OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 12 JUNE 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMFOR DECISION
1.
CROMER PF/13/1521 – Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for Crematoria
Management Ltd
Background
The application came before the Development Committee on 17 April 2014 where it
was resolved unanimously:
1. That consideration of this application be deferred to allow
discussions with the applicant in respect of landscaping and
highways.
2. That a further meeting be arranged between the applicant and the
developer of the woodland burial site to explore opportunities for a
joint scheme with a view to bringing both applications back to the
Committee to be discussed together.
3. Regardless of the outcome of 2 above, that both applications (the
woodland burial proposal and the crematorium proposal) are
reported back to Committee at the same meeting.
A copy of the 17 April report to Committee is attached at Appendix 1. The minutes of
the meeting also contain the relevant updates reported to the Committee at that time
which included:



Reference to receipt of amended plans including relocation of a large section
of car parking along the eastern boundary; amendments to the external
materials including substitution of render for brickwork for the ancillary areas
and vent stack; agreement to provide additional/amended landscaping
throughout the site and to include additional planting to the northern boundary
to help screen in the event of clear-fell of the adjacent woodland;
Reference to the fact that further representations had been received since the
report to the Committee was drafted including a further letter of objection from
Mr William Macadam which sought to question the report before committee
and suggested that the application should be refused;
Reference to the fact that the Highway Authority had confirmed that they had
no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions which was
based, in part, on the agreement between the Town Council and the applicant
not to have cemetery and crematorium services at the same time thus
allowing any additional parking to take place within the existing cemetery
roads and grounds reducing the likelihood of any parking taking place within
the highway. In addition, on the basis that the applicant has agreed to provide
Development Committee
1
12 June 2014

funds to be held on account for a period of time to allow for post opening
reviews to monitor the site and to implement waiting restrictions or other
measures which may be necessary to protect the safety of users of the
adjacent public highway. The Highway Authority had noted that the proposals
incorporate significant safety improvements at the Greens Lane/A148 Holt
Road junction and the cemetery access onto Greens Lane, but these would
need to be completed prior to first use of the development.
Reference to the fact that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to
the proposal subject to a condition being imposed to secure a surface water
drainage scheme.
Following the Development Committee meeting Officers contacted the applicant with
a view to undertaking further negotiations in relation to the issues raised by
Committee as set out below.
The application was subsequently referred back to the Committee meeting on 15
May 2014 but, following clarification in respect of the minutes of the 17 April meeting,
the application was again deferred so as to enable the Woodland Burial application
(ref: PF/13/0116) to be considered on the same agenda (see separate item on this
agenda).
Landscape
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, some Members of the Development
Committee raised concerns about the potential for loss of adjacent woodland
screening to the north of the site (under separate ownership) and the possibility of
views of the site being opened-up from the AONB.
In seeking to address the concerns of the Committee the applicant has agreed to
move the crematorium building approximately 7m due west so as to provide a larger
area for landscaping along the northern boundary. Based on the revised plans the
Landscape Officer has commented:
‘The revised alignment of the building allows for a much more substantial landscape
belt along the northern boundary (averaging 8m wide now as opposed to 4m
previously). This gives more scope for a mixed planting scheme within the site
boundary that will provide effective screening and act as succession planting to the
existing mature woodland beyond.
The mix should include for some larger size trees to provide an amount of maturity to
the scheme. Suggested species to include in the mix are Scots Pine, Holm Oak,
Holly, Birch, Oak, Hornbeam and a small percent of Sycamore. It would be prudent to
have some detail of the proposed planting spec. for this screen planting prior to
committee. The remainder of the landscape can be dealt with by condition as
previously advised’.
Based on the revised plans, Officers remain of the opinion that the proposal would
not result in adverse landscape impacts nor would it result in harm to the special
character of the AONB. As such the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
Policies EN 1 and EN 2.
Highways
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, concern was raised by Members of the
Development Committee about possible highway impacts resulting from the
proposed crematorium, especially at the junction of the A148 and B1436. The
Committee made reference to existing problems at the junction and to the separate
Development Committee
2
12 June 2014
Junction Review Study undertaken by the Highway Authority which recommended
that a compact roundabout be installed at the junction of the A148 and B1436 at an
estimated cost of £300-£500K. In response to the request from the Committee, the
Highway Authority has been asked to indicate a level of contribution that would be
considered commensurate with the traffic impacts associated with the proposal. At
The Development Committee meeting on the 17 April, a representative of the
Highway Authority indicated to the Committee that the likely impact of the proposal
on the junction of the A148 and B1436 would be low (in the region of approximately 1
to 1.5%) and therefore the likely level of contribution that could be sought would be
relatively low. With this in mind, notwithstanding the fact that there are currently no
highway objections to the proposed development, the applicant has indicated that
they would be prepared to accept a request for a S106 contribution of £3000-£4000
to assist in Holt Road highways improvements.
