’s Conservation and Landscape section, who have indicated that they have no
objection to the current application.
Some of the representations received suggest that in arriving at his decision the
Inspector has disregarded the judgement of the first appeal and has clearly
demonstrated an inconsistent approach and this must be challenged by the Council.
Furthermore, representations have suggested that previous decisions are material and
that “like for like cases should be decide in like manner” so that there is consistency in
the process.
In response Officers are of the opinion that this proposal compared with application
PF/14/0785 is not a “like for like” case as the proposed dwelling would be some 36
metres closer to the original dwelling, within its curtilage. In addition, unlike the
contemporary design previously proposed it is intended that the dwelling would be of a
more vernacular form and appearance. Furthermore, Officers consider that the
Inspector has correctly interpreted both national and local plan polices and that
although previous decisions are a material consideration each application and appeal
must be determined on its own merits.
Development Committee
9
11 February 2016
Whilst Officers recognise that this may be a locally contentious proposal, having
considered very carefully the development plan policies and the judgement of the
Planning Inspector, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement
which prevents the implementation of both this application and the extant permission
(ref: PF/15/0762 and subject to the imposition of conditions to control proposed
materials, landscaping and limiting permitted development rights, the scheme as
proposed would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation limiting the erection of only one replacement dwelling at the site and
the imposition of the following conditions.
1.
The development to which this permission relates shall not be begun later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2.
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or alteration
to the dwelling hereby permitted (including the insertion of any further window or
rooflight) shall be undertaken and no building, structure or means of enclosure
within the curtilage of the dwelling shall be erected unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
4.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the existing
dwelling shall be demolished and the site cleared within two months of the first
occupation of the replacement.
5.
Prior to their first use on site precise details of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external walls and roofs of the building shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall
be constructed in full accordance with the approved plans.
6.
Prior to its first use on site, details of the colour finishes to the external joinery,
including timber cladding, window frames and doors shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details.
7.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a hard and soft
landscaping scheme based on the submitted Landscape Principles Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include the species, number and size of new trees and shrubs at the time of their
planting. The scheme will include a timetable for the removal of any trees
identified to be removed in the application plans or documents, the removal of
these is not permitted until the scheme has been approved. The scheme shall
also include surface treatments of all car parking and manoeuvring areas,
pedestrian access routes, courtyards and walls and fences. 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.
Development Committee
10
11 February 2016
(2)
8.
Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter
be installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9.
No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated in the approved plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local
Planning Authority.
10.
Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced
during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the
Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to
any variation.
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1584 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden and erection of studio/office/store; 3 Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for
Blue Tile Farm Barns Ltd
Target Date: 21 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070474 PF
Conversion of Barns to three residential units
Approved 28/10/2011
PF/14/0310 PF
Conversion of barns to three residential dwellings, re-location of access and change of
use of land from agricultural to residential
Approved 24/06/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the change of use of agricultural land to residential garden and
erection of studio, office and store.
The area of land is approximately 195sqm. The boundary to the south is approximately
18m in length, the eastern boundary approximately 17m, and the northern boundary
approximately 24m in length. The area of land is an irregular shape, and adjoins
neighbouring properties to the south and east and agricultural land to the north. Estate
type fencing is proposed along the northern boundary to match that of the remainder of
the development and a mixed native hedge to the east.
The proposed studio/office and store would be for private use in association with an
existing dwelling (Unit 3) approved under PF/14/0310. The building would measure
approximately 6.5m x 5.2m, and up to 4.5m in height to the ridge. It would have a hipped
clay pantile roof, with a brick plinth and timber cladding to the walls.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wells for the following planning reason:
Development Committee
11
11 February 2016
Planning history of site
This application was deferred at the previous meeting for a Committee site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
This matter was discussed by the Parish Council and they wish to unanimously object.
The Parish Council feel the original plans for this site, which were subject to many
conditions have subsequently been broken down into small applications which are being
allowed through by the planning authority. The applicants will eventually have exactly
what they originally wanted by going down this route.
The original building has been moved onto agricultural land when there appears to be no
reason to move it, and regarding the change of use to residential garden, it has been
queried as to why an office needs a garden?
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection has been received raising the following points:
 Concerns over use of proposed building as office for business purposes or
residential
 Proposal would result in overdevelopment
 Contradiction of existing planning decision
 Detrimental impact on neighbouring property
 Noise and disturbance
 Proposal does not protect the landscape as part of the natural environment
 Impact on wildlife
 What is to stop further applications to build on the land
A letter has been received from the applicant's Ecologist advising that they do not
consider any further survey work or report necessary, as they do not consider the
proposal would have discernible impact on bats at the site for the following reasons:




The building will not directly or indirectly impact on any of the existing roost
entrances or any of the replacement bat roost features installed as part of the EPSM
licence mitigation;
No hedgerows or trees will be lost as a result of this proposal and existing foraging
habitat will be unaffected;
The proposed new location of the building retains an adequate gap between the
hedgerow and the proposed building and other existing buildings, maintaining
existing commuting routes for bats between the roost sites and foraging habitats;
The proposed lighting on the ancillary building will be provided by two downward
facing, movement sensitive lights that are positioned away from any existing
commuting routes and thus are not anticipated to result in any significant disruption
to commuting bats.
The Ecologist advises that the building was not considered within the scope of the
EPSM licence issued by Natural England, however, it is considered that there will be no
detrimental impacts to bats resulting from this proposal either to the movement of bats
through the site or to the mitigation provided under the Natural England licence.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design - No objection
Landscape - Original Comments: No objection has been raised in relation to the change
of use of land from agriculture to residential. It is not considered that this part of the
Development Committee
12
11 February 2016
proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural character of the area
and wider landscape. However, further information is required in the form of an
Ecological Impact Assessment in relation to bats before further comments can be
provided.
Further comments: Based on the analysis of the situation from The Ecology
Consultancy, specifically the gap between the proposed building and the existing hedge
and the lighting proposals, it is considered that the impact on bats is likely to be
negligible. I would however recommend putting a condition on any permission given
requiring the external lighting to be approved.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwelling
3. Impact upon landscape
4. Impact upon Conservation Area
5. Impact on biodiversity
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
Background
Planning permission was originally granted for the conversion of the barns into three
dwellings under application reference 20070474. Following that approval and a change
in ownership a further application was submitted by the current applicant under
reference 14/0310 for minor changes to the external appearance of the barns as well as
re-location of an access and change of use of land from agricultural to residential. The
Development Committee
13
11 February 2016
change of use element of the proposal included an increase in the residential curtilage of
the barns, and in particular to Unit 3. The curtilage to Unit 3 was originally shown to
include a piece of land that extended to the east of the current eastern boundary to Unit
3 by approximately 24m. Due to surrounding boundary positions this piece of land is
triangular in area, and is directly to the north of the boundary with the adjoining
neighbouring dwelling known as Blue Tile Farm House. It was originally proposed for a
shed (5m x 3.5m x) to be located on this piece of land for the use of Unit 3. However, at
that time objections were received to this part of the proposal. Following a site visit by
the then Development Committee, Members asked the applicant if he would remove this
area of land from the curtilage of Unit 3 and retain it as is. The applicant agreed to this
and following re - positioning of the shed the Committee resolved to approve the
application.
The current application has now been submitted to re-instate this piece of land, (in the
ownership of the applicant), back within the curtilage of Unit 3 and to erect a
studio/office/store building. The applicant has confirmed that this proposed building
would be erected instead of a previously approved garage and shed on the remainder of
the barn development.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for ancillary
domestic buildings within the residential curtilage of a dwelling are permitted in principle.
A change of use of land from agricultural to residential curtilage may also be permitted in
principle in such a location subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy
policies.
2. Impact on neighbouring property
The application site is located directly to the north of the boundary with the neighbouring
dwelling known as Blue Tile Farmhouse. Blue Tile Farmhouse has a barn with a gable
end facing north onto the application site, and forms the boundary. The remainder of the
boundary between the application site and Blue Tile Farmhouse consists of a high
hedge.
The owners of Blue Tile Farmhouse have planning permission themselves to convert
their barn into habitable accommodation and for the erection of a detached annexe in
their garden, in association with their dwelling (Application Reference: 14/0578). As far
as Officers are aware this permission has not yet been implemented. The neighbours
barn conversion is shown on the approved plans to be a sitting room and has high level
glazing on the northern elevation with a cill level of 2m above ground level. The annexe
is approximately 10m to the east of Blue Tile Farmhouse, within their garden. Whilst the
neighbours annexe has three windows facing north towards the application site, they are
secondary and tertiary windows, with the primary elevation to the south which is fully
glazed, overlooking their own garden. At this point the high hedge along the boundary
between the application site and the neighbours property serves as a screen and would
prevent any possible overlooking and loss of privacy to either property. The high level
windows in the northern elevation of the neighbours barn, facing the application site,
would also prevent any issues of overlooking or loss of privacy to either property.
In view of this it is not considered that either the change of use or erection of building for
use as a studio/office/store would have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the proposed use of the studio/office/store.
This application has been submitted on the basis that these uses are for domestic
purposes in association with Unit 3, and the application is being considered on that
basis. Should the application be approved then a condition can be imposed to state that
the building can only be used for ancillary purposes to Unit 3 only and shall not be used
Development Committee
14
11 February 2016
for any commercial purposes. The proposed building would also not be considered
acceptable in principle for separate residential use. In accordance with Policy H09 of the
Core Strategy those buildings which have been recently been constructed for another
purpose and are outbuildings providing an ancillary domestic function are not eligible for
consideration as a dwelling under Policy H09. It is therefore considered that the use of
the building could be appropriately controlled by condition.
3. Impact on landscape
The application has been discussed with the Landscape Officer who has raised no
objection in relation to the landscape impact. Whilst the site is located within the
countryside policy area it is not in an isolated location. It is adjacent to the already
developed area of the settlement, and would not have a significant detrimental impact
upon the wider landscape setting.
4. Impact on Conservation Area
The site is located within the Field Dalling Conservation Area. The proposal has been
discussed with the Conservation and Design Officer who has raised no objection to the
proposal. It is considered that given the siting of the proposal and minimal visual impact
within the Conservation Area that it would continue to preserve and enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
5. Impact on biodiversity
The Landscape Officer has raised no objection in relation to the change of use of land
from agricultural to residential. The Landscape Officer also has no objection in principle
to the erection of a building for use as a studio/office/store. However, the Landscape
Officer had raised concerns in relation to the erection of the proposed building on the site
in terms of the impact upon bats. This matter has also been raised by the objector. The
original protected species survey on application 14/0310 showed the bats exiting and
entering the site from the north east corner of the site. The mitigation under the licence
provided for bat roosts in the proposed new garaging to the south east corner of the site
fronting the road. The Landscape Officer has advised that the licenced mitigation would
try to retain the commuting route for the bats and to re-create the roosting opportunity as
they were before the development. It is therefore expected that bats would still be
entering and exiting the site in that north eastern corner, and would probably use the
hedgerows and trees in that corner to access the wider landscape. The application does
indicate putting the proposed building in the middle of that pathway. The Landscape
Officer was concerned that proposed building could disrupt a commuting route for bats,
and had requested an Ecological Impact Assessment in order to be able to assess any
possible impact upon the bat population. The Committee will note from the report that
the applicant's Ecologist has provided further information and has explained why they do
not consider a further report or survey work necessary and why they do not consider that
the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on bats. The Landscape Officer
has considered this further information and agrees that the impact would be negligible.
Whilst a condition has been requested in relation to external lighting being agreed there
are no objections from the Landscape Officer in relation to bats. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of protected species and in accordance
with Policy EN9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location and would
preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and is acceptable in
terms of landscape impact. It will not have any significant impact on the residential
amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. Following receipt of further
information from the applicants Ecologist the Landscape Officer is satisfied that the
impact upon bats would be negligible.
Development Committee
15
11 February 2016
The proposal is therefore considered to be 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 time limit, in accordance with approved plans, materials, external lighting,
boundary treatments, ancillary residential use only.
(3)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr & Mrs M Goff
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071815 PF
Erection of replacement dwelling
Approved 16/01/2008
PF/10/1415 PF
Erection of replacement dwelling (extension of period for commencement of planning
ref: 07/1815)
Approved 02/02/2011
PF/13/0418 HOU
Erection of single-storey rear extension, single-storey extension with balcony above
and replacement single-storey front extension and cladding of gable in flint/timber
cladding
Approved 30/05/2013
PF/14/0150 PF
Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn
PF/14/1190 PF
Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 28/10/2014
PF/14/1434 HOU
Installation of swimming pool and plant room
Approved 17/02/2015
PF/14/1492 HOU
Erection of detached 4 bay garage block
Approved 09/01/2015
PF/15/0169 PF
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 25/03/2015
Development Committee
16
11 February 2016
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a
replacement dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wells having regard to the following planning issue:
Due to the subjectivity of the relevant planning policy considerations.
BLAKENEY PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, however, would like to draw attention to Policy H08: House extensions
and replacement dwellings in the countryside, but feel the site can take this proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
A Design and Access Statement, Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA),
Protected Species Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment have been submitted
in support of the application. The Design and Access Statement is contained in
Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Morston Parish Council - No objection
Environmental Health - No objection. Advisory notes required in relation to asbestos
removal and demolition of buildings.
County Council Highway Authority - No objection, subject to conditions in relation to
access, visibility splays and car parking.
Natural England - In summary concerns have been raised regarding the visual impacts
of the proposal upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the National Trail
given the sites prominent position situated approximately 300m in land from the coastal
grazing marsh boundary, and the substantial increase in size of the proposed
replacement dwelling which would be more visible in the landscape. Natural England
advise to consult with Norfolk Coast Partnership.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - In summary considers the proposal raises concerns in
terms of the large increase in scale and relocation of the dwelling on the site and
compliance with Policy HO8. The proposed replacement dwelling due to its orientation
would also materially increase the impact as seen from the north which is the most
sensitive direction as it includes the undeveloped marshes of the North Norfolk Heritage
Coast and the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail.
The photomontages in the LVIA show that from certain viewpoints it would have a
greater impact than the existing house and that despite proposed landscaping there
would not be a significant reduction in year 15 compared with year 1, so the impact
should be understood as permanent. Norfolk Coast Partnership disagree with some of
the conclusions in the assessment of the LVIA and consider that the proposal would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the most sensitive
parts of the surrounding countryside.
Concerns over cumulative impact on the relatively undeveloped and remote character
of the AONB which is a key aspect of its defining characteristics. (Response contained
in full in Appendix 2).
Landscape Officer - In summary whilst no objection in principle to a replacement
dwelling it is considered that the proposal as submitted would materially increase the
impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside, contrary to Policy HO8 of the
Core Strategy and that the impact of the proposed application within a key section of
such a highly valued and sensitive landscape is of such significance that the proposal
Development Committee
17
11 February 2016
should not be approved as it would detract from the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and undermine the designation. (Full comments in
Appendix 2).
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact on
the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the likely
impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 115
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development/ Policy HO8
2. Design
3. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast
4. Impact on neighbouring properties
5. Highway safety
6. Impact upon trees and Protected Species
Development Committee
18
11 February 2016
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit last week.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (SS2) as designated in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location replacement dwellings are
permitted. There can therefore be no policy objection to the principle of the proposal.
However, such proposals in this location are required to comply with Policy H08 which
permits replacement dwellings provided that they:
a) would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
b) would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside
In determining what constitutes a 'disproportionately large increase' account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been or
could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of
the area.
The existing dwelling is a two storey property set well back into the site to the north of
the Morston Road (A149) by over 70m. It is located in close proximity to a group of
mature trees and outbuildings which provide some screening. It is considered to be
relatively inconspicuous and recessive in the landscape. A 1.8m high fence on the
roadside boundary (south), and existing vegetation and mature planting screens any
views into the site from the Morston Road, and parts of the east and west boundaries.
The site is well screened from the west and Morston Quay itself by the Esker SSSI,
which consists of mature trees. The ground levels alter across the site dropping down
from the road level, north towards the application site.
The existing dwelling has a footprint of approximately 150sqm, and total floor area of
approximately 293sqm. The existing outbuildings and garaging have a floor area of
approximately 117sqm. This existing cumulative floor area totals approximately
410sqm. The ridge height of the existing dwelling is just over 7m. Whilst of a brick and
flint construction the existing dwelling has been altered and extended over time and is
not considered to be of any historic or architectural merit. There is therefore no objection
in principle to its demolition and replacement.
It is intended for the proposed replacement dwelling to have a veranda/loggia extending
around the majority of the dwelling. However, the actual habitable accommodation
would have a footprint of approximately 310sqm. The total floorspace of the actual
proposed dwelling would be approximately 535sqm. In addition to this there is a
utility/boot room wing attached to the dwelling of approximately 137sqm, and a garage
of approximately 56sqm. This would result in a total floorspace of approximately
728sqm. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 9m.
The total increase in floorspace between the existing dwelling (excluding outbuildings
and garaging) and the proposed dwelling (excluding utility/ boot room and garage wing)
would be approximately 82%. This is the increase in floorspace referred to in the Design
and Access Statement, which the agent has calculated at 80%. If the total area of the
proposed dwelling (including utility/ boot room and garage wing) were to be used in the
calculation of increase in floorspace it would result in approximately 148%. However, if
the existing outbuildings and garaging on the site are included in this calculation the
increase in total floorspace from all structures would be approximately 77%.
The difference in ridge heights between existing and proposed of approximately 2m is
Development Committee
19
11 February 2016
not considered to be significant in terms of Policy HO8. However, in terms of scale and
comparing the floorspace figures there is no dispute that the proposed replacement
dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing dwelling on the site.
Taking a direct comparison between the existing and proposed dwelling the increase in
floorspace is comparable with other replacement dwelling applications that have been
approved over recent years on other sites across the District within the Countryside
Policy Area (Policy SS2) and under Policy HO8. However, each site is judged on its own
merits and the location and context is different for each site along with any constraints.
Therefore, what may be an acceptable increase in floorspace for one replacement
dwelling does not mean it will be acceptable for another.
Whilst Officers have no objection in principle to a larger replacement dwelling on the
site, this proposal also changes the positioning of the dwelling. Where the existing
dwelling is located in a fairly recessive location in close proximity to a group of mature
trees which help to provide some screening, the proposed dwelling is shown to be
positioned to the north east of the existing dwelling in a more prominent and open
location on the site. The proposed dwelling would be some 10m further to the north and
14m further to the east.
This raises significant concerns for Officers, particularly as the proposed dwelling has
an attached utility, boot room and garage wing which alone measures approximately
23.5m x 8.3m, with a ridge height of approximately 5.7m. Whilst the overall ridge height
is fairly low it is the overall length of this wing which is considered to be excessive and
significantly increases the scale of the proposed replacement dwelling, particularly from
its most open view point from the north east.
In terms of prevailing character of the area there is a mix of dwelling type, scale, design
and use of materials in the immediate area. It is not an area where one character
prevails over another. The application site is significant in terms of its area, and the site
can comfortably accommodate a larger dwelling.
However, it is considered that the proposed dwelling as a whole would result in a
disproportionately large increase in the scale of the original dwelling. In view of this and
the north easterly siting of the proposed dwelling, to a more prominent position in the
landscape, it is considered that this would materially increase the impact of the dwelling
on the appearance of the surrounding countryside, contrary to the requirements of
Policy HO8.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal as submitted complies with either
requirement of Policy HO8.
2. Design
Officers have no objection in principle to a "New England" style design in this location.
There is a mix of designs and materials in this area of Blakeney, including the use of
timber cladding. It is not considered that there is one overriding local distinctiveness.
The Cedar shingles proposed for the roof, and Iroko timber cladding would weather to a
silvery grey, and would help to make the proposed dwelling more recessive. In
accordance with advice set out in the North Norfolk Design Guide it is not necessary to
slavishly copy existing materials. There are no objections to the use of materials
proposed.
In terms of design and the requirements of Policy EN4, Officer's do not doubt that the
proposed dwelling is designed to a high quality. However, whilst the proposed "New
England" style design is supported, Officers are not satisfied that the proposed dwelling
is of a scale and massing that relates sympathetically to its surroundings. This is further
exacerbated by its re-location.
Development Committee
20
11 February 2016
Officers have raised the issue of scale and massing with the applicant and agent and
made suggestions as to how this could be reduced. This included reducing the overall
length of the ridge of the proposed dwelling by removing the projecting first floor wings
on the east and west elevations, and pulling the balconies in, slightly reducing the
ground floor area, and by reducing the size of the utility, boot room and garage wing
perhaps even having part of this as a detached building. However, the applicant has
decided to pursue the application as submitted, but has reduced the overall length of the
ridge of the dwelling by introducing hipped gable ends. This has taken some 7m off the
length of the ridge, reducing it from 22.5m to 14.5m. Whilst this is seen as an
improvement, and welcomed by Officers, it is not considered to be a sufficient reduction
to the overall scale and massing of the design for the proposal to be considered
acceptable. In view of this the proposal would not therefore preserve or enhance the
character and quality of the area contrary to the requirements of Policy EN4.
3. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast
The site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where
development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of
the AONB and their settings will not be permitted (Policy EN1).
The site is also located within the Undeveloped Coast (Policy EN3), where only
development that can be demonstrated to require a coastal location and will not be
significantly detrimental to the open coastal character will be permitted. Whilst it is
accepted that the development requires a coastal location because it is a replacement
dwelling on the applicants land, it is not considered that the proposal as submitted
complies with the second part of that policy.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer is objecting to the application as
submitted, and that significant concerns have been raised by Norfolk Coast Partnership
and Natural England in relation to the impacts upon the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
Whilst the Landscape Officer has no objection in principle to a replacement dwelling on
the site the concerns that have been raised are in relation to the impact on the AONB
and landscape which are considered to be unacceptable and non-compliant with local
and national policies.
The applicant has submitted a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with the
application. The Landscape Officer considers the methodology and evaluations in the
LVIA to be generally accepted. However, it is considered that some of the effects of the
development on some landscape receptors and viewpoints have been undervalued and
the impacts are actually greater than suggested. This alters some of the effects of the
development on the landscape into the 'significant' bracket of impact. The Norfolk Coast
Partnership also disagree with some of the conclusions in the assessment of landscape
and visual effects. Despite proposed landscaping they do not consider that the visual
impacts suggested in the LVIA between year 1 and year 15 are significantly reduced,
and that the impact should be considered as permanent.
The Landscape Officer has advised that the LVIA acknowledges the significance of the
impact of the dwelling and does attempt to mitigate the impacts with strategic planting
and a set of landscape principles. However, it is not considered that these successfully
reduce the impact to acceptable levels in order to comply with the requirements of the
NPPF and Policies EN1 and HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Both the Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership consider that the proposed
dwelling would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the most sensitive parts
of the surrounding countryside contrary to the requirements of Policy HO8.
This is a significant concern as the site is located within a 'highly valued and sensitive
Development Committee
21
11 February 2016
landscape', which is afforded significant protection under local and national policies.
Paragraph 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local
planning authorities should: "maintain the character of the undeveloped coast,
protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as
Heritage Coast". The site is less than 300m from a Heritage Coast, this proximity has
been raised by both Natural England and Norfolk Coast Partnership who are concerned
that the proposed dwelling would materially increase the impact as seen from the most
sensitive direction to the north. In addition, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that
"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 Design and Access Statement submitted with the application provides some
examples of other substantial dwellings that have been altered/extended or replaced in
Blakeney. The nearest of which is a property called 'Bliss', located in close proximity to
the application site. However, this site along with the others referred to may all be in
Blakeney, but their locations and context are all different. For example "Bliss" is a
substantial replacement dwelling, and whilst very close to the application site it is to the
south of the A149 Morston Road, flanked by other dwellings and forming part of an
existing 'developed' street scene. The application site differs to this as it is to the north of
the A149 Morston Road in a more isolated and open location, which is significantly more
sensitive to development. Officers are in agreement with the applicant that there are
other substantial new dwellings in Blakeney, but each site has to be judged on its own
merits, and what may be acceptable on one site does mean it is acceptable on another
given that there may be different constraints to consider.
Both the Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership have referred to the
cumulative impact of approval that substantial replacement dwellings can have on this
particular sensitive setting which is relatively undeveloped. It is considered that the
proposal as submitted would detract from the special qualities of the AONB and
undermine the key characteristics of its designation.
Officers are of the opinion that with further consideration by the applicant, in terms of
reducing the overall scale of the dwelling and re-positioning the dwelling further south
back into the site that, it could be possible to achieve an acceptable development in this
location. Officers were prepared to explore this further with the applicant and their
agent, but they declined to enter into any further negotiations and asked for the
application to be determined as submitted.
In view of this the proposal as submitted is considered to be contrary to Policies EN1,
EN2, and EN3 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 114 and 115 of the NPPF.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
Given the distances to neighbouring properties from the application site it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the
privacy and amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is therefore
considered to be acceptable in this respect and in accordance with the relevant part of
Policy EN4 regarding residential amenity.
5. Highway safety
The Highway Authority have not raised an objection to the application. However, they
have raised concerns over the existing vehicular access onto the A149 Morston Road,
which they advise has been relocated without planning permission. The access is
unmade and draws loose material onto the busy A149 and currently has substandard
visibility. Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority are able to deal with the access
issues by way of conditions on this permission. The proposal is acceptable under Policy
CT5.
Development Committee
22
11 February 2016
6. Impact upon trees and Protected Species
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted with the application
along with a Protected Species report. The Landscape Officer has been consulted on
both and has raised no objection to the information submitted. The proposal is therefore
considered to be acceptable in terms of the relevant part to Policy EN4 in relation to
trees and Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
The principle of a replacement dwelling on this site is considered to be acceptable, as
indeed is one that is larger in floorspace than the existing. The proposed general style of
design and materials are also considered to be acceptable in this location.
However, it is the overall scale of the proposed replacement dwelling, in particular the
attached utility, boot room and garage wing and its orientation along with the prominent
and forward positioning of the replacement dwelling on the site which is not considered
to be acceptable or in accordance with Development Plan policy.
Given the highly sensitive landscape location it is considered that the proposed dwelling
would be disproportionate to that of the existing dwelling in terms of its scale and would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside. Furthermore it is considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the special qualities and setting of the AONB along with the
open coastal character of the area.
The recommendation is therefore one of refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The size of the proposal is considered to be disproportionate to that of the
existing dwelling in terms of its scale and its prominent location which would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside contrary to Policy HO8 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy, also it is considered that the proposal would fail to preserve or
enhance the character and quality of the area contrary to the requirements of
Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Furthermore, it is considered that given the scale and prominent location of the
dwelling in the landscape it would have a significant detrimental impact upon the
special qualities and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty along
with the open coastal character of the Undeveloped Coast contrary to Policies
EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and paragraphs
114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
(4)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal - Full planning permission for
erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of
commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road for Peter Foster Tofts,
Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon
Major Development
- Target Date: 20 October 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
B Road
Mixed Use Allocation
Development Committee
23
11 February 2016
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/1367 PF
Erection of 132 dwellings, creation of new accesses, provision of open spaces and
landscaping
Withdrawn by Applicant 18/02/2015
PF/13/0866
Erection of 176 dwellings with access, open space and associated works and formation
of station car park and outline application for employment development
Approved 20/08/2014
THE APPLICATION
This is a 'hybrid' planning application, partly including full details and partly seeking
outline consent only. The full details comprise proposals for road access serving the
whole of the site, 100 dwellings and areas of open space. The outline element seeks
approval in principle for employment related development.
The application (which has been the subject of amended plans) comprises the following
principal details:




A single main spine road serving the site which would run from a mid-point along the
frontage with Norwich Road (B1150) to the site's eastern boundary. Two secondary
estate roads to the site's eastern and southern boundaries would serve the majority
of the residential area, together with a series of private drives. Two private drives
linking to 11 dwellings would be served directly off Norwich Road.
100 dwellings, mostly two storey (but with a few single and two and half storey),
comprising a mix of short terraces, semi-detached and detached properties.
Four areas of public open space. One to the south-western corner of the site
adjacent to Norwich Road, two within the development and one in the north-eastern
corner.
The proposed employment land covers a northern portion of the site and would
border both Norwich Road and the proposed spine road.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (20 units)
together with a relaxation of renewable energy requirements.
The application is accompanied by Heads of Terms for a S.106 Planning Obligation
which provides for the following:
 Education contribution
 Library contribution
 Highway works
 Travel bond
 Fire hydrants
 Healthcare contribution
 Affordable housing
 Visitor pressure / green infrastructure
 Public open space
 Play provision contribution
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Development Committee
24
11 February 2016
Transport Assessment
Affordable Housing Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Ecology Survey
Landscape Character Assessment
Minerals Safeguarding Assessment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors A Moore and V Gay having regard to the following planning
issues:
The scale of the proposal, importance to the town, highway safety and design.
TOWN COUNCIL
Initial response raised concerns regarding S.106 contributions towards education and
local healthcare, highway safety, information regarding affordable housing, surface
water drainage and the proposed commercial area.
In response to the amended plans, re-iterates concerns about traffic speeds along
Norwich Road particularly with three proposed access points from the site with no
visible traffic management solutions with no provision for flared exits, zebra crossing
and other safety measures. In the light of NCC possible intention of turning street lights
off along this stretch of Norwich Road exacerbates these concerns.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of representation initially received. Two objecting on grounds of loss of
green field land together with concerns over the lack of detail regarding the type of
employment uses proposed (potential for noise / traffic) and highway safety (suggest a
roundabout would be more suitable). The other raising similar concerns about highway
safety and the lack of measures to slow traffic speeds at this entrance point into North
Walsham.
Four further letters of objection received in response to the amended plans in relation to
highway safety, traffic speeds and specifically the position of the main access onto
Norwich Road. Suggestions made for a mini-roundabout and that the access is
relocated further south. Concern also expressed regarding the proposed position of a
bus stop, the nature of uses on the proposed employment land and the impact upon
local services and their capacity to cope with this increased housing development.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is currently sufficient capacity at North Walsham
waste water treatment works and the local sewerage network to accommodate the
proposed development.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 agreement:
Education - improvements to North Walsham Infant and Junior Schools and Millfield
Primary School (total £279,456)
Fire hydrants x4 (£812 each)
Library provision (£6000).
Green Infrastructure - improvements to for the Weavers Way Trail and North Walsham
Circular Walks (£26,620)
County Council (Highways) - Initial comments provided regarding technical issues
relating to the residential estate layout. Further comments awaited.
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - No objection subject to a condition requiring
that prior to the commencement of development site investigations are undertaken as
referred to in the submitted Minerals Safeguarding Assessment in order to establish the
extent to which on-site minerals (sand and gravel) could be extracted for use as part of
Development Committee
25
11 February 2016
the development.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions in relation to land
contamination and drainage.
Conservation and Design Officer - Considers that in terms of layout the (amended)
plan "potentially offers a clear template around which to assemble the building blocks
three-dimensionally".
Concludes however that this is where the scheme "continues to struggle. Despite the
attempts made to enliven the development and tailor it to the locality, the overall
impression is still of a relatively homogenous development which features standard
house types that have been deployed universally across the whole site. This is in part
due to the regimented siting which still underpins much of the layout. However, it is
mainly attributable to the comparatively consistent approach to density, built form/height
and elevational treatment. Together these make it very difficult for the scheme to offer
the kind of layering and depth which promotes genuine visual interest."
"Within this, it is acknowledged that the areas of open space should provide important
reference points and relief within the scheme. It is also accepted that the limited size of
the site does to some extent restrict the opportunities for creating distinct character
areas. Despite this mitigation, however, the approach adopted remains unduly
one-dimensional and is heavily dependent upon the quality of the architecture to
prevent it being viewed as just another suburban estate."
"In this regard, it is noted that the applicants say they have taken inspiration from local
buildings and have adapted their elevations accordingly. In practice, however, the
revisions made are relatively minor and simply involve re-dressing their standard house
types. Therefore, whilst we would certainly not wish to be critical about the principle of
emphasising the focal plots and introducing additional detailing, the majority of the
changes are in reality modest variations on a theme which could be applied to almost
any context."
"In terms of the elevations themselves, the vast majority are laid out and arranged in a
fairly predictable and inoffensive way. At the same time, however, they offer precious
little by way of originality or innovation to suggest that the scheme might actually raise
architectural standards within the area."
Beyond these generic concerns offers a number of detailed suggestions.
Concludes that whilst some of the changes introduced in the amended plans "have
undoubtedly been to the overall benefit of the scheme, they have only really nibbled at
the edges of what would largely be a disappointing development three-dimensionally.
Given the site’s prominent gateway location at one of the main entrances into the town,
it is respectfully suggested that rather more should be sought. At the same time,
however, it is recognized that the scheme would make a significant contribution to
housing provision within the District. This is also clearly an important consideration
which must be weighed against the parallel quest for design quality."
Landscape Officer - Comments refer to the proposed public open space, surface
water drainage and landscaping treatments:


Considers that the linkage between the areas of open space are weak as well as
some of the details of these areas. Suggests amendments should be made..
Highlights the need for a Management and Maintenance Plan to provide for the
aftercare of the landscaping / public open space.
Considers that there is currently insufficient information relating to the inclusion and
Development Committee
26
11 February 2016

integration of SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage) as part of the proposals, and how
these will impact upon tree planting and the areas of public open space.
Makes a number of suggestions regarding the detail of landscape planting and
boundary treatments.
Environmental Health - No comments received.
Strategic Housing - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in North
Walsham with 118 households on the Housing Register, 131 households on the
Transfer Register and 625 households on the Housing Options Register who have
stated that they require housing in the town. Confirms that the proposed development
(as amended) comprises an acceptable mix of dwellings which would meet both the
required 45% provision as required by Core Strategy Policy HO2 or a reduced 20%
provision under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme. In addition the proposed
tenure mix of rented (80%) and intermediate (20%) complies with Policy HO2.
Supports the application, subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to
secure the provision and phasing of the affordable housing
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that whilst the application generates a
need for play provision, given that the location of open space anticipates these areas
will one day be extended, it may not be appropriate to provide children’s play equipment
at this stage, because it may be better located at a future time. Suggests therefore that
a contribution of £60,000 be sought in lieu of future play provision.
Norfolk Police (Architectural Liaison) - Generally content with the proposed layout
and the crime prevention measures to enhance the security of the site (i.e gated rear
access alleyways, curtilage parking and natural surveillance over areas of open space),
apart from one plot (plot 55) where a change to the parking arrangements is
recommended.
NHS England - Advises that the proposed development is likely to have an impact
on the services of 2 local GP practices which do not have capacity for the additional
growth resulting from this development. Requests a financial contribution of £30,170
which would form a proportion of the required funding for the provision of increased
capacity within the existing healthcare premises servicing the residents of this
development.
Natural England - Satisfied that the proposed development will not have an adverse
impact upon the nearby Westwick Lakes and Bryants Heath sites of Special Scientific
Interest.
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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy NW01 Land at Norwich Road / Nursery Drive:
Development Committee
27
11 February 2016
Land amounting to approximately 24.5 hectares is allocated for a mixed use
development of approximately 400 dwellings, 5 hectares of serviced employment
premises, 4 hectares of Public Open Space and provision of car parking for the railway
station. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies
including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently
45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other community needs as
required and:
a. The prior approval of a development brief to address access, movement, mix of uses,
layout, built form, density of development, landscaping, phasing and conceptual
appearance;
b. phased provision of buildings for employment uses (Class B1, B2 and B8 ), the size,
nature, amount and location of the units to be specified in the brief;
c. provision of two points of vehicle access to Norwich Road;
d. provision of improved pedestrian links to the railway station, town centre and local
schools;
e. investigation and remediation of any land contamination;
f. development layout that complies with PADHI methodology;
g. measures to prevent the input of hazardous substances to groundwater;
h. archaeological investigation if required;
i. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in electricity provision, sewage
treatment works and the foul sewerage network, and that proposals have regard to
water quality standards; and,
j. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the Broads
SAC / Broadland SAC / Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and
on-going monitoring of such measures.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development, will
not be permitted.
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 SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
Development Committee
28
11 February 2016
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies
DPD (adopted September 2011):
Policy CS16: Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources.
NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). The following policy
headings are relevant to the application:
 Achieving sustainable development
 Building strong, competitive economy
 Promoting sustainable transport
 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
 Requiring good quality design
 Promoting healthy communities
 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
 Facilitating the sustainable use of materials
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Site layout
2. Public open space / Landscaping
3. Design
4. Housing mix and type
5.. Highway issues
6. S.106 Planning Obligations
APPRAISAL
Background
The application site, currently arable farmland, is located on the southerly edge of North
Walsham. The site (4.42 ha) forms part of the larger mixed use allocation (Policy NW01
- referred to above). In view of this allocation the principle of developing the site for
residential and employment related purposes is acceptable.
The total allocation measures 24.5 hectares. In addition to residential development
Policy NW01 requires the provision of 5.0 hectares of employment land and 4.0
hectares of public open space.
Planning permission was granted in 2014 on the northern part of this allocation (8.5
hectares) for another 'hybrid' proposal (176 dwellings, public open space, car park and
employment land). In the case of that development an approximate 'pro-rata' approach
was taken in relation to the amount of public open space and employment land to be
provided. A similar approach has been taken with this application. The calculated
pro-rata requirement for the site would be 0.72 hectares of public open space and 0.9
hectares of employment land. The amount proposed falls slightly short of this at 0.68 ha
of public open space and 0.82 ha of employment land. These marginal variations to the
requirements of Policy NW01 are not considered critical to the consideration of this
application.
Site layout
There are a number of factors which have needed to be taken into account in designing
the layout of development on this site. These include the position and alignment of the
main access road (which it is envisaged to eventually form a through link with the
Development Committee
29
11 February 2016
remainder of the allocated land); the segregation between residential and employment
land uses; the provision of open space and landscaping; the need to provide for on-site
surface water drainage, and the detailed layout of the residential element. In general it is
considered that the approach taken satisfactorily addresses these issues, although
there have been recent discussions between officers and the applicants to seek more
detailed amendments. These included the specification and layout of the more minor
access roads within the development, footpath routes, parking provision and an attempt
to reduce the 'regimentation' of the residential layout.
Public open space / Landscaping
The four proposed areas of open space all contribute towards breaking up the
residential development. They also provide for a different range of functions. The
triangular area at the front of the site adjacent to Norwich Road would not be easily
accessible from the majority of the estate, but is designed to play an important role in
'softening' the appearance of the development at a point which would mark the entrance
into this part of North Walsham. The two central areas would be more useable in terms
of providing informal recreation and the area to the north-east, separated from the
residential area by the spine road, is proposed to accommodate a sustainable form of
on-site surface water drainage.
In terms of landscaping, the proposals include tree planting on the areas of public open
space, a 5m landscaping belt along the southern (open countryside) boundary and tree
planting within the highway verge of the spine road. At present there is a hedgerow
along the entire site boundary with Norwich Road. This will have to be removed in order
to provide footways and accommodate visibility splays. However a new native
hedgerow is proposed to the rear of the open space fronting onto Norwich Road. These
proposals are considered acceptable subject to precise details (species type etc.).
The applicants have indicated that a management company would be set up to maintain
the public open space and southern landscaping belt.
Design
The dwellings proposed reflect standard house type designs which the applicants
replicate on sites elsewhere. The Committee will note the comments (above) of the
Council's Conservation and Design Officer who is less than flattering on the design
quality put forward in this instance. Whilst it is recognised that the amended plans so far
submitted have made some superficial improvements. it is considered that there
remains further scope to lift the overall quality of the scheme. To this end there have
been more recent discussions with the applicants and further amended plans are
anticipated and will be reported at the committee meeting.
Housing mix and type
Core Strategy Policy H01 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than two bedrooms and a floorspace of not more
than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to provide a greater range of smaller and more
affordable properties in the district. As proposed 38% of the dwellings would meet this
requirement. However this figure rises to 46% if 3 bedroom units with a floorspace of 70
sqm are included. Essentially it is considered that the proposal meets the broad
intentions of Policy H01.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) requires that on
developments of this size, 45% of the dwellings should be 'affordable', subject to
viability. However, as mentioned above, the applicants have applied under the Council's
Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing provided to 20%
(20 units). In order to comply with the scheme the applicants are proposing to
implement a number of measures to provide early delivery of the housing development.
These include the construction of road infrastructure and up to 40 dwellings phased
Development Committee
30
11 February 2016
during a two year period following the grant of planning permission. The full details of
this would need to be tied into a S.106 Planning Obligation. The S.106 would include the
proviso that if the Housing Incentive Scheme requirements are not met, there would be
a 'fallback' position whereby 45% affordable housing would need to be provided. The
Council's Housing Officer is satisfied that the proposals now include a mix of properties
which would satisfy both 20% and 45% scenarios. In addition the affordable properties
would be integrated in different parts of the site rather than concentrated in one area.
Highway issues
Whilst the Highway Authority has not yet provided a final formal response, it has been
indicated in discussions with officers and the applicants that the authority has no
objection to the proposed scheme subject to a number of technical amendments being
made, most of which relate to the internal parts of the residential estate (i.e. road
specifications. turning areas, parking details).
In terms of the impact of the development on Norwich Road the highway authority has
no objection to the position of the principal access point, nor to the two private
driveways which would adjoin onto Norwich Road. In relation to traffic speeds and road
safety at this main entry point into the town, the view of the Highway Authority is that
compared to the current situation where the site is rural in nature, the change to an
urban environment coupled with the new access junctions and footpath / cycleway
provision will in themselves have the effect of reducing traffic speeds. In addition to
these measures the applicants would be required as part of a legal agreement to fund
the highway authority's specification 'gateway' features on either side of Norwich Road.
The existing 30mph limit which starts at the southern site boundary will be unchanged.
Other features required on Norwich Road include a new bus stop and a dropped kerb
pedestrian crossing (with a central refuge) both of which would be to the northern side of
the main site access.
In addition the highway authority are seeking a financial contribution towards a scheme
of improvements to the junction of the B1150 Norwich Road) and the A149 (Yarmouth
Road) near to North Walsham railway station. This contribution is to be on a 'pro-rata'
basis towards the overall cost of these works, with similar proportionate payments being
sought from developers of the rest of the allocated land.
Other matters
As referred to above the employment land element of this application meets the site
allocation policy requirement. In terms of location this would seem to be the optimum
position in relation to the remainder of the development and the site's surroundings. It
would have convenient access onto Norwich Road, it is separated from the residential
element by the new spine road, and it would allow the possibility of connection through
to adjoining(existing) employment land. In so far as potential employment uses on this
land are concerned, this is left for future approval. It is reasonable to assume however
that the type of employment uses which would be suitable in this location would need to
compatible with nearby residential properties and the immediate road infrastructure.
The site lies within a 'Minerals Safeguarding Area' as identified as part of the Norfolk
Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. In such areas there is a policy to prevent
development which would sterilise the opportunity to economically extract such mineral
deposits. This is supported in paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. In this case the site is underlain by deposits of sand and gravel. Following
submission of the applicant's Minerals Safeguarding Assessment the County Council is
satisfied that the site's deposits could not be extracted for use elsewhere on a
commercial basis, but there is the opportunity (subject to further site investigation) to
re-cycle sand and gravel as part of constructing the new development. Hence their
recommendation for a condition to be imposed in the event of planning permission
being approved.
Development Committee
31
11 February 2016
S.106 Planning Obligations
In the event of this application being approved it will need to be the subject of a S.106
Planning Obligation to secure a number of financial contributions and other
requirements including those in relation to the accompanying application under the
Council's Housing Incentive Scheme. In this respect the applicants have agreed to the
following:






Financial contributions towards education, libraries, green infrastructure, fire
hydrants, healthcare, play provision and improvements to the A149/B1150 junction.
Affordable housing requirements.
Future maintenance of the public open space.
Completion of the spine road to the site boundary.
Travel Plan bond.
Agreed level / timescale of dwelling completions and road infrastructure in exchange
for a reduction in the amount of affordable housing (20%).
Conclusions
Development on this site will contribute to the increased supply of new housing
(including affordable housing) plus employment land, and represents a significant step
in bringing forward the second largest land allocation in the district. Subject to certain
amendments being submitted (which have been discussed with the applicants) it is
considered that the proposals will be acceptable in terms of layout and highway safety.
In several aspects this proposal represents a sustainable form of development in
accordance with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The one lingering concern relates to the design quality of the residential development.
This aspect has also been the subject of recent discussions with the applicants and
amended plans are expected to be submitted prior to the committee meeting. Ultimately
it will be a matter of planning judgement for the Committee in reaching a decision on the
application, to weigh the public benefits of the proposal against any perceived
disbenefits. As part of this judgement the Committee needs to recognise the
requirement to 'have regard to the desirability of achieving good design' as set out under
Section 39 (2A) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).
When making its judgment the Committee should also be aware that the applicant is
willing to enter into significant S.106 contributions.
RECOMMENDATION: A formal recommendation will be made at the committee
meeting following the receipt and consideration of amended plans.
In the event of members resolving to grant planning permission this should be
delegated to the Head of Planning subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning
Obligation to include those matters referred to in this report, and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
(5)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1536 - Installation of 5MW solar farm with ancillary
buildings, security fencing, CCTV, access tracks and landscaping; Land at
Wayside Farm for YGE Solar Field 6 Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 01 March 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
32
11 February 2016
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/15/0172
SCR
- Installation of 5MW solar farm - EIA Required 13/10/2015
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 5MWp set on a 14.57 hectare
triangular shaped parcel of agricultural land (assessed by consultants acting on behalf
of the applicant as Agricultural Land Classification Grade 3a) at Wayside Farm, North
Walsham. The western boundary of the site which is some 625 metres in length abuts
Skeyton Road, whilst the eastern boundary, some 619 metres in length is formed by
Drift Lane, which is a public right of way – Bridleway, North Walsham BR16. To the
southern boundary running east/west is a further public right of way - Footpath, North
Walsham FP9. Immediately to the south of the footpath is large area of conifer
woodland known as Lord Anson’s Wood.
A 5MWp solar farm would be capable of an annual electricity generation of 4,500 MWh
and would be sufficient to provide the annual electricity needs of some 1,364 average
UK households. The individual panels, each measuring approximately 1.6 x 1.0 metres
would be arranged in rows on an east to west axis facing south to maximise sunlight
exposure with a 5 metre separation between rows. The panels would be ground
mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the panels rising to approximately 2.2
metres above ground level (dependent on ground conditions) and set at an angle of 25
degrees.
Access would be at the northern end of the site with an internal roadway of compacted
stone or matting running along the eastern boundary with a central roadway running
diagonally across the site from the east to the south western corner adjacent to Skeyton
Road. A temporary construction compound is also proposed in the south eastern corner
of site adjacent to Lord Anson’s Wood.
The site would be enclosed by 2.0m high security/deer fencing (colour to be agreed),
set some 10 metres into the site from the existing boundary. As part of the scheme,
transformers are required to connect the solar farm to the high voltage grid. Measuring
3.4m x 3.0 metres with a height of 2.6 metres one would be located at the northern end
of the site, a second midway along the eastern boundary, a third in the south western
corner adjacent to the Skeyton Road and another in the south eastern corner within a
compound. This compound would also accommodate a District Network Operator
(DNO) switchgear room, measuring approximately 5.0 metres in length x 4.7 metres
wide with a maximum height of approximately 4.0 metres, a customer switchgear
cabinet measuring approximately 7.5 metres in length x 2.7 metres wide with a
maximum height of approximately 2.9 metres and a control room measuring
approximately 6.7 metres in length x 3.0 metres wide with a maximum height of
approximately 2.9 metres. It is proposed that these buildings would be of a Moss Green
finish.
In addition a CCTV system is proposed consisting of a total of 24 Infrared CCTV
cameras mounted on 2.0 metres high poles, around the perimeter of the site.
As part of the scheme a swale measuring some 350 metres in length x 1.5 metres in
width is proposed within the perimeter fence adjacent to the western boundary.
The proposal is EIA Development and the application is supported by an Environmental
Statement, a Design and Access Statement, Landscape Visual Impact Assessment,
Biodiversity Management Plan, Ecological Impact Assessment, Heritage Statement,
Development Committee
33
11 February 2016
Geophysical Survey, Construction Traffic Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment
and Agricultural Land Classification Assessment.
Amended plans have been received which indicate the existing trees and other
vegetation around the site, together with a Landscape and Planting Scheme, additional
photomontages of the site taken from the bridleway running along the eastern boundary
and a revised Habitat Plan. In addition a revised Biodiversity Management Plan has
been received.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham – Support the application.
Adjacent Parishes:
Felmingham - No response.
Skeyton - Support the application but consider the transformers should be screened.
Scottow and Swanton Abbott - No objection subject to the Public Rights of Way close to
the site not being affected by the Solar Farm installation.
Westwick - No response.
Worstead - Support the application subject to the wildlife and landscape mitigation
measures being made a condition of planning permission.
REPRESENTATIONS – Two letters of objection have been received which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The area to the south of North Walsham has reached a limit in terms of solar farms.
2. This large site would spoil a unique view from the town across to Skeyton Woods.
3. The site impacts on two key footpaths.
4. An EIA (Section 3 of Schedule 2) is needed as a proper process with which to
protect this landscape.
5. The potential food security that this field represents means that it is surely better
kept under agricultural production.
6. The site is possibly part of the area of the historic battle of North Walsham of 1381.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) –
Ecological Effects
The submitted Ecological Assessment concludes no significant adverse impacts on
protected species and considers that the mitigation and enhancement measures
proposed in Section 10 and incorporated into the Landscape Proposals will enhance the
habitat biodiversity of the site. This is considered to be a fair assessment.
With regard to the issue of potential bird collision in association with Westwick Lakes
SSSI raised by Natural England at the Screening Opinion stage, the Assessment notes
that Natural England have recently indicated that the ornithological interests of the lake
have diminished since the publication of the site’s citation. With reference to NE advice
and RSPB briefing papers, along with German studies, and given that the site is not
located along a river valley or a natural feature that might be associated with migratory
flight routes, the report concludes that the potential impact on the wildfowl interest of the
SSSI is neutral.
Landscape Effects
The site lies within the National Character Area profile 79: North East Norfolk & Flegg.
The Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted as part of the application
Development Committee
34
11 February 2016
highlights some of the characteristics of this landscape type such as low-lying land with
limited topographic variation sloping gently from west to east, but fails to acknowledge
other characteristics highly relevant to this site. This includes the presence of copses
and large woodland blocks which lend an enclosed intricate character and which
contrast with the scarcity of woodland elsewhere. This is particularly marked in the
location of the site where Lord Anson’s Wood creates a defined edge and there is a
sense of bursting from the enclosure of the wood into the open arable landscape typical
of this landscape Type. The impact of the development on this marked change in
landscape character has not been given sufficient consideration within the LVIA
resulting in an underestimation of the level of impact.
In accordance with the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June
2009), the site lies on the southern edge of the Landscape Type classified as Low
Plains, LP5 North Walsham Area. Typical attributes of this landscape type are an open
character with long range, uninterrupted views, gently undulating arable fields with little
boundary definition and, specifically for this area, views of North Walsham and its
church from the south and the west. There is a strong transition from the urban edge to
a more rural character. Long range views approaching the town from the south would
be obscured by this development and any associated mitigation planting. Furthermore,
the industrial nature of the regimented panels and the number of associated buildings
and fencing is not the type of development that would be readily attributed to this rural
landscape.
Immediately to the South is another landscape type, Wooded with Parkland WP6,
Westwick & Swanton Abbott which is assessed within the SPD as being in Moderate to
Good condition. There is a clear contrast between the two landscape types,
experienced markedly travelling north or south along Skeyton Road bursting out
suddenly from the enclosed dense woodland to the open long range views across fields
to North Walsham and vice versa. Landscape mitigation in the form of boundary
screening would weaken this clear definition of the woodland edge and in this regard
would negatively affect both landscape types.
This is not a field that is well contained by existing boundary vegetation and would
require substantial boundary screening to reduce the visual impact. This element of
the proposal alone will alter the open character of the Low Plains landscape of this
area. The size and nature of the proposal is not akin to any other development within
2km of the site, contrary to the claim made in the LVIA that the proposal would introduce
a ‘minor new element’ into the landscape. For these reasons it must be concluded that
the local landscape around the site does not have the capacity to absorb such a
development without incurring substantial change. In accordance with the LVIA
Assessment Criteria in Appendix 1, a Magnitude of Change rating of Medium to High
would be more accurate than the Low rating ascribed.
The LVIA also relies on the fact that the development would not be permanent and is
reversible. While it is fair to assume there will be no lasting evidence of the panels once
removed, an operating period of 25 years (which is a typical consent period) is a
considerable length of time and will be considered ‘permanent’ by many local
receptors. This has not been given due weight in the LVIA which concludes that the
significance of effect of the development on the local landscape character would be only
slight to slight moderate. A weighting of Moderate to Substantial Moderate in
accordance with the Assessment Matrix in Table 6 would be a more accurate
assessment.
Visual Effects
The visual effects of this development would be most significant within a 1km radius of
the site. Road users along Skeyton Road and walkers using the public footpath and
bridleway directly adjacent to the site boundaries will be the most affected receptors due
Development Committee
35
11 February 2016
to the lack of existing boundary vegetation screening and the proximity of the
site. Whilst the landscape proposals include for considerable tree and hedge planting,
the LVIA acknowledges that it would be up to 7 years before planting would be
sufficiently established to provide sufficient screening to reduce these effects.
However the site layout does clarify that the panels and the 2 metre high security
fencing would be located 10 metres within the site from all boundaries with the solar
panels a further 5 metre beyond. Hedge and tree planting, a rough grass margin and
climbing plants against the security fencing would reduce the immediacy and
dominance of the panels for footpath and road users.
The sense of contrast experienced by road users and walkers moving from the
enclosure of Anson’s Wood to the open arable fields which form the setting of the
southern approach into North Walsham would be significantly diluted as a result of the
boundary landscape proposals and should be a consideration.
Landscape Mitigation
The amended landscape proposals now indicate a more substantial scheme of
mitigation that is proportionate to the potential impact of the development and includes a
mix of trees along the eastern and western boundaries, including English Oak, Wild
Cherry, Wild Crab and Field Maple. In addition there would be a new hedgerow
consisting of a mix of Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Hazel and Dog Rose. Whilst the security
fence would be planted with a mix of climbing plants including clematis, Ivy, Hop and
honeysuckle.
Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP)
The amended BMP indicates that during the lifetime of the scheme the management
responsibility for the soft landscaping will be with the landowner and provides details of
its aftercare and maintenance. This includes procedures for the maintenance of various
plant types and proposal for the replacement of plants which die or are vandalised
within 5 years of the completion of scheme. In addition a programme of Ecological
monitoring is proposed at prescribed intervals of Years 1, 2, 5 & 10.
Agricultural Land Classification
The submitted Land Classification Survey concludes that the section of the field rated
as Grade 2 within the Provisional Agricultural Land Classification Map should be revised
to Grade 3a, due to the sandy and stony texture, low fertility and water retention. Whilst
this rating still qualifies as the ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’, as defined in
para. 112 of the NPPF, this revised assessment along with the ‘non-agricultural’ ranking
of the remainder of the site implies that the quality of the land that would be lost for crop
production is not a significant factor. This could therefore not stand as a reason for
refusal.
Cumulative Effects
There are three other existing solar farms within 2km east of the site. By virtue of the
topography and existing vegetation, I agree with the LVIA assessment that there will be
no cumulative visual effects as a result of the proposed development. Cumulative
landscape effects are considered to be nil due to the limited connectivity of the four
sites, however due to their relative proximity I conclude that there would be some
cumulative effect on the local landscape character as a result of this latest proposal, but
that it could not be considered significant.
Conclusion
The proposed development will result in considerable change to the local landscape
character and an altered experience for road and footpath users and this has been
under-estimated within the submission. However, given the biodiversity enhancements
that will result from the considerable amount of tree and hedgerow planting and
Development Committee
36
11 February 2016
grassland margins, the habitats of this site will be substantially improved and this is a
positive benefit of the proposal.
In consideration of all of the issues raised above, Conservation, Design & Landscape
are minded to conclude that the benefits to be gained in terms of renewable energy
generation, together with the habitat creation do outweigh the localised landscape and
visual impact that will be incurred.
Environment Agency - No response
Environmental Health - No objection.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team – No comment.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service – Based on the evidence
available the site has the high potential for archaeological remains of prehistoric or
Roman date to survive. If planning permission is granted, this should be subject to
conditions for a programme of archaeological work in accordance with National
Planning Policy Framework para. 141.
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way – No objection following receipt of a
revised Habitat Plan which moves three of the proposed beehives further away from the
PROW North Walsham BR16 and sets the proposed new hedgerow 8 metres back from
North Walsham FP9 to the south of the site.
Open Spaces Society - No response
Ramblers Association - No response
Planning Policy - No comments as the site is not allocated in the existing site
allocations plan.
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 SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental 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
Development Committee
37
11 February 2016
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
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. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. National Policy
3. Local Policy
4. Principle of the development
5. Landscape
6. Impact on Biodiversity
7. Land Classification
8. Impact on Residential Amenity
9. Light Pollution
10. Highway Safety
11. Flood Risk
12. Contamination
13. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
14. Renewable Energy benefits
15. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
A formal request for a screening opinion was made to the Council on 11 August 2015.
Officers considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular 02/99 and
concluded that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the
environment and therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment is required in this
instance. The agents were advised in a letter from the Council dated 13 October 2015
that an EIA was required.
National Policy Guidance
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.
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
Development Committee
38
11 February 2016
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. 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:





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
co-locating 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 small-scale
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, officers have taken account of 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.
Development Committee
39
11 February 2016
…….. 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-of-date,
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’.
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the online Planning
Practice Guidance on 06 March 2014. The guidance includes an assessment of the
particular planning considerations that relate to large-scale ground-mounted solar
photovoltaic farms at Paragraph 13 Reference ID: 5-013-20150327.
Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:
1. encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on
previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high
environmental value;
2. where a proposal involves greenfield land, whether (i) the proposed use of any
agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has
been used in preference to higher quality land; and (ii) the proposal allows for
continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity
improvements around arrays;
3. that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can
be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and
the land is restored to its previous use;
4. the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on
neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;
5. the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;
6. great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner
appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views
important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only
from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should
be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on
their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of
a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset;
7. the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example,
screening with native hedges;
8. the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons
including, latitude and aspect.
Other relevant National Planning Guidance includes National Policy Statements for
Energy (NPS) published in July 2011 including:


Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) ; and
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)
Whilst the NPS are designed to guide decision makers in relation to nationally
significant infrastructure, the guidance can also be considered relevant in the
assessment of smaller schemes below 50MW capacity onshore.
Development Committee
40
11 February 2016
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS 2
would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on amenity,
wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 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.
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’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken 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
Development Committee
41
11 February 2016


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’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach to
site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type of
development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered
acceptable subject to compliance with Core Strategy policies and relevant material
considerations such as Government advice.
LANDSCAPE
The northern part of the site lies within the Lowland Plains Farmland Character Type
LP5 – North Walsham as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment (SPD June 2009), Typical attributes of this landscape type are an open
character with long range, uninterrupted views, gently undulating arable fields with little
boundary definition and, specifically for this area, views of North Walsham and its
church from the south and the west. Whilst the southern part of the site is another
landscape type, Wooded with Parkland WP6, Westwick & Swanton Abbott which is
assessed within the SPD as being in Moderate to Good condition. This landscape type
is one of woodland and trees, mostly in blocks ranging from copses to large woods,
interspersed with areas of arable, settlements and some pasture.
A key consideration is the effect of a relatively large area of solar panels and associated
infrastructure on the character and appearance of these character types and also the
wider landscape. The proposed development would occupy approximately 14.57
hectares (approximately 36 acres) of which 3.9 hectares is classed as agricultural land.
Given the size and nature of the development, contrary to the claim made in the LVIA
that it would introduce a ‘minor new element’ and the Magnitude of Change would be
Low, the Landscape Officer considers that a rating of Medium to High would be more
accurate. Furthermore, the LVIA relies on the fact that the development would not be
permanent and is reversible. While it is fair to assume there will be no lasting evidence
of the panels once removed, an operating period of 25 years (which is a typical consent
period) is a considerable length of time and will be considered ‘permanent’ by many
local receptors. This has not been given due weight in the LVIA which concludes that
the significance of effect of the development on the local landscape character would be
only slight to slight moderate. A weighting of Moderate to Substantial Moderate
would it is considered be a more accurate assessment. As a result it is considered that
the impact of the development on this marked change in landscape character has not
been given sufficient consideration within the LVIA resulting in an underestimation of
the level of impact.
In terms of the visual effects of this development these would be most significant within
a 1km radius of the site. In particular the users of Skeyton Road to the west and walkers
using bridleway BR16 and footpath FP9 adjacent to the eastern and southern
boundaries would be the most affected receptors due to the lack of existing boundary
vegetation screening and the proximity of the site. In addition it is considered that the
effects would be particularly marked where Lord Anson’s Wood creates a defined edge
to the southern boundary of the site and there is a sense of bursting from the enclosure
of the wood into the open arable landscape. As a result the sense of contrast
experienced by road users and walkers moving from the enclosure of Anson’s Wood to
the open arable fields, which form the setting of the southern approach into North
Walsham, would be significantly diluted as a result of the proposals. Furthermore, the
industrial nature of the regimented panels and the number of associated buildings and
Development Committee
42
11 February 2016
fencing is not the type of development that would be readily attributed to this rural
landscape. However it is considered that the immediacy and dominance of the panels
for footpath and road users would be mitigated due to the fact that the 2 metres high
security fencing would be located 10m within the site from all boundaries with the panels
themselves a further 5 metres into the site. In addition there would be climbing plants
against the security fencing with hedging tree planting and a rough grass margin to the
outside of the fence. The Landscape Officer has indicated that the revised landscape
scheme overcomes previous concerns and that the mix of species and level of planting
is now acceptable. However as indicated in the LVIA it is acknowledged that it is likely to
be in the region of 7 years before the planting would be sufficiently established to
provide sufficient screening to reduce these effects.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The Landscape Officer has indicated that given the biodiversity enhancements that
would result from the considerable amount of tree and hedgerow planting and grassland
margins, the habitats of this site would be substantially improved and this is a positive
benefit of the proposal.
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
At the Screening Opinion stage concerns were raised by Natural England regarding
potential bird collision in association with Westwick Lakes SSSI. However, the
submitted Ecological Assessment notes that Natural England have recently indicated
that the ornithological interests of the lakes have diminished since the publication of the
site’s citation. In conclusion it suggests that there would be no significantly adverse
impacts on protected species and that the mitigation and enhancement measures
proposed in Section 10 and incorporated into the Landscape Proposals will enhance the
habitat biodiversity of the site. The Landscape Officer considered that this is fair
assessment.
The comments of Natural England are awaited.
SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
In conclusion the Landscape Officer considers that whilst the proposed development
would result in considerable change to the local landscape character and an altered
experience for road and footpath users this will be off-set by way of the biodiversity
enhancements which will substantially improve the habitats of the site. Therefore the
landscape impact of the proposal would be broadly compliant with relevant
Development Plan Policy EN2 and EN9.
LAND CLASSIFICATION
The Provisional Agricultural Land Classification Maps for England and Wales indicate
that the majority of the site is classed as being non-agricultural land, however a swathe
of land some 3.9 hectares in area at the northern end of the site adjacent to the eastern
boundary is Grade 2. This is considered as being of very good quality agricultural land
with minor limitations which affect crop yield, cultivations or harvesting. In contrast the
land classification survey submitted as part of the application concludes that due to the
sandy and stony texture of the soil, its inherent low fertility and water retention that the
land is in fact Grade 3a. The Agricultural Land Classifications indicates that such land
within this subgrade of Grade 3 land is good quality agricultural land capable of
consistently producing moderate to high yield of a narrow range of arable crops,
especially cereals, or moderate yields of a wider range of crops including cereals,
potatoes or sugar beet.
Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is material to
the determination of the application, advises that 'Where significant development of
agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should
seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.'
Development Committee
43
11 February 2016
In this instance, although part of the site is classed as Grade 2 land, the soil surveys
submitted by the application suggest Grade 3a classification is a more accurate
assessment of the land quality. Therefore whilst the loss of farming land for crop
growing is regrettable, this ultimately has to be balanced against the potential
environmental and biodiversity benefits of reduced nitrogen use on the land for the
duration of the solar farm and the potential for biodiversity enhancement together with
consideration of any renewable energy benefits. Whilst commercial crop growing
would be prevented for the duration of the development, the loss is only temporary and
would be reversible.
Officers consider that the temporary loss of some grade 3a agricultural land for crop
production would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact of the solar farm on residential amenity, the nearest residential
property to the site is the two storey dwelling at Wayside Farm which is situated some
166 metres to north of the site. Some 341 metres to the west, to the western side of
Weavers Way, are properties known as Bridge Farm and Bridge Farm Cottage. Whilst
some 612 metres to the north east, forming the settlement boundary of North Walsham,
are properties in Wells Avenue and Wood View that have south western facing windows
looking towards the site.
As far as the dwelling at Wayside Farm is concerned, although there would be some
views of the solar farm, given the effects of intervening trees and other vegetation it is
not considered that the proposal would have a significantly overbearing visual impact.
Similarly the site would not be visible from properties at Bridge Farm due to the former
railway embankment, or Weavers Way which is lined with semi mature trees. From
Wells Avenue and Wood View, although the site would be visible, given the distances
involved and the fact that due to east to west alignment of the rows the panels would be
south facing, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a
significantly overbearing visual impact on these dwellings.
In respect of the 24 CCTV cameras to be installed around the perimeter of site, (which
are generally required for insurance purposes), the Environmental Statement submitted
as part of the application indicates that these would consist of static, passive infra-red
cameras mounted on timber poles measuring up to 2.3 metres in height, which would
avoid the need for lighting to be employed. In addition, it is intended that the cameras
would be focused on the site itself in order to meet their purpose and not directed
towards any private property. Having learned from the experience of systems on other
sites within the District, Officers consider that, because of the distance from nearest
property, appropriately positioned cameras would be unlikely to pose a significant risk to
the residential amenity of the occupiers. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a
condition be imposed requiring approval of the full details of any CCTV system prior to
its installation to ensure that the CCTV to be installed is as unobtrusive as possible both
in terms of visibility in the landscape and impact of amenity.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would give
rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be imposed
to ensure, amongst other things, that noise impacts remain acceptable and to ensure
Development Committee
44
11 February 2016
that the CCTV system to be installed is first approved by the Local Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants are
not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded to
approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent external
lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development would not pose a highway safety risk
during its operational life with very few vehicle movements associated with maintenance
and repair of the panels once constructed and few vehicles movements associated with
the maintenance of the grassland. It is only during the construction phase when a
significant number of vehicle movements will be generated and it is delivery of the
panels to site that would be likely to create the most number of vehicle movements. A
Construction traffic management plan submitted as part of the application indicates that
the anticipated schedule for construction and commissioning of the solar park is over an
8 week period and it is anticipated that there would be approximately 192 HGV
movements with a typical average of 3 movements per day. The proposed haul route
will direct construction vehicles to and from the A149 Cromer Road, to the north B1145
Greens Road and Tungate Road, which becomes Skeyton Road approximately 140m
to the north of the site, giving a total distance from the A149 of approximately 1 mile.
The Highway Authority has indicated that subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, which include construction traffic for the development being derived from
and to the A149 only and site advance warning signage of construction vehicles turning,
together with on-site vehicle parking, as submitted as part of the Construction Traffic
Management Plan they have no objection to the proposal.
Subject to the scheme being implemented in accordance with the Construction Traffic
Management Plan it is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
FLOOD RISK
As the application site area is above 1 hectare in size a Flood Risk Assessment
incorporating a Sustainable Drainage Strategy has been submitted as part of the
application. This indicates that the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and in order to
reduce the risks associated with surface water runoff a Sustainable Drainage Scheme
(SuDS) is proposed. This would involve the introduction of a swale some 350 metres in
length adjacent to the western boundary of the site. This has been designed to
accommodate any potential increase in run-off caused by climate change and would
have minimum volume of 42.14 m3 of storage.
The Environment Agency has indicated that as the site lies in Flood Zone 1 they do not
wish to comment on the application.
The Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team have also indicated that they
have no comment.
It is therefore considered that subject to the construction of the swale as detailed in the
Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Strategy the development would not
result in an increase in surface water flood risk to areas downstream of the site and the
proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the proposed development is not considered to pose any
significant risks nor are there any previous land-uses on site which would require
Development Committee
45
11 February 2016
consideration in relation to contamination.
The proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
As part of the application the applicant has submitted a Heritage Assessment and
Geophysical Survey in order to assess the potential impacts on the setting of
designated and undesignated heritage assets within a 2 km radius of the site.
In terms of the finding of the Geophysical Survey this has identified the presence of a
relict field system of unknown date which continues across much of the development
site and the report recommends that consultation with Norfolk County Council’s Historic
Environment Services be undertaken at the earliest opportunity to ascertain what, if any
further works may be appropriate. Such works it is suggested could comprise evaluation
trenching or fieldwalking or a watching brief during the construction phase, depending
on the below ground impacts of the proposed development.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services has indicated that there is high potential for
archaeological remains of prehistoric or Roman date to survive on the site, based on
cropmark evidence, metal detecting and fieldwalking finds in the vicinity. The
accompanying geophysical survey of the site has confirmed the presence of buried
archaeological features of probable late prehistoric or Roman date. These include
possible enclosures and trackways indicative of agricultural systems, in addition to
discrete features including pits of possible archaeological origin. Consequently it is
likely that the significance of heritage assets with archaeological interest (buried
archaeological remains) would be affected by the proposed development.
If planning permission is granted, they have therefore asked that this be subject to
conditions for a programme of archaeological work. In this case the programme of
archaeological work will commence with trial trenching to determine the nature and
extent of archaeological mitigation measures required.
As far as the setting of heritage assets are concerned the only designated assets that
would have a theoretical intervisibility are in excess of 1km from the site and include the
Church of St. Andrew, Felmingham, a Grade II* Listed building to the west of the site.
The Grade II listed Cross and Monument Cottage to the east side of the Norwich Road
(B1150) to the east of the site and Stump Cross also on the Norwich Road adjacent to
North Walsham water towers.
The Heritage Statement concludes that there would be no intervisibility between the
heritage assets and the proposed development would not meaningfully or perceptibly
affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
Having regard to other similar development recently approved archaeological works
were secured by way of planning condition and Officers consider that suitable
conditions may also be appropriate in this instance, particularly as the time to undertake
a survey will take the planning decision out of time. There is clearly a risk that
archaeological deposits may be found but, in the event that further archaeological
evaluation or investigation is required following receipt of the results of the
magnetometer survey, Officers propose planning conditions which require those works
to take place before each panel mount, base or fence post is erected on site and will
require the results of any further required evaluation or investigation to be shared with
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services and the Local Planning Authority.
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a
listed building or its setting, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Development Committee
46
11 February 2016
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the local planning authority shall have
special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features
of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard to these
requirements, it is not considered that the proposed solar farm would adversely affect
the setting of the above identified listed buildings or any features of special architectural
or historic interest which they possess.
In addition Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation
Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy policy EN8, which requires
development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
Given that the nearest heritage assets to the site are the Baptist Church at Meeting Hill,
a Grade II Listed Building and the Meeting Hill Conservation Area, some 1.2 km to the
east of the site, both of which are screened from view by trees, Officers conclude that
the proposal would have no significant impact on heritage assets and the proposal
would accord with statutory requirements in relation to heritage assets.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policy EN 7 requires that 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.
The applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this element
of Policy EN 7 in their design and access statement and that the benefits are primarily
related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed solar farm would generate
approximately 4.500MWh (4,500 000KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 5MWp. Putting the predicted 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 solar
farm would generate enough electricity to power approximately 955 homes annually.
This would make a significant contribution towards meeting national renewable energy
targets, to which significant weight can be attached. It is also suggested that the
development would also save in the region of 2,361 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year
that would otherwise be generated through the use of traditional fossil fuels.
It is considered that the proposal would broadly comply with the requirements of Policy
EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES
The proposed site would be some 2 km to the west of the existing solar farm at Carlton
Farm, Old Yarmouth Road and the adjoining sites of Bunn’s Hill and Frog’s Loke that
are currently under construction. Combined these sites will have a total area of some
32.7 hectares. Whilst the proposed site would result in a further solar farm to the south
of North Walsham given the separation distance involved between the proposed and
consented solar farms together with intervening landscape features, including field and
roadside hedges and trees it is considered that the cumulative would be negligible.
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 5MWp solar farm would, amongst other things, have some
adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that these
impacts can be made acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not have a
Development Committee
47
11 February 2016
significant adverse impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
In addition, the public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy generation is
a material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded in accordance
with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including:1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2.
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans and documents first
submitted with the application: Drawing numbers 00055-015NR-L-100 Rev 00, 101 Rev 01 and 102 Rev
01, and
 Planning, Design and Access Statement prepared by OST Energy, dated
October 2015, and
 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Greenlight
environmental consultancy, dated 22 October 2015, and
 Floods Risk Assessment prepared by Waterco consultants, dated
September 2015,and
 Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared by Cotswold Transport
Planning, dated September 2015, and the following amended plans and
documents: Environmental Statement prepared by Greenlight environmental
consultancy dated 6 November 2015, Ecological Impact Assessment
prepared by Greenlight environmental consultancy dated 27 October
2015, received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 November 2015,
and
 Heritage Statement prepared by ARS Ltd, dated October 2015,
Geophysical Survey prepared by ARS Ltd, dated October 2015,
received by the Local Planning Authority on 1 December 2015, and
 Amended plans (drawing numbers) 55-015NR-L-200 Rev 01, 201 Rev
01, 202 Rev 01, 203 Rev 01, 204 Rev 00, 205 Rev 00 and 206 Rev 00,
 Amended plan (drawing number) Way.11.12.15 received by the Local
Planning Authority on 15 December 2015, and
 Amended plan (drawing number) 55-015NR-L-103 Rev 03 received by
the Local Planning Authority on 22 December 2015, and
 Amended plan (drawing number) 1017.01 Wayside/LPScheme 2 Rev C
received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 January 2016, and
 Amended plan showing the CCTV camera layout received by the Local
Planning Authority on 18 January 2016, and
 Amended plans (drawing numbers) GLEC/REN/Wayside/LPScheme 1
Rev A, and GLEC/REN/Wayside/LPScheme 2 Rev A received by the
Local Planning Authority on 21 January 2016, and
 Biodiversity Management Plan prepared by Greenlight environmental
consultancy, dated 20 January 2016, received by the Local Planning
Authority on 21 January 2016.
3.
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
Development Committee
48
11 February 2016
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
4.
Except as where permitted by the details approved under Condition 8 of this
permission, no CCTV, public address or speaker system shall be operated from
the site at any time unless planning permission has first been granted for such
items.
5.
Within 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the solar farm
to the electricity grid network (‘First Export Date’) or, if before that date, when the
solar farm hereby permitted is no longer reasonably necessary for the purposes of
generating electricity from solar energy, the solar panels, mounts, substation,
inverters and all other associated apparatus/equipment shall be removed from the
site within six months of the cessation of operation and the site shall be restored to
the condition it was prior to the implementation of the permission, except as may
otherwise be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6.
Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local
Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after the event.
7.
Prior to any other construction works on site the surface water drainage proposals
as referred to in paragraph 9.4 - 9.9 of The Flood Risk Assessment and detailed
on (drawing number) W1933 Rev A - Appendix F of the report shall be constructed
in full in accordance with the approved details. The surface water drainage
scheme shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development to the satisfaction
of the Local Planning Authority.
8.
Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, CCTV
equipment and poles to be installed and the locations of cameras shall be in full
accordance with the details submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 18
January 2015, as set out on the amended plan showing the CCTV camera layout
received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 January 2016.
9.
Prior to its installation, details of the proposed CCTV equipment to be installed
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the CCTV system shall installed and operated in accordance with the
approved details.
10.
Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans all power plant buildings
to be installed on site shall have an external colour of 'Moss green' (RAL6005),
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11.
Means of access to and egress for construction traffic from the development
hereby permitted shall be derived from, and to, the A149 only; as indicated within
the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (Construction Traffic
Routing Plan Page 7).
12.
Prior to any works starting on site, advance warning signage of construction
vehicles turning shall be placed on Skeyton Road/Tungate Road to a sign
specification and position to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in
conjunction with the Highway Authority.
13.
For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development will comply with the Construction Traffic
Management Plan and use only the Route specified and no other local roads
unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
Development Committee
49
11 February 2016
14.
For the duration of the construction period the proposed on-site vehicle parking,
servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting area (Construction Laydown
Area) shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
15.
No works shall commence on site until the details of Wheel Cleaning facilities for
construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
16.
For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development permitted will use the Approved Wheel Cleaning
facilities provided referred to in condition number 15.
17.
Except in relation to the construction phase of the development hereby permitted,
no external lighting whatsoever shall be installed on site unless planning
permission has first been granted.
18.
A) No development shall take place until an archaeological written scheme of
investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority
in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research
questions; and 1) The programme and methodology of site investigation and
recording, 2) The programme for post investigation assessment, 3) Provision to be
made for analysis of the site investigation and recording, 4) Provision to be made
for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site
investigation, 5) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and
records of the site investigation and 6) Nomination of a competent person or
persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the written scheme of
investigation.
and,
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the written
scheme of investigation approved under condition (A).
and,
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post
investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme
set out in the archaeological written scheme of investigation approved under
condition (A) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and
dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
19.
In this case the programme of archaeological work will commence with trial
trenching to determine the nature and extent of archaeological mitigation
measures required. Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service will
issue a brief for the archaeological work on request.
20.
Prior to commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement and
Tree Protection Plan (compiled in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation
to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations) shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall
include the access tracks, all activities during construction and access postconstruction. The tree protection measures shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
21.
No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the Mitigation plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten
Development Committee
50
11 February 2016
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local
Planning Authority in writing.
22.
Any new trees, hedgerows or seed mixes which within a period of ten years from
the date of planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased,
shall be replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size
and species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written
approval is given to any variation.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(6)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1551 - Retention of entrance walls and gates.; Norfolk
Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
Tree Works
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780066 PF
Change of use from caravan site to chalets
Approved 22/05/1978
PLA/19781838 PF
Change of use from caravan site to holiday chalets
Approved 12/03/1979
PLA/19830190 PF
Variation of planning condition to allow permanent standing of holiday caravans
Approved 15/03/1983
PLA/19930966 PF
Amendment to condition to permit an extension of holiday accommodation use to
between 1 Jan to 5 Jan and 1 Mar to 31 Dec
Approved 03/09/1993
PLA/19961032 PF
Erection of new wall and entrance gate
Approved 23/09/1996
PLA/19991381 PF
Variation of condition 4 of planning permission reference NW1275 to allow occupancy
from 1 March until 5 January
Approved 20/01/2000
PLA/20041449 PF
Variation of conditions on planning permissions references 19780066, 19781838,
19830190, 19950895, 19961192 and 20011095 to allow all year round occupancy of
caravans for holiday purposes
Development Committee
51
11 February 2016
Approved 24/09/2004
PLA/20090424 PF
Landscaping works and erection of changing rooms and canopies
Approved 08/06/2009
PF/15/1552
Retention of submerged gas tanks and fence
PF/15/1556
Retention of building for gym and hair and nail salon.
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application to retain as erected entrance walls and gate around what
was the existing access to the site. The entrance includes a low brick wall 0.9m tall with
three brick piers each side of the entrance rising in height, including the coping stones,
1.5m to 2m to the 2.5m piers from which the entrance black railing gates are hung. The
walls are built of red brick with white coping stones. Each wall has two black panel
insets with the name of the park and the restaurant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Seward having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To consider the concerns raised by the Town Council.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham Town Council objects on grounds of;


Entrance increased in size.
Street light removed, ownership of light to be clarified and light reinstated.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Authority - no objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents extensions
of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
52
11 February 2016
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
2. Appearance
3. Highways Safety
APPRAISAL
Principle
Norfolk Park Homes site is located in the Countryside Policy area on the edge of North
Walsham abutting the Development Boundary. The site has planning permission for
holiday homes which may be occupied for holiday purposes throughout the year. The
proposal is acceptable under policies SS 2 and EC 3.
Appearance
Although within the Countryside policy area, the entrance is adjacent to the built up area
of North Walsham is not a visually sensitive location. Quality materials have been used
in its construction and so while the entrance has a somewhat suburban character the
appearance is nevertheless considered to be of an appropriate style in this location
and an enhancement to the site.
Highway Safety
The entrance appears to be in the same place as previously approved, if it has been
widened as part of the improvements the width allows two cars to pass easily in the
entrance which is of benefit to highway safety as it avoids delays of vehicles waiting on
the road to drive into the site. County Highways have no objection and the proposal is
acceptable under Policy CT 5.
Other Matters
As regards the street light referred to by the North Walsham Town Council this is a not a
planning consideration it is a civil matter for the land and street light owners to resolve.
Conclusion
The proposal complies with Policies SS 2, EC 3, EN 4 and CT 5 of the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE unconditionally.
(7) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1552 - Retention of submerged gas tanks and fence;
Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780066 PF
Change of use from caravan site to chalets
Approved 22/05/1978
Development Committee
53
11 February 2016
PLA/19781838 PF
Change of use from caravan site to holiday chalets
Approved 12/03/1979
PLA/19830190 PF
Variation of planning condition to allow permanent standing of holiday caravans
Approved 15/03/1983
PLA/19930966 PF
Amendment to condition to permit an extension of holiday accommodation use to
between 1 Jan to 5 Jan and 1 Mar to 31 Dec
Approved 03/09/1993
PLA/19991381 PF
Variation of condition 4 of planning permission reference NW1275 to allow occupancy
from 1 March until 5 January
Approved 20/01/2000
PLA/20041449 PF
Variation of conditions on planning permissions references 19780066, 19781838,
19830190, 19950895, 19961192 and 20011095 to allow all year round occupancy of
caravans for holiday purposes
Approved 24/09/2004
PF/15/1551 PF
Retention of entrance walls and gates.
PF/15/1556 PF
Retention of building for gym and hair and nail salon.
THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application to retain 6 underground LPG gas tanks within a
grassed compound surrounded by a 1.2m timber picket fence with a 2m hedge along
the rear boundary shared with the dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Seward having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To consider the concerns raised by neighbours and the Town Council
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham Town Council objects on grounds of;






