OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 MARCH 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
FAKENHAM (NORTH WARD) - NNDC TPO (Fakenham) 2009 No. 11
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order to protect one Group of
trees (3 no. Ash and 1 no. Lime) at 73 and 75 Norwich Road, Fakenham.
Background
A pre-application enquiry was received requesting advice on the possibility of erecting
a dwelling in the large rear garden of 75 Norwich Road, Fakenham. The area behind
Norwich Road is dominated by a number of mature trees that help form a natural
backdrop for properties along Norwich Road, Westmead Road and Orchard Close.
The trees are extremely prominent for the residents living in these properties and the
neighbourhood in general. The proposal to erect a dwelling would impact on a mature
lime tree located in the garden of No.75. Although it has been indicated that there may
be space available in the garden to erect a dwelling (whilst taking into consideration
the tree), the tree is seen as a constraint by the owners of the property, who have
indicated that they wish to remove it to facilitate a development. The trees within the
immediate vicinity are not protected at present.
A Landscape Officer has visited the site and made an assessment of the trees using
the nationally recognised Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO).
The results indicate that the trees merit a TPO and therefore a Group Tree
Preservation Order was served.
The impact of individual trees behind Norwich Road combine to create the impression
of properties situated within a woodland, semi-rural setting, thereby substantially
increasing the amenity value of the area and setting of the properties. The trees
within the group are semi-mature to mature specimens and have a significant
presence in their own right. The trees also provide a valuable habitat for species living
within an urban environment. They contribute to an ecological corridor linking the
south of the town and the ecologically rich Wensum valley, to the north of the town and
the wider countryside beyond. The loss of these trees would significantly fragment the
ecological network reducing the ability of many species to disperse.
The Tree Preservation Order was served on 7 December 2009.
Representations
Objections to the Order:
A letter objecting to the Order has been received on behalf of the three beneficiaries of
the estate of No. 75 Norwich Road, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 1.
Development Control Committee
1
11 March 2010
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
(numbers below correspond to the paragraphs in the objectors' letter)
(1) The TEMPO assessment recorded that the trees as a Group have high amenity
value and contribute positively to the local landscape. The Order was served as a
Group Order because of the collective value of the trees and not the individual merit of
each singular tree.
(2) Lime trees do not drop sap, the problem referred to is commonly known as
'honeydew' which is a waste product from insects (mainly greenfly) which live and feed
on the leaves of trees. Lime, sycamore and maple trees are most commonly targeted
by these insects. Honeydew dissolves in water and should not cause any lasting
damage to paintwork or other surfaces. Rain naturally washes away honeydew from
paths and property and washing cars with warm soapy water will remove it.
Honeydew is not an 'actionable nuisance' and is not a reason to fell a tree.
(3) The Conservation, Design and Landscape Service has previously provided preapplication advice on the possibility of erecting a dwelling in the rear garden of 75
Norwich Road. This advice indicated that although the lime tree placed a constraint on
the site, there was still potential to locate a modest dwelling to the northern part of the
site, which may or may not require specialist construction methods to preserve the
tree. Recommendations were made for the prospective applicant to have a tree
survey and arboricultural implications assessment carried out. Further landscaping
would still be possible within the remaining garden on the site of the proposed
dwelling.
(4) The Barons Hall development was for nine affordable housing units. Trees within
the development site were also subject to a TPO and every effort was made to retain
and protect the trees prior to and during the course of development. In the immediate
locality the environment remains interspersed with mature trees throughout. The trees
protected by the TPO whose confirmation is being considered are highly visible from
surrounding properties and smaller shrubs would not have the same impact as a larger
semi-mature tree specimen.
(5) Although the lime tree constitutes a constraint for development within the back
garden, it would not in itself prevent development from proceeding. Any proposed
development would still be considered on its own merits. The TPO was served
because adequate measures were not being implemented to protect the trees as part
of the development process. Trees bring numerous benefits to a residential area, they
provide food and homes to a range of wildlife, act as dust and pollutant air filters and
help absorb traffic noise. This TPO aims to prevent the general degradation of tree
cover within this part of Fakenham and maintain local amenity.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
2
11 March 2010
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It is considered that proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
It is considered that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the general public and residents in this part
of Fakenham and that they therefore have high amenity value.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: (Kerys Witton, Extn 6323 - File Reference 09/0794)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BACTON - PF/10/0039 - Erection of buildings and construction of water holding
basin; Shell UK Ltd, Paston Road for Shell UK Ltd
Major Development - Target Date: 13 April 2010
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
Major Hazard Zone
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
The proposed works form part of the 'Bacton Rejuvenation Project' which "aims to
improve infrastructure efficiency and ensure long term operation of the Shell Bacton
Gas Plant." Overall the project consists of the refurbishment of the existing
infrastructure at the terminal. A number of the existing structures will be
decommissioned and replaced with similar structures, others will be upgraded. Much
of the work associated with the project is 'permitted development' under that part of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 which
relates to industrial development, and does not require planning permission. In the
main this relates to items of plant and machinery. Those aspects which are not
'permitted development' and are as a consequence the subject of this planning
application are as follows:
•
•
•
•
a new water holding basin (for emergencies).
an instrumentation building.
a building housing four new propane compressors.
a new equipment building.
Development Control Committee
3
11 March 2010
All the proposed works are to be within the existing terminal boundary.
The main construction period is scheduled to start in January 2011 for a period of 3
years.
Documents accompanying the planning application include the following:
Design and Access Statement.
Planning Statement.
Environmental Appraisal.
Flood Risk Assessment.
Site Waste Management Plan.
Contamination Study.
Statement of Community Involvement.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the national
significance of the proposal combined with other proposed developments at the Gas
Terminal.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comments apart from querying whether a bus layby indicate on the submitted
plans is proposed to be permanent or temporary.
CONSULTATIONS
Paston Parish Council - No objection
Mundesley Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Knapton Parish Council - No objection, but concerned about possible contractors
vehicles through the village and impact of any electrical works to a substation which
may affect the village power supply.
Walcott Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Swafield and Bradfield Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions to include the
requirement of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route to be
submitted and approved prior to any works commencing (to include the provision of
park and ride facilities), and details of off-site highway improvements.
Environment Agency - Objects, in terms of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted
with the application, which is lacking in terms of information submitted.
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Natural England - Objects in terms of the potential impact (vibration and noise) during
construction works which the development could have upon Paston Great Barn
which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation
(SAC).
Advises the Local Planning Authority, as decision-taker and competent authority, to
undertake an appropriate assessment to fully assess the implications against the
site's conservation objectives.
Head of Coastal Strategy - No comment.
Development Control Committee
4
11 March 2010
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions to require a scheme for the
control of noise from machinery and plant to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of use, and to limit 'noisy' construction works to between the
following times: Monday to Friday 08.00-18.00 hours, Saturdays 08.00-13.00 hours,
with no working on Sundays/Bank Holidays.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (development at
Bacton Gas Terminal that is ancillary to the terminal use will be supported within the
defined area shown on the Proposals Map).
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. National importance of Bacton Gas Terminal.
2. Environmental impacts during construction (particularly traffic).
3. Visual impact.
4. Operational impacts (e.g. noise).
APPRAISAL
Shell UK Ltd occupies the easternmost part of the Bacton Gas Terminal between
Paston Road (B1159) and the coastline. The terminal is, at its closest point, some
150m from the built up edge of Bacton village. The works proposed at the Shell plant
will coincide with other major development proposed at the adjoining Perenco and
ENI premises. A presentation of all three developments was given to the Council
and representatives of nearby Parish Councils in October last year. A planning
application has recently been submitted for works relating to the Perenco premises.