The Highway Authority have subsequently commented that, ‘with regard to the
contributions, given negligible impacts at the A148 / B1436 junction it may be more
appropriate to open a dialogue with the applicant’s consultant to see if they are
prepared to make a ‘voluntary contribution’, which could well be greater than any
logically applied judgement’.
Whilst Officers recognise the concerns raised by the Committee about traffic impacts
relating to the proposed development, the Highway Authority remain of the opinion
that there are no substantive grounds to refuse based on highway safety issues. The
applicant has offered a voluntary contribution towards the cost of junction
improvements at the A148/B1436 in addition to the works proposed at the site
entrance and it is matter of judgement for the Committee to consider whether the
voluntary contribution is sufficient. However, if the applicant refuses to increase their
offer further then Officers would advise against a reason for refusal based on a
perceived ‘insufficient’ voluntary contribution as there grounds for objection would be
unlikely to be defensible. The applicant has been made aware of this matter and
Committee will be updated further if the level of voluntary contribution from the
applicant is subsequently increased.
Meeting between the applicant and the developer of the woodland burial site
During the discussions on 17 April 2014, the Development Committee recommended
that further consideration be given to a joint scheme involving the proposed
crematorium and the woodland burial ground (ref: PF/13/0116) which the
Development Committee had previously resolved to approve in April 2013.
Committee indicated that they would like to see a joint scheme not dissimilar to that
proposed by the AONB Action Group, which was appended to the April 17
Committee report and which proposed both developments taking place on the
woodland burial site.
Officers reported to the Committee that, on the back of the plan produced by the
AONB Action Group, a meeting had already taken place on 06 March 2014 involving
the applicants behind the crematorium proposal, the applicants behind the woodland
burial scheme together with representatives from the Highway Authority. At the
meeting both applicants indicated that they had considered and discussed the
alternative proposal with each other but for various commercial reasons the applicant
behind the woodland burial site was not supportive of relocating the crematorium
onto their land and, in view of the lack of substantive grounds to refuse the
crematorium, the applicant behind the crematorium scheme considered there was no
justifiable reason to abandon their current plans.
Development Committee
3
12 June 2014
Following the Development Committee meeting on 17 April the applicant behind the
crematorium proposal was asked to confirm their attendance at a further meeting to
discuss a conjoined scheme together with representatives of the Woodland Burial
Ground. In seeking to set up a meeting between the relevant parties, it emerged that
the applicant behind the woodland burial site (Mr David Oliver) would not be able to
attend a meeting until 06 May 2014 at the earliest and that, in any event, whilst
stating that he had an open mind to possible joint working, Mr Oliver had verbally
indicated that it was highly unlikely that the schemes would come together on his site
because of the difference in ethos between the crematorium and woodland burial
sites. Nonetheless both applicants have indicated that there would be some degree
of synergy between the two schemes but it was not essential or indeed desirable for
both to be on the same site. The applicants submitted some further evidence to
support their respective positions, copies of which are available at Appendix 1.
Notwithstanding this a further meeting took place between both applicant’s, the Vice
Chairman of the Development Committee and Officers of the Council on 15 May
2014, a copy of the minutes of the meeting are attached at Appendix 1. Both parties
stated once again that they would not wish to pursue a joint scheme.
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that a further meeting between both parties has
now taken place, it is apparent that a conjoined scheme on the woodland burial site
is highly unlikely to be forthcoming as a planning application. In any event, both
applicants are entitled to have their applications determined as submitted and it is
therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Development Committee as to
whether there are substantive grounds to refuse the crematorium. A ground to refuse
on the basis of a lack of a conjoined scheme could not be supported by Officers.
Other Matters
Other matters discussed at the Development Committee on 17 April 2014 including
concerns about existing drainage problems along Greens Lane/Davey Hill and
whether the proposed development would exacerbate those existing problems. It was
reported to Committee that a response had been received from the Environment
Agency (EA) which has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition
of a condition. A copy of the EA response is attached at Appendix 1. On the basis of
the EA advice and subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the
proposed development would accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 10.
Further Public Representations
Following the receipt of amended plans, a further public consultation was undertaken
and five representations have been received. In the main these letters raise concern
about the process of determining the application rather than the specific amendments
made. Concern has been expressed that the sentiment of the Committee of 17 April
2014 was being ignored by Officers with the appearance of being ’railroaded’ through
for approval. A number of representations also rehearse issues raised previously,
particularly those relating to road safety and the need for a roundabout at the junction
of the A148/B1436. A full summary of the earlier comments is contained in the 17
April report attached at Appendix 1.
Summary
Having regard to the recommendation of the Development Committee to defer the
application, Officers have undertaken further negotiations with the applicant which
have secured a wider landscaping belt along the northern boundary and an offer of
up to £4,000 towards the cost of a compact roundabout at the junction of the
A148/B1436.