Proximity to boundaries of properties to the rear of the site with Health & Safety
concerns regarding the quantity of propane stored in each tank.
Routing of sewerage line
Installer should have enquired as to the necessity of planning permission.
Clarification as to whether an approved installer was used with the appropriate
certification, risk assessments and insurance.
Potential to undermine foundations.
Fire Brigade should have been ask to carry out a safety inspection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of representation have been received objecting on grounds of;

Health and Safety
Development Committee
54
11 February 2016


Impact on the value of residential properties.
Concerned that the gas tanks are not far enough away from the residential
boundary.
In support of the application the agent has provided the following information;




Tank proximity was agreed by Avanti Gas who supplied the tanks, the base
drawings and positioning agreements. They undertook the final connections
once the submerged tanks were completed.
We are not aware of any impact on the sewerage line. The gas lines where
plotted by the main contractor, Thrower & Hammond. They are specialist LPG
gas installers.
Both companies referenced above are fully accredited to complete the works.
No foundations would be undermined as mains have not crossed anywhere
close to any permanent building structures.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objections. The Senior Public Protection Officer has visited
the site and confirms that all gas tank installations were installed in accordance with
best practice and the specified clearance distances for the tanks were maintained.
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).
EC 3 - Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide
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. Principle
2. Visual impact
3. Health and safety concerns
APPRAISAL
Principle
Norfolk Park homes occupy a large holiday site although located within the Countryside
policy area the south western boundary of the site abuts the North Walsham
development boundary. In principle development associated with the holiday park is
acceptable providing it complies with the other policies of the Development Plan
Visual Impact
The gas tanks are located with the holiday park close to the south western boundary
Development Committee
55
11 February 2016
and also adjacent to the site office. Apart from the small fence around the compound
the only other visible sign of the tanks are the lids. The appearance of the compound is
considered minimal in the wider context of the site and its surroundings.
Health and Safety
It is understood that the Environmental Health officers have investigated the issues
regarding the tanks and are satisfied that they have the appropriate installation
certification. As the installation of the tanks is the province of legislation other than the
planning and Environmental Health are satisfied that the tanks were properly installed
and complied with that legislation. In the circumstances the proposal raises no Health
and Safety concerns that need to be addressed it is therefore considered that the
retention of the tanks complies with Policy EN 13.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN 13 and the other policies of the
Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE unconditionally.
(8)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1556 - Retention of building for gym and hair and nail
salon; Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780066 PF
Change of use from caravan site to chalets
Approved 22/05/1978
PLA/19781838 PF
Change of use from caravan site to holiday chalets
Approved 12/03/1979
PLA/19830190 PF
Variation of planning condition to allow permanent standing of holiday caravans
Approved 15/03/1983
PLA/19930966 PF
Amendment to condition to permit an extension of holiday accommodation use to
between 1 Jan to 5 Jan and 1 Mar to 31 Dec
Approved 03/09/1993
PLA/19941426 PF
Extensions to club room
Approved 30/11/1994
Development Committee
56
11 February 2016
PLA/19941588 PF
Erection of storage building
Approved 05/01/1995
PLA/19991381 PF
Variation of condition 4 of planning permission reference NW1275 to allow occupancy
from 1 March until 5 January
Approved 20/01/2000
PLA/20021887 PF
Erection of extensions to provide toilet and games facilities
Approved 16/01/2003
PLA/20041449 PF
Variation of conditions on planning permissions references 19780066, 19781838,
19830190, 19950895, 19961192 and 20011095 to allow all year round occupancy of
caravans for holiday purposes
Approved 24/09/2004
PLA/20081450 PF
Erection of extensions to the Melbourne club
Approved 17/12/2008
PLA/20090424 PF
Landscaping works and erection of changing rooms and canopies
Approved 08/06/2009
PF/15/1551 PF
Retention of entrance walls and gates.
PF/15/1552 PF
Retention of submerged gas tanks and fence
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application to retain a small building housing a gym, hair and nail
salon. The building is attached to the changing facilities for the swimming pool. It is a
flat roofed building measuring 8m x 11m. The building is constructed of materials to
match the existing changing rooms.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Seaward having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To consider the concerns of the Town Council.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham Town Council - objects on grounds of;




actual use not as description on application as facilities include tanning salon
no checks had been carried out
Structure permanent not temporary
retail impact study not carried out to determine the effect on retail businesses in the
town.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - no objection
Development Committee
57
11 February 2016
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents extensions
of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the area).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Viability impact
3. Visual impact
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
Norfolk Park Homes is a holiday park located in the Countryside policy area though the
south western boundary abuts the development boundary for North Walsham where
extensions to existing businesses may be acceptable providing the scale is appropriate
In the centre of the of the caravan and chalet park are a range of leisure facilities serving
the park, a bar/restaurant, swimming pool and changing facilities. The gym and beauty
salon is clearly intended to enhance those facilities. Assessed against Policy EC 3 this
is a small leisure facility the small scale of which within the context of the holiday park is
regarded as entirely appropriate.
Viability Impact
Viability impact assessments are normally required when considering the impacts of
major developments such as supermarkets. The proposal here is small scale and any
impact is comparable to that of a small shop outside the town centre being used for such
a purpose. While the salon may also be offering a tanning facility this is not an
uncommon ancillary facility.
Visual Impact
In terms of appearance the building is constructed from cream cladding and a mineral
felt roof that matches the existing changing facilities. Although the light colour stands
out a little it is not readily visible from outside the holiday park so it is considered there is
no adverse landscape impact from its retention.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE unconditionally.
Development Committee
58
11 February 2016
(9)
RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg Road,
East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish
- Target Date: 13 November 2015
Case Officer: Mr A Afford
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091066 HOU
Erection of Extension to Outbuilding to Provide Ancillary Residential Accommodation
Approved 16/12/2009
PF/15/1373 HOU
Extensions to annexe
THE APPLICATION
Extensions to the existing annexe. This will comprise a pitched roof extension 4m x 6m
which will connect to a flat roof extension 10.6m x 5m, this flat roof extension connects
to the existing pitched roof annexe.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Butikofer for the following planning reasons;
1. The annexe is overdevelopment of the site and of a questionable scale for an annexe.
2. The impact on the neighbours to the east.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
East and West Runton Parish Council - Objection, It is too big for the site and would be
detrimental to the wellbeing of immediate neighbours. The demolition of the flint wall is
also objected to.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five objections received on the following grounds;
1) This is overdevelopment in a conservation area.
2) The plans show the new part of the annex is hard on the boundary so the gutters will
hang over private land.
3) The boundary/new bedroom wall/kitchen wall, the existing garden flint wall will be
knocked down and replaced with brick work. It would be dreadful to lose such a lovely
old flint wall.
4) The height of the Annexe would increase and will shade the sun light from our back
garden.
5) There are old fruit trees in the garden area where the new bedroom/kitchen would be,
it would be terrible to lose such old fruit trees.
6) The new extension to the existing out building is a substantial increase of the building
foot print, again, overdevelopment.
7) There would be increased traffic turning up Broomhill, and also on the existing
Broomhill to Felbrigg Road.
Development Committee
59
11 February 2016
8) The extension to the outbuilding would be clearly seen from the High Street and
Felbrigg Road and make the area look over developed and squeezed in.
9) I feel this annexe is being built purely for financial gain and would not add to the
beauty of the village.
10) Loss of light.
11) Already affected by an unauthorised 3m high fence.
12) Sets a precedent.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape - Condition requested to replace fruit trees.
County Council Highways Cromer - No Objection, providing condition is placed to
ensure annex is ancillary to existing dwelling.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS2 - Development in the Countryside
EN4 - Design
EN8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
HO8 - House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of Development
2) Design
3) Impact of Neighbouring amenities
4) Overdevelopment of site
5) Loss of trees
APPRAISAL
1) Principle of Development
The site is within the countryside policy area where policy SS2 is applicable. An
extension to an existing residential property, including an annexe is acceptable in
principle in such a location.
The site lies within a dense residential area of largely traditional style houses and
cottages.
2) Design
The design in terms of material, scale, details and massing is seen to be acceptable in
relation to the host building and surrounding context. Although within the conservation
area, it is in a prominent position and the development will preserve the character and
appearance of the conservation area.
Development Committee
60
11 February 2016
There has been some concern as to the potential for the existing flint walls to the east
being removed, however it has been confirmed that this is not the case. The new walls
will be built behind this existing wall.
The proposal is considered acceptable under policies EN4 and EN8.
3) Impact on Neighbouring amenities
In terms of proximity to neighbouring properties in particular to the east and north it is
considered that there will be no significant overbearing impact caused from the annexe
due to the low profile of the building.
There will be no issues of loss of privacy associated with this application. There will be
no new windows that will look out onto neighbouring properties. Also the existing
fencing that wraps around the perimeter of the site would also prevent any overlooking.
Overshadowing of neighbouring properties to the east will be limited as the proposal is
single storey only and part flat roofed.
Overshadowing the property to the north will be limited and appears to impact on
ancillary outbuildings.
4) Overdevelopment of site
Although fairly sizable the annex is not considered to result in an overdevelopment of
the site. The annexe will occupy less than 50% of the garden curtilage. It is
considerably smaller than the host dwelling and allows sufficient amenity and parking
space to be provided.
5) Loss of trees
The Landscape Officer has no objection subject to a replanting condition.
Conclusion
The development is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan and is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three 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.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
Development Committee
61
11 February 2016
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The existing fruit trees to be removed to facilitate development shall be replaced
with similar species elsewhere within the site. The trees shall be planted no later
than the next available planting season following the commencement of the
development.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 and EN 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
4
The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use of the
main dwelling and shall not be occupied as a separate and un-associated unit of
accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(10) SCOTTOW - PF/15/1829 - Temporary change of use of Hangers 1, 2 and 3 to
storage of processed sugar (retrospective); Hanger 1,2 and 3, Scottow Enterprise
Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield for Greenheath Limited
- Target Date: 14 March 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
BX/14/0061 BX
Recycling and restoration of runway areas (County reference: C/1/2013/1020)
Withdrawn by Applicant 24/11/2014
BX/14/0422 BX
Use of land for fire training purposes including the siting of containers, modular
buildings and portable toilets (County ref: Y/1/2014/1003)
Approved 19/06/2014
PF/14/0642 PF
Change of use of former munitions stores to B8 storage
Approved 18/07/2014
PF/14/0811 PF
Change of use of Hanger 3 and Building 382 for police training and storage purposes
Approved 28/08/2014
PF/14/1038 PF
Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and light industrial use) and
associated outside storage
Development Committee
62
11 February 2016
Approved 13/11/2014
PF/14/1365 PF
Change of use from storage associated with former airbase to B8 storage (storage of
empty plastic bottles/caps and cardboard packaging only)
Approved 12/02/2015
PF/14/1396 PF
Temporary change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 from military storage to storage of
processed sugar
Refused 09/06/2015
BX/14/1553 BX
County Reference Y/1/2014/1007
Erection of live fire training facility, enlargement of existing hard standing area and
retention of four fire training containers; plus change of use of Building 440 to provide
briefing, mess and rest room facilities and Building 109A for ancillary storage
Approved 23/02/2015
PF/15/0296 PF
Change of use of part of building/office/training room to use for television and film
production office, associated facilities and storage B1)
Approved 29/04/2015
THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the temporary use of three existing hangers (circa 5,500sqm
each) at Scottow Enterprise Park to be used for the storage of sugar. The use of the
hangers for sugar storage has already commenced. The applicant has indicated that
storage use would be for a three year period.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the previous planning history in relation
to the proposed use
PARISH COUNCIL
Scottow Parish Council - No response received
Buxton with Lammas Parish Council - No response
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No Objection subject to Conditions
I should inform you that this department has never received any noise complaints, in
terms of plant movements to and from the hangers. As such, I would agree with the
following proposed delivery and despatch restrictions and would request that they are
conditioned:


07:00-22:00 Monday to Friday
07:00 – 16:00 Saturdays
No Sunday, Bank Holiday or Public Holiday working
As we have not been involved in an investigation into noise complaints, I feel unable to
recommend that no further sugar is brought onto the site.
Development Committee
63
11 February 2016
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to condition to secure a Traffic
Management Plan - Having regard to the volume of traffic that previously accessed the
operational RAF airbase and the fact that traffic to this site has significantly reduced
since the base closed, it would not be realistic to recommend refusal of this application
on highway grounds.
Norfolk Fire Service (Area East of Fakenham) - No response
Health and Safety Executive - No response
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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Background
Principle
Highway Impact
Impact on Residential Amenity
Other Safety Considerations
Heritage Impacts
Development Committee
64
11 February 2016
APPRAISAL
Background
A similar application (ref: PF/14/1396) was considered by the Development Committee
on 23 April 2015 where, contrary to officer advice, it was resolved to refuse the
application on the following grounds as it was considered to conflict with Core Strategy
Policies EN 8 and EN 13:
'1. The storage of sugar in large volumes within the three hangers poses a significant
and unacceptable risk of fire which would put at risk the site and surrounding area,
contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN 13.
2. Furthermore, the development, by virtue of the coming and going of vehicles
associated with delivery and dispatch of sugar to the site would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of residents living within Badersfield and surrounding areas along
the delivery route, contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN 13.
3. In addition, the storage of sugar within the hangers has the potential to result in harm
to the locally designated heritage assets including murals within the hangers which are
considered to be of cultural significance. As such the proposal would not accord with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 8. Whilst the impacts may be less than
substantial in NPPF terms, the public benefits in support of the proposal do not
outweigh the identified harm.'
Officers were given delegated authority to commence enforcement proceedings to seek
removal of the sugar but this action was held in abeyance at the request of the Council's
Chief Executive whilst the applicant re-submitted their proposal with a clearer
explanation of the supporting arguments and to seek to address the concerns
previously raised by the Committee.
Principle
The re-use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 for storage purposes is considered acceptable in
principle under Core Strategy Policy EC 4 subject to the proposals protecting the
surrounding environment and resulting in no degradation of the site itself.
Highway Impact
In respect of traffic movements the applicant had indicated within their supporting
statement that up to fifteen 40ft (30 tonne) lorries would arrive and depart daily from the
site and each hanger would be filled in turn and that lorries will also arrive with one
tonne bags packed on pallets and unloaded using forklift trucks. The hangars are now
full and the applicant subsequently confirmed that during filling between November
2014 and Feb 2015 there were 64 lorry movements per day. The applicant has
indicated that sugar would be removed over a longer period of time at a rate of
approximately 4-8 vehicle movements per day.
The Highway Authority had raised no objection subject to a condition to secure a Traffic
Management Plan.
Officers recognise that there were a number of local concerns about traffic movements
during the fill period, without objection from the Highway Authority, Officers consider
there would be no substantive basis for refusal in relation to highway impacts.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Given the distances, the physical storage of sugar in the hangers is unlikely to result per
se in harm to residential amenity. The Environmental Protection Team previously
requested details of the extractor/ventilation/dehumidifier equipment to be installed.
However, officers are not aware that noise complaints have been received about this
Development Committee
65
11 February 2016
aspect of the proposal.
It is the vehicle movements associated with the transporting of the processed sugar that
has the potential to affect nearby residents in Badersfield based on the current access
arrangements. During the fill period (which commenced without the benefit of planning
permission) the Council did receive a number of calls from local residents about vehicle
movements taking place at all hours of the day disturbing sleep. Officer opinion at that
time was that an unlimited delivery window would not be acceptable and, with the
support of Environmental Protection Officer, insisted that the County Council and
applicant restrict initial delivery movements to between 7am to 10pm on any one day.
Officers understand the County Council did enforce this restriction and, as a result,
complaints stopped.
Officers remain of the opinion that, if the Committee are minded to support approval of
the proposal, delivery vehicle movements would need to be the subject of a planning
condition. Officers understood previously that the County Council were seeking a site
wide delivery receipt/dispatch restriction and have informally requested this be 7am to
10pm Mon to Fri, 7am to 4pm on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or
Public Holidays. Officers consider this would be a reasonable restriction which would
protect the amenity of nearby residents whilst still allowing business to operate
successfully. Given the temporary nature of the proposal, if the Committee are minded
to support approval Officers would recommend the suggested restrictions be imposed
by way of condition.
Other Safety Considerations
In respect of issue of safety, sugar is known to pose a risk of explosion, particularly if the
size of sugar particles are below 500 micrometres (sugar dust) which has a larger
surface area to react with oxygen in air. The applicant previously confirmed that sugar
particles will be larger than 500 micrometres and not in a dust format and that spark
retarders will be used when loading and unloading so that any risks are reduced even
further. Officers consider that this approach would seem reasonable by the applicant
and, if the particle size of the sugar is as stated by the applicant, then the risk of
explosion will be significantly reduced.
The Health and Safety Executive previously raised no objection to the proposal.
Comments are awaited on this current proposal.
Heritage Impacts
In respect of impacts on heritage assets, the site lies within a Conservation Area and the
hangers have 'local listing' status (ref: LL/84/02, LL/84/03, and LL/84/04). Whilst not
specifically mentioned in the local list descriptions, some of the hangers include murals.
The murals themselves are, in the main, located internally within the hangers and so
play a limited role in the appreciation of the wider character of the area but nonetheless
contribute to the historical context of the site. English Heritage (now Historic England)
undertook a ‘Photographic Characterisation’ of the RAF Coltishall site prior to its closure
and this included photographic records within the hangers capturing the murals.
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay
“special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and
the character and appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of
preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of
conservation areas are not mere material considerations to which any weight can be
attached. When a local authority finds that a proposed development would harm the
setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must
give that harm considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory
presumption against planning permission being granted. That presumption can,
Development Committee
66
11 February 2016
however, be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including
the public benefits of a proposal.
In considering what weight to afford to any impacts to heritage assets, the Committee
needs to be mindful of the fact that Locally Listed Buildings are not afforded the same
level of statutory protection as listed buildings and therefore the powers available to the
Local Planning Authority in the event that harm was being caused to the internal fabric
(including the murals) would be limited.
The Council's Conservation Officer had previously expressed the view that the proposal
will not harm the significance of these designated and non-designated heritage assets.
When the doors of the hangers are closed, there is no discernible visual impact on the
character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area. In respect of the impact on
the hangers themselves, In respect of the murals and artefacts within the hanger, the
applicant has indicated that the murals within the hangers have been covered/protected
and the stored sugar is not in direct contact with the hanger building such that, once the
sugar has been removed, there would be no significant adverse impacts.
On balance, having regard to the likely impacts it is considered that the proposal would
not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area nor would
substantial harm result to the murals within the locally listed buildings. As such, Officers
are of the opinion that there are no substantive heritage impact grounds upon which to
oppose the application.
Summary
Whilst the application is retrospective in nature and the unrestricted transporting of
processed sugar to the site has had some adverse impacts on residential amenity, the
Committee needs to satisfy itself that the proposed development is acceptable or can
be made acceptable in planning terms. The application is proposed on a temporary
basis and, subject to the imposition of conditions limiting delivery/despatch times is
likely to be considered generally acceptable and would not adversely affect heritage
assets. Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would generally accord with
Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the imposition of conditions to include
restrictions on delivery/dispatch times to 7am to 10pm Mon to Fri, 7am to 4pm on
Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays and any
other conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning.
(11) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1468 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and
access road; Plot 6, Land at 20 Abbey Road for Mr Clark
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892554 PO
One detached bungalow and garage
Approved 26/03/1990
Development Committee
67
11 February 2016
PLA/19930251 PO
Erection of one detached bungalow and garage (renewal previous permission reference
01/892554/O)
Approved 01/06/1994
PLA/19941007 PO
Demolition of existing house and erection of three houses and garages
Withdrawn 15/05/1995
PLA/19950806 NP
Demolition of dwelling
Refusal of Prior Notification 10/07/1995
PLA/19970508 PM
Erection of bungalow and garage
Approved 26/06/1997
PLA/20001615 PO
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of six detached dwellings and garages
Approved 04/12/2001
PLA/20020556 PM
Erection of six detached bungalows
Approved 21/06/2002
PF/13/0345 PF
Erection of one and a half storey dwelling, formation of vehicular access and revised
access road
Approved 31/05/2013
PF/13/0815 PF
Erection of 2 two and a half storey dwellings
Approved 22/10/2013
PF/14/0143 PF
Erection of two two-storey dwellings
Approved 30/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two and a half storey dwelling and access road as plot 6 of a site
which has extant consent for 6 bungalows. Amended designs for plots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
have been granted consent with plot one being for a one and a half storey dwelling with
attached garage, and plots 2 to 5 being two and a half storey dwellings with integral
garages.
The application plot is located within the south eastern area of the site with the building
proposed to be positioned some 3.5 metres further from the south eastern boundary
(with numbers 20a and 20b Abbey Road) than the position of the previously approved
bungalow.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site
visit. The application was previously referred to Committee at the request of Cllr.
Shepherd for the following planning reason; relationship with neighbouring dwellings.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
Development Committee
68
11 February 2016
REPRESENTATIONS
3 x objections received on the following grounds (summarised)::
 Loss of privacy
 Loss of light
 Only bungalows should be allowed
 Greater degree of noise
 The bottom of the patio doors to the east elevation will be level with the top of our
fence allowing a direct view into our property
 Concerned with distance from the proposed house to our house
 Proposal does not meet North Norfolk Design Guide recommended window to
window distances
 Overbearing impact
 Scale
 Does not comply with Policy HO1
 Increased vehicular movement compared to what existing permission would
create
 Increased traffic on Abbey Road (some vehicles driven by young people) will be
dangerous
 Construction traffic will damage the un-adopted road – such traffic should only
be allowed to enter site via the northern entrance or if allowed from Holway Road
the surface should be replaced or repaired by the developer
 Time scale for development to take place on the site is ridiculous, it seems
absurd that developers are allowed to obtain letters of acceptance that
development has commenced and then 10-12 years later be able to apply for a
completely different set of properties simply because they have extant
permission.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection – sufficient space is detailed and exists within
the site to cater for the needs of the dwelling without affecting the public highway. In
respect of potential impact on the junction of Abbey Road with Holway Road I cannot
justify a reason for any objection given the extant consent on the site and the numerous
properties already served off the un-adopted section of Abbey Road.
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues)
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).
Development Committee
69
11 February 2016
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
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. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a Committee site visit on 4
February 2016.
Principle of development
The site lies within a designated residential policy area and benefits from extant consent
for the erection of 6 bungalows and more recently for revised designs to plots 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 from single storey to one and half storey (plot 1) and two and a half storey (plots 2
- 5). The principle of development of the site has already been established and is
supported by current policy.
Design and impact on amenities of neighbouring properties
The topography of the site is such that the wider site slopes down from the north west
towards Abbey Road and less sharply towards the south east of the site where plot 6 is
located.
The proposed design would be in keeping with the style of dwellings recently approved
under planning references 13/0345, 13/0815 and 14/0143. The proposed dwelling
would be located between approved plot 5 and the rear boundary of 20a and 20b Abbey
Road which are single storey dwellings. There is a private access track that runs along
the south western boundary which serves number 22 Abbey Road. The design intends
to utilise the site's topography by presenting integral garage and living accommodation
at ground floor level with bedroom and bathroom accommodation within the roof space.
From the front the proposed dwelling would appear as a one and a half story dwelling.
From the rear and from the eastern elevation the dwelling would appear as a two and a
half storey dwelling with additional living accommodation being provided at basement
level. The proposal seeks to lower part of the site level such that the resultant garden
level would match that of the neighbouring properties (20a and 20b). Due to utilisation of
the topography of the site, whilst overall on a like-for-like basis the proposal would
introduce an increase in ridge heights of approximately 1.7m from the earlier approval,
the proposed dwelling would present a hipped roof toward the existing dwellings with
the building moved some 3.5 metres away from the boundary with those properties
when compared with the extant permission which would present a gable end. In addition
it is considered that the extant permission would result in the single storey dwelling
being built above the existing ground level. It is therefore considered that the current
proposal would, overall, despite the proposed increase in height, have less of an impact
on neighbouring properties in terms of overbearing impacts than the extant dwelling.
Objections have been received from nearby residents in respect of loss of privacy by
overlooking from the proposed patio doors to the eastern elevation and from the rear
elevation. As discussed above, the proposal seeks to lower the existing ground level to
match that of the existing dwellings to the east. It is therefore considered that any view
from the openings to the eastern elevation would be interrupted by the intervening
boundary fence. No windows are proposed at what would appear as first floor level
Development Committee
70
11 February 2016
when viewed from the east. It is therefore considered that no significant loss of privacy
would be introduced from the side elevation. Officers have given consideration to
measurements provided by the occupier of 20b in relation to the North Norfolk Design
Guide basic amenity criteria for recommended separation distances. Notwithstanding
the figures provided, Officers consider that those figures did not take into account the
intervening feature of the boundary fence (it was felt that the bottom of the patio doors
would be level with the top of the fence (additional sectional drawings have since been
provided to clarify the proposed site level arrangements)) and that this proposal places
the proposed dwelling some 3.5 metres further from the eastern boundary than the
previously approved dwelling. In light of this it is considered that the proposal would
not introduce any significant detriment to the amenities of this neighbouring property.
The windows proposed to the rear would serve, at first floor, a void area (such that the
living accommodation at this level would be set back approximately 2.2m from what
appears as a floor to ceiling window) and a W/C and utility room. A Juliet balcony is also
proposed at this level. Within the roof space 2 velux windows would serve bathrooms
and the pitched roof dormer would serve a fourth bedroom. It is considered that in
respect of the properties to the rear and east (number 20a), the proposal complies with
the Council's design guide amenity criteria and would not introduce any significant
detriment to the amenities of those neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal would result in a shortfall in the recommended separation distances
between the proposal and approved Plot 5. However a 1.8m fence is proposed between
the dwellings and it is therefore considered that this relationship raises no cause for
concern.
At the previous Committee compliance with Policy HO1 was queried. Policy HO1
relates to dwelling mix and type and requires that on schemes of five or more dwellings
at least 40% of the total number of dwellings shall comprise not more than 70sqm
internal floor space and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer and that on schemes of 5 or
more dwellings at least 20% of dwellings shall be suitable or easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled. In this instance it is considered that as
there is an extant consent for the erection of 6 bungalows and additional revised
designs for Plots 1 - 5 which do not require compliance with Policy HO1, it would be
difficult to justify refusal of the application under this Policy in this case.
In relation to concerns raised regarding drainage at the site it is considered that Building
Regulations would ensure satisfactory drainage at build stage. As that would not take
account of changes in surface water drainage from any later installation of additional
hardstanding within the site, a condition removing permitted development rights in
respect of hardstandings is recommended to be imposed on any approval. The agent
has advised that there will be a positive surface water drainage system incorporated
into the build and any potential later hardstandings etc. would have no detrimental
impact on neighbours. Any large proposals would require a separate application.
Drainage is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal of this proposal.
Given the above and notwithstanding the objections raised, the proposal is considered
to comply with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of conditions considered to
be appropriate by the Head of Planning to include a condition requiring precise details of
slab levels to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development.
Development Committee
71
11 February 2016
(12) SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1565 - Erection of three detached dwelling houses.; Land
at Beechlands Park for Mr Codling
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
01/78/1277/F
Residential Development
Approved 27/10/1978
PLA/19980840 PF
Erection of 2 pairs semi-detached cottages with garages
Refused 29/09/1998 D 30/03/1999
THE APPLICATION
Is to erect two four-bedroom and one three-bedroom detached houses on the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To consider the proposal in the light of an existing extant permission on the site.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Southrepps Parish Council - It is overdevelopment/intensification of a very small area
and leaves insufficient manoeuvrability between each property.
There is little provision for outside amenity space and the more appropriate number
would be 2 houses on the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection
 Site is more suitable for two dwellings.
 There is already a problem with cars parking on both sides of the road.
 Two spaces are inadequate.
 Our concern is parking but the application helps alleviate this by providing three off
road parking spaces.
2 Letters commenting on the proposals
 No objection providing they are built with cobble stones as plain brick would look out
of place.
 Our concerns is parking but the application helps alleviate this by providing three off
road parking spaces.
 Overdevelopment but close to the boundary of the properties behind.
 Aesthetically the houses are pleasing and architecturally in keeping but with minimal
space between them.
 Extra parking provision is a priority.
 Gardens are small for family homes.
Development Committee
72
11 February 2016