In terms of Core Strategy policy the Gas Terminal is within the Countryside policy
area. Policy EC 3 (Extensions to Existing Businesses in the Countryside) makes
specific reference to Bacton Gas Terminal and recognises its national importance.
The policy is supportive to the principle of ancillary developments within the existing
terminal complex.
Development Control Committee
5
11 March 2010
The proposed works subject to the planning application are at four different locations
within the terminal. Three of these comprise new buildings, whilst the water holding
basin comprises a partially below ground level, open tank. The largest of the
buildings (13.2m high) would house four new propane compressors. It is unlikely
however, due to its fairly central position within the site and screening by existing
plant and storage tanks, that the building would be visible from outside the terminal
complex. This and the other buildings/works subject to the application would
certainly have no material impact on the appearance of the site. As part of the
overall 'rejuvenation project' an existing (larger) compressor building would be
decommissioned and possibly demolished.
The most significant impacts of the 'rejuvenation project' combining those works
which do and do not require planning permission, will occur during the construction
period. The main public perception of these activities would be increased traffic
movements of delivery vehicles and construction workers. The Environmental
Appraisal submitted with the application explains that the majority of new equipment
would be prefabricated off-site and brought to Bacton by heavy goods vehicles. It is
estimated that during the construction period there would be approximately 400 two
way HGV movements. These are to use the established traffic route to and from the
site. It is further anticipated that at the peak of construction there would be
approximately 250 workers on site. It is proposed that a temporary park and ride bus
system would operate from land adjacent to the Lighthouse Inn at Walcott and a site
to be sought at Mundesley. The Environmental Appraisal states that a Traffic
Management Plan will be produced to ensure implementation of these measures.
Shell and the other two terminal operators (Perenco and ENI) have had preliminary
discussions with the Highway Authority regarding joint agreement on these traffic
management measures. The Highway Authority has confirmed no objection to this
application subject to conditions to require the submission and approval of these
traffic management measures prior to the commencement of any works on the site,
and subsequently compliance during the construction period.
In terms of noise, Members will note that no objections have been raised by the
Environmental Health Officer subject to conditions, including a limit on the hours of
construction activities. In terms of operational noise the submitted Environmental
Appraisal refers to a preliminary assessment undertaken in accordance with the
Code of Practice on Environmental Noise at Bacton Terminals which found that
operational noise levels would reduce by 1 to 3dB. This is a consequence of
decommissioning older (in some cases original) plant and machinery and the
replacement with more modern and noise efficient plant.
The improvement of and continued operation of the gas terminal clearly has
important national implications. This is recognised in the Core Strategy with which
this proposal complies. There remain issues raised by the Environment Agency and
National England to be resolved, but subject to this the application is recommended
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the resolution of issues raised by the
Environment Agency and Natural England and to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including those recommended by the Highway Authority and
Environmental Health Officer.
Development Control Committee
6
11 March 2010
3.
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0029 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 46 The
Street, Helhoughton for Mrs S Cox
Target Date: 09 March 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside Policy Area
THE APPLICATION
Erection of single-storey rear extension to a mid-terrace property. The extension
would create an extension to an existing kitchen/dining room and WC/shower room
at ground floor level, measuring approximately 6m wide with a depth of
approximately 1.6m and a maximum height of 3.5m. Materials proposed include tiles
to the roof and timber windows to match existing with walls clad in vertical timber
overlapping board.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wakefield having regard to the following planning issue:
Appropriateness of the materials proposed in relation to the character of surrounding
properties.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the basis that the use of timber cladding would not be an appropriate
material to be used on the extension.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from neighbour on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Materials.
2. Close proximity.
3. Loss of light.
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee
7
11 March 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Helhoughton Countryside policy area and Conservation
Area as designated in the adopted Core Strategy where extensions to existing
dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant Core
Strategy policies.
The single-storey rear extension only requires planning permission because the
extension would be clad in timber. The proposal in all other respects complies with
Section A of the General Permitted Development rights, which would mean that the
applicant could build the proposed extension in materials to match the existing
property without the need to apply for planning permission. In view of this "fall-back"
position the objections on the basis of the close proximity and loss of light to
neighbouring properties are not considered to be sustainable.
In terms of impact on the Conservation Area, whilst the materials proposed on the
building would not match the existing building or surrounding properties, the site is to
the rear of the properties and not visible within the street scene or wider landscape
and would not have any significant impact on the wider Conservation Area. The
extension would be screened to the north by existing outbuildings. (Because of an
administrative error the proposals has had to be re-advertised as it falls within a
Conservation Area.)
Providing the timber is stained in an appropriate colour it is considered that the
extension would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
and be in compliance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
resulting from re-advertisement and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including one requiring details of the external colour finish to be
applied to the timber cladding to be approved prior to its first application to the
timber.
4.
HOLT - PF/09/1127 - Change of Use from B1 (Light Industrial) to A1 (Retail); The
Tithe Barn, Letheringsett Hill, Holt, NR25 6RY for Cley Spy Ltd
Target Date: 05 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Countryside Area
Development Control Committee
8
11 March 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950234- (Full Planning Permission)- Change of use to B1 - light industrial
Approved, 16 May 1995
19950983- (Full Planning Permission)- Change of use from industrial to holiday
accommodation
Withdrawn, 20 Nov 1995
19951425- (Full Planning Permission)- Erection of extension to provide living
accommodation in association with existing workshop
Approved, 21 June 1996
19980317- (Full Planning Permission)- Continued use of barn for a mixed use of B1,
light industrial and A1, retail
Refused, 05 June 1998
20080499- (Full Planning Permission)- Conversion and extension to provide six units
of holiday accommodation
Approved, 28 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to change the use of part of the barn from B1 (light industrial) to A1
(retail). The existing attached residential unit would be retained to the rear as part of
the development.
The retail use would be open to the public 10am-5pm Monday to Saturday and 10am4pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10 Staff would be employed (7 full time
equivalents).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection on the grounds of increased traffic congestion and out of town
development.
CONSULTATIONS
Letheringsett Parish Council - No objection or comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - no
objection providing the imposition of a note advising the applicant that any future
alterations would require Listed Building Consent.
County Council (Highways) - Objection on the grounds of sustainability.
Environmental Health - Given the former/current use of the site, Environmental Health
would like an advisory note added to any approval.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATION
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
9
11 March 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on the form and character of the listed building.
3. Highways on sustainability grounds.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable officers to seek further
information from the applicant on the type of goods to be sold at Tithe Barn, other
than optical equipment.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where proposals for new retail
development are not normally permitted unless they comply with other relevant
Development Plan Policies or there are other material considerations that would
outweigh Development Plan policy.
Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy generally seeks to ensure
that new retail development is located in the Principal and Secondary Settlements
across the District, primarily to maintain the shopping hierarchy and to help maintain
the vitality and viability of these centres. Holt is the closest Principal settlement and is
approximately 700m on foot from the site (to Obelisk Plain).
The applicants are proposing to relocate their existing business, currently selling
optical equipment at Manor Farm Barns, Glandford, because they consider that their
existing observing facility is being compromised by a neighbouring business, which
has also created an increase in airborne dust which can be detrimental to optical
equipment. In respect of the justification for the proposed change of use, whilst
business premises may be available within Holt Town centre, the applicants state that
the nature of the business requires a rural location benefiting from natural light away
from sodium or other street lights to allow customers to choose and compare optical
equipment and the location at Tithe Barn is considered to be ideal in this respect.
In response to this it is considered that the shop is specialist in nature and the scale
of retail use proposed would not be one which would detract from the vitality or
viability of Holt Town Centre. However, if permission were to be granted it would
require the imposition of a specifically worded condition so as to ensure that any
alternative future retail use could be controlled in the interests of ensuring that it
would not have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre of Holt.