Development Committee
4
12 June 2014
In regard to the possibility of a conjoined scheme with the adjacent Woodland Burial
proposal, for the reasons outlined above, a conjoined scheme is not a solution which
would be wholly attractive to either applicant. In any event the applicant for the
proposed crematorium is entitled to have their application determined as submitted
and, on the basis that there are no substantive grounds to refuse the proposal, the
Committee are recommended to approve the application as set out below.
Recommendation
Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
1. The inclusion of specific conditions as set out by the Highway Authority
in relation to highway matters together with the securing of funds for a
post opening highway safety review and the contribution of £4,000
towards a compact roundabout at the junction of the A148/B1436 via an
obligation under S106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended);
2. The inclusion of specific conditions set out by the Environment Agency
in relation to surface water drainage,
3. The inclusion of specific conditions set out by Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager (interim) in relation to design and landscape
matters;
4. The inclusion of conditions proposed by Environmental Health together
with any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
In addition it is recommended that a separate letter be sent on behalf of
North Norfolk District Council to Norfolk County Council Highways
requesting that the improvement works at the junction of the A148 and
B1436, as recommended within the Junction Review Study undertaken by
the Highway Authority, be carried out as a matter of high priority.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road for Mr D
Oliver
Major Development
- Target Date: 06 May 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Principal Routes
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Development Committee
5
12 June 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the formation of a woodland burial ground in woodland known as Barn
Plantation that lies adjacent to and north of the A148. The proposal seeks the erection
of two single storey buildings; a maintenance building that would house a woodchip
boiler and provide storage of site vehicles, woodchips and tools and a work
bench/area for routine maintenance. This building would comprise an octagonal
section spanning approximately 13.5m with a section off one side of approx. 9m x
5.5m which would take the total length of the building to approx. 22.5m. The octagonal
section would have the highest part of the roof at 8.3m with a flat roof proposed to the
other section at 4.1m. A proposed flue for the woodchip boiler would be at approx. 8m
from ground level.
The main building would comprise 3 principal sections; an octagonal 'ceremonial hall'
with a link from one side to a rectangular 'reception' building. The octagonal hall would
be approx. 19m x 19m with the link being 15m long by 8m wide. The reception would
be a further 25m long by 17m wide. The total length of the proposed building approx
59m. Materials proposed for the buildings are timber log walls stained to an approved
tint with natural cedar shingles to the roof. The buildings are proposed to be grouped
together to the south east of the site with associated parking.
A new access is proposed to the site from Tower Road. A short section of new road
into the site would be needed from the proposed access which would then connect to
an existing network of access roads within the woodland.
The proposed burial ground would provide burial plots and ash interments.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Committee in view of the length of time that has
elapsed since the Committee resolved to delegate approval of the application subject
to the submission of satisfactory additional information (to include re-advertising and
consultation).
PARISH & TOWN COUNCILS
See original report at Appendix 2.
REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing the original report 104 representations had been received. (46
objecting, 53 in support, and 4 commenting only. A petition of 204 signatories in
support of the proposal had been submitted by the agent.) Overall to date 186
representations have been received; 72 objecting, 99 supporting, 14 commenting and
the 1 petition.
See original report for a summary of representations at Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency: No objection
Sustainability Co-Ordinator: No objection; condition requested
Norfolk Coast Partnership: Commented - see original report at Appendix 2.
Environmental Health: No objection - see original report at Appendix 2.
Historic Environment Service: No objection - Requested information has been
Development Committee
6
12 June 2014
submitted and approved since earlier Committee resolution. (original response was
objection - see original report at Appendix 2)
County Council (Highways): No objection; subject to the imposition of requested
conditions. See original report at Appendix 2.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): Requested the
submission of additional information; see original report at Appendix 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
See original report at Appendix 2.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
(see original report at Appendix 2)
1. Cumulative impact of Crematorium proposal
2. Outstanding information
APPRAISAL
(See original report at Appendix 2)
Members have requested that this application be reported back to Committee in order
to update Members on its progress, given the length of time that has elapsed since the
Committee resolved to delegate approval of the application. For ease of reference the
Committee resolution of April 2013 was "That the Head of Development Management
be authorised to approve this application subject to the receipt of a satisfactory
Woodland Management Plan, tree survey and Heritage Statement, including an
Development Committee
7
12 June 2014
archaeological survey, no further objections being received following readvertisement
of the proposal following receipt of these details and the imposition of appropriate
conditions".
In addition Members have requested that Officers investigate whether this applicant
and the applicant for the more recent application for the erection of a crematorium
(PF/13/1521) on land adjacent the woodland burial proposal site would be willing to
amend their applications to provide a joint proposal. This follows receipt of a high
proportion of public representations in respect of the proposed crematorium raising
concern about cumulative impact of that application and the woodland burial proposal.