Drainage needs improving.
3 letters of support
 Since building on the plot is inevitable support this application because of the use of
vernacular materials and they would need to be increased to meet building
regulations.
 Dwellings are consistent with the existing development in terms of design and
spacing and are not over intensive development.
 Do not agree there is too much on road parking.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - On the basis that the proposed
dwellings would not harm the overall significance of the Southrepps Conservation Area,
there can be no sustainable Conservation & Design objections to this application.
This said, it is acknowledged that the three dwellings are somewhat larger than those
previously approved and do not seem to sit so comfortably on the site. However, given
the existing form and (limited) character of Beechlands Park, and the relatively modern
buildings therein, this is essentially a planning amenity argument rather than a
Conservation & Design matter.
County Council Highways - In principle there is no highway objection except for the lack
of enough parking spaces for the four-bedroom dwellings.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact on
the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the likely
impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle
2. Extant permission
3. Residential amenity
Development Committee
73
11 February 2016
4. Previous appeal
5. Parking
APPRAISAL
Principle
The application site is located within the development boundary for Southrepps on an
almost complete residential estate that has been in slow development since the 1970's.
It also lies within the Southrepps Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
Extant Permission
The site has an extant planning permission for three reasonable size dwellings each
with three bedrooms. Those dwellings are sited nearer to the road edge leaving room
for modest gardens of between 9m and 12m depth. This development was part of a
planning permission for a larger number of dwellings and approved in 1978. As
several dwellings part of that larger development have been built the development has
been implemented the permission on the application site remains live.
Design and Residential Amenity
While generally the outward appearance of the buildings is acceptable officers concern
is that the layout with the mass of the dwellings are disproportionate to the size of the
plots and to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
It is considered the new proposal would be severely detrimental to the residential
amenities of the two properties, 67 and 75 Beechlands, that share the rear boundaries
of the proposed dwellings. At the closest point the first floor bedroom windows is 2.5m
away from that boundary increasing to 3.5m through to a maximum of 6m. The
position of those windows would inevitably create a marked increase in the level of
overlooking into the gardens as well as living areas of both neighbours. The three
dwellings are so close together and so close to the rear boundaries they would present
an almost consolidated line of development on the western boundaries of 67 and 75
Beechlands. The proposed dwellings are to the west of the existing properties and it is
considered that the scale and mass of the proposed houses would have a considerable
overbearing and overshadowing impact upon the outlook of those two properties and
their gardens.
In addition, the private amenity spaces for the new dwellings is inadequate to serve
dwellings of the scale proposed. The North Norfolk Design Guide advocates that
private amenity space should be of adequate size and shape to serve their purpose and
further advises that it should normally be no less than the footprint of the dwelling. In
this instance all the useable areas of private garden are less than the footprint of each
dwelling. Plot A the smallest dwelling has the greatest proportion of garden at 90%,
while Plot B has the least at 67% and Plot C has 76%. Consequently, the lack of
adequate gardens is considered to be an additional reason to reject the application.
Previous Appeal
Members will also note that in 1998 an application was refused, and a subsequent
appeal dismissed (the site layout and appeal decision are attached as Appendix 3), for
an amended scheme for 4 houses on this site reducing the garden depths of two plots to
7m. While the inspector did not agree that because the houses were 2m closer than
the approved dwellings the overlooking would be substantially increased he did agree
that the then proposed development of those two plots would have an overbearing
visual impact on the small rear garden of 67 Beechlands. Whereas, the current
application is judged to also have an adverse impact on 75 Beechlands. In fact, the
current proposal is far worse, it reduces the garden depths by half and the overbearing
visual impact, overshadowing and overlooking would be materially increased compared
to the appeal proposal dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
Development Committee
74
11 February 2016
Parking
The Highways Authority has also raised concerns because it considers insufficient
parking is provided for the two four-bedroom dwellings. In this the proposal does not
comply with the Council's adopted parking standards which requires three parking
spaces for four-bedroom dwellings.
Conclusion
In summary, the matters discussed above culminate in a proposal that is
overdevelopment of the site available and one which fails to comply with policies EN 4
and CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy and for those reasons is recommended for
refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development, by virtue of its
scale and massing together with a lack of adequate garden areas and insufficient car
parking to serve dwellings of the size proposed, would result in an unacceptable
overdevelopment that is not in keeping with the prevailing form and character of the
area. In addition, it would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the
adjoining properties to the east as a result of the proximity of the dwellings to the
boundary would result in an overbearing impact with the resulting overshadowing and a
significant intensification of overlooking of their private amenity space.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the adopted Development Plan
policies EN 4 and CT 5 as well as paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
(13) WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension to outbuildings to
provide an additional unit of holiday accommodation; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr Gilligan
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Enforcement Notice
Countryside
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
The wider site has a lengthy planning history of which the following is relevant to the
current application:
PO/11/1278 PF
Erection of single-storey extension to provide toilets and dining area and conversion of
outbuilding to three units of holiday accommodation and micro brewery
Approved 06/03/2012
Development Committee
75
11 February 2016
LA/11/1279 LA
Alterations to facilitate erection of extension and conversion of outbuilding to three units
of holiday accommodation and micro brewery
Approved 06/03/2012
PF/12/1032 PF
Conversion of outbuildings to one unit of holiday accommodation and micro-brewery
with ancillary retail
Approved 06/12/2012
LA/12/1033 LA
Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate conversion to holiday accommodation and
micro-brewery
Approved 29/11/2012
THE APPLICATION
Erection of single-storey building to provide a 1/2 bed holiday unit. It would be an
extension to the existing range of outbuildings on the north side of Ruin Road that adjoin
the boundary to the church yard. It would have brick walls to match those of the
adjacent buildings, with timber windows and doors. The roof covering would be clay
pantiles with two small roof lights within it. As amended, the proposal also includes car
parking to serve the additional unit and to replace car parking spaces that were part of
the previous schemes for the conversion of the outbuildings to holiday accommodation
and dining room extension, but which could otherwise not be provided, as they were in
the area to be occupied by the proposed building.
There is an associated application for listed building consent ref 15/0513.
The White Lady Public House (formally the New Inn) is situated in the heart of Worstead
village off Front Street, to the south of St Mary's Church (listed - grade II*). It is within
designated Countryside, the Worstead Conservation Area and the main public house is
listed (grade II).
The immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential to the south and east.
The village hall lies to the west and the parish church to the north.
The wider site comprises of the main public house building which sits back from Front
Street and has been extended to part of its south side and rear relatively recently, where
a new dining area and kitchen area has been formed. To the east side of the building
there is a gravelled area used for parking. To the rear of the building there is a large
garden area with an old brick wall running along much of its northern boundary. This
adjoins an unmade track/road known as Ruin Road which runs between Front Street
and a road to the west of the church leading to Westwick Road. On its north side there
are a range of single and two storey outbuildings formerly stables and a garage which
have extant planning permission to be converted to four units of holiday
accommodation. At the time of the site visit, only the two storey building had been
converted. There is extant planning permission for a single storey building on the
south side of Ruin Road adjacent to the rear of the pub, to be used as a micro-brewery
with an associated shop unit.
The current application relates to an area of Ruin Road at the west end of the range of
the former outbuildings, which may have also been occupied by an outbuilding many
years ago. It also includes a small part of the pub garden. It is adjoined on its north side
by the boundary wall to the church yard which is 1-2m higher than the level of Ruin
Road. The lower two thirds of the wall are constructed in rubble with brick pier details
and a canted brick coping. There is a section of brick wall above it which is still clearly
old. The boundary wall also forms the rear wall of the existing outbuildings.
Development Committee
76
11 February 2016
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Requested by Cllr Glyn Williams for the following planning reasons:
1. the parking solution proposed is impractical when the overall use of the site is taken
into account;
2. parking on the site remains a significant concern locally particularly when events at
the pub are held;
3. previous conditions attached to planning approvals requiring parking provision have
not been implemented and this application needs to be considered in that context.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Worstead PC: objected to the application as originally submitted on the grounds of
over-development and car parking, contrary to condition 2 of 12/1033. Following re
consultation on the amended plans the PC again objects for the following reasons:
Condition 10 of planning permission PF/11/1278 (dated 6th March 2012) stated that
"Prior to first use of the restaurant or holiday accommodation hereby permitted the
proposed car parking as indicated on the Site and Location Plan received by the Local
Planning authority on 19 January 2012 shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced
and drained. The car parking shall be retained thereafter available for those specific
uses". The applicant has chosen not to adhere to that condition and to date has not
provided the required parking areas. It is the PC's view that the applicant will again
ignore the requirement to provide parking. Another cause for concern is the siting of a
marquee in the pub garden for various events. With the said marquee in place the
designated parking areas that should exist in the garden are either not available or
inaccessible.
The comments refer to the fact that the applicant attended a meeting of the PC on 24
November 2015, and was questioned about his lack of parking provision. The applicant
did intimate that he would be prepared to put in place the parking provision for the
proposed additional holiday unit prior to any building work taking place. He was unable
to provide suitable answers to the PC on how he plans to overcome the loss of parking
whenever a marquee is erected in the garden.
Prior to any permission being granted the PC requests that the Planning Authority
imposes conditions on the applicant to comply with the requirements of the aforesaid
Approval Notice, provides proper parking facilities for the proposed additional holiday
units and supplies details of how he will overcome the loss of parking facility whenever a
marquee is in place.
Finally, the PC feel that a further consideration is that the Parish has provided an
additional 40 parking spaces at the Village Hall adding to a total of 90 spaces for when
people hire it out. The village still struggles with parking however, and the proposed
development is not going to help this especially as the pub as a business wants to
encourage events that they cannot provide parking for.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two objections received from local residents. They object on the grounds of the
current lack of suitable car parking, which would be worsened with the additional unit.
The pub and hotel nearby attract a lot of traffic and take up all of the available space.
The proposal would generate additional cars which would park on already congested
roads adjoining the development. They refer to it being difficult to access their
driveway when there are events at the pub, which the proposal would make worse.
Car parking required by conditions attached to previous permissions have not been
complied with.
Development Committee
77
11 February 2016
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk CC (Historic Environment Officer): given the site's location on the boundary
with the 14th C church there is potential that significant heritage assets with
archaeological interest (buried remains including human remains) may be present and
these could be affected by the proposed development. A condition requiring a
programme of archaeological work is requested.
Environmental Protection: no objection.
Conservation & Design: no objection
Highway Authority: the proposal has been discussed informally with them.
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 EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents extensions
of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the area).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach
for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to be
attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy 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
 Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle;
 The design of the proposed building and its effect on heritage assets;
 Traffic and parking provision;
 The effect on living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties
APPRAISAL
Principle: CS policies SS 2 and EC 3
The policies allow for extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside where it is of
a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not have a detrimental effect
Development Committee
78
11 February 2016
on the character of the area. The proposed building would be small scale,
representing a continuation of the existing range of outbuildings in terms of scale, height
and proportions. The style and materials would reflect that of the single storey
buildings within the range as approved. The proposal is considered to comply with
these policies.
With regard to the principle of holiday accommodation, one of the aims of policy SS 5 is
to support the tourist industry by, amongst other things encouraging new
accommodation. Policy EC 7 allows for new tourism development in the Countryside
where, as is in this case, the proposal is an extension to an existing business. As it
would be unserviced accommodation, a holiday occupancy condition would be included
as required by policy EC 9. On that basis, it is considered the proposal complies with
these policies.
Design and effect on heritage assets: CS policies EN 4 and EN 8 As already referred to, the proposed building would be small scale and read as an
extension to the existing range of outbuildings in terms of its appearance and being
ancillary to the public house. It would preserve the character and appearance of the
conservation area and would not result in any material harm to the setting of either of
the listed buildings (the pub and church) within views from which it would be seen with
them. The existing outbuildings fall within the scope of the listing of the pub, as they
are curtilage buildings which existed before 1948. The proposed building would attach
to the west end of the range but would have no particular impact on their significance.
A condition requiring a programme of archaeological work is recommended, which
would ensure any buried assets are properly protected and recorded. The proposal is
considered to comply with these policies.
Traffic and parking: CS policies CT 5 and CT 6
The small unit proposed would only result in a small increase in vehicle movements to
and from the site and on the existing road network. The access arrangements are
acceptable and the proposal complies with policy CT 5.
In terms of parking and the concerns raised by both the nearby residents and the Parish
Council, are acknowledged. It is however understood that the parking required by
conditions attached to previous permissions has now been provided and since the
report for the agenda of the January 2016 meeting was drafted. This will be checked
on site and Members of the committee will be updated verbally at the meeting.
The current proposal would only result in a minimal increase in parking demand given
the number of bedrooms proposed. As originally submitted however, it would have
resulted in the loss of some parking spaces which were required to be provided by
conditions attached to the previous approvals (11/1278 and 12/1032) and would have
not resulted in any extra provision to serve the proposed unit. Amended plans have
now been received which show additional parking that addresses this. A total of 40
spaces would be provided to serve the business as a whole.
Whilst the approved plans for the previous approvals showed 50, this was only
indicatively, with spaces shown adjacent to, and along the length of, the boundary wall
on the north side of Ruin Road and adjacent to, and along the length of, the west
boundary of the pub garden. The new floorspace that has been added to the original
pub recently i.e. the dining area extension and other holiday units, would be likely to
generate additional parking demand and as such the requirement for parking provision
to address this was justified. It would however, not have been possible to provide that
many spaces based on the normal recommend parking space dimensions of 2.5m x
5.0m.
A proportionate approach as to parking requirements is to consider what would be
Development Committee
79
11 February 2016
required if the pub and all the more recent development was an entirely new build
proposal based on current standards.
 Original pub building: 40 spaces (38 spaces plus 2 spaces to serve the two bedroom
flat)
 Dining room extension: 15 spaces
 Micro brewery/shop: 3 spaces
 Holiday accommodation: 10 spaces (this is based on 11 bedspaces, which includes
those currently proposed). As there is no specific adopted parking standard for
holiday accommodation of this type, the standard for a dwellinghouse has been
applied.
 Total = 68 spaces
The biggest parking requirement is from the original pub building. However, weight
should be given to the fact that due its age, it was built before the current planning
system came into operation, so there was no requirement for dedicated parking
provision for it and there are no conditions requiring what may have been provided
subsequently to serve it, now to be retained. On this basis it is considered the
requirement for the pub can reasonably be discounted from the total and only the
demand arising from new extensions, holiday accommodation and the
micro-brewery/shop considered, which results in a requirement of 28 spaces. The
amount of parking that would be provided and may in fact now have been provided,
although lower than required by conditions attached to the previous approvals, exceeds
this and for these reasons it is considered that on balance, the proposal complies with
policy CT 6.
A condition is recommended requiring the parking to be kept available for use as such,
as well as for a scheme of signing to make it more apparent to customers where the car
parking is, which may help to reduce some on-street parking. It should also prevent car
parking areas being used for other things as referred to in the representations.
Finally, it is acknowledged there may be occasions when on-site parking demand
exceeds what is available but these are likely to be limited. Parking standards are
based on likely average demands and equally there could be times when not all parking
is used. As the proposal complies with the parking standards it is considered to be
acceptable in terms of policy CT 6.
Living conditions: CS policy EN 4
There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building.
Holiday accommodation of the type proposed is compatible with a residential area. It is
understood there have been complaints about noise and rowdy behaviour emanating
from the premises but these are a matter for licensing. As the proposal is for a small
unit of holiday accommodation, it would not be likely to exacerbate these problems and
is considered to comply with this policy.
Conclusion
The proposal itself being for a small additional unit of holiday accommodation would be
unlikely to result in a significant increase in parking demand. The application as
amended, has also addressed the loss of parking required under previous permission,
which, subject to confirmation has now been provided.
It is considered that the
amount of parking for the site as a whole meets the adopted standards in respect of the
recent and proposed additions to the site, whilst it is accepted that there may be some
occasions when functions for example, generate more demand for parking than can be
accommodated on the site. As these would be likely to be relatively infrequent, the
proposal is on balance, considered to be acceptable and complies with Development
Plan Policies.
Development Committee
80
11 February 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject conditions to cover the following matters:





Time limit for implementation
External materials and details
Car parking, retention and signing
Holiday occupancy only
Archaeology
Final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning.
(14)
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 application.
The application 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.
The following applications are recommended for a site inspection on 18 February
2016.
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station - Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts.
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Rectory Road and Holt
Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.
TRUNCH - PF/15/1227 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works - Land off Cornish Avenue, Trunch,
Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.
GREAT RYBURGH - PF/15/1228 - Erection of five residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Highfield Close, Great
Ryburgh, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Eagle Road,
Erpingham, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1587 - Erection of 10 dwellings and garages with access off
Eagle Road - Land to the south of Eagle Road, Erpingham, NR11 7AD for Mr
Alston.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to facilitate the processing of the planning
applications.
Development Committee
81
11 February 2016
The following applications are recommended for a site inspection on 3 March 2016.
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1534 - Erection of 51 dwellings, public open space and
associated infrastructure - Land off High Street and Water Lane, Mundesley for
Dewing Properties Ltd.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor B Smith due to the level of public interest in the application
and consideration of the scale of development, access to the site and assess to the
public open space.
PASTON – PF/15/1198 – Demolition of accommodation Block B, swimming pool
and laundry. Use of land to station 21 holiday lodges, reception building,
wardens accommodation together with realignment of internal roads and
associated landscaping; Mundesley Holiday Centre, Paston Road for
Mundesley Holiday Village Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr B Smith to enable the Committee to visit the site given the works
being undertaken on its location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
(15)
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the third quarter of 2015/16.
11 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 139 minor
applications and 199 other applications, a total of 349 applications, an increase of 7
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw 6 of the major applications determined within the 13 week
statutory deadline, i.e. 54.55%. Down from the 100% for the previous quarter. The
cumulative figure for 2015/16 is 60%, above the 50% figure set for special measures
by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by 5.36% to 44.64% in the
previous quarter, as against the Council’s target of 70%. However, 43 more of such
applications were determined during the quarter.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance decreased by 22.66% to
53.27%, below the Council’s target of 70%.
Members will appreciate that performance has decreased in all 3 areas over the last
quarter.
Pre-application enquiries were down 14 on the previous quarter.
Development Committee
82
Discharge of
11 February 2016
Condition applications were up by 2. ‘Do I Need Planning Permission’ enquiries were
up. Duty Officer Enquiries were down from 737 to 630.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went down to 93.95%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 8
decisions were made, 1 allowed and 7 dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, 570 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, a decrease of 120 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the third quarter of the year has seen a decrease in performance in
respect of all application types.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager)
(16) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - AN/15/1697 - Retention of a directional sign under existing
notice board; The Green for Aldborough and Thurgarton Parish Council
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BACTON - PF/15/1712 - Erection of grain storage building; Honeytop Farm, The
Street, Edingthorpe, North Walsham for J H Withers and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/15/0957 - Extension to ground floor of clubhouse to provide shop
unit, first floor extension to provide ensuite bed and breakfast accommodation
and erection of fire escape staircase; retention of part first floor extension
already carried out.; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for Mr Hollis
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/15/1353 - Conversion of outbuildings to form 3 dwellings; Lodge
Farmhouse, Wells Dry Road, West Barsham for Mr Rooney
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/1679 - Change of use from part of dwelling to holiday
accommodation; Willow Wren, Smallburgh Road for Mr J Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1689 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of
dwelling; The Lantern, Church Close, West Runton for Dr Brimblecombe
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1781 - Erection of replacement sun-room/conservatory;
Beeston Regis Lodge, Sheringwood, Beeston Regisfor Mr P Denbigh
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/15/1748 - Conversion of single storey agricultural barn to one
dwelling; 2 Westgate Barns, Warham Road for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/1693 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate the
conversion of internal store room to bedroom; Counting House, Mariners Hill for
Development Committee
83
11 February 2016
Mr S Lambert
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1354 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of dwelling,
and rendering of existing walls; The Nest, 57 New Road for Mr Scott
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1596 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling;
18 Queens Close for Mr and Mrs B Scott
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/15/1470 - Conversion of existing attached stables/stores to
dwelling; Holmlea, Melton Road for Mr N Jolley
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - NMA1/13/1529 - Non material amendment request to permit
installation of footpaths to linen lines, cycle pods and external lighting bollard to
flats; Land at Church Street for Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/15/1696 - Erection of single and two-storey extensions with
balcony to rear of dwelling and detached garage with store to first floor; Tithe
House, Tithe Barn Lane for Mr J Eke
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1759 - Erection of single and two-storey extensions to side and
rear of dwelling (Revised scheme 15/1037 refers); 7 Jewel Close for Mr J
Willimott
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/15/1722 - Erection of replacement dwelling(Revised scheme
14/1689 refers); Hastings Farm Bungalow, Wood Street for Mr Lowe
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1783 - Erection of single storey extension to
dwelling and conversion of outbuilding to ancillary habitable room (Revised
scheme 15/1467 refers); Green Barn, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs N Besant
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1784 - Conversion of outbuilding to form ancillary
residential accommodation; Green Barn, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs N Besant
(Listed Building Alterations)
COLBY - PF/15/1728 - Erection of garden room to side of dwelling; Old Mill Farm,
Mill Road, Banningham for Mr Clements
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1650 - Erection of extension and
remodelling of existing bungalow to include raising roof to provide habitable
accommodation in the roof space and installation of first floor balcony; Valley
Farm Bungalow, Wood Dalling Road, Corpusty for Mr Worden
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/1422 - Use of annexe as separate residential dwelling; Annexe
at 4A Arbor Road for Mr Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
84
11 February 2016
CROMER - LA/15/1664 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate conversion
of games room to bedroom accommodation; Hotel De Paris, High Street for Mr S
Farrell
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/15/1641 - Variation of conditions 2 and 9 of planning permission
PF/13/0247 relating to surface water attenuation; Land West of Roughton Road,
Cromer for Norfolk Homes Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1736 - Internal alterations to create three 2/3 bedroom flats and
retention of 1 flat; 9 Beach Road, Cromer for Mrs Safro
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1792 - Erection of entrance porch to building; Cromer
Community Centre, Garden Street for Cromer Community Association
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/15/1486 - Variation of conditions 2, 10 and 18 of planning
permission ref: PF/13/0772 to permit additional lights, to remove the scrapes and
amend site layout; Land at Hall Farm, East Beckham for Ikaros Solar Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/1232 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Barn at Poplar
Farm, Chequers Street, East Ruston for Mr and Mrs Goose
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1758 - Variation of condition 2 of 06/0738 to allow a change
to roof design, to vary window positions and size to northern elevation and the
insertion of six roof lights; 16 Queens Road for Mr W J Rockett
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1699 - Erection of porch to front elevation; 40 Warren
Avenue for Mrs K Dacre
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - LA/15/1517 - Increase in roof height to facilitate structural
repairs and improvements; Priory House, 54 Langham Road for Mr N Deterding
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/15/1701 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 87/2425 to remove agricultural occupancy restriction; The Lodge, Common
Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr D Parker
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - LA/15/1731 - External alterations to facilitate insertion of one
door, 3 windows and 5 roof lights; Highbury Barn, The Street, Barney for Ms
Ericsson
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0978 - Conversion to form 2 additional residential flats.;
Gresham Hall, Red Barn Lane for East Beckham Produce Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/15/1674 - Erection of front porch, side and rear extension and
pitched roof over existing garage; Sherbourne, The Street for Mr & Ms Gladwell &
Coates
Development Committee
85
11 February 2016
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/15/1591 - Conversion of barn to 3 dwellings; Brightmere Barn,
Brightmere Road for Caddow Design and Build Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/15/1279 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of additional and revised window layout; Birchwood, Vale Road for Mr
Gardner
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLKHAM - PF/15/1512 - Conversion of barn to single dwelling; Mill Farm Barn,
Holkham, Norfolk for Coke Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/15/1395 - Non material amendment request to permit addition of 2
rooflights to proposed extension, window at ground floor level within south
elevation and window to first floor level within matron's flat; Greshams School,
Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - LA/15/1765 - Display of fascia sign; 4 Fish Hill for Mr Bradley
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/15/1411 - Internal alterations and erection of external flue; 4 Fish Hill
for Mr T Bradley
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/15/1589 - Conversion of barn to create dwelling.; Corner Farm, East
Ruston Road for Mr Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - HN/15/1852 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4.77 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 4.2 metres and would have an eaves height of
2.3 metres; 1 Parkland Crescent for Mr and Mrs K Horey
(Householder Prior Notification)
HOVETON - PF/15/1734 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
15/1126 to permit revised fenestration, design and roof details; 24 Stalham Road
for Mr & Mrs Muddel
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - LA/15/1642 - Variation of condition 2 of Listed building consent
LA/13/0174 to allow for revised fenestration change and internal and external
revisions; Pensthorpe Nature Reserve and Gardens, Fakenham Road,
Pensthorpe for Pensthorpe Nature Reserve and Gardens
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - NMA1/13/0173 - Non-material amendment request to revise
demolition of existing, proposed internal roofs and walls, window placements
and brick detailing, design of garden room and omission of mezzanine.;
Pensthorpe Nature Reserve and Gardens, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for
Pensthorpe Wildlife and Gardens
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LUDHAM - PF/15/1588 - Single-storey side extension, single-storey porch to
Development Committee
86
11 February 2016
front, conversion of existing flat roofs to pitched roofs, other external alterations
to gables, new roof covering and rendering of existing and proposed elevations.;
Helendale, Staithe Road for Mrs E Ballingall
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1575 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
E3975 to permit occupancy from 1 March to 15 January; 23 Seaward Crest
Chalets, Links Road for Dr Graham Robbins
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1708 - Installation of bay window to front elevation; 7 High
Street for Mr N Cutting
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1808 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, infilling of car
port to form office and erection of new attached garage.; 6A Paston Road for Mr
Gray
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1646 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
E2980 to permit year round holiday occupancy; 35 Hillside for Miss C Biggadyke
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1245 - Continued use of land and retention of
buidings for car sales; 7 Norwich Road for The Nice Car Company
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1793 - Erection of extension to side of dwelling; 14
Swafield Rise for Mr & Mrs Worboys
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1599 - Erection of two-storey attached dwelling
(re-submission); 16 Millfield Road for Mrs D King
(Outline Planning Permission)
PASTON - NMA1/14/0294 - Non material amendment request to permit
installation of 2 rooflights, change to window styles and new ground floor
window in the south elevation.; Green Farm House, The Green for Mr G Temple
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1872 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential garden
and erection of detached outbuilding for car-port and store; Wren Cottage,
Helhoughton Road, West Raynham for Mr D Mason
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1174 - Erection of 1 dwelling; 18 Orchard Close for Mr & Mrs
Cockaday
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/1478 - Increase in roof height to facilitate accommodation in
roof space; 100 Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/1653 - Erection of two-storey extension to side of dwelling;
Kingswear, Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr T Ralton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
87
11 February 2016
RYBURGH - PF/15/1675 - Erection of porch to dwelling; Annexe at Willow Barn,
53 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr A Dixon
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/15/1598 - Erection of detached residential annexe; Ryburgh
House Farm, 63 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr D James
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PO/15/1586 - Demolition of existing single storey dwelling, and
erection of replacement dwelling; Iona, Purdy Street for Mr G Peters-Forster
(Outline Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/15/1778 - Erection of side extension; Santa Monica, The
Marrams for Mrs Onians
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/15/0113 - Non-material amendment to permit variation of
hedge type; Land off Snaefell Park (Phase 3), Sheringham for Norfolk Homes Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1633 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of dwelling
(Revised scheme 15/0248 refers); 2 Meadow Way for Mr and Mrs Bishop
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1563 - Installation of rooflights to front roofslope, dormers
to rear roofslope and insertion of window to gable to facilitate conversion of roof
space to habitable accommodation; 7 Augusta Street for Mr James
Carter-Adams
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1775 - Change of use from financial and professional
services (A2) to chiropodist/podiatrist clinic (D1); 1 Augusta Street for Mrs K
Randell
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/15/1735 - Erection of link extension, first floor extension and
conversion of garage to habitable accommodation; May Cottage, Yarmouth
Road, The Green, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9QA for Ms B Jones
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/1528 - Erection of single storey dwelling and garage; Dexlyn
House, Camping Field Lane for Mr R Ray
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/15/0865 - Conversion and raise roof of barn to facilitate domestic
annexe; Harbour House, 1 Greenway for Mr Bindley
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/15/0866 - Internal and external alterations to barn to provide a
domestic annexe; Harbour House, 1 Greenway for Mr Bindley
(Listed Building Alterations)
STODY - PF/15/1672 - Erection of grain store; Estate Office, Stody Estate for
Stody Estate Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/15/1723 - Erection of extension to front and side of dwelling;
Development Committee
88
11 February 2016
Church View, Church Road, Bessingham for Mrs S Izod
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/15/1622 - Erection of stable block; Acorn Lodge, Rectory Road,
Sutton for J E and E M E Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/15/1164 - Conversion of former forge to holiday
accommodation; The Forge, Aylsham Road for Mr A Abel
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/15/1447 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions,
conversion of 4 dwellings to 2 dwellings and erection of cart shed garage and
store above and repair of outbuildings; 1-4 The Street for Ms Blacklock
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - LA/15/1448 - Internal and external alterations, erection of
single-storey rear extensions to facilitate conversion of 4 dwellings to 2
dwellings and erection of cart shed garage and store and repair of outbuiding;
1-4 The Street for Ms Blacklock
(Listed Building Alterations)
TATTERSETT - PF/15/1711 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and porch
to front of dwelling.; 2A Halifax Crescent, Sculthorpe for Mr and Mrs N Sanders
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/15/1716 - Erection of extension to Hawthorn House with two
flats for residents, two bedrooms for support workers and link extension;
Thornage Hall, The Street for Trustees to Camphill Community
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/15/1738 - Variation of condition 6 of planning permission ref:
04/0937 to permit residential occupation; Cottage Farm Barns, Walsingham Road
for Mr C Rheinberg
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/15/1794 - Erection of single and two-storey extensions to
dwelling.; Cottage Farm, Walsingham Road for Mr & Mrs Rheinberg
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/15/1710 - Erection of detached double garage to rear of
dwelling; 1-2 Bizewell Cottages, Cromer Road for Mr K Kenyon
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1498 - Conversion of barns to a single dwelling; White House
Farm, Mundesley Road for Ms Cornish
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - LA/15/1499 - Alterations to barns to form single dwelling; White House
Farm, Mundesley Road for Ms Cornish
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1695 - Erection of extension to front of dwelling; Llangower,
North Walsham Road for Mr S Puncher
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1614 - Variation of condition 1 of 15/0217 to allow alterations to
Development Committee
89
11 February 2016
plans; Millers Farm, Mundesley Road for Mr Burns
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - LA/15/1410 - Replacement window in east gable and installation of
slimline sealed units into 5 no existing window frames in the west and north
elevations.; Ivy Farmhouse, Mundesley Road for Mr Lock
(Listed Building Alterations)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1727 - Erection of extension to rear of dwelling; 20 Fletcher
Close for Mr Coldham
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1569 - Erection of 1.7m high wooden gates across
drive; Lime Trees, Park Road for Mr & Mrs O'Hagan
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1620 - Variation of conditions 2, 5 and 12 of
planning permission PF/13/1462 to allow for re-design and re-siting of swimming
pool building and orangery, retention of 1.8 m cedar privacy screen to the
western side of balcony and alterations to ground levels.; Field View, Warham
Road for Mr D Fennell
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1446 - Demolish and rebuild southern boundary
wall and to include additional strengthening works; Crown Hotel, The Buttlands
for Flying Kiwi Inns
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1617 - Variation of condition 2 of Listed Building
Consent 15/0712 to allow for the use of alternative facing brick to retaining wall.;
The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands for Flying Kiwi Inns
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1663 - Insertion of conservation-style roof light
to north roof slope of north wing of building; The Old School, Polka Road for
Homes for Wells
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0820 - Non-material amendment to planning
permission PF/12/0820 to use uPVC for the new windows & Doors to match the
existing uPVC windows rather than using painted softwood windows & doors as
stated in the original permission; 30A Freeman Street for Underwood
Amusements
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/14/1257 - Non-material amendment to planning
permission PF/14/1257 for revision to pole type (retaining overall height of both
the existing and previously approved), installed on the existing rather than
revised foundation.; Land at New Farm, Warham Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for
CTIL and Telefonica UK Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/14/1437 - Non material amendment request to
permit installation of coach lights adjacent to front door, portico above side
door, timber gates and posts, intruder alarm box, proposed treatment of east
railings, colour of rainwater goods and railings and amended design for the
garage/annex building and wood store; Clarence House, The Buttlands for Mr
Development Committee
90
11 February 2016
Hopkins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1652 - Erection of two-storey rear extension,
single-storey side extensions and erection of detached store; Garden Cottage,
Bolts Close for Mr S Bournes
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - HN/15/1851 - Notification of intention to erect a
single-storey rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by
4.6 metres, which would have a maximum height of 3.3 metres and would have
an eaves height of 2.55 metres; 1 Manor Farm Drive for Mr J Morley
(Householder Prior Notification)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/15/1647 - Erection of detached double garage; Bramcote,
Sheringham Road for Mr D Bean
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - LA/15/1671 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate erection
of extension and conversion and extension to garage to form annexe; Jericho
House, Station Road for Mr M Joll
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/15/1680 - Erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey rear
extension and erection of garage; Witton Bridge Cottage, 1 Stonebridge Road for
Mr R Haughton
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/15/1742 - Erection of single-storey side and front extensions; Foxes
Barn, Stonebridge Road for Mr and Mrs G Fitzgerald-Scales
(Householder application)
(17) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
GRESHAM - PF/15/1713 - Change of use of paddock to permit the increase of
number of licensed caravan pitches from 5 (CL status) to 10, erection of timber
toilet / shower block and new road layout.(Revised scheme 15/1240 refers);
Church Farmhouse, Cromer Road, Lower Gresham for Church Farm Cottages
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1707 - Retention of balcony to rear first floor gable and
velux windows to north and south roof slopes; Cangate Cottage, Cangate Road,
Cangate for Mr M Claxton
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1462 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling
and detached garage; 30 Skeyton New Road for Mrs Davison
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1732 - Erection of balcony extension to front of
dwelling; 22 Mainsail Yard Freeman Street for Mr & Mrs Carr
(Householder application)
Development Committee
91
11 February 2016
APPEALS SECTION
(18) NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1236 - Instillation of illuminated "H" frame totem sign; 16-18
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS SHORT PROCEDURE
(19) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1515 - Change of use of land from D2 (visitor attraction)
to siting of thirteen holiday chalets; Priory Maze & Gardens, Cromer Road for
Priory Maze and Gardens
INFORMAL HEARING 21 January 2016
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
(20) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane for Mr C Nutkins
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/0451 - Erection of detached one and a half-storey dwelling
and detached double garage; Street Hill Farm, The Street for Mr and Mrs C
Loveday
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At, Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Leisure Pk
(21) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
CROMER - PF/15/0533 - Installation of front elevation first and second floor PVCU
bay windows to replace existing timber bays; 28 High Street for Mrs Russell
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road for
Norfolk County Council
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 57 Sea View Road for Mr Somers
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for Ashford
Development Committee
92
11 February 2016
Commercial Ltd.
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
(22) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
93
11 February 2016
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
94
11 February 2016
Development Committee
95
11 February 2016
Development Committee
96
11 February 2016
Development Committee
97
11 February 2016
Development Committee
98
11 February 2016
Development Committee
99
11 February 2016
Development Committee
100
11 February 2016
Development Committee
101
11 February 2016
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 October 2015
by Roy Merrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 5 November 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/W/15/3087216
Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney, Holt, Norfolk NR25 7PD