Development Control Committee
10
11 March 2010
Since the last meeting, the applicant has submitted further information on the type of
goods that would be sold at Tithe Barn, other than optical equipment. These include:• Accessories relating specifically to optical equipment used for birdwatching to
include tripods, window clamps, tripod carriers and lens care products.
• Paramo Outdoor clothing suited to a variety of outdoor pursuits with certain parts
of the range being particularly suitable for bird/nature observation. Also
complimentary lines to include UPF 50+ hats, insecticide impregnated
socks/walking socks, birdwatching gloves and thermal and camouflaged items.
• Books and maps specifically related to bird and nature observation.
• Educational items for children specifically related to birdwatching.
• Feeders and food for birds and other wildlife.
The proposed goods to be sold are related to bird/wildlife observation. However,
some of the items would normally be expected to be retailed from a town centre
location. Discussions were due to be held with the applicant in order to see whether
appropriate planning conditions can be agreed. Members will be updated orally on
this issue.
The proposal involves the re-use of a rural building for economic purposes. The main
building, which has a prominent elevation facing the A148, is Grade II Listed with the
other adjoining buildings listed as curtilage buildings. The site lies within the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area and it is considered that the building contributes positively
to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would not involve any
alteration to the fabric of the listed building and it is considered that the proposal
would help secure the optimum viable use for the listed building compatible with the
fabric, interior and setting of the building, which has remained vacant for some
considerable time, as well as preserving the appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Highway Authority has raised objections concerning the sustainability of the site
and considers that the remoteness of the site would conflict with the aims of
sustainable development; the need to minimise travel and the ability to reduce the
reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy. It considers
that the site is outside the reasonable walking distance of Holt Town Centre, the
nearest centre of population and that it is unlikely that visitors to a retail use would
walk or cycle from Holt or Letheringsett 0.7km (0.4 miles) away and it would mean
that visitors would need to travel to the site by private car. However, these objections
are raised on the grounds of sustainability and not highway safety.
Planning permission to provide six units of holiday accommodation was granted
under planning permission 20080499. This permission remains valid and capable of
implementation. Given that the site has a valid permission for the conversion to six
units of holiday accommodation which are predicted to generate in the region of 24 to
48 vehicle movements per day, it is unlikely that the proposed retail use would
generate more than this number of daily movements. The applicants predict that on
average they currently have 10 visitors (20 vehicular movements a day), excluding
staff and deliveries. As such unless the number of visitors significantly increases, the
proposals are unlikely to create significant traffic. In any event, the existing Cley Spy
is located at Manor Farm Barns, Glandford which is considerably further from Holt
Town Centre than Tithe Barn.
In summary, it is considered that, on balance, the proposed use would involve
relocation to a more sustainable location and would be likely to involve fewer traffic
movements than the approved holiday use already granted at Tithe Barn. Whilst the
Development Control Committee
11
11 March 2010
general principle of encouraging retail proposals to locate in town centres is
supported, it is considered that, because of the specialist nature and the scale of the
proposal, it would not have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town
Centre nor would it undermine its role as a Principal settlement provided agreement
can be reached on the range/floorspace of goods to be sold.
It is also considered that the desirability of preserving the character and appearance
of the listed building is a significant material consideration and the proposal would
also bring this important Grade II listed building back into a viable use that would be
compatible with the fabric and setting of the building. As such, the proposal is
considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to agreement on conditions
range/floorspace of goods sold in relation to the business.
5.
limiting
the
HOLT - PF/10/0080 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Adjacent 6 Lees Terrace,
New Street for C T Baker Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 22 March 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090775/PF - Demolition of showroom and erection of three-storey studio dwelling
Withdrawn 01/09/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a single-storey lean-to showroom which is attached to the
northern gable end of No. 1 - 6 Lees Terrace and the erection of a three-storey
dwelling, which would measure 3m in width by some 11m in length, with a total floor
area of approximately 63 sq.m.
The dwelling, the principal elevation of which would face north towards No.11 New
Street, would be separated from that property by an access drive leading to shop
premises and would consist of a kitchen, dining room and cloakroom at ground floor
with sitting room leading out onto a roof garden at first floor. To the second floor there
would be a single bedroom and bathroom. The upper floors would be served via a lift
rather than a staircase. The windows to the upper floors, which would include a twostorey bay would be obscure glazed. The dwelling would be of red facing brick
construction under a clay pantile roof with painted timber joinery.
No parking provision is proposed.
An amended plan has been received showing fenestrational changes to the north
elevation including modifications to the bay, the deletion of two windows and changes
to the lift.
Development Control Committee
12
11 March 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant company's Managing Director is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection, however have raised some concerns regarding Health and Safety and
emergency access in the event of the lift failing.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. Loss of light to front facing rooms.
2. The building would overlook dwellings to the east side of New Street.
3. Additional cars/cars would be parked in New Street.
4. New Street is already far to busy, without additional cars having difficulty in
parking.
5. Frosted glass unlikely to be retained.
6. The southern aspect of No.11 New Street would be overlooked.
7. Lift between floors seems to be a hazard.
8. Where would be wheelie bins be placed on collection days.
Letter from Holt and Neighbourhood Housing Society objecting on the grounds that
the development would affect the structural integrity of the northern gable of Less
Terrace.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Due to the site's town centre location no sustainable
objection to the proposal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - The existing
showroom is clearly of limited architectural merit and makes no real contribution to the
Holt Conservation Area. As such, there can be no Conservation and Design
objections to its demolition. There can also be no Conservation and Design opposition
to the principle of some form of redevelopment given it offers the potential for
screening the unfortunate alterations which have taken place on the rear of the Lees
Terrace building.
In terms of the latest scheme submitted, the agent has taken on board criticisms
about the form of the original proposal. Hence, the scheme which would potentially sit
far more comfortably against the neighbouring building and within the street scene.
Whilst aspects of the detailed design have also been improved (e.g. the windows on
the front elevation), there are a couple of areas where the scheme needs to be
improved, namely:1. The windows on the north-facing gable do not stack up particularly well with the
narrow single-light casements sitting uneasily within the area of brickwork. These
either need to be widened to two-light windows (with a horizontal cottage bar inserted)
or turned into blind windows. Either way, the openings would be better topped with
segmental arches rather than the flat (soldier) courses shown. The arches are
considered more appropriate for a side elevation and indeed would match those to be
covered on the Lees Terrace gable.
2. The projecting bay, by virtue of its angular form, lack of apparent support and
boarded cladding would look rather boxy and insubstantial. It requires some more
modelling in the form of support brackets, a plinth or even a splayed form. Again
some glazing bars within the windows would also help and possibly a rendered finish
would be more appropriate given the GF treatment on Lees Terrace.
Development Control Committee
13
11 March 2010
Only with an agreed set of revisions based on the above could we be confident that
the scheme would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Holt
Conservation Area.
Further comments are awaited in respect of the amended plans.
Building Control – Awaiting comments in respect of the amended plans.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – No objection 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):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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 and impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Holt Town Centre as defined by the Core Strategy and is
also within the Holt Conservation Area, where Core Strategy Policies SS 5, EN 4 and
EN 8 are relevant.
Policy SS 5 states that in town centre locations residential
proposals will be permitted where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main
town centre uses located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. Proposals should
also have regard to the integration of public transport in town centres and seek to
provide pedestrian friendly environments.
Development Control Committee
14
11 March 2010
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 require that all development will be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness and that design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of an area
will not be accepted. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should
provide acceptable residential amenity.
Although the existing showroom is situated within the town centre it is not within an
area defined as being a Primary Shopping Area. In the past the showroom was used
in association with the adjacent furniture store accessed off High Street and it has
most recently been used solely for storage purpose. It is not considered that the loss
of the building would adversely affect the viability of the existing business or the
vitality or viability of the wider Holt town centre and therefore, in principle, its
replacement with a residential dwelling is acceptable.