A plan has been submitted on behalf of the AONB Action group which suggests
joining the crematorium and woodland burial sites together on one site with the
provision of a new access and roundabouts on the A148 (see copy at Appendix 2). A
number of consultees have referred to this 'alternative' proposal and, in seeking to
establish whether there was any merit or support from the applicants for this
'alternative' proposal Officers arranged a meeting involving the applicants behind the
crematorium proposal, the applicants behind the woodland burial scheme together
with representatives from the Highway Authority. At the meeting both applicants
indicated that they had considered and discussed the alternative proposal with each
other but for various commercial reasons the applicant behind the woodland burial site
was not supportive of relocating the crematorium onto their land and, in view of the
lack of substantive grounds to refuse the crematorium, the applicant behind the
crematorium scheme considered there was no justifiable reason to abandon their
current plans. In any event the Highway Authority had raised concerns about the
safety of the double roundabout solution proposed by the AONB Action Group.
Subsequently the Highway Authority has released a copy of a report which was
commissioned separately in relation to the safety of the junction of the A148/B1436
and a copy of this report is available at Appendix 2.
The Committee will be aware that there is considerable local pressure for the provision
of a roundabout at the A148/B1436 junction. However the traffic generation of the
proposed crematorium and woodland burial site (both individually and cumulatively) do
not justify a request for developer contributions to pay for junction improvements at the
A148/B1436, in both cases the Highway Authority concluding that the impacts are
acceptable in highway safety terms.
A further meeting has been held with representatives from both applications, the
Planning Legal Manager, Head of Planning, Officers and the Deputy Planning Chair in
which the applicants reiterated the reasons why they consider their applications
should be determined as submitted. A copy of the minutes from this meeting is
available at Appendix 1 .
In relation to the potential issue of cumulative visual impact of the proposed
crematorium and woodland burial site, officers have carried out a Screening Opinion
for the Woodland Burial proposal in light of the more recent Crematorium proposal
which has concluded that Environmental Impact Assessment is not required, a copy of
this is available at Appendix 2.
In terms of the outstanding information required to enable determination of the
woodland burial application, the tree survey (in respect of the areas of proposed
operational development - i.e. buildings, car parking and access) and the woodland
management plan are awaited. The applicant has submitted an acceptable Heritage
Statement, which included the archaeological earthwork identification survey. The
Historic Environment Service have advised that this information satisfies their earlier
Development Committee
8
12 June 2014
concerns and they have no objection to the proposal and would not require any
conditions to be imposed should the application be approved. At the time of writing
this report the applicant has been asked to provide the timescale within which he
intends to submit the outstanding information. Members will be updated at the
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Defer determination to allow for submission and consideration
of the outstanding information in line with the Committee resolution of April 2013 (‘That
the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve this application
subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Woodland Management Plan, tree survey and
Heritage Statement, including an archaeological survey, no further objections being
received following readvertisement of the proposal following receipt of these details
and the imposition of appropriate conditions.)
3.
BACTON - PF/14/0348 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; Land at St Peters
Court, Walcott Road for Mr R Shearwood
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 May 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071096 PF - Erection of three dwellings
Approved 03/09/2007
PLA/20081309 PF - Erection of two dwellings
Approved 22/12/2008
PF/10/0707 PF - Erection of one-single storey dwelling (amended scheme)
Refused 24/09/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of three two-storey dwellings (one detached and two semidetached)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. N. Smith having regard to the following issue.
 Overdevelopment of the site
PARISH COUNCIL
Bacton Parish Council has no objection to the proposal. However, they wish the
following to be taken into consideration:
1. St Peter's Court is a building of significant local interest and nearby building
development would need to adequately respect its character
2. White uPVC windows would be an inappropriate material failing to respect the
character of the village
3. Significant housing growth is currently proposed and should be taken into
consideration
REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
9
12 June 2014
Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):










Overdevelopment of the site (three two-storey dwellings are considered too many)
Building forward of the original 1900s building line
Building too close to boundary fence
Light and air restrictions - patio area of St Peter's Court
Health and Safety - buildings would be in close proximity to St. Peter's Court's oil
tank
Misleading information regarding the scale of the development
St Peter's Court is a Guest House with twenty bedrooms - being several metres
higher than the proposed, several of the properties bedrooms would overlook the
development's rear gardens and bedrooms.
The noise generated by guests enjoying the garden at St. Peter's Court would
impact upon the residents of the proposed dwellings
Potential damage to St. Peter's Court. Previous development to the rear of the
proposed development site has resulted in damage to St. Peter's Court
The impact of the proposed development on St. Peter's Court Guest House could
render the business unviable
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
10
12 June 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of development
 Scale of development in relation to size of site
 Affordable housing/incentive scheme
 Impact on the residents of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a residential area in the settlement boundary of Bacton.