The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mrs K Cargill against the decision of North Norfolk District
Council.
The application Ref PF/14/1566, dated 28 November 2014, was refused by notice dated
27 April 2015.
The development proposed is demolition of existing dwelling, barns and outbuildings
and construction of replacement dwelling.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. The site has a planning history which includes a proposal for a replacement
dwelling, dismissed following an appeal (Reference APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878)
in April 2015. More recently planning permission was granted by the Council in
September 2015, subject to conditions, for a replacement dwelling partly on
the footprint of the existing bungalow proposed for demolition (Reference
PF/15/0762). The footprint of the replacement dwelling with planning
permission is clearly separate from development subject to this appeal.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in this case are i) whether the extant planning permission for a
replacement dwelling on the site means that it would be inappropriate to allow
the appeal and ii) the effect the proposed dwelling would have on the
appearance of the surrounding area, the Glaven Valley Conservation Area (the
Conservation Area) and the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(the AONB).
Reasons
Effect of the extant planning permission
4. The grant of planning permission (Reference PF/15/0762) means that if the
appeal were allowed it would be possible to develop two dwellings
independently of one another. This situation would contravene policy HO 8 of
the North Norfolk Core Strategy 2008 (the CS) as it would go beyond
replacement and also policy SS 2 of the CS as it would exceed the limitations
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
102
11 February 2016
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/W/15/3087216
cited concerning development in the countryside. I consider that there is a
lack of justification in principle for the development of two independent
dwellings on the site. Furthermore this is not the stated objective of the
appellant and it is therefore unnecessary to explore the merits of this scenario
further.
5. The Council has suggested the imposition of a planning condition in the event
the appeal is allowed, to the effect that the permission should not be
implemented in addition to the extant permission (Reference PF/15/0762).
However a condition would not be sufficient to prevent the separate extant
permission from being implemented. A planning obligation would be required
to achieve this and no such obligation has been submitted for my
consideration.
Effect of the development on the surrounding area
6. The proposed dwelling would have a considerably greater floor area and would
be taller than the existing bungalow. However, in accordance with CS Policy
HO 8, whether this would be disproportionately large in comparison depends,
amongst other things, on the prevailing character of the area. I take this to
mean that a replacement dwelling which might be regarded as too large in one
area might not be in another subject to the individual circumstances of the site
and its surroundings.
7. Compared with the replacement dwelling dismissed at appeal, the proposed
dwelling would be similar in scale and massing. However the revisions to the
design including references to the local style of architecture incorporating flint
and red brick finishes; the setting of the dwelling footprint within a partly
lowered ground level and its siting closer to the existing cluster of buildings
within the curtilage of the existing dwelling are all positive features which set it
apart from the earlier dismissed scheme and which collectively would reduce
the dwelling’s sense of presence in the landscape.
8. In terms of the extent of visual influence, from the south, long range views of
the site are restricted due to the ridgeline of the Blakeney Esker. At closer
range from certain points on Saxlingham Road adjacent to the site and from
points further afield along the public right of way west of Saxlingham Road and
from Blakeney Road to the north east, the dwelling would appear larger and
more visible than the existing bungalow. The visual impact would however be
mitigated by the traditional design of the building and the fact that it would
appear predominantly below the skyline with a landscape backdrop.
9. Notwithstanding the visibility of the building, the locations from which these
views are possible are along routes generally characterised by tall boundary
hedges and the available views would in the main be limited to fleeting
glimpses through intermittent gaps and field accesses.
10. It appears the longest distance view of the site would be from Bridgefoot Lane
as it rises eastwards from the village of Wiveton. From here there are very
attractive open views looking westwards across the Glaven Valley punctuated
by the landmarks of the church at Wiveton in the valley foreground and the
prominent upper portion of the tower of the church at Blakeney further afield.
I consider that from this point the site would be too distant for the replacement
dwelling, whilst visible, to constitute an imposing feature in the landscape.
2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
103
11 February 2016
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/W/15/3087216
11. Taking the above factors into account, I consider that the replacement building
whilst significantly larger, would not be disproportionate in scale or height to
the existing bungalow and would not materially increase the impact of the
dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside and the character of
the wider landscape which forms the AONB.
12. In accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) to pay special attention to
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area. For the reasons given above and also taking into account
that the development would include the removal of the two barns which are in
poor condition I consider that the proposed development would preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
13. Concern has been raised that the development would detract from the setting
of the churches in Wiveton, Blakeney and Cley, all Grade 1 listed buildings. I
consider that the proposed development would be too far from these sites to
be reasonably regarded as part of their setting or to compete with them for
dominance and attention.
14. I therefore conclude that the proposed replacement dwelling would not be in
conflict with the development control, design and landscape and heritage
protection objectives of Policies HO 8, EN 1, EN 2, EN 4 and EN 8 of the CS or
with paragraph 115 the National Planning Policy Framework.
15. I have given consideration to the fallback position presented by the extant
planning permission for a replacement dwelling. However, that house would be
sited much closer to the existing house where its impact on the character and
appearance of the area would be different from the current proposal. I have
therefore preferred instead to assess the appeal scheme on its individual
merits.
Other Matter
16. I have considered the argument that the grant of planning permission would
set a precedent for other similar developments. However each application and
appeal must be determined on its own individual merits and a generalised
concern of this nature would not in itself justify withholding planning
permission in this case.
Conclusion
17. For the above reasons I conclude that the development would not have a
detrimental effect on the surrounding countryside, AONB, and heritage assets
cited above. However this does not override my concern that as things stand if
the appeal were allowed it would be possible to develop two dwellings on the
site. Whilst I recognise that this may be an unfortunate unintended outcome,
there would be no justification for it and without a satisfactory mechanism to
dispose of the extant permission I have no option other than to dismiss the
appeal.
Roy Merrett
INSPECTOR
3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
104
11 February 2016
PF/14/1566 – Committee Report
Minor Development
- Target Date: 4 February 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0828 PF - Erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling - Withdrawn by
Applicant 19/09/2013
PF/14/0785 PF
Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling
Refused 04/09/2014 - Appeal lodged - outcome awaited
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a 1950’s bungalow, associated outbuildings and barn and the erection
of a vernacular style two and half storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling which would be “L” shaped in form would be sited some 40 metres to the
east of the existing bungalow at its closest point and would have a total floor area of 445.61 sq.
metres of habitable accommodation and would comprise 5 bedrooms. In addition there would
be an integral double garage comprising a further 44.21 sq. metres of floor space, giving a total
floor area of 489.82 sq. metres.
It is envisaged that the materials to be used would consist of a mix of soft Norfolk red bricks, flint
and horizontal timber cladding to the walls, whilst the roof would be of red Norfolk clay pantiles.
As part of the scheme a new driveway is envisaged which would utilise the existing southern
access to the site and curve round the south edge of the existing bungalow to the proposed new
dwelling.
In addition a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed both for the holding which runs to
some 16 hectares and the proposed curtilage of the dwelling which is shown to be some 0.58
hectares. This would be based on the 20 year vision as expressed in the Integrated Landscape
Guidance for the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and include the removal of a
three poplar trees, remediation of the former nursery to managed heathland, and extension of
the lowland heath habitat. In addition, the planting of species rich meadows and the
management and replanting of hedgerows in order to provide an interconnecting matrix for
wildlife are proposed.
As part of the scheme, three existing holiday cottages adjacent to the northern boundary of the
site would be retained.
Development Committee
105
11 February 2016
The application is supported by plans showing the proposed dwelling, a Planning Statement
containing a Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement, a Protected Species
Scoping Survey (incorporating a Bat Survey), and Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal
(LVIA).
Amended plans have been received which show fenestrational changes. In addition a revised
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been received, which shows the
proposed dwelling in its landscape context.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL (Original comments) Wiveton Parish Council - Strongly objects in that the
application differs little from the previous scheme and the policies applicable to that refusal still
apply. To approve this application would undermine the previous decision.
This proposal would replace a modest single storey bungalow with a three storey building, sited
in a large open area. At first glance the Glaven Valley might not seem that remarkable,
extending a mere 7 miles inland, but the first glance can often be misleading, because running
through this small valley is one of the world's rarest rivers, a chalk stream that with its distinctive
vegetation and flood plain shapes the landscape around it. Along its short length there are
some magnificent viewpoints, but none to equal those at the lower stretch, which is the part that
concerns Wiveton PC in respect of this application. Among a number of viewpoints, there are
three that stand out. The first is from the public highway of Bridgefoot Lane. The next further to
the north is from a public footpath, and the third is from Three Owls Farm, so it is not surprising
that the applicants wish to build a house there that would command it, and command it, it most
certainly would. Because from most parts of the large stretch of the valley that can be seen from
there this house would dominate the landscape.
Of particular concern for the people of Wiveton is the impact the development would have on
our churches, where it would compete for dominance in the view. This house would seriously
compromise the heritage setting of Wiveton and Cley churches.
As we understand it English Heritage were initially reluctant to support this application, but then
changed their minds based on some rather minor alterations to the design. This suggests to us
that they were standing to close, and did not take the time to go out into the landscape and look
at the wider implications for the valley churches. If they had they would have noted that the
alteration to the scheme would have been too small to be visible across the valley.
This is a very important matter for Wiveton, given the separate statutory duties under the Listed
Buildings Act 1990 (1) to preserve the setting of these [Grade I] listed buildings and (2) to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area of
which its churches are a key feature.
Our second concern relates to precedent. There have been two applications in the village
recently, NNDC required both applicants to confirm to the Countryside policies that apply, one
was allowed to incorporate the first floor in the roof space, the other was kept to a single storey.
This proposal is for a building many times bigger than both these applications put together. For
it to get permission would throw the LDF in the waste bin and set a frightening precedent as so
much land banking has been carried out around the Three Owls site.
Development Committee
106
11 February 2016
There was considerable dissatisfaction in respect of the planning process for the first application
on this site, so it would only be fair to point out that much closer attention will be given to
NNDC's handling of this application. The following policies apply and if they are not applied in
full explanation should be given. Policies HO8, SS2 and EN1 and EN2 of the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy are considered to be applicable.
In addition, there is a statutory duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have a general duty in respect of listed buildings in exercise of
the planning function.
(1)
(2)
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed
building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of
State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or
any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Without prejudice to section 72, in the exercise of the powers of appropriation, disposal
and development (including redevelopment) conferred by the provisions of sections 232,
233 and 235(1) of the principal Act, a local authority shall have regard to the desirability of
preserving features of special architectural or historic interest, and in particular, listed
buildings.
Further comments in respect of amended plans and LVIA;
We appreciate that the agents acting for the applicants are doing all they can to mitigate the
visual appearance of this building, but none of the alterations affect the impact this very large
house will have on the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, and many other parts of the
surrounding countryside. They are quite simply trying to thread a camel through the eye of a
needle. With what is in effect a building of three storeys that is five times bigger than the
original house and which makes nonsense out of H08 and all the other policies that apply.
A new build 76 metres away from the footprint of the original can hardly be described as a
replacement, it is a new separate building. There also seems to be some confusion over just
where the so-called curtilage lies, is it the boundary of the property, or the rather vague area
define by a few posts and some wire?
If a replacement building can be situated so far away from the original how far does it have to be
before it is no longer a replacement? At the edge of the property? At the edge of the Parish? Or
in Suffolk?
Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that Isolated homes in the
countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. There are none in this
case. All along Wiveton Parish Council have underlined their concern with respect to the Glaven
Valley Churches of Cley and Wiveton. The mock up images contained within the submission
from the agents are seriously misleading, showing a small grey house, blending invisibly into the
landscape. The house is not small, it is not grey and it will never blend into the landscape and
will compete with our Church for dominance in the landscape.
The statement made to the nspector at the recent appeal for the first application deals with this
aspect and so applies equally to this application and is therefore, copied below.
At first glance the Glaven Valley might not seem that remarkable, extending a mere 7 miles
Inland, but a first glance can often be misleading, because running through this small valley is
Development Committee
107
11 February 2016
one of the world’s rarest rivers, a chalk stream that with its distinctive vegetation and flood plain
shapes the landscape around it. Many gems glitter in the crown of the North Norfolk AONB, but
the Glaven Valley is one of the most important.
Along its short length there are several magnificent viewpoints but none to equal those at the
lower stretch, which is the part that concerns us today. Among a number of viewpoints but
there are three that stand out and show the characteristics of this valley . The first is from the
public highway of Bridgefoot Lane, (see location 1 on the display). The next further to the north,
and from a public footpath (see location 2.) And the third is from Three Owls Farm, so it is not
surprising that the applicants should wish to build a house that commands it. And command it, it
most certainly would. Because from every part of the large stretch of the valley that can be
seen from there , this house would dominate the landscape.
Of particular concern in this respect for the people of Wiveton is the impact it would have on our
Churches where it would compete for dominance in the view. This house would seriously
compromise the heritage setting of Wiveton and Cley Churches. As we understand it English
Heritage were initially reluctant to support this application, but then changed their minds based
on some rather minor alterations to the design. This suggests to us that they were standing too
close, and did not take the time to go out into the landscape and look at the wider implications
for the Valley Churches. Where it would have been clear that those alterations made no
difference, as they would have been too small to see.
However, this should still be a very important matter for you, given the separate statutory duties
under the Listed Buildings Act 1990 (1) to preserve the setting of these [Grade I] listed buildings
and (2) to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area of which the Churches are a key feature.
Our second concern relate to precedent. There have been two applications in the village
recently, NNDC required both applicants to confirm to the Countryside policies that apply, one
was allowed to incorporate the first floor in the roof space; the other was kept to a single storey.
This proposal is for a building many times bigger than both these application pout together. For
it to get permission would throw the LDF in the waste bin and set a frightening precedent as so
much land banking has been carried out around the Three Owls site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventy four letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns,
(summarised):1. The application is very similar to the one refused last year and the issues remain the same.
2. The style of architecture and size of development is not appropriate within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
3. There is no presumption in the new planning guidelines in favour of development in
designated AONB’s.
4. The proposed development would result in a serious visual intrusion into the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area.
5. This prominent isolated residential development is unacceptable in the AONB, and would
also fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
6. The proposed new dwelling would result in a disproportionately large increase in height and
scale compared to the existing bungalow.
Development Committee
108
11 February 2016
7. Far from improving on the previous contemporary design the current proposal offers an ugly
attempt at pastiche traditional design, which would cause even greater visual damage to the
precious landscape of the AONB and Conservation Area.
8. The proposed “Threshing barn” approach to the design has produced a marginally less
brutal and industrial appearance but fundamentally the size and siting would result in a large
detached “new build” house in open countryside, which is exactly what the Core Strategy
Policies are designed to secure against.
9. Views of Blakeney Church from the Wiveton Downs footpath would be compromised by the
development.
10. The dwelling is inappropriate in terms of its location, height, scale and appearance.
11. The proposal would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
12. The proposed dwelling would be too large and high and prominent in this part of the north
Norfolk coast.
13. The dwelling would be seen from some considerable distance especially from Wiveton and
the Glaven Valley with its listed churches.
14. The proposed dwelling would contravene Core Strategy Policy HO8, as the proposal is
excessively large in bulk and scale, being three storey high. This is a disproportionately
large increase from the original dwelling.
15. The farm barns should not be included as part of the footprint being some 50 metres away.
16. The proposal would contravene both Policies EN1 and EN2 which are expressly designed to
prevent this kind of development.
17. The proposal is not a replacement dwelling as it is some 50 metres way from the original
dwelling and three storey high. This is a serious misrepresentation which needs to be
addressed.
18. The planning statement accompanying the application states that the net increase in floor
area is 156 sq. metres whereas the actual net gain based on the gross external areas
between the exist bungalow and the proposed new building is approximately 630 sq. metres
(that is 790 sq. metres compared to 160 sq. metres, equivalent to five times of the original).
19. The Planning Statement makes reference to a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
but no such document is registered as an accompaniment to this application.
20. At the planning committee meeting for the last application, the case officer bias in favour of
the applicant amounted to a mission statement on their behalf and reflected baldy on NNDC
planning department.
21. There architectural concept of a “Threshing barn” is now used to justify a large residential
building within the open countryside however there are no such buildings within or
anywhere near the application site.
22. The Heritage Statement makes no mention of the statutory test under Section 66 and 72 of
the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The Council would be
justified to refuse the application on this basis alone.
23. This type of scheme, due to its bulk, height and massing would not have a neutral impact
and as such could not be seen to preserve or enhance the area.
24. The proposal would contravene Core Aim 3 of the Core Strategy.
25. This application was submitted close to Christmas when developers knew that most people
would be preoccupied with other matters.
26. The only way to assimilate a building of the floor area proposed would be for the building to
be spread over a larger area, thus reducing its height.
27. The proposal would set a precedent for further applications in this vulnerable and precious
Conservation Area and AONB.
28. Potential noise and light pollution would adversely affect the S.S.S.I Blakeney Esker and
Wiveton Downs to which it adjoins.
Development Committee
109
11 February 2016
29. The proposal is totally inappropriate in the context of the mediaeval Glaven Valley villages
and its surrounds.
30. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that great weight should be given to conserving the
landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s, clearly this proposal fails this test.
31. The first views of the Glaven Valley when approaching from the east are from Bridgefoot
Lane and the proposed dwelling would sit right in the middle of this view and would become
one of its most significant features.
32. The proposal would affect the “heritage setting” of two of the Glaven Valleys most beautiful
churches.
33. English Heritage has failed in their responsibility to assess the impact of the development
against Section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.
An eight page letter has also been received from the Council for the Protection of Rural
England, Norfolk, which objects to the application and makes the following comments
(summarised):1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Considers that the proposal should be refused as it fails to meet the requirements of
Policies HO 8, EN 1, EN 2 and EN 4; and paragraph 115 of the NPPF
While there are some differences between the current and previous applications, on policy
grounds and possible precedents that could be set, there is no change at all.
The proposal entails an unacceptable increase in the bulk and scale of the dwelling, from a
single storey bungalow even taking into account the potential increase allowance for
permitted development rights and would not comply with Core Strategy, Policy HO8.
Elevationally the north west elevation has a remarkably ugly and disjointed appearance,
showing different roof heights and build angles; and most notably the two storey facade of
brick on the left, then a gable end of brick and flint, then a further area of flint with a porch
below, and then on the right hand side a large area of wood cladding, in which are set two
large garage doors. Whilst the north east elevation which seeks to achieve the fantasy of
Threshing barn with its overly large amount of glazing sits on an open edge of the site and
will be a prominent and unwelcome feature in an open landscape, and visible from much of
the coastal arc from west of Blakeney to beyond Cley and Wiveton. The glass will introduce
a reflective surface during the daylight hours, and illumination at night
The site as viewed from the Saxlingham Road through the two accesses, will change from
being hidden and low profile to an open and formal ‘gardenised’ area, in which set at the
back on the left is a large and ugly façade (on the left hand side, with barn 2 removed, there
will be a tennis court).
The open and exposed situation of the proposed dwelling is such that it would be seen from
many points over a wide area. The height contours fall progressively from the 30 metre
contour to the sea in an arc running from west of Blakeney to the east beyond Cley and
Wiveton (the exception being a rise again in the line to Blakeney Church), and would
therefore fail to comply with Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4.
This site can only be re-developed in a satisfactory way by the replacement dwelling being
on or close to the footprint of the existing bungalow; to a baseline total floor space of 244
sq. metres or little more; any garaging and storage be accommodated some way to the
north of this as a separate single story building, where it would be both close to the
replacement dwelling and hidden by the high hedge which fronts the site. Preferably barn 1
should be left as it is, see the protected species report for the implications of its removal,
and of the ivy-covered trees immediately adjacent north west boundary for bats. The
recommendation in the report for restoration of some hedgerow for bats and other wildlife
along previous field boundaries in the improved pasture grassland of the wider holding
Development Committee
110
11 February 2016
within the ownership should be adopted; this would benefit the ecological network within the
area. The letter is reproduced in full at Appendix ....
CONSULTATIONS
Blakeney Parish Council – (Original comments) Object to the application on the following
grounds:a) The new building is too far from the existing bungalow that it is replacing to be considered
as a ‘replacement dwelling’. As a new dwelling in the countryside it does not comply with
NNDC’s Core Strategy Policies HO4 and HO5 as it is not for Travellers or Essential Workers in
the countryside.
b) If considered to be a replacement dwelling it is totally contrary to Policy HO8 as it
represents a disproportionately large increase in the height and scale of the original dwelling
(the dilapidated outbuilding remote from the existing bungalow cannot be considered as part of
the existing dwelling as suggested by the applicant), and will materially increase the impact of
the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside, given its scale and position
moved to the rear of the site where it will be very visible in the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
c) It is contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy, which has been adopted in order to protect
the Norfolk Coast AONB. The policy states that 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. The proposal clearly fails this test as there are no benefits to outweigh the damaging
impact the development will have on the appearance of the surrounding countryside, and a
house of this size and scale could clearly be accommodated on a less sensitive site.
d) It is contrary to Policy EN2 which has been adopted for the protection and enhancement of
landscape and settlement character. The policy states that development proposals should
demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where
possible, enhance;
• Visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological features
• The setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas.
This proposal, because of its height, scale and prominent position within the AONB and the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area will have a seriously damaging impact on the landscape,
standing out obtrusively within this very sensitive landscape and in no way can be considered to
enhance it.
This is a highly sensitive site which the above Policies have been designed to protect, and a
proposal such as this one cannot be allowed to over-ride them. If approved, it would set a
dangerous precedent for further, equally damaging, developments in the North Norfolk
countryside. The Norfolk Coast AONB is an important resource for those living in the area and,
equally importantly, for the tourism on which so much employment relies and it should be
protected with great care and vision.
The district Council have had the vision to set out, in their LDF, clear policies to protect the
special character of the countryside, and proposals for development within the countryside must
follow these policies if this character is to be preserved.
Further comments in respect on amended plans and LVIA – Objections as previously detailed
still stand.
Development Committee
111
11 February 2016
Norfolk Coast Partnership – (Original comments) summarised:- Reiterate their comments in
respect of the previous application, which is that a replacement dwelling on this site could be
acceptable in principle if of suitable design and scale and where overall environmental benefits
result. However, these factors need to be carefully considered given the very sensitive location
within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area and the Undeveloped Coast policy area of the Local Plan, in open
countryside rather than within a settlement.
Whilst recognising that there have been changes in the design and location of the proposed
replacement dwelling compared to the previous application, concerns regarding key aspects of
the scheme remain.
From the perspective of the statutory purpose of AONB designation i.e. the conservation and
enhancement of the areas natural beauty suggest that the interpretation of policies HO8 and
EN1 of the Local Plan and of paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework are key.
The interpretation of Policy HO8 is of critical importance for this application and for future
applications for which this could set a precedent. Although the policy is not prescriptive about
what constitutes a “disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling”, in this case, as in the previous application, a reasonable person would surely consider
that replacement of a bungalow with a height of approximately 3.5 metres and a footprint of 160
sq. metres by a two and a half storey building with a height of 9 metres and floor area of 526
sq.metres does not meet this criterion, even allowing for permitted development rights.
The inclusion of the barn as part of the area of the existing dwelling is questionable at best.
Even if this is accepted, allowing for maximum permitted development rights the increase in
area is 42%; if it is not accepted, as it should not be, the increase is 134%.
Furthermore although Policy HO8 is not prescriptive about replacing on the position of the
existing dwelling, again a reasonable interpretation would be that this should be the case as far
as practicable, allowing for a modest increase in size and arrangement. There would need to be
good reasons of public interest and/or benefit for a significant displacement, which is not the
case here. Because of its height, scale and location the proposed replacement building would
clearly have greater impact than the existing development on the surrounding countryside,
especially from the sensitive eastern quarter – so failing to meet the second criterion of policy
HO8. Interpretation of Policy HO8 in a manner other than this would be likely to give rise to
other similar applications in the AONB which would be very difficult to resist and would have
incremental damaging impacts on the areas natural beauty.
Whilst in terms of Policy EN 1 although the design and position has been amended, would still
clearly detract from the special qualities of the landscape in this part of the AONB by virtue of its
form and visibility over a wide area to the eastern quarter. It would not be appropriate to, or
necessary for, the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or contribute to
the understanding and enjoyment of the area, and it would not contribute to delivery of AONB
Management Plan objectives. The development could be located on an alternative site e.g. on
the existing footprint, but would still need to demonstrate that the scale and height was not such
as to give rise to detriment.
They also point to the comprehensive assessment from the CPRE to this application and
recognise and support the validity of these points raised.
Development Committee
112
11 February 2016
The Norfolk Coast Partnership therefore advise that the impacts and implications of approving
this application would greatly outweigh any marginal benefits that might arise from the proposal.
(Comments in respect on amended plans and LVIA) Consider that their original comments
remain valid.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Comments in respect on
amended plans and LVIA) - Has no objections for the following reasons: Concerns have been raised previously over the scale and siting of the new dwelling within the
countryside and the ability of the landscape to absorb the dwelling both visually and in terms of
the landscape character. The LVIA recognises the distinctiveness and sensitivity of the
landscape, which has a combination of elevated land, long seaward views and a mosaic of
heathland landscapes, and notes that it is a ‘feature’ landscape of the AONB. However, it also
notes that the landholding does not in itself have great intrinsic value.
The dwelling has been re-located (from the previous application 14/0785) to inside the curtilage
of the existing farmhouse garden, which it could be argued has less of an impact on the wider
landscape character due to the closer association with existing buildings. In addition, the
application offers a number of landscape mitigation and enhancement opportunities which seek
to stitch the proposed dwelling into the wider landscape, softening the impact and re-enforcing
the overall landscape character. These include reinstating a mosaic of grassland and heath,
regenerating woodland and copses and reinstating former hedgerows.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development will be permitted where it does not
detract from the special qualities of the AONB and seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk
Coast AONB Management Plan. Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is influenced by both the
North Norfolk District Council Landscape Character Assessment and the AONB Integrated
Landscape Character Guidance, and development proposals should demonstrate that they will
protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of
the area. The Integrated Landscape Character Guidance produced by the AONB Partnership
provides guidance on how to manage change (development) to achieve the overall vision for the
AONB. The proposed development has been influenced by this guidance and provides
landscape enhancements which will have some minor beneficial improvements for the
landscape. As such the development can be seen to accord with Policies EN1 and EN2.
With respect to the scale of the building, having a ridge of over 23 metres in length and a height
to ridge level of just of 9 metres, the LVIA provides photomontages of key viewpoints and the
expected visual impact at 1 and 15 years. The photomontages illustrate that although the
height of the building is significant it remains below the landscape horizon, therefore with
sympathetic materials the building will not be overly intrusive within the
landscape. Furthermore, existing landscape elements (trees, hedging and topography) help
screen and integrate the building within the wider landscape setting. It is not therefore
considered that the proposed dwelling will have a significantly detrimental visual impact within
the landscape.
Development Committee
113
11 February 2016
The Landscape Section do not therefore object to the application subject to a condition requiring
the provision of a Landscape and Ecological Management plan based on the mitigation and
enhancement proposals identified in the LVIA.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation and Design) – (Comments in
respect on amended plans and LVIA) - Has no objections for the following reasons: In terms of siting, locating the building within the existing curtilage is a welcome revision which
would obviate any incursion into the wider landscape.
Whilst in terms of the building itself, the inspiration for its elevations has come from the
threshing barns which populate rural North Norfolk – hence the long ridgeline and the vertically
proportioned gables. Although such an approach could be questioned in the absence of an
accompanying farmhouse, it is a built form which is familiar within the District and is acceptable
in principle. This said, there is an obvious tendency for such buildings to be inherently imposing.
That is to some extent reflected in the latest proposals which still incorporate a long unbroken
ridgeline and relatively robust elevations. Given the previous concerns over scale and bulk, this
is an obvious matter for our consideration. So too is some of the design detailing which, despite
the latest revisions made, still does not “faithfully and accurately follow the proportions and
detailing that can be found on both farmsteads and in open fields in the area” (6.5.1. of the D&A
Statement).
Dealing firstly with scale, the main body of the building would sit under a continuous 23 metre
long ridge and would provide a floor area of some 526 sq.metres. Given it would also be slightly
higher than the core of the previously refused proposal, it would undoubtedly be a substantial
proposition and would have a significant presence on site. This said, now armed with the
updated photo montages, it becomes clear that this presence would not actually translate into
harm being caused to the wider countryside. This is because it would either be seen against a
backdrop of trees or ridgelines, or within a much wider layered mosaic of hedging and trees.
Certainly it would not be readily visible on the skyline or recurrently viewed at close quarters. No
doubt my Landscape colleagues will address these impacts in more detail.
In terms of the design, the recent revisions have sought to reinforce the agrarian aesthetic over
the domestic. This has resulted in improvements being made to the fenestration and the rear
wing which would certainly create a more authentic appearance. This said, the new build can
still by no means be billed as a faithful and accurate interpretation of a traditional (converted)
threshing barn – this because of its off-centre midstrey, its Juliette balconies and its flat roof
staircase (to name but three) which are all features with no real historic precedent. Despite this,
however, the combination of the buildings angled siting, and the sort of distances it would
generally be viewed from, would largely negate these purist observations. To all intents and
purposes it would retain an agricultural outline within the landscape and therefore would not
look incongruous.
In summary, Conservation & Design remain comfortable with the principle of a replacement
dwelling on this site (particularly given its improved siting). We also have no issue with the
design of the building moving in a more vernacular direction. Whilst it perhaps remains larger
than ideal and still has some contradictions within its elevations, it is not considered that this
would result in real harm being caused to the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area. Furthermore, given the large separation distances between the application
site and the nearest listed buildings (including Wiveton Church), it cannot be reasonably argued
that the new dwelling would harm the setting of any of these heritage assets.
Development Committee
114
11 February 2016
English Heritage – No objection on the following grounds - The current proposal is for a new
dwelling that is broadly similar to the previously proposal in size, scale and massing, although
the ridge line is described as being slightly higher to accord with the proportions of a threshing
barn. The footprint of the new building has been moved to within the existing residential
curtilage of the property. The most significant change is the architectural approach which takes
its inspiration from a traditional threshing barn. This is in contrast to the contemporary approach
used in the previous schemes. The design now takes a more traditional approach and uses
local vernacular materials.
The revised siting of the building brings it closer to the existing built complex. The more
traditional architectural approach is less contemporary than earlier versions. However the
familiarity of the vernacular language and materials could be said to result in a building which is
less assertive in its setting than the previous schemes (although it might be possible to achieve
both a contemporary approach and a close affinity with the local context).
Environmental Health - No objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling subject to the
imposition of appropriate 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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use of an
existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies the
limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
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 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).
Development Committee
115
11 February 2016
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of
need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards
other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Landscape Impact
4. Impact on heritage assets.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at Committee on 26 March 2015 in order to allow Members to visit
the site.
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and is also within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Policies SS2, HO8,
EN1, EN2, EN4, and EN8 are applicable.
Policy SS2 relates to development in the Countryside where development requires a rural
location and is for one of a number of types of development, including replacement dwellings.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area
designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:


would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling, and
would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a ‘disproportionately large increase’ account will be taken of the
size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been extended or could be
extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of the area.
For the purposes of this policy ‘original dwelling’ means the house as it was built, or as existed
on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the
Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads 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.
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.
Development Committee
116
11 February 2016
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals 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.
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Design
which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and
quality of an area will not be acceptable.
Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing buildings and structures will be
expected to:
 Have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide;
 Incorporate sustainable construction principles contained in policy EN6;
 Make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character, landscape and biodiversity
of the surrounding area;
 Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
 Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include landscape
enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character Assessment and
ecological network mapping;
 Ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding
area;
 Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public realm;
 Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
 Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
 Where appropriate, contain a variety and mix of uses, buildings and landscaping.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated assets, (in this case the Glaven Valley Conservation Area), and 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.
Furthermore, the character and appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved, and
where possible enhanced, and, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, area appraisals
and management plans will be prepared and used to assist this aim and to encourage the
highest quality building design, townscape creation and landscaping in keeping with the defined
areas.
Development Committee
117
11 February 2016
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework, (March 2012)
are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 60 - Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles
or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through
unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however,
proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 115 - 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.
Paragraph 132 - 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 134 - 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.
Paragraph 137 - Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development
within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the
setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should
be treated favourably.
Principle of development
At the present time the site is occupied by the existing bungalow, which has an overall footprint
of some 160 sq. metres, including the conservatory and is situated close to the entrance off the
Saxlingham Road. Under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development )
Order 2008 a single storey extension of 72 sq. metres (18 metres x 4 metres) could be added to
the rear of this property which would give a total footprint of some 232 sq. metres. Whilst
adjacent to the northern entrance to the site is a single storey rectangular barn of asbestos and
steel sheeting which is used for garaging/storage which has a footprint of 142 sq. metres, giving
a total potential domestic footprint of 374 sq. metres.
Whilst further east along the north boundary are three holiday cottages, which are to be
retained, beyond which is a more modern open fronted barn of asbestos and steel cladding
which has a footprint of 246 sq. metres. In addition, there are other buildings within the site
Development Committee
118
11 February 2016
including a summer house, and Polly tunnels and greenhouses, which along with the barn
would be removed as part of the scheme.
In contrast the proposed dwelling would have a footprint of 260.26 sq. metres. Whilst it would
have an internal habitable floor area of 445.61 sq. metres spread over a lower, upper ground
floors and first floor. In addition, an integral double garage is proposed which has a floor area of
44.21sq. metres giving a total floor area of 489.82 sq. metres.
Schedule of floor areas:Existing dwelling including garaging and ancillary storage
area
Existing bungalow (including conservatory)
m2
Footprint
Floor
160.0 m2
116.60
Possible extension under Permitted Development Rights (original dwelling) 72.0 m2
64.72 m2
Detached garaging and ancillary storage within barn closest to dwelling 142.0 m2
m2
Total
m2
130.0
374.0 m2
311.32
Footprint
Floor
Proposed dwelling including garaging
area
Proposed dwelling including integral garage
260.26 m2
Lower ground floor
m2
Upper ground floor (including balcony)
208.73.m2
First floor
m2
Double garage
m2
182.24
54.64
44.21
Total
260.26
m2
489.82m2
Net increase in floor area compared to existing dwelling, including double garage 178.50
m2
As far as Policy HO8 is concerned this makes no reference to the need for the replacement
dwelling to either be on the same footprint as the existing property or for it to be in close
proximity or indeed within the immediate curtilage. Instead, the policy concentrates on whether
the replacement would result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
Development Committee
119
11 February 2016
original dwelling, and whether it would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside. In addition, the Policy makes allowances for the fact
that the existing dwelling could be extended under Permitted Development Rights.
In terms of the increase in scale of the proposed dwelling, based solely on the net increase in
floor area of some 178.50 sq. metres, on balance this is not considered to be excessive and
would not provide grounds to refuse the application.
Whilst in respect of the height of the proposed dwelling, due to variations in levels across the
site the intention is that in places the existing ground level would be lowered between 0.46
metres and 1.85 metres. The effects of these site works would mean that the slab of the
proposed dwelling would effectively be just over a metre lower than the ground level adjacent to
the bungalow. This in turn would mean that the main body of the building, which has a ridgeline
some 23 metres in length, and an overall height of 9.26 metres would in effect only be 2.87
metres higher than that of the existing property whilst the rear wing and front projection would
be approximately 2.28 metres higher. It is therefore considered that whilst the massing of the
building would clearly be greater than that of the bungalow the finished height of the proposed
dwelling in the landscape would not be significantly more.
Turning to the second criteria although the position chosen for the dwelling would be some 40
metres further to the east than the existing property it would be within its curtilage. Furthermore,
the fact that the ground level in this area is slightly lower coupled with the proposed further
reduction in ground level would mitigate against any increase in the visual impact of the
dwelling. The photomontages submitted as part of the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal
prepared by Sheils Flynn, Chartered Landscape Architects, illustrate that when viewed from two
viewpoints, 1.6 metres above ground level along the Langham Road, referred to as 5 and 6 to
the east of Wiveton Downs, the closet point to the site of which is approximately 580 metres,
although the upper half of the dwelling would visible it would be seen against the backdrop of
woods to the west of the site, or masked by a coppice of trees. Whilst from viewpoint 4, the
closest to the site at 402 metres, views of the site through a gateway in the roadside hedge
would be masked by the coppice of trees in the middle of the field. However between viewpoints
4 and 5, some 450 metres from the site, it is possible that the upper half of the roof of the main
body of the building would be seen against the sky line above the roadside and field hedges.
Whilst further to the east towards Wiveton any views of the site would be interrupted by
roadside and field hedges. The photomontages therefore illustrate that although the height of
the building is significant it remains predominantly below the landscape horizon, therefore with a
sympathetic palette of materials, which include red clay Norfolk pantiles to the roof together
Norfolk red brick, flint and natural timber boarding to the walls, the building would not be overly
intrusive within the landscape. Furthermore, existing landscape elements (trees, hedging and
topography) help screen and integrate the building within the wider landscape setting.
Therefore in terms of Policy HO8 it is considered that on balance the proposal would not result
in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling or materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
Design
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned, the inspiration for its elevations has seemingly
come from the threshing barns which populate rural North Norfolk, hence the long ridgeline and
the vertically proportioned gables. Although such an approach could be questioned in the
absence of an accompanying farmhouse, it is a built form which is familiar within the District and
Development Committee
120
11 February 2016
is acceptable in principle. This said, there is an obvious tendency for such buildings to be
inherently imposing. That is to some extent reflected in the latest proposals which incorporate a
long unbroken ridgeline, 23 metres long and relatively robust elevations. However the new build
cannot be seen as a faithful and accurate interpretation of a traditional (converted) threshing
barn, because of its off-centre midstrey, Juliette balconies and its flat roof staircase which are all
features with no real historic precedent. Despite this, the combination of the buildings angled
siting, and the sort of distances it would generally be viewed from would largely negate these
features and to all intents and purposes the building would retain an agricultural outline within
the landscape and therefore would not look incongruous. This view has been supported by the
Council’s Conservation and Design Section who have indicated that they have no issue with the
building’s design moving in a more vernacular direction and that whilst perhaps remaining
larger than ideal the amended scheme is acceptable.
Landscape Impact
As far as the impact on the wider landscape the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal, which
has been prepared in accordance with recognised standards and guidelines, suggests that the
landscape of the site does not have a particularly significant inherent value; however it is
located within a highly distinctive and sensitive landscape, of exceptional visual and ecological
value. The combination of elevated land, long seaward views and the mosaic of a heathland
landscape makes the site and surrounding landscape one of the feature landscapes of the
AONB. However, it also notes that the landholding does not in itself have great intrinsic value.
The visual assessment notes that the zone of potential visual impact is restricted to the
immediate surrounds of the site on the western, northern and eastern flanks, as views from the
south are restricted by the presence of the esker. In general views are limited to those from the
public highway and some rights of way, mainly through gaps in hedgerows and field accesses.
The majority of views of the proposed building will be seen against the backdrop of land, with
the only view of the building above the skyline from the Wiveton/Langham road.
The LVIA concludes that many of the visual effects of the development will be absorbed by the
complex elements of the landscape – topography, trees, copses and hedgerows, and that views
of the development will be transitory as glimpses are gained from field accesses and gaps in
hedgerows. It is also proposed that in time, once landscape planting has established, short
distance views of the building will be reduced further.
Compared to the previous scheme it is proposed that the dwelling would be within the curtilage
of the existing farmhouse garden, which due to its closer association with existing buildings,
would result in the building having less impact on the wider landscape character.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development will be permitted where it does not
detract from the special qualities of the AONB and seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk
Coast AONB Management Plan. Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is influenced by both the
North Norfolk District Council Landscape Character Assessment and the AONB Integrated
Landscape Character Guidance, and development proposals should demonstrate that they will
protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of
the area. The Integrated Landscape Character Guidance produced by the AONB Partnership
provides guidance on how to manage change (development) to achieve the overall vision for the
AONB. The proposed development has been influenced by this guidance and provides
landscape enhancements which seek to stitch the proposed dwelling into the wider landscape,
softening the impact and re-enforcing the overall landscape character. These include
Development Committee
121
11 February 2016
reinstating a mosaic of grassland and heath, regenerating woodland and copses and reinstating
former hedgerows and would it is considered have result in some minor beneficial
improvements for the landscape. As such the development can be seen to accord with Policies
EN1 and EN2.
The Landscape Section therefore do not object to the application subject to a condition requiring
the provision of a Landscape and Ecological Management plan based on the mitigation and
enhancement proposals identified in the LVIA.
Impact on heritage assets
In terms of the potential impact on heritage assets, in addition to the site being within the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area, the other principle assets in the area are the Parish Churches of,
Blakeney, Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea, which are grade I listed buildings. St. Nicholas
Church, Blakeney is situated on higher ground some 1.0 km to the north east and the upper half
of the tower is visible from the site above trees at Howe Hill. Whilst St Mary’s Church, Wiveton
and St. Margaret's Church, Cley-next-the-Sea are set in the valley bottom north north-east of
the site approximately 1.35 km and 1.9 km away respectively.
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay "special
attention" to the "desirability of preserving" the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the settings of
listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas are not mere material
considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a local authority finds that a
proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or
appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm considerable importance and weight.
When approaching the site from the east along Bridgefoot Lane the village of Wiveton and the
parish church are seen in the foreground, as indicated from the photomontage, Viewpoint 10,
with the site itself some 2.5 km beyond being seen against the backdrop of rising ground and
the tree line beyond. Whist the upper half of the tower of Blakeney church is visible in above
trees some distance to the northwest. From this direction given the distance involved, together
with intervening features and the recessive nature of the proposed materials it is not considered
that the proposed dwelling would have a significantly harmful impact on either of the setting of
these churches or indeed the wider Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst in respect of the
view from Church Lane, Cley-next-the-Sea, some 2.3 km from the site, although the site would
be seen in the context of both the Parish Churches of Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea which are
in the foreground, given the distance involved and the fact that the dwelling would be seen
against rising ground it is not considered that the proposal significantly affect these listed
buildings or their setting. Whilst closer to the site from the Wiveton Road, just to the south of
The Old Rectory there would be a fairly open view of the site just to the south of Rubbery Hill.
From here the site would be some 700 metres, to the south west with the dwelling itself seen
both in its landscape setting and against the backdrop of trees. Whilst it is accepted that the
dwelling from this location would be visible in the landscape it is considered that it would not
have a significantly adverse impact on the setting of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and
any harm has to be weighed against the general site improvements.
The Council’s Conservation and Design Section have indicated that they consider that the
development would result in no real harm being caused to the character and appearance of the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area, other heritage assets (including Wiveton church) and the
Development Committee
122
11 February 2016
wider countryside and as such would accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN4,
EN8 and NPPF Paragraphs 132 and 134. This view is supported by English Heritage.
Summary
The application has raised a considerable amount of concern primarily in relation to the
proposed re-siting of the dwelling, its scale, massing and design and its impact on the
appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the character and appearance of the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area and that it could set a precedent for other similar
developments.
Whilst these concerns are fully understood they have to be balanced against the relevant
Development Plan policies and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework
together with responses from statutory and other consultees. Based on these considerations
although the proposed dwelling would not be on the same footprint as the dwelling it would
replace this is not a policy requirement providing the dwelling would not result in a
disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling and materially
increase its appearance on the surrounding countryside. When taking into account the size of
the existing dwelling, together with garaging and storage and the level of additional
accommodation which could be provided under Permitted Development Rights it is not
considered that the proposed dwelling would result in a significant increase in scale. Whilst due
to its proposed siting on lower ground and a reduction in site levels overall ridge height would
not be significantly higher than the dwelling it would replace. Furthermore, whilst it is conceded
that from close to the site to the east it is possible that the upper half of the roof of the dwelling
might be seen against the skyline, from other vantage points to the east and north east of the
site it would be seen again the backdrop of rising ground and trees beyond. As a result, subject
to the use of recessive materials on balance it is considered that the dwelling would not detract
from the special qualities of the AONB and would not harm the character and appearance of the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area or other heritage assets.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including the submission of a landscape and ecological management plan, removal of
permitted development rights and precise details of the materials to be used in the
construction of the dwelling.
Development Committee
123
11 February 2016
APPENDIX 2
DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT Application for (Detailed) Planning Permission For a residential development At Larkfields, 146 Morston Rd, Blakeney, NR25 7BG North Elevation (NTS) Mr & Mrs M Goff Development Committee
1 124
11 February 2016
CONTENTS
Introduction Photographs Context Physical Social Economic Planning Assessment Context Guidance Proposals Use Amount Scale Layout Access Landscape Appearance Local Consultation Highways Planning Statement Sustainability Appendix CABE Assessment Sheet Development Committee
2 125
11 February 2016
INTRODUCTION
Google Earth image of the site with a 200 m line drawn on it 1.1 Thomas Faire Architects have been instructed to submit an application for Detailed Planning Permission for the demolition of the existing property, and the construction of a new house, on behalf of Mr & Mrs M Goff. 1.2 This Design and Access Statement is to be read together with other submission documents including drawings, the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Sheils Flynn and other specialist statements. 1.3 The existing house was built in the 1930’s and has little architectural or local merit, and has been extensively altered to varying degrees of success and quality of workmanship. 1.4 The site lies in the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) however the house is not listed and there is no requirement to under-­‐take an Historic Building Recording prior to the building being demolished. 1.5 The site is located at OS coordinates 017 438 1.6 Adjacent to the site are two properties, including Lark Cottage (under the same ownership) to the West, Curlews to the East; opposite is a former quarry. In other words there are other properties within the existing settlement boundaries further West. 1.7 The site area is approximately 4.34 ha, with a road frontage of 140 m. The rear of the main bulk of the site sits approximately 230 m South from the Coastal Path and 70 m North of Morston Rd. 1.8 The site boundaries are well defined (north/south/east and west) with planted hedges 1.9 This Design and Access Statement has been prepared as described by CABE in “Design and Access Statements How to Read and Write Them” NB The images within this document are not necessarily to scale. Development Committee
3 126
11 February 2016
Ordnance survey map of existing site at 1:25O0 Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the existing house Development Committee
4 127
11 February 2016
Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the proposed new house Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the existing house and proposed new house Development Committee
5 128
11 February 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS
View of entrance to the site from Morston Road View of existing house from the North with the proximity of Lark Cottage clearly shown Development Committee
6 129
11 February 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS continued View of existing house from the West with uPVC picture windows and raised eaves using different brickwork clearly visible View of existing house from the South East showing the raised eaves and new plain tiled roof Development Committee
7 130
11 February 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS continued View of the garages and outbuildings View of existing summer house and walls of walled garden to be restored and retained Development Committee
8 131
11 February 2016
Context
PHYSICAL 2.1 The site falls from South to North with a fall of approximately 18 m over 300 m and from West to East with a fall of approx. 3 m over 140 m. 2.2 The site is approximately 1 km west of Blakeney Quay (village centre) and 300 m from the Bliss Development. 2.3 The site has direct access onto the A149 main East/West north Norfolk coast road, which services numerous towns and villages from Kings Lynn to Cromer and then on to Norwich by train. 2.4 The site is outside the NPPF defined Flood Zone 1,2 & 3, and as such no Flood Risk Assessment is required. Bliss development SOCIAL 2.4 The site has the benefit of the numerous local services and transport connections that operate along the A149, including the regular Coast Hopper bus service. Since the site is within walking distance of the village centre (either along the footpath by the A149 or via the North Norfolk Coastal Path along the northern boundary of the site) it benefits from all of the community facilities, such as the village shop, fishmonger, delicatessen, pubs, hotels, church and other community buildings. 2.5 The proposal will improve the current visual impact and usage of the site, and is consistent with recent similar development carried out by neighbouring property owners (most notably Bliss Development’s on Morston Road, NR25 7BG). 2.6 Blakeney is an attractive and desirable location and this development is in keeping with the vitality and viability of this unique village. Development Committee
9 132
11 February 2016
Plan of the site showing the dramatic contours from North to South (each one representing 0.5 m) Development Committee
10 133
11 February 2016
ECONOMIC 2.7 The new development will create employment for local trades and crafts, and support businesses within the local community infrastructure. 2.8 North Norfolk’s increasing popularity requires a continuing need to improve and update the housing stock. Whilst this dwelling is aimed at the upper end of the market it is important that this range is covered, as well as other particular types and mixes. PLANNING 2.9 The proposed development endeavours to adhere to relevant policies and strategies outlined in the NNDC Core Strategy Policies, Development Control Policies & Development Management Policies (Local Plan 2014) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 2.10 Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the District). 2.11 Policy SS2 Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with specific exceptions) 2.12 Policy SS4 Delivery of a sustainable development 2.13 Policy SS6 Good access to infrastructure, open space, public services and utilities 2.14 Policy HO8 House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside) 2.15 Policy EN1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the area and the setting) 2.16 Policy ENV2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement 2.17 Policy ENV4: Design, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction 2.18 Policy ENV8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development) 2.19 Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (no adverse impact on designated nature conservation sites) 2.20 Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (criteria to reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable forms of transport) 2.21 Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking standards) Development Committee
11 134
11 February 2016
PLANNING POLICY MAPS Proposals Map West showing hierarchy of settlements Plan of Blakeney as a Coastal Service Village Development Committee
12 135
11 February 2016
Assessment CONTEXT 3.1 The site area is 4.34 hectares and the curtilage of the existing house and various out houses is 1,350 sq m. The proposed new house is 535 sq m, excluding outdoor areas, garage and utility space and the existing 1930’s dwelling is 293 sqm an increase of 80%. 3.2 The new house would be built close to the site of the old one, with the existing wall garden included within the new planned curtilage. 3.3. The new development will improve the northerly views from Lark Cottage and will not affect other surrounding properties with a modest increase in the ridge line of only 1.73m above the existing house. The distance from the northern boundary (Coastal Path) is 230 m and from the A149 is 70 m. 3.4 The existing trees and hedges will screen the development to the south, east and west, and privacy will be maintained. Views into the site will be limited from all the above boundaries, except for oblique views from Lark Cottage, which is under the same ownership 3.5 The house is designed to nestle into the existing landscape. The LVIA demonstrates clearly how the existing and proposed new trees, planting and hard landscaping allows the development to sit naturally within the physical contours of the site leading gently down to the salt marshes. GUIDANCE 3.6 The site has been the subject of a number of discussions with regard to its future development, including a planning application validated on 23rd February 2015 and subsequently withdrawn as a result of unresolved issues. 3.7 It has generally been agreed with planning officers of North Norfolk District Council that the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site is acceptable, with particular emphasis on the overall design, scale, massing and setting within the landscape. 3.8 The current proposal take into account this dialogue between NNDC and the architect and landscape consultants, with additional and updated information supporting this application. This illustrates how important design issues can be addressed in a sensitive and appropriate manner. USE – see photos of the existing house above and submitted drawings 3.9 The development will provide a single new dwelling to replace the existing house, which has little or no architectural merit, is functionally unattractive and does not meet current standards. The existing house was built in the 1930s as part of a small development of thatched houses, including Blakeney Downs and Curlews next door. At a later stage the thatch was removed and replaced with a plain tiled roof; in the process of which the eaves height was raised resulting in an ugly proportioned building. Traditional windows have been replaced with inappropriate uPVC picture windows and a plastic conservatory added to the north. Inside the layout is inefficient with wasteful passages and a too-­‐small kitchen for a house of this size. Insulation values are inadequate with solid walls and floors, and a barely insulated roof. The current house does not maximise the qualities of the site: its setting, the views to the marshes or present an attractive aspect to the Coastal Path. Development Committee