In terms the design of the proposed dwelling it is considered that its overall scale,
massing and palette of materials are acceptable and that a three-storey building with
a north facing gable would sit comfortably against the neighbouring building and
within the street scene. Furthermore the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has indicated that the existing showroom is of limited architectural merit and
makes no real contribution to the Holt Conservation Area. The proposed development
would offer the potential for screening a three-storey flat roofed extension to the rear
of Lees Terrace which, it is considered, currently detracts from the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. However in respect of the treatment of the
window openings and the angular form of the projecting bay, an amended plan has
been received which seeks to address these concerns.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned it is considered that the
property which has the most potential for being affected by the development is No.11
New Street to the north of the site which, whilst having its entrance and parking area
adjacent to the site also has south facing primary and secondary windows 15m from
the north elevation of the proposed dwelling. The properties to the eastern side of
New Street, which form part of a two-storey Victorian terrace have secondary
windows at first floor facing the highway. Whilst it is accepted that the development
would fall short of this basic amenity criterion, given the fact that it is proposed that
the windows facing directly towards No. 11 would be obscure glazed and the windowto-window distances between the proposed dwelling and properties to the east side of
New Street would be similar to other properties in this street it is not considered that
there would be sufficient justification to refuse the application on amenity grounds.
Although the proposal does not provide for any vehicular parking, the minimum
requirement being 1.5 spaces, Policy CT 6 allows for a reduction is the standard
parking requirements in town centres where there are sufficient local services, where
there is access to acceptable levels of public transport or where within a Conservation
Areas the proposal would result in an improved building design which enhances the
character of the built environment. In this case whilst it is accepted that at the present
time there is an under-provision of car parking within Holt, it is well served by public
transport and local services. In addition it is considered that the development would
enhance this part of the town centre. As such it is considered that the lack of car
parking would provide insufficient grounds to justify refusal of the application,
particularly since the Highway Authority have raised no objection.
It is therefore considered that, although there are deficiencies in the scheme in that it
does not fully accord with Development Plan policy in terms of compliance with the
basic amenity criteria subject to the amended plans being considered acceptable by
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager approval is recommended.
Development Control Committee
15
11 March 2010
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to further comments from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Building Control Manager
on the amended plans and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
HOVETON - PO/09/1244 - Erection of C2 (care home), neurological unit and 24
residential with care apartments; Tilia Business Centre, Tunstead Road,
Hoveton for Tilia Business Park Ltd
Major Development - Target Date: 19 March 2010
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for three related elements for which details of access, siting and
landscaping are applied for at this stage. They comprise the following:
1. An 80 bed-high dependency dementia care home. The building (two-storey) is
designed as two linked square blocks each built around a central enclosed garden
area.
2. A detached building in two blocks (part two/part three-storey with a single-storey
link) to house 24 'extra care' apartments. It is stated that these are intended for
people over 55 years of age (plus partners) who have been medically diagnosed with
a permanent illness or disability and who are in need of regular personal care. (The
agent has clarified that these apartments are not intended as unrestricted retirement
accommodation and residents would have to commit to subscribe to at least the basic
car package operated by the adjoining care home.)
3. A 7 bed specialist neurological unit in the form of two detached single-storey
buildings. These would share facilities with the care home.
The site occupies a currently vacant area of land (1.5ha approximately) adjoining and
part of an established industrial estate. Access to the proposed facility is to use (and
partially re-align) the route of an existing track which skirts around the eastern side of
industrial/warehousing buildings and via the existing unadopted road which serves
the industrial estate onto Tunstead Road. Plans submitted with the application
include the widening of the main access road from Tunstead Road to 6.0m and
additional footway provision. An amended plan has been submitted indicating
alterations to a section of Tunstead Road with a view to improving visibility at the
access junction. A total of 54 car parking spaces are referred to on the submitted site
layout plan.
Accompanying the application are the following documents:
Supporting Statement.
Design and Access Statement.
Statement of Community Involvement.
Need Case.
Commercial Viability Report.
Transportation and Highway Appraisal.
Interim Travel Plan
Development Control Committee
16
11 March 2010
Flood Risk Assessment.
Land Contamination Report.
Tree Report.
Comparative height drawings/plans of development with adjoining buildings
(illustrative).
Site marketing details.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Dixon, in view of the complexity of planning issues
involved and concerns expressed by the Parish Council and following a site visit by
the Committee on 25 February.
PARISH COUNCIL
Appreciates that there is a growing need for dementia care, but does not consider this
site suitable for purpose. Objects for the following reasons:
1. Impact on local residential amenity (loss of privacy/noise disturbance).
2. Site contamination.
3. Traffic generation and car parking provision.
4. Serious highway safety issues.
(See full comments in Appendix 2)
Requests Committee site visit.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty-seven letters received from local residents plus a letter from Broadland High
School (on behalf of governing body), raising the following grounds of objections and
concerns:
1. Contrary to employment allocation in Core Strategy.
2. Inappropriate use of employment land.
3. 'Short-termism'.
4. Wrong place for a care home adjoining industrial development.
5. Residents would experience noise and pollution.
6. Excessive height.
7. Detrimental to nearby residents in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, light
pollution, noise and disturbance (24/7).
8. Too large/overdevelopment.
9. Unrestrictive Class C2 use would allow unsuitable residents in the area.
10. Drainage problems.
11. Applicant's case against suitability of light industrial use on site challenged.
12. Unsuitable and unsafe access from Tunstead Road.
13. School entrance immediately opposite site access.
14. Unsafe for pedestrians.
15. Traffic noise to residents.
16. Site needs alternative access.
17. Land contamination.
18. Planning Committee should visit site at school leaving times.
A letter from the agent referring to the amended access plan, employment
considerations, recently published Government policy (PPS 4) and the proposed
Travel Plan is attached in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions requiring investigation, assessment
and subsequent treatment of land contamination prior to the start of any development
on the site; together with details of any ventilation/extract equipment from the
development, as well as an assessment of noise from the existing industrial estate
and subsequent measures to protect the development from such noise.
Development Control Committee
17
11 March 2010
County Council (Highways) - Recommends that planning permission is refused on
grounds that the additional vehicular movements resulting from the proposal at the
junction of the access with Tunstead Road, which has severely restricted levels of
visibility, would be detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore the additional vehicle
movements engendered from the proposal would result in additional vehicular conflict
in close proximity to the access to Broadland High School. (See full comments in
Appendix 2). Further comments on the amended plan awaited.
By separate letter the County Council has accepted as satisfactory the Interim Travel
Plan submitted with the application.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions regarding surface water
drainage and land decontamination.
Anglian Water - Recommends informative advice regarding drainage on any planning
permission.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Refers to the loss of
certain trees and a hedgerow, which will need to be compensated for by re-planting
as part of a landscaping scheme.
Concerned that the three-storey 'extra care flats' will be highly visible from
countryside views to the west of Hoveton and are likely to eliminate an existing green
backdrop currently provided by mature trees along the northern boundary of the site.
Until more details are provided in terms of a Visual Impact Assessment concludes
that the assumed impact of the development is sufficiently detrimental to the
character of the area and as such does not comply with Policy EN 2 of the Core
Strategy.
If permission is to be granted, appropriate conditions should be in place to protect the
trees and biodiversity of the site. A more detailed landscaping scheme will be
required and a five year maintenance plan.
Comments on the further landscape impact details awaited.
Planning Policy Manager - Points out that the proposal is a departure from Core
Strategy Policy SS 5 and therefore any decision to approve should be justified by
reference to material considerations of sufficient weight to support such a departure.