Bacton is defined by the North Norfolk District Council's adopted Core Strategy as a
Coastal Service Village within which the principle of erecting new dwellings is
acceptable, thus in terms of policies SS1 and SS3 the proposal complies with the
adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
National policy requires local planning authorities to use land efficiently. To comply
with Central Government Policies Core Strategy Policy HO7 requires a minimum of 30
dwellings per hectare within Coastal Service Villages. This proposal equates to 50
dwellings per hectare. However, despite the high density ratio the sites planning
history suggests that the construction of three modest sized dwellings would not
constitute over development of the site. The development also accords with Policy
HO1 in terms of dwelling type and mix.
The site has, over recent years, been the subject of two planning application
PF/07/1096 and PF/08/1309; both of which were approved.
PF/07/1096 was not commenced and has now lapsed. However, approval was
granted for a four bedroom detached dwelling accessed via Keswick Road and two
semi-detached dwellings accessed via Walcott Road (the site of the current proposal).
The semi-detached dwellings were three-storey four bedroom properties with a living
room to the first floor. The dwellings, if constructed, would have had a combined
footprint of approximately 135 sq. metres and their Basic Amenity Criteria relationship
to St. Peter’s Court and Abigail Cottage would have been similar to that of the
currently proposed development.
Furthermore, these dwellings would have had a first floor living room (to the rear
elevation) and it could therefore be argued that the relationship between PF/07/1096
and St. Peter's Court would have been more intrusive than that which is currently
proposed.
PF/08/1309 granted full planning permission for two two-storey detached dwellings,
one to be accessed via Keswick Road and the other via Walcott Road. The Keswick
Road property has been constructed, however, the property off Walcott Road has not.
Thus there is an extant permission on the Walcott Road site (the site of the current
proposal) for a two-storey five bedroom dwelling with swimming pool. The dwelling if
constructed would have a footprint of approximately 223 sq. metres.
The Government has made clear that a community's need for a mix of housing types,
including affordable housing is a material consideration which should be taken into
account in deciding planning applications. Under Policy HO2 a financial contribution
for affordable housing is required on 2 or more units in a village location such as this.
For practical purposes, the Council considers it is reasonable to provide for a financial
contribution in lieu of on site provision in all schemes of 3 or fewer dwellings. The
scheme as proposed would deliver three modest sized homes and potentially a
financial contribution for the provision of affordable housing at other locations.
Development Committee
11
12 June 2014
However, in order to encourage developers to deliver development quickly the District
Council currently offers a number of incentive schemes. In essence these schemes
relax certain policy requirements. In this instance the applicant/agent has applied for
Incentive Scheme 2 in relation to affordable housing. Meaning that a condition will be
applied to the decision notice whereby the applicant/agent does not have to make a
contribution to affordable housing if the development is commenced within one year
of the decision notice being issued. A failure to comply with the condition results in the
development returning to the default position and an affordable contribution would be
required.
The County Council Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal and
subject to compliance of conditions the proposed development would satisfy Policies
CT5 and CT6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of design: With regard to materials, scale and size the dwellings as proposed
are in keeping with numerous cottage-properties within the vicinity, particularly those
on Keswick Road.
In terms of relationships with neighbouring properties, Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC):
The Supplementary Planning Document "Design Guide" suggests a distance of 2.5m
between tertiary (bathroom) windows and blank walls. The first floor bathroom window
of the property nearest to Abigail Cottage (to the north west) is 4.1 m from the
cottage's blank gable. The first floor bathroom window of the detached property would
overlook the front garden of St. Peter's Court to the south east, however, being a
bathroom window it would be obscure glazed.
St. Peter's Court has substantial glazing to its front (south) and side (west) first floor
elevations. The Design Guide suggests a distance of 15 metres between bedroom
windows. In this instance the distance from the rear bedroom windows of the
proposed detached property and the first floor windows at St. Peter's Court fall short of
these guidelines by some 3 to 4 metres. However, given the site's planning history this
shortfall is considered acceptable.
Conclusion
The current proposal for three modest sized two-storey dwellings with a combined
footprint of approximately 119 sq. metres, which would be considerably less than the
previously approved dwellings. It is considered that the proposal would have no
greater impact in terms of privacy, residential/garden amenity than the previously
approved schemes. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with adopted
Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning, including early commencement under the incentive scheme, details of
materials and those required by the Highway Authority.
4.
BRININGHAM - PF/14/0296 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
dwelling; The Olde White Horse, The Street for Dr S Lomax
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 May 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
12
12 June 2014
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of two linked outbuildings, which are currently used as a home
office/storage, which have a combined floor area of 60 sq. metres to a two bedroom
dwelling, with kitchen, sitting/dining room and snug.
As part of the scheme a shallow pitched roofed extension is proposed to the north
elevation which would have a floor area of 16 sq. metres and would accommodate an
entrance porch and sitting room.