13 136
11 February 2016
3.10 The proposal, as indicated above will consist of a new house on ground and first floor, with garage and utility space to replace the existing house, garage and outbuildings. 3.11 This submission includes an application to North Norfolk District Council to gain consent for the demolition of the property. The adjacent property on the same site, Lark Cottage, will be unaffected. AMOUNT 3.12 The development will consist of 310 sq m of ground floor and 225 sq m of first floor space, with 56 sq m of garage and 137 sq m of utility accommodation. 3.13 The density of the development will be consistent with the character and grain of development in the area consisting of spacious well proportioned houses set in large gardens LAYOUT 3.14 On the ground floor the development will consist of Sitting Room, Study and Kitchen on either side of a Hall, with ancillary utility areas in the garage wing. Upstairs there are three bedrooms. Owing to the exposed position there are open verandahs or loggias on all sides to provide shelter from the elements – this is an extremely exposed site! 3.15 The proposed development has been designed so as not to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy 3.16 The building’s plan form strongly and directly relates axially to the salt marshes to the North and the entrance court to the South which is accessed from Morston Road. ACCESS 3.17 Vehicle access to the site will be from the south off the A149. 3.18 All parking on site and turning areas will be laid out, levelled and surfaced with appropriate drainage 3.19 Refuse will be stored out of sight in the entrance to the service yard and taken by cart to the kerbside as at present. SCALE 3.20 The total site area is 4.34 ha. The total proposed external gross construction footprint of the new house (excluding verandas, garage and utility space) is 310 sq m. This equates to a total of 0.7% site coverage The total existing external footprint of the building is 193 sq m (excluding outbuildings). This equates to total site coverage of 0.44%. 3.21 The scale of the building has been reduced, since the first floor accommodation is now two thirds of the ground floor footprint. 3.22 The proposed house is formed around a central hallway with kitchen on one side and Sitting Room and Study on the other. At first floor there is one principal bedroom and two further small bedrooms. Development Committee
14 137
11 February 2016
3.23 A feature of the property are the verandahs that wrap around the ground floor. These are open to the elements but will enjoy weather protection and prevent excessive solar gain. 3.24 There are other large replacement houses in the village most notably the Bliss development 300 m away to the East, and on Back Lane The Coast House and Moonrakers, both substantial dwellings. Moonrakers, Back Lane viewed from the South LANDSCAPE 3.24 For a full description of all landscaping issues please refer to the comprehensive LVIA report attached to this report. 3.25 It is anticipated that detailed content of the landscaping scheme will be elaborated on as part of the reserved matters application. However the planning will be designed aesthetically to enhance the development, and provide additional screening and privacy within and surrounding the site. This will also bring ecological benefits and assist in any noise abatement purposes. Development Committee
15 138
11 February 2016
Photomontage from Coastal Path after 15 years (Courtesy of Sheils Flynn) APPEARANCE 3.26 All external works will be designed to be consistent with the character and appearance of a local “seaside New England style”, hence the verandahs and use of indoor/outdoor spaces. The planning officers have warmly welcomed this design philosophy. 3.27 With a strong pyramid shape it will be firmly grounded in the site, minimising impact on the sky line. This will be reinforced by the use of muted natural materials, and recede against the sky line when viewed from the coastal path. 3.28 The materials of the house are to be timber, render and cedar roof shingles. Cedar shingles and Iroko timber boarding will weather well over time to a silvery grey, and timber windows are proposed to complement the overall muted and natural effect. These materials are found in the local vernacular building styles, with varieties of timber visible at The Boat House (formerly Charlie Ward’s boatyard in Morston), Bliss, Jasmine (Saxlingham Road) and The Coast House (Back Lane), which uses naturally weathered iroko on its balconies. Development Committee
16 139
11 February 2016
The Coast House, Back Lane Render can be seen at North Down (the neighbouring house to the West) and in combination with timber boarding at Jasmine (Saxlingham Road). Jasmine, the first house you see on entering Blakeney on Saxlingham Road Development Committee
17 140
11 February 2016
The house is inspired by New England style houses which have this combination of materials – rendered piers, timber boarding and shingles -­‐ and will look very similar to this example here. Development Committee
18 141
11 February 2016
LOCAL CONSULTATION 3.29 As part of the public and stakeholder consultation process both Blakeney and Morston Parish Council Members are aware of the proposal and informal support for the design and setting has been offered. 3.30 The immediate neighbours to the property are also aware of the proposals and no objection has been made in the past to earlier applications. HIGHWAYS 3.31 Norfolk County Council (NCC), as the Highway Authority has confirmed (email dated 23rd February 2015) that in respect of the proposal it “does not wish to object”. It is accepted that the proposal “does not affect current traffic patterns or free flow”. 3.32 Further discussion will now take place with NCC however to clarify a number of points raised in this email, and this in turn will influence whether or not a planning condition is required. 3.33 The land and property has enjoyed two separate points of access/egress for many years. A decision was made by the owner (8 to 9 years ago) to use by preference the access furthest to the east, away from the crest of the hill. Subsequently improvements to the internal road and splay line within the property were made. The owner has therefore had continuous enjoyment of this access for many years without any concern from either the Highway Authority or North Norfolk District Council. 3.34 The proposal will provide an opportunity to improve the splay lines and width of the access/egress on to the highway. Concerns over material on the highway and drainage will also be addressed and in this respect a number of new developments in Blakeney along Morston Road provide useful guidelines of the design approach proposed. 3.35 NCC has made an assessment of 8 vehicles using the property. This is significant over-­‐ estimation and in view of the modest size of this residential dwelling, with only one principal bedroom and intended holiday use, we believe a more appropriate number of vehicles should be 3 to 4. As such any condition relating to parking and servicing within the curtilage of the property, given the distance from the highway needs to be proportionate to the proposal. 3.36 As indicated above further discussion with NCC will take place, once the planning application process commences. Development Committee
19 142
11 February 2016
PLANNING STATEMENT 3.37 The Policy considerations are stated above, with particular relevance to SS2, HO8, EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8 together with NPPF. 3.38 Policy SS2 relates to development in the Countryside, including replacement dwellings. 3.39 Policy HO8 states that the proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings with the area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal: •
•
Would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling and
Would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
Care has been taken to ensure that the proposal does not constitute a “disproportionately large increase”, having regard to the original dwelling (and extended under permitted development rights as included in HO8) and prevailing character of the immediate area. (At the present time the site is occupied by a building of footprint 193 sq m, plus outbuildings/garage of 117 sq m. In contrast the proposed building would have a footprint of 310 sq m (not including verandahs, utility and garage space), with an internal habitable floor area of 535 sq m spread over ground and first floor. In addition a separate 2 bay garage of 56 sq m and utility of 137 sq m. Since Policy HO8 does not refer to the need for the replacement dwelling to be on the same footprint as the existing property or be in close proximity or within the immediate curtilage the design approach is to ensure that the new property is not a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling and that there is no material increased impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. In terms of the increase in scale of the proposed dwelling, based solely on the net increase in floor area of 242 sq m (excluding verandas, utility and garage space), this is not considered excessive and should not provide grounds for a refusal. We would draw officers’ attention to recent similar replacement dwellings in NNDC’s coastal villages which far exceed this increase and have been approved. 3.4 Landscape Impact (AONB) Following discussions with NNDC’s planning and conservation area officers the site and location of the replacement dwelling and its impact on the AONB and landscape character have now been fully addressed. Full appreciation has been given to the views of the site gained from the north, and the relationship between the dwelling and surrounding land based upon the LVIA is a natural and acceptable one, in relation to key policies (EN1, EN2, EN4 & EN8). As indicated the proposed dwelling is only 1.73m higher to the ridge than the existing house, and the roof area approximately the same. As a result the dwelling will be no more visible within the landscape and from the main viewpoints the proposed building will be seem against a backdrop of mature trees, and shrubs. The resulting visual impact is therefore minor, given the large scale surrounding landscape and relative insignificance of the building within it and distance viewing. The LVIA clearly demonstrates that this is the case. Since this will not detract from the special qualities of the AONB (EN1) we do not believe there are sufficient grounds to warrant an objection under these policies. Development Committee
20 143
11 February 2016
The landscaping restoration and enhancement proposals are significant and offer benefits to the wider landscape. A Protected Species Scoping Study has been prepared in accordance with recognised procedures and guidelines by a suitably qualified ecologist and the report and conclusions support the proposal. In particular the grassland around the site has the potential to support reptiles, ground nesting birds and a wide range of biodiversity in line with Policy EN9. 3.41 With regard to EN4 this is not a replacement dwelling for a farmstead or barn and within close proximity are a range of different house styles, of varying ages. As such the design does not have to follow a vernacular precedent. The North Norfolk Design Guide and a sustainable construction approach have informed the design approach (EN2). This has led to a philosophy to ensure that the replacement building does not “jar on the eye” and looks wholly appropriate, via a mild mannered structure and muted colours and materials approach, which will not impose itself on the landscape. Similarly the garage block is designed to be inoffensive visually. As such the development will be designed to a high quality and strengthen local distinctiveness along Morston Rd and the approaches to Blakeney village centre (EN4). The design will relate closely to its local context and enhance the character of the area, represented by the supported received from adjoining neighbours to this proposal. A contemporary internal design will allow for high standards of energy efficiency, with principles of sustainability at the heart of the construction, and on-­‐going property management and maintenance. 3.42 This approach also allows it to meet objectives to preserve or enhance the character of the designated asset (EN8) in terms of the AONB and other important historic buildings and landscapes. The LVIA refers to the site in relation to the setting of both St Nicholas Church Blakeney (Grade 1 listed) and All Saints at Morston. Given the distances involved the proposal is not likely to have a significantly harmful impact on either the setting of these churches or the wider AONB. In conclusion in respect of Policies EN1 EN2 ENV4 & EN8 we believe this represents an acceptable proposal. 3.43 The site benefits from regular (every 30 minutes during the extended summer period) bus access ( North Norfolk CoastHopper) linking Blakeney to eastwards to Sheringham and Cromer (onwards to Norwich via the Bittern rail line and then London (in 3 hours) and west to Kings Lynn. In addition the Peddars Way/North Norfolk Coastal Path allows easy walking from the rear of the site into Blakeney village centre for goods and services. As such the site has access to a sustainable form of transport in accordance with policy (CT5). 3.44 The NPPF (para 137) highlights the opportunity for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to look for new development within the setting of heritage assets that will enhance or make better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. The existing house has little architectural merit, is much changed and has been unsympathetically altered many years to the detriment of its external appearance, the new proposals will make significant improvements by way of a qualitative approach using high quality external materials and detailing. It is noted that in close proximity to the site the Council has supported a more radical contemporary design approach by approving Bliss Development’s Morston Rd scheme, recently completed and occupied. Development Committee
21 144
11 February 2016
Sustainability 4.1 Sustainable Design is a principle in all development. The development will be designed to meet or exceed national standards in place at the time of approval. 4.2 The proposals are designed to: -­‐ maximise natural light and ventilation where applicable. -­‐ provide adequate provision for the storage and collection of waste. -­‐ use sustainable timber cladding and materials with low embodied energy 5.3 Landscaping enhancements and continued wildlife management of the existing flower field will benefit local ecology. 5.4 As a brownfield site the proposal will make the most sustainable use of an existing building and its land. Development Committee
22 145
11 February 2016
CABE Assessment Sheet (extract from Design and Access Statement How to write them -­‐ 2006) Development Committee
23 146
11 February 2016
From: Venes, Tim [mailto:tim.venes@norfolk.gov.uk]
Sent: 27 October 2015 14:30
To: Planning Consultation
Subject: PF/15/1312
PF/15/1312 Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling at Larkfields, Morston
Road, Blakeney
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal in the Norfolk Coast AONB, and within
the setting of the North Norfolk Heritage Coast.
The statistics provided in paragraph 3.39 of the Design and Access Statement are helpful.
This is a significantly larger building than the existing dwelling (62% increase in overall footprint of
buildings, 82% increase in overall floor area). The ridge height of the proposed dwelling is 1.73m
higher than the 8.27m height of the existing house, a substantial 20% increase. Overall this
represents a large increase in scale, which raises concerns with regard to Policy HO8 which states
that replacement dwellings should not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or
scale of the original dwelling.
Policy HO8 further provides that a replacement dwelling should not materially increase the impact of
the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The substantial increase in size,
combined with the proposed relocation of the replacement house to the east and its much larger
northern frontage compared to the existing dwelling (in which the longer axis is orientated northsouth rather than east-west as proposed for the replacement) means that the proposed
replacement would have a materially increased impact as seen from the north, which is the most
sensitive direction as it includes the undeveloped marshes of the North Norfolk Heritage Coast and
the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail.
This is confirmed by the photomontages in the LVIA, for which it should be borne in mind that
although they have used the accepted standard focal length for visual assessment, in practice
individual features such as houses are much more apparent to the eye than such photographs
suggest.
The existing house is clearly visible and quite prominent from viewpoints 1B and 1C, but appears to
be screened by trees from viewpoint 1D and 1E.
In the photographic representations of the proposed replacement house (pages 65 to72), it is
apparent that it would have a greater impact than the existing house from viewpoints 1B and 1C,
and would also be visible from viewpoints 1D and 1E. The representations also suggest that, despite
proposed landscaping there would not be a significant reduction of impact in year 15 compared with
year 1, so the impact should be understood as being permanent.
I would therefore disagree with some aspects of the conclusions in the assessment of landscape and
visual effects (sections 7 and 8 of the LVIA) and conclude that with reference to Policy HO8 this
proposal would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the most
sensitive parts of the surrounding countryside.
This suggests it would also contravene Policies EN1 and EN2. The Design and Access Statement gives
examples of other new or replacement dwellings nearby that have been permitted as a reason to
approve this proposal and it might be thought that an impact on a relatively small part of the AONB
would not be significant. However, this raises concerns that continued approval of such proposals,
particularly in very sensitive settings such as in this case, both encourages other such applications
Development Committee
147
11 February 2016
and has a cumulative impact on the relatively undeveloped and remote character of much of the
AONB, which is a key aspect of its defining characteristics.
Tim Venes
Norfolk Coast Partnership Manager
Norfolk Coast Partnership
South Wing, Fakenham Fire Station
Norwich Road
Fakenham
Norfolk NR21 8BB
Telephone: 01328 850530
E. tim.venes@norfolk.gov.uk
web: www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk
Protecting an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Funded by Defra, Norfolk County Council, North Norfolk District Council, Borough Council of King's
Lynn & West Norfolk and Great Yarmouth Borough Council
-To see our email disclaimer click here
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
Development Committee
148
11 February 2016
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Kerys Witton
Planning Consultation
Jo Medler
PF/15/1312 - Larkfields 144 Morston Road, Blakeney
10 December 2015 10:39:26
The site is located in a prominent location on top of a ridge that overlooks the salt marshes of
the North Norfolk Coast. The site is located in one of the key character landscapes of the AONB
which exhibits many of the special qualities of the AONB. The site is set apart from the main
village of Blakeney part way between Blakeney and Morston. The application has been
supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by ShielsFlynn
Associates, a Protected Species Report prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology and an Arboricultural
Impact Assessment prepared by AT Coombes Associates.
The AIA suggests that the majority of the trees and tree groups will be retained as part of the
proposals however a section of hedge (G2) will have to be removed to allow the new dwelling
and garage to be constructed. The Protected Species report has identified a brown long-eared
bat roost within the building to be demolished therefore a European Protected Species Licence
will be required and mitigation with respect to undertaking the works and compensation for the
loss of bat roosts also required.
Although the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling on
the site is not objected to in principle, the Landscape Section are concerned that size and scale
of the new dwelling is such that the impacts on the AONB and landscape are unacceptable and
not compliant with local and national policies.
Although the methodology and evaluations within the LVIA are generally accepted, it is
considered that some of the effects of the development on some landscape receptors and some
viewpoints have been undervalued and the impacts are greater than suggested. This pushes
some of the effects of the development into the ‘significant’ bracket of impact.
This is relevant as the site is located in a highly valued and sensitive landscape which is afforded
significant protection under local and national policies. The NPPF states that “great weight
should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty” (para 115), and that local planning authorities should
“maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive
landscapes, particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast” (para 114). The site is located less
than 300m from a Heritage Coast* and is within an area of Undeveloped Coast.
Policy EN1 of the NNDC Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it
does not detract from the special qualities of the AONB. The special qualities of the AONB
include the sense of remoteness, tranquillity and wildness and the strong and distinctive links
between land and sea. The sense of remoteness and tranquillity is linked to the Undeveloped
Coast and Heritage Coast status and are extremely important when considering the impacts of
development. As part of the 2014-19 Norfolk Coast Management Plan, the AONB Partnership
have produced a Statement of Significance which summarises the area’s qualities of natural
beauty and in which they state “Along the undeveloped coast, panoramic and spectacular views
– from the coastal marshes, the higher land behind the low coast and from the cliff top are
characteristic and varied but all give an impression of wildness and the dominance of the forces
Development Committee
149
11 February 2016
of nature”.
Within the LVIA, Section 2.4 (methodology and attribute significance) states that Medium - High
significance values are deemed to have a significant effect and considerable effort should be
made to reduce the significance level, and that Medium – Low significance values whilst they are
not considered significant are dependent on context and significance should be considered on
this basis in the assessment. Given that it is considered that some undervaluing of the effects of
the proposal have occurred in the assessment, some impacts of the development can be
considered as significant or just below significant and when assessed in the context of the
location of the site and the strong policies for protection of the landscape/AONB in the NPPF
and the Core Strategy, the impacts of the development on the AONB, Heritage and
Undeveloped Coast should be given sufficient weight in the decision making process.
Policy HO8 (replacement dwellings) stipulates that replacement dwellings will only be permitted
provided that the proposals “would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside”. The conclusions of the LVIA state that the
proposals would have a significant impact on long coastal views from elevated land in Year 1 and
a medium-low impact in Year 15. Furthermore, that the proposals would again have a
significant impact from representative viewpoints along the Peddars Way and North Norfolk
Coast Path National Trail in Year 1, suggesting that this impact will reduce to medium – low in
Year 15. When considered against the context of the valued landscape and the requirements of
Policy HO8, it is suggested that there will be a material increase in the impact of the dwelling on
the surrounding countryside, and that the proposal would not be compliant with the policy.
Within the ‘Discussion of Results’ section of the LVIA (Section 8.4), the assessment acknowledges
that the “location combined with the scale of the replacement house will result in a noticeable
change to the baseline situation”. Furthermore, that the garage section of the new dwelling will
result in a long building that is a “similar scale to the existing barn adjacent to Curlews”, this
introduces an additional built element into the landscape that is of a scale comparable to an
individual building. The assessment concludes that when viewed from the east, the
replacement dwelling will “extend the built form of Blakeney” and might potentially have a more
of an impact in night time views. The LVIA clearly acknowledges the significance of the impact
of the dwelling and does attempt to mitigate for these impacts with strategic planting and a set
of landscape principles. However, it is not considered that these successfully reduce the impact
to acceptable levels to comply with the requirements of national planning policies and policies
EN1 and HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Although the proposals only affect a small part of the AONB, the cumulative effects of such
development can be considerable. On balance it is considered that the impact of the proposed
development within a key section of such a highly valued and sensitive landscape is of such
significance that the proposals should not be approved as they would detract from the special
qualities of the AONB and undermine the designation. This view is supported by both Natural
England (letter dated 21st October 2015) and the Norfolk Coast Partnership (email dated 27th
October 2015).
It is suggested that the applicant consider the evaluation of the LVIA, and the requirements of
policy HO8, and look at ways to reduce the significance of the impact of the replacement
dwelling. This is likely to be through a reduction in the size and scale of the dwelling and re-
Development Committee
150
11 February 2016
positioning the dwelling further back (south) into the site.
* The North Norfolk Heritage Coast, a section of the coast from Holme-next-the-Sea to
Weybourne, was defined in an agreement between local authorities and the Countryside
Commission in 1975, recognising this section of coastline as one of the forty finest stretches of
undeveloped coast in
England and Wales, in addition to its status as an AONB. ‘Heritage Coast’ is a non-statutory
definition, although it is recognised within the statutory planning system. Management of the
Heritage Coast is considered within the overall management plan for the AONB.
Kerys Witton
Landscape Officer
+441263 516323
Development Committee
151
11 February 2016
APPENDIX 3
Development Committee
152
11 February 2016
Development Committee
153
11 February 2016
Development Committee
154
11 February 2016
Development Committee
155
11 February 2016
Development Committee
156
11 February 2016
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 1A – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2011/12
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
13
198
308
425
370
31.58%
68.42%
39.13%
60.87%
53.46%
46.54%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2012/13
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
14
10
163
262
379
331
58.33%
41.67%
38.35%
61.65%
53.38%
46.62%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2013/14
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
30
9
218
262
483
296
76.92%
23.08%
45.42%
54.58%
62.00%
38.00%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2014/15
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
7
1
39
44
102
71
87.50%
12.50%
46.99%
53.01%
58.96%
41.04%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – Quarter 3 2015/16
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
5
65
74
106
93
54.55%
45.45%
46.76%
53.24%
53.27%
46.73%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – Cumulative 2015/16
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
18
12
150
186
431
241
60.00%
40.00%
44.64%
55.36%
64.14%
35.86%
COUNCIL TARGETS
Development Committee
80%
157
70%
70%
11 February 2016
TABLE 1B – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT WORKLOAD
2011/12
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1543
477
374
201
1982
2012/13
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1408
218
172
192
2153
2013/14
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1545
190
134
200
2161
QUARTER 3 2015/16
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
425
40
19
49
630
CUMULATIVE 2015/16
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
Development Committee
158
1387
168
51
157
2135
11 February 2016
TABLE 1C – DELEGATION OF DECISIONS
Year ending 31 March 2012
Year ending 31 March 2013
Year ending 31 March 2014
Year ending 31 March 2015
Quarter 3 2015/2016
Cumulative 2015/2016
%
DELEGATED
93.28
92.48
93.07
94.36
93.95
94.16
TABLE 2 - PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Allowed
Year ending
31 March 2012
Year ending
31 March 2013
Year ending
31 March 2014
Year ending
31 March 2015
Quarter 3
2015/16
Cumulative
2015/2016
Dismissed
Total
4 (28.57%)
10
14
9.5 (35.19%)*
17.5
27
7 (35%)
20
12
9 (52.94)
17
18
1 (12.5)
7
8 (+ 1
withdrawn)
4 (22.22%)
14
18 (+ 1
withdrawn)
* Includes 3 appeals part allowed and part dismissed.
TABLE 3 - LAND CHARGE SEARCHES
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Quarter 3
2015/16
Cumulative
2015/2016
Development Committee
Official
Searches
1872
2322
2313
570
Personal
Searches
578
864
850
297
1866
865
159
Total Search
requests
2450
3186
3171
867
2731
11 February 2016