Any question of the land not being likely to be developed for its allocated uses should
be afforded limited weight in view of the fact that the Core Strategy and supply of
employment land have only recently been adopted. The Strategy requires a long term
approach to the retention of employment land and caution should be applied to the
development of such land for alternative uses. Furthermore, there are only limited
opportunities for employment development in Hoveton and the application site is a
significant proportion of this supply of land.
Nevertheless the proposal does appear to offer significant employment opportunities,
possibly more so than many alternative uses which would comply with policy.
The Core Strategy identifies a likelihood of a need for enhanced services, particularly
health care for the elderly. In this respect the proposal is generally welcomed.
However other sites are/could be available to accommodate the proposed use
without the need to develop employment land.
A previous Development Brief for the employment allocation put forward improved
access arrangements for the whole of this employment allocation. It would be
regrettable if further 'piecemeal' development were permitted without resolving this
longstanding issue.
On balance it is considered that the employment benefits associated with this
proposal are sufficient to justify a departure from Policy SS 5.
Development Control Committee
18
11 March 2010
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Recommends condition requiring submission of details to
comply with Policy EN 6 in respect of at least 10% of the energy supply of the
development to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy
sources.
County Council (Adult Social Services) - Does not support the proposed provision of
a dementia care home. Whilst there is a general shortage of dementia care homes
places across Norfolk, this does not appear to be the case in the Hoveton area. The
location of the site through an industrial estate is of concern. Acknowledges need for
housing with care but questions the suitability of this being provided on land
immediately adjacent to an industrial estate (see 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):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 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 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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Departure from Core Strategy (Employment land) Policy.
2. Employment generation.
3. Need for the facility.
4. Suitability of site for proposed use.
5. Residential amenity.
6. Landscape impact
7. Access/highway safety.
8. Land contamination.
Development Control Committee
19
11 March 2010
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises land at the northern end of an established industrial
estate. The estate, formally known as the Norfolk Fruitgrowers site (a previous
longstanding business for the storage, processing and packaging of soft fruits) is now
used primarily for warehousing and by a boat building company. A small garden
centre also occupies the site.
The area proposed for the new residential care facility forms a plateau of land at a
slightly higher level than the remaining industrial estate. Although now completely
cleared, it has been previously used for a variety of uses including the storage of fruit
boxes, an aggregate business, boat storage and sales.
The site forms part of a larger area of land (in differing ownerships) designated in the
recently adopted Core Strategy as an Employment Area. This designation was
carried forward from the previous Local Plan. (A small part of the application site is on
adjacent garden land which is part of a designated residential area.) The employment
designation has a southern boundary onto Horning Road, the Norwich railway line
forms the western boundary and residential properties border its northern and eastern
boundaries. The principal (northern) boundary of the application site backs on to the
rear gardens to a row of bungalows (Two Saints Close).
Policy SS 5 states that in Employment Areas only employment generating proposals
falling within Use Classes B1 (Light Industry/Offices), B2 (Industry) and B8
(Warehousing) will be permitted. The proposal is clearly contrary to this policy and as
such represents a departure from the Development Plan. In accordance with Section
70(2) of the Town and Country Act 1990, the application should be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
The case put forward on behalf of the applicants in support of the proposal is that
there is a need for a care facility of this type; it would potentially create more
employment than B1, B2 or B8 uses (predicted at almost 100 skilled and unskilled
jobs); that previous marketing of the site has failed to attract commercial interest; and
that the proposed use would be a better 'neighbour' to adjacent residential properties
than B1, B2 or B8 uses.
A 20 page document submitted with the application addresses the need case for the
proposed facility. It explains issues around dementia and design considerations for a
facility of this type. It refers to the above average and increasing elderly population in
Norfolk and the resulting predicted increase in people suffering from dementia.
Reference is made to discussions with representatives of Social Services and the
Health Authorities and the implied support for a facility of this type.
Members will however note the response received from Norfolk County Adult Social
Services (Appendix 2) in which they do not support the proposal on grounds of need
and location. In view of this it is not considered that any argument in terms of 'need' is
a sufficient material consideration in itself which should outweigh Development Plan
policy in this case. Members will note from the agent's letter (Appendix 2), that it is
their intention to challenge the comments made by Norfolk County Adult Social
Services. Members will be updated of any such response at the committee meeting.
Notwithstanding that the proposed development is contrary to Core Strategy policy
and the site's specific designation, it will result in employment generation, a fact
acknowledged in the comments of the Planning Policy Manager (above). The agent
also refers to the recently published Planning Policy Statement 4; Planning for
Development Control Committee
20
11 March 2010
Sustainable Economic Growth, and points out that the policies therein are material to
this application (agent's letter in Appendix 2). PPS 4 states that local planning
authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning
applications for economic development and that applications which secure
sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. Where applications for
economic development are not in accordance with an up to date development plan
(as in this case) local planning authorities should weigh market and other economic
information alongside environmental and social information; take full account of any
longer term benefits; and consider whether the proposals meet the wider objectives of
the development plan.
To a certain extent it can be argued that the policy advice in PPS 4 gives weight in
favour of allowing a development of this type on the site in view of the jobs which
would be created. However such weight would only apply to the care home and
neurological unit. It does not apply in the case of the proposed 24 apartments. Whilst
residents of these apartments may subscribe to some of the services provided by the
care home, they are nevertheless primarily considered to be residential apartments in
their own right. PPS 4 states clearly that its policies do not apply to housing
development.
Furthermore it should be appreciated that the designation of employment land serves
two principle purposes. Firstly it reserves land in specific locations which are suitable
for uses which might otherwise be difficult to accommodate on other sites (industrial
development) and secondly it contributes towards the jobs target of the Regional Plan
and Core Strategy. Therefore notwithstanding the job creation benefits associated
with this proposal it is nevertheless important to consider the contribution the site
makes, or might make, towards maintaining a sufficient quantity/quality of industrial
land. It is not sufficient to conclude that the proposal creates jobs and therefore is
acceptable.
Many of the representations received, as well as the response from Norfolk County
Council Adult Social Services, question the suitability of the site, given its location at
the rear of an industrial estate, for a residential use of this type. Whilst the site
borders residential development on one side, and is on a slightly higher level than the
existing industrial/warehousing buildings, it is nevertheless closely related to these
latter buildings. Moreover the access to the site part shares and in part skirts closely
around the industrial/warehousing buildings. It is considered that this relationship is
far from ideal, particularly as the proposal involves a form of development in which
some residents will be at liberty to move freely to and from the site. This aspect
further questions the appropriateness of allowing an exception to Development Plan
Policy in this case.
Although concerns have been expressed by adjoining residents of Two Saints Close
regarding the physical impact of the development upon their amenities (scale,
overlooking, lighting, disturbance etc.), this relationship is considered acceptable. The
proposed siting and layout implies that first floor windows will face towards these
properties, but the distance (30-40m property to property) easily complies with the
Council's Design Guide for such relationships. Furthermore an existing earth bund,
together with existing and proposed landscaping along the dividing boundary would
mitigate any significant impacts. The applicants have also submitted illustrative
viewpoints from Two Saints Close which appear to demonstrate the acceptability of
this relationship.
Development Control Committee
21
11 March 2010
The site is located on the western edge of Hoveton and the development would be
potentially visible from the adjoining countryside. Members will note the concerns
raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of the
proposed three-storey height 'extra care' apartments. In the absence of evidence to
prove the contrary, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that
this element would not accord with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy EN 2. The
applicant has since submitted illustrative drawings to demonstrate the landscape
impact of the development and the further comments of the landscape officer will be
reported at the meeting.