It is proposed that this extension would be finished in red facing bricks to match the
existing building under a grey single ply membrane roof which would imitate lead.
Also as part of the scheme a new vehicular access is proposed off Church Lane with a
car parking and turning area for two vehicles.
An amended plan has been received which shows the boundary fence between the
Olde White Horse and the proposed property extended in length and increased in
height so as to provide additional privacy between the two dwellings.
Further information has been received from the applicant’s agent is respect of the
proposed drainage installation. This indicates that the new system for the barns will be
a Klargester Biodisc BA, as treatment plants are less prone to problems and better for
the environment than a septic tank. It is a small treatment plant, which discharges
clean effluent, clean enough to go straight into a ditch or soakaway. It is proposed to
install a soakaway, which is acceptable Building Control and they will be consulted
prior to construction starting.
In addition, the agent points to the fact that the Environment Agency does not require
an application for consent to discharge for small domestic installations. According to
the Environment Agency website, the property is outside the ground water protection
zone, flood risk zones and any other zones which would prevent such a system being
used.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Member Councillor Wright due to local concerns that the
proposal would result in a cramped form of development which would be out of
character with this part of Briningham. The application was also deferred at the
previous Committee meeting to allow Members to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the following grounds, (summarised) :1. The proposed development is not in keeping with the village.
2. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Grade I listed church of St.
Maurice and the Grade II listed telephone call box.
3. Church Lane is very narrow and an additional entrance off this lane would restrict
access to the church which has no car parking.
4. The increased traffic would result in additional wear and tear to Church Lane which
has a brittle surface.
5. The lane is unsuitable for additional traffic.
6. The water table in the vicinity of the site is very high and it is understood that the
former White Horse public house has had sewage problems in the past.
7. Flash flooding already occurs in Church Lane and additional water from the
Development Committee
13
12 June 2014
proposed Package Treatment Plant going into the nearby ditch would only serve to
exacerbate this situation.
8. The buildings are not redundant, they were converted by the former owner to an
office in 2010.
9. The proposed development would leave the Olde White Horse with a new
entrance only 2.9 metres wide with little or no storage space.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns, (summarised):1. The increase in vehicular traffic movements will have an adverse impact on the
pedestrian users of Church Lane.
2. The proposed parking area is not wide enough to allow cars to turn out of the
proposed parking area without damaging the bank on the opposite side.
3. Visitors to the property will park in Church Lane restricting access to the church
and emergency vehicles reaching Church Cottage and The Old Vicarage.
4. In addition to the church there are already five dwellings accessed off Church Lane
and there is not parking for the church.
5. The plans do not allow for a turning circle on the narrow lane.
6. The windows to the north elevation would disturb the visual approach to the
church.
7. The approach to the church will be urbanised.
8. The increased density of development is a concern and would alter the character
of the area.
9. The proposed development would drain into a stream on neighbouring land which
has a history of flooding.
10. The site is surrounded by springs and the proposed development will upset the
water table, resulting in further problems for the Old Vicarage.
11. In the wet summer of 2012 there was water across the bottom of Church lane and
up the garden of Church Cottage to its doorstep.
12. The use of a Package Treatment Plant would only serve to increase the indecent
of flooding.
13. The proposal will change the character of the approach to the church, a Grade I
listed building, which at the present time has an un-spoilt and rural appearance.
14. The land is not designed to take additional traffic.
15. The Churchwardens object to this development because it will be detrimental to
the church, increasing the risk to those accessing the church and graveyard.
16. This is a sensitive area for wildlife which would be affected by the development.
17. The proposal is contrary to Development Plan policy.
18. Increasing the density of housing within Church Lane would have a detrimental
impact on the character of the existing settlement and surrounding area and be
contrary to supplementary planning document Landscape Character Assessment.
19. This is not a suitable location for new development.
Six letters of support have been received which make the following observations,
(summarised):1. The proposal would improve and preserve the area.
2. A turning area is proposed as part of the development.
3. As owners of property in Church Lane we have no objection to the proposal.
4. I have lived in the village for 14 years and can see no reason why the application
should not be passed.
5. Certain areas of Church Lane need to be refreshed and tidied up and this may be
the catalyst for this.
6. The applicant’s deserve the support of the community.
Development Committee
14
12 June 2014
One letter of comment:As Vicar of St Maurice’s Church I would like to make it clear that the parochial church
council has not discussed this application, and therefore St Maurice’s church cannot
be said to either support or object to this proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Has no objection to the
removal of the belt of leylandii trees to the northern boundary and considers that there
would be no overriding landscape or heritage impact issues. However the Landscape
Officer would require the imposition of a condition requiring the existing mixed
boundary hedge to Church Lane and the eastern boundary to the parking area to be
trimmed and maintained at a minimum height of 2m, with any gaps infilled with
appropriate native species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Environmental Health – No object subject to the Package Treatment Plant (PTP)
being of an appropriate size and the necessary approval being sought from the
Environment Agency.
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 H0 9: Conversion & Re-use of rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies within
an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
4. Highway safety
5. Flood risk
Development Committee
15
12 June 2014
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow
Members to visit the site.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies HO9, EN4, EN13, CT5
and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value and are structurally sound and
suitable for conversion without substantial rebuilding and or extension.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are
set. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also
requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN13 requires that all development proposals minimise, and where possible
reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution,
and ensure no deterioration in water quality. Proposals will only be permitted where,
individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on;
 the natural environment and general amenity;
 health and safety of the public;
 air quality;
 surface and groundwater quality;
 pipelines) where new development would be likely to impose significant
restrictions on the activities of the existing use in the future.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
Originally outbuildings to the former White Horse Public House, the buildings are
currently used in association with the main house and make an important contribution
to this part of Briningham and are worthy of retention due to their appearance, historic,
landscape or architectural value. In addition, they are structurally sound and suitable
for the proposed use without substantial rebuilding and or extension. It is therefore
considered that the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with
other Development Plan policies.
In terms of the design it is considered that this would respect the form and appearance
of the existing buildings with the northern wall of the frontage building, closest to The
Street, remaining blank. Whilst other elevations would utilise the existing openings for
doors and windows. The main changes would be to the north elevation of the rear
building which is stepped in from Church Lane by some 6.5 metres. It is to this
elevation that it is proposed to introduce the single storey extension, which due to a
variation in ground levels would be built up out of the ground by some 700 millimetres
with the flat roof finishing just above the eaves of the existing outbuilding. It is
proposed that there would be two windows and door to the north elevation of this
extension, together with a stainless steel flue pipe. Subject to this extension being
finishes in appropriate facing bricks and the fuel pipe painted matt black or dark grey
Development Committee
16
12 June 2014
it is considered that this would integrate successful with the existing buildings.
Furthermore, given that it is the intention that the hedge to Church Lane would be
retained and reinforced where necessary it is not considered that the extension would
be readily visible and would not detract from the appearance of the buildings in the
street scene.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties the nearest dwelling to the site is the
Olde White Horse to the south west. This would be 2.9 metres from the proposed new
boundary wall/fence to the dwelling at its closest point. Whilst there would be a close
relationship between the two dwellings it is not considered that there would be any
significant amenity issues in terms of loss light or overlooking to either dwelling. Other
dwellings in the vicinity of the site, which would potentially be affected by the
development, are 1, 2 and 4 Church Lane to the north of the proposed dwelling.
However given the fact that no new openings are proposed in the north wall of the
existing building abutting Church Lane there would be no direct overlooking of the lane
or the properties beyond. Whilst the two windows and door to the north elevation of
the extension would be set back 3.5 metres from the boundary at the closest point
behind the existing hedgerow, which is to be trimmed and retained. As such whilst
there could be a degree of overlooking of part of the garden area of 4 Church Lane
until the hedge has time to thicken and mature, given that the separation distance
between the windows and the boundary of the neighbouring property is some 14
metres, this in itself would not result in significant overlooking and loss of privacy.
As far as the access and car parking are concerned, Church Lane is an adopted road
but unclassified, as such the creation of the new access, parking and turning area are
permitted development and do not require formal planning permission. This said, it is
considered that the creation of an access in this location which would result in the loss
of a small section of hedgerow with Church Lane is acceptable and would not
significantly affect the character and appearance of the area or the setting of St.
Maurice Church. Whilst in respect of the access to The Street the views of the
Highway Authority are awaited.
Turning to the concerns raised in respect of off-site flooding, surface water from the
existing building is discharged to soakaways, whilst it is proposed the foul drainage
would be to a package treatment plant (PTP) with a soakaway within the site.
Although a small extension is proposed to the building this would not significantly
increase the run off of surface water. Whilst given that the proposed dwelling would
only have two bedrooms and a wet room it is not considered that the levels of
discharge to the PTP would be significant. As such subject to the installation of an
appropriate size PTP it is not considered that the proposed scheme would contribute
to flooding in the vicinity of the site, which in the past appears to have been the result
of flash floods.
In summary, whilst the concerns of local residents are noted it is considered that the
proposed scheme would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring properties, would not adversely affect the character and appearance of
the area and would not contribute to any off site flood event. Furthermore, although it
is accepted that the access to the church via Church Lane is only single track, given
that this an unclassified road and subject to the Highway Authority raising no
objection, the proposed development would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated to the Head of Planning to approve subject to no
objection from County Highways and the imposition of appropriate conditions including
the removal of permitted development rights restricting the alteration and extension of
the dwelling.