Access to the site is proposed via the existing roadway which serves the northern
part of the employment allocation. By current standards the access and in particular
its junction with Tunstead Road is clearly sub-standard. In 1997 a Development Brief
for the whole of the Employment designation was approved by the then District
Council Development Committee. The brief referred to this access in the following
terms: "The accessway meets Tunstead Road directly opposite a school causing
potential conflict with school users. It also passes through a group of private
residential dwellings giving rise to potentially adverse environmental impact for the
occupiers. It is not suitable to cater for significant additional development. Minor
developments that did not increase traffic on the access may be acceptable".
The brief went on to say that "in order for the whole site to be developed to its full
potential it will be essential to provide suitable safe and environmentally acceptable
access into the site from the public highway. The only opportunity available for
achieving this access is through the frontage of the site onto Horning Road". Whilst
the brief is now some 13 years old, the access constraints that it refers to are still
pertinent today.
Members inspected the access in detail at the site visit and will note the objection to
this proposal from the Highway Authority (Appendix 2). This is based upon the substandard visibility available at the Tunstead Road junction, its position opposite the
entrance to Broadland High School, and the consequent hazards that the additional
traffic movements associated with the proposed development would have upon users
of the highway. The further comments by the Highway Authority in respect of the
amended plan will be reported orally.
The case put forward by the applicants (elaborated in their Transportation and
Highway Appraisal) is that the amended plan will overcome visibility problems and by
virtue of the nature of the proposed use, shift patterns etc, the amount of increased
traffic caused by the development will be relatively low and dispersed at different
times of the day. The agent also refers to the fact that the County Council has
accepted as satisfactory the submitted 'Interim' Travel Plan. This essentially explains
the broad measures which will be taken forward in a Full Travel Plan should
permission be granted. The measures would involve the encouragement of a range of
alternative means of travel to and from the facility (essentially for staff) as opposed to
individual use of the private car.
Finally a number of residents have raised concerns about land contamination, but
Members will note that the Environmental Health Officer considers this can be
resolved by a planning condition.
In conclusion, there need to be good reasons to allow a development of this type
contrary to adopted Core strategy policy. Bearing in mind the comments of Norfolk
County Council Adult Social Services, the need case for a facility of this type is not
considered sufficient in itself to justify a departure from policy. The employment
Development Control Committee
22
11 March 2010
generated by the care home is a material consideration to be taken into account,
however the application needs to be assessed in its entirety. The 24 residential
apartments which comprise a significant part of the overall proposal are considered 'a
step too far' in terms of the policy advice contained in PPS 4 and to justify a departure
from adopted Core Strategy policy. Furthermore there are concerns regarding the
appropriateness of residential development of this type adjacent to and sharing an
access with the existing industrial estate, the visual impact of three-storey
development and there is an objection raised by the Highway Authority. In view of
these factors refusal is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal (subject to the further comments of the Highway Authority and
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager) on grounds that the proposal is
contrary to Development Plan policies in relation to the site's employment
designation, the relationship of the proposed development with adjoining
industrial/warehousing development, landscape impact and highway safety.
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0126 - Conversion of Redundant Shop to Dwelling;
Barber's Shop to rear of 22 Station Road for Museum Cottages
Target Date: 01 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Rural Buildings
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070155 – (Full Planning Permission) – Conversion of museum into six residential
dwellings
Approved, 03 Apr 2007
20070989 – (Full Planning Permission) – Alterations to building to provide bin store
Approved, 20 July 2007
20081228 – (Full Planning Permission) – Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin store
Refused, 21 Sep 2009
20091140 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling
Refused, 27 Jan 2010
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks to convert a building, formerly in A1 retail use, into a one-bed
dwelling. The works would involve substantial alteration, including raising the eaves
height by approximately 0.5m and amending the pitch to provide a room in the roof.
The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 31sq.m.
A dormer window is proposed on the south elevation and is to be obscurely glazed.
Development Control Committee
23
11 March 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Bevan Jones having regard to the following planning
reason:
Impact of the development on the surrounding area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly object on the following grounds:
1. As previously stated there is a breach of a condition which has been placed on the
original planning permission for the Museum Cottages regarding bin storage.
2. Overdevelopment of the site creating a substandard dwelling.
3. Impact on the Tree of Heaven.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received at the time of writing the report on the following
grounds (summarised):
1. Amenity area indicated to the south of the application building is not in the
ownership of the applicant.
2. Overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns in
relation to this proposal therefore I have no comments to make.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – The conversion of the
barbers shop will not have a significant impact on the landscape of the area.
The Tree of Heaven has high amenity value and a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
has been served to protect the tree.
The Arboricultural Methodology Statement submitted with the application has
considered the importance of the tree and the implications of the development. This
methodology statement should be a condition of planning so that the tree is properly
protected during construction.
Any future possible conflicts between the building and the tree can be managed via
the TPO process.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
existing building is of fairly functional appearance and contributes little to the
appearance and character of this part of Sheringham’s Conservation Area. Whilst it
could be argued that it would be better to demolish it and open up views of the former
museum building behind, the proposed conversion does present an opportunity for
localised enhancement.
In terms of design, the re-profiling of the gable and the raising of the roof would
create a far better proportioned building. The glazed entrance with dormer above
should also be a more attractive feature than the existing casement with its night vent
(although some more detail would need to be sought on the dormer fascia and
obscure glazing if the scheme were to be approved).
Materials-wise, the building is currently faced with a mixture of unsightly, substandard
modern materials. As a result, a more coherent boarded approach covering these up
is to be welcomed. With a light painted finish, the whole appearance of the building
could be potentially lifted.
In offering these comments, I am obviously mindful of the other amenity/overdevelopment issues.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – This application complies with Policy EN 6 based on the
information supplied in the Sustainable Construction Checklist. Therefore subject to
conditions ensuring conversion in accordance with the Checklist, there is no
objection to the proposal.
Development Control Committee
24
11 March 2010
County Council (Highways) - As with the previous application for this site, I am
satisfied that there would be no adverse highway impact as a result of this proposed
development. Therefore in relation to highways issues only, notice is hereby given
that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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 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 residential development in this location.
2. Impact on neighbours' amenity.
3. Impact on the form and character of the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on trees.
5. Highway safety.
6. Waste disposal.
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site following refusal of a similar scheme, which
included rooflights on the southern elevation, in January 2010 (20091140). The
application was refused on grounds of overlooking.
The site is located within the town centre and primary shopping area of Sheringham
within which the principle of a residential dwelling is considered acceptable under
Policy SS 5, provided that the proposal would not result in the loss of shops or other
main town centre uses and subject to satisfactory compliance with adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy policies.
In this case, whilst the building may have been used as a shop in the past, this use
has long ceased and permission has already been granted for non-retail use.
Application 20070989 permitted use of the building as a bin store for the adjacent
Development Control Committee
25
11 March 2010
Museum Cottages, which were permitted to be converted to six one bed dwellings
with no amenity space (20070155). Whilst the permission to convert the Museum
Cottages to dwellings has been implemented, the proposal to convert the barbers
shop has not been implemented to date.
The site is located to the rear of No.22 Station Road and the plan indicates that the
only windows serving the proposed dwelling would be in the southern and western
elevations. It is the southern elevation only where first floor windows are proposed
and whilst the windows would look towards the rear garden of Nos.28-30 Station
Road which is currently open to public view, the applicant has modified the design of
the dormer window to include obscure glazing, thereby limiting the potential of
overlooking. On balance, given that the proposed windows in the first floor would be
secondary windows and the limited number of windows in adjoining properties would
achieve compliance with the basic amenity criteria, it is considered that the proposal
would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the
adjoining properties.