Development Committee
17
12 June 2014
5.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1451 - Conversion of two dwellings to three terraced
dwellings, change of use of hall to two residential units and church to four
residential units; Methodist Church, Oak Street for Fakenham Methodist Church
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 March 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
1. Seeks the refurbishment, remodelling and reuse of the existing cottages, 29 and
29A Oak Street to create a terrace of three cottages.
2. The subdivision of and conversion of the church hall to create two residential units.
3. The subdivision and conversion of the Methodist church to create four residential
units.
4. The demolition of the existing flat roof single storey extension to the rear of the
Methodist church and the timber prayer chapel to the rear of the site.
5. The provision of 14 no. parking spaces together with the creation of garden areas
and shared amenity space.
Further details have been submitted in respect of an assessment of the traffic
generated by the existing use of the site and details of the likely conversion of the
church.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Claussen Reynolds and Reynolds due to concerns
regarding the restricted nature of the access and the impact of the proposed
conversion on the Fakenham Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from a local resident which raises concerns that the frontage of
the old chapel should be retained.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage - (Comments in respect of information originally submitted). Whilst
not objecting in principle to the conversion of Methodist church English Heritage has
raised concerns that the conversion of the church to four units may be too intensive in
order to allow the exterior feature to remain unaltered.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - (Comments in respect of the additional
information). No objection subject to conditions - The applicant has now provided
detailed information regarding the levels of use upon the existing site, which are in
excess of that proposed, albeit that at peak times movements are likely to increase.
Therefore the Highways Authority would find it difficult to sustain an objection, subject
to the permanent cessation of the use by the permitted users of the church and the
transposal of those movements to the new residential uses proposed.
Development Committee
18
12 June 2014
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
(Comments in respect of the additional information). No objection - Conservation &
Design still retain more than a degree of unease about the proposed conversion of the
main 1908 building into four dwellings. Whilst it would seem to be technically possible
the number of units involved hardly seems appropriate given the type of building
involved. With it also surely putting pressure on fabric over time, and with parallel
concerns about the total number of units across the site, this is not a scheme which
obviously invites heritage support.
At the same time, however, it is valid to ask what the alternatives are given the main
building’s significant want of repair. Particularly in view of the tight confines of the site,
it is difficult to imagine anyone wanting to create a lower number of higher end
properties. Unfortunately, it is just this kind of unit which would ordinarily support such
high repair costs (rather than the modest 1 & 2 bed units proposed). With retail and
community uses also unlikely to secure the future of the building in the long term, we
need to give the current proposal our full consideration.
Perhaps the saving grace here is that the Church is not a listed building and is
reasonably well served with openings – it would therefore not require undue external
adaptation. Therefore, providing; i) any vertical and horizontal subdivision internally is
not apparent externally, and ii) the number of (conservation) rooflights is kept to an
absolute minimum, the actual impact upon the Fakenham Conservation Area would be
principally confined to within the site itself. For this reason, and because the Highway
objection has been withdrawn, there are probably insufficient grounds to sustain a
recommendation of refusal purely on Conservation grounds.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Norfolk County Council - Environment Service - No objection subject to the
implementation of a programme of historic building recording.
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 HO1: Mix and type of dwellings (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
19
12 June 2014
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
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. Impact on the Fakenham Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Car parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Fakenham as defined by the
North Norfolk Development Frame Core Strategy, in an area designated as residential
and is also within the Fakenham Conservation Area where Policies HO1, EN4, EN8,
CT5 and CT6 are applicable.
Policy HO1 requires that on schemes of three or four dwellings at least one dwelling
shall comprise not more than 70 square metres internal floor space and incorporate
two bedrooms or fewer; and on schemes of five or more dwellings at least 40% of the
total number of dwellings shall comprise such dwellings.
Policy EN4 states that all development proposals, extensions and alterations to
existing buildings and structures will be expected to be suitably designed for the
context within which they are set and ensure that the scale and massing of buildings
relate sympathetically to the surrounding area. 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.
Policy EN8 states that the re-use of Listed Buildings and buildings identified on a
Local List will be encouraged and the optimum viable use that is compatible with the
fabric, interior and setting of the building will be permitted. The character and
appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved, and where possible enhanced,
and, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, area appraisals and management
plans will be prepared and used to assist this aim and to encourage the highest quality
building design, townscape creation and landscaping in keeping with the defined
areas.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there would be adequate parking provision to meet the needs of the development.
The scheme as proposed would involve three distinct elements.
 The conversion of the two storey cottages to the north side of existing car parking
area to three dwellings. These properties would have small enclosed garden areas
to the south elevation abutting the car parking area.
 The conversion of former Primitive Methodist Church of 1861, more recently used
as a church hall to the northern side of the existing car park to two dwellings, with
a garden area for each property to the south adjacent to the access driveway. This
building has been identified as a locally listed building within the Fakenham
Conservation