The existing building is barely visible from Station Road, hidden as it is by the flat
roofed extension relating to the electrical shop at 22 Station Road. The building has
been significantly altered and its current condition could not be said to contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal
would significantly alter the form and character of the existing building, most notably
in respect of height, the introduction of additional windows and proposed re-cladding
of the building in timber. However, subject to appropriate detailing and choice of
external materials, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the appearance
of the building and preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Within the garden of a neighbouring property to the north of the site is a Tree of
Heaven, whose canopy spreads out above the application building. Raising the roof
and/or the potential need to rebuild the structure and provide new footings could
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree, which is protected by virtue of its location in
the Conservation Area. In addition a Tree Preservation Order has now been served
on the tree. However, the applicant has submitted an arboricultural Method
Statement and it is therefore considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, the proposal would not pose a threat to the longevity of the tree and
would be acceptable.
In respect of parking provision, Policy CT 6 requires an average of 1.5 vehicle
parking spaces for a 1-bed property, although in designated town centres the
standard may be reduced if justified by improved accessibility and/or to enhance a
Conservation Area. The applicant is not proposing to provide any parking. Clearly
the site is very well located in terms of access to shops and services and rail and bus
services are situated within 500m of the site. The Highway Authority has confirmed
that there are no highway safety implications and that they would have no objection.
Given the small size of the property and the views of the Highway Authority, it is not
considered that refusal on highway safety grounds could be substantiated.
In respect of the bin storage area, it is unclear where the occupiers of Museum
Cottages are storing their bins as the permission for this building as a bin store for
Museum Cottages has never been implemented, but Environmental Health has
raised no objection to the proposal.
The applicant has indicated that the area to the south of the building is to be
enclosed by a small wall to create a small amenity area (which would create a
suitable area for the storage of bins for the application dwelling). However the owner
Development Control Committee
26
11 March 2010
of the land in question has objected, advising that the only land in the ownership of
the applicant is the building. No land around the building is owned by the applicant.
Further information and comments are awaited from the applicant in this respect.
In summary, the principle of a dwelling in this location is acceptable, there would be
no significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and
subject to the use of appropriate external materials, the proposal would enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are no significant
concerns regarding the impact on the adjacent tree and there are no highway safety
implications. As such, the proposal would comply with Development Plan policy.
The proposal is considered to have overcome the sole reason for refusing the
previous application. Subject to clarification of the land ownership issue approval is
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to clarification of the land ownership issue and to
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
WITTON - PF/10/0019 - Conversion of Redundant Agricultural Buildings to One
Dwelling and Two Units of Holiday Accommodation; Barns at Mill Common
House, Mill Common Road for Mr Pugh
Minor Development - Target Date: 15 March 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061609 PF
Change of Use of Barns to Three Units of Holiday Accommodation
Approved 12/12/2006
PLA/19981677 PF
Conversion of Part of Agricultural Buildings into Three Holiday Units
Approved 27/01/1999
PLA/19931628 PF
Conversion of Part Agricultural Buildings into Three Holiday Units
Approved 24/03/1994
THE APPLICATION
To convert a group of single storey brick flint and pantile barns to a single dwelling
and two holiday dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Mrs Walker having regard to the following planning
issues:
Conflict between refusal of planning permission and support for tourism.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections - fully supports this project.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of support from North Norfolk Business Forum and Norfolk Tourist attractions
association.
Development Control Committee
27
11 March 2010
Letter of support from the applicant's physiotherapist confirming the reasons for her
need for single-storey accommodation and another from a nearby resident
supporting the opportunity to create a permanent new dwelling in the village so as to
contribute to village life in a way that holiday units do not.
Supporting statement from applicant's agent is attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle. Recommends conditions
requiring provision of parking and turning area and visibility splay prior to the
occupation of the buildings.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Request condition requiring archaeological building
recording.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Notes that the
proposal would involve loss of roosts of brown long eared and pipistrelle bats of low
conservation significance. No objections provided appropriate compensation,
mitigation and enhancement measures as specified in the submitted protected
species survey are implemented.
Sustainability Team - Proposal partially complies with EN 6 - recommends standard
condition.
Happisburgh Parish Council - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
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).
Saved North Norfolk Local Plan
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of permanent dwelling in the countryside.
2. Extent to which applicant's personal circumstances should outweigh policy
considerations.
Development Control Committee
28
11 March 2010
APPRAISAL
The application is well outside any town or service village and is therefore subject to
countryside policies. The principle of converting the buildings to holiday units has
been agreed with previous applications from 1993 onwards and the principle of
conversion to holiday units would still comply in principle with current Policy EC 2.
The barns are an attractive group of buildings in a traditional courtyard layout and the
proposed conversion could be achieved with relatively little re-building or extension.
The submitted proposals incorporate two elements of new build - one on the east
side to link a detached garage to the main building, and another within the southern
courtyard to create an access and glazed circulation area. Neither would have any
significant damaging impact on the character or setting of the buildings
A submitted wildlife survey reveals that the barns are used by brown long eared bats
for foraging and roosting and for foraging by pipistrelles (which probably roost in the
adjoining house). Another four bat species were recorded foraging around the barn
complex. Subject to appropriate mitigation as recommended in the survey it is not
considered that the proposed conversion would be damaging to wildlife interests.
The proposed use is for two holiday units and one permanent dwelling. One of the
holiday units is designed to be wheelchair accessible, and this is clearly to be
welcomed and would comply with the advice supporting Policy HO 2 of the Core
Strategy. The other holiday unit would be to a standard specification, whilst the third
unit is proposed to be for permanent residential use. It is this latter element of the
proposal that conflicts with Core Strategy policy. EC 2 does not allow conversion for
permanent residential use, and 'saved' Local Plan Policy 29 would only allow
permanent residential use in locations which were within or adjacent to the former
Local Plan development boundaries. The site is not within such an area.
The agent's supporting statement suggests that the permanent residential conversion
would comply with most of the criteria in the emerging changes to the barn
conversion policy. Apart from the issue of the degree of weight which should be
attached to an unexamined draft policy, the proposal fails to comply with the key
locational criterion contained in the draft policy. The draft policy proposals map
identifies the zones around the major settlements which are considered to be
sustainable locations for permanent residential use. The application site is not within
such a zone.
As the supporting statement makes clear there are personal circumstances which the
agents suggest justify the grant of permission in this case. The applicant and his wife
occupy the adjoining house where they currently offer bed and breakfast
accommodation. However Mrs Pugh's health issues mean that she has difficulty with
stairs and will require single-storey accommodation in the future. The applicant
wishes to remain in the area and continue to offer holiday accommodation. The
proposal would provide two holiday units together with permanent residential
accommodation to allow the applicant to supervise the holiday units.
Whilst having every sympathy for the applicant's personal circumstances it is not
considered that this is an issue which should outweigh the current, and probable
future, presumption against the conversion of buildings to dwellings in the remoter,
less sustainable parts of the District. In view of the serious precedent that would be
created, refusal has to be strongly recommended in this case.
Development Control Committee
29
11 March 2010
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with saved Policy 29, with
Policy EC 2 and with the emerging replacement Policy HO 9 by reason of the
proposed permanent residential use of a barn in an unsustainable rural
location.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CORPUSTY - PF/09/0906 - Use of Land for Siting Timber Dwelling for
Supervisor of Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit; Woodfruits, Locks
Farm Road, Corpusty for Mr Den Engelse
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control for East
Members who have not seen the site in order to expedite proceedings and for
Members to appreciate the details of the proposal.
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order to
expedite proceedings and for Members to appreciate the route that the cable will
take, to look at proposed compound locations, directional drill sites and areas where
objections have been raised particularly in the Parishes of Kelling, Bayfield, Brinton,
Bale, Thursford, Croxton/Fulmodeston, Little Ryburgh and Great Ryburgh.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - AN/09/1104 - Display of Non-illuminated Direction Sign;
Erpingham Post Office and Service Station Norwich Road for Martin Service
Station Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BACTON - PF/10/0018 - Change of Use From Residential to Ancillary Church
Use; The Baptist Church Manse, Walcott Road for Beacon Community Church
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
30
11 March 2010
BACTON - PF/10/0024 - Sub-division of dwelling and annexe to provide 2
separate dwellings; 2 Eden Hall Cottages, North Walsham Road for Ms J Elliott
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/09/1231 - Erection of first floor side extension and front
dormer windows; Pennygate House, Pennygate Lane for Mr and Mrs R Plummer
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1267 - Erection of single-storey extension; Byways, High
Street for Mr D Loose
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - LA/09/1261 - Demolition of flat-roofed extension and erection of
entrance lobby and internal alterations to ground and first floor; Home Farm,
Dereham Road for Harold Jones Farms Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
CATFIELD - PF/09/1201 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension with
Accommodation on Roof-Space and Extension to Garage; Gladen, Ludham
Road for Mr R Skipper
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/09/1218 - Erection of single-storey extension; Little
Cottage, The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs J H Crawford
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/08/1684 - Erection of Single-Storey
Replacement Dwelling; Salween, Norwich Road for Mr Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/1260 - Erection of single-storey side
extension; New Haven, Irmingland Road for Mr and Mrs Haynes
(Householder application)
CROMER - PM/09/0826 - Erection of Thirteen Single-Storey Dwellings; Land at
Burnt Hills for Messrs A G Brown
(Reserved Matters)
CROMER - PF/09/0893 - Erection of 15 Metre 6.5Kw Wind Turbine; New Police
ODB, Land Adjacent N.N.D.C, Holt Road for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PO/09/1230 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land at Cliff
Drive, Cromer for Mr M Platten
(Outline Planning Permission)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/09/1251 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Field Barn, off Holt Road for East Beckham Produce
Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/09/1274 - Subdivision of dwelling to create one unit of
holiday accommodation and conversion of agricultural buildings to three
further units of holiday accommodation; Manor Farm, Sheringham Road for
East Beckham Produce Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
31
11 March 2010
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1255 - Variation of Condition 5 of 20090138 to permit
occupation of the dwellings prior to issue of the Code for Sustainable Homes
Final Certificate; 17 Smiths Lane for Mr and Mrs James-Allison
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0007 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 4 Elizabeth
Avenue for Mr B Webster
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/0034 - Erection of detached garage; The Sheiling, Beacon
Road for Mr N Armstrong
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/09/1242 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
101 Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs N Roberts
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/09/1228 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Church House, Field Dalling Road for Mrs
A Vaughan-Jones
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - PF/09/1233 - Erection of detached garage with first floor storage;
Orchard House, The Common for Mr M Lewin
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/09/1245 - Erection of extension; Smallsticks Barn Cafe,
Cart Gap Road for Mr M Ferguson
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/0005 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent to
Cleveland Cottage, Beach Road for Exors of E D Mason (Deceased)
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - NP/10/0054 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Land at Willow Farm, Stubb Road for Mr J Tallowin
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HINDRINGHAM - PF/09/1225 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and a micro brewery; The Grange Farm, Harvest Lane, for
Agricultural & Commercial Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PM/09/1219 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Plot 4, 8 Kelling Road for
Character Homes Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
HOLT - PF/10/0001 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; 38 Cley Road for Mr R Rogers
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/10/0020 - Erection of Attached Garage/Car Port; Hoveton Lodge,
Horning Road West for Mr and Mrs Landamore
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
32
11 March 2010
INGWORTH - PF/09/1226 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey side extension;
Blue Cedar Cottage, West End for Mr and Mrs A Steed
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/09/1257 - Demolition of open barn
and alterations to three barns; Hall Farm, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs R Carter
(Listed Building Alterations)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/09/1256 - Alterations to barns; Hall
Farm, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs R Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/09/1265 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Manor
Farm, Thursford Road for Mr and Mrs J Tarry
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/09/1188 - Erection of conservatory; Morston Hall, The Street for
Mr and Mrs G Blackiston
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0028 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 91
Cromer Road for Mrs B A Talbot
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/09/1171 - Erection of two dwelling houses and four
flats; Land at Black Swan Loke for Mr C Elliott
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1234 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
habitable accommodation; The Old Forge, 45 Manor Road, White Horse
Common for Mr Cohen
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/09/1223 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Eastholme, Bridge Road for Mr D Arnold
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/10/0004 - Erection of boundary walls and garden shed; The
Greyhound, The Street for Mr and Mrs C Currell
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - NP/10/0037 - Prior notification of intention to construct slurry
lagoon; Stableyard Farm for Raynham Farm Company Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
ROUGHTON - PF/09/1248 - Erection of storage shed and paying shed; Land at
Carr Lane for Mr P Cole
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1247 - Erection of rear conservatory; 32 Barford Road for
Mr M Padfield
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
33
11 March 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1273 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Sweet
Briar, Meadow Way for Mrs D Hyslop
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/09/1237 - Erection of Single-Storey Extensions; 12 Sandy
Lane for Mr S Reynolds
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/09/1199 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A3
(restaurant) and A5 (hot food take-away); Units 8 and 4 Archway Shopping
Centre, Upper Staithe Road for Mr R Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0079 - Variation of Condition 5(iii) of 09/0908 to enable
building to be constructed without specific U-value targets; Land adjacent
Clippons Rond, Yarmouth Road for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/09/1258 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at
Sculthorpe Airfield for Robinson Farms (Carbrooke) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/09/1238 - Formation of four additional touring caravan
pitches; Poppyland Touring Park, The Green for Poppyland Touring Park
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/09/1262 - Installation of external extract ducting; The Crown
Public House, Front Street for George Bateman & Son Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0015 - Erection of replacement garage; The Manor House,
Brewery Road for Mr J Mason
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/09/1117 - Erection of Two-Storey and Single-Storey Side and
Front Extensions; 3 Ostend Cottages, Ostend Road for Mrs Temple
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/1034 - Erection of Two-Storey Extension,
Alterations to Garage to Provide Habitable Accommodation and Widening of
Vehicular Access; Ilex House, Bases Lane for Mrs Osborne
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/1055 - Erection of Two-Storey and Single-Storey
Extensions and Alterations to Garage; Ilex House, Bases Lane for Mrs Osborne
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/09/1263 - Erection of extension to garages; The
Malthouse, Long Lane for Mr S Randall
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - LA/10/0016 - Enlargement of Internal Opening and Removal of Fire
Place; Crabbe Castle Farm, Crabbe Road for Mr and Mrs Brittain
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
34
11 March 2010
WORSTEAD - PF/09/1150 - Conversion of coach house to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Lyngate House, Honing Road, Lyngate for Mrs R Hitchens
(Full Planning Permission)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FULMODESTON - PF/09/1086 - Change of Use from Residential/A1 Retail to
Residential; 2 Croxton Road for Mrs H Harman
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1126 - Retention of 1.8m Boundary Fence; 15 Legrice
Crescent for Mr D Gotts
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/0566 – Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Garage and
Stable Block; Eagle Farm, The Street for Mr W G Wright
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS SHORT PROCEDURE
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling and Relocation of Bin-Store; Barber’s Shop to Rear 22, Station Road
for Museum Cottages
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker Drive
for Newhall Properties Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 16 February 2010
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 April 2010
Development Control Committee
35
11 March 2010
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One-and-a-Half-Storey Side Extension;
73, Norwich Road for Mrs Rose
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road for Mrs Buxton
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 – Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling and Relocation of Bin-Store; Barber’s Shop to Rear 22, Station Road
for Museum Cottages
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including New
Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Jolly
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
HOLT - PF/09/0053 - Use of Land for Siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk
Railway, Holt Station, Cromer Road for Miss Jones
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
36
11 March 2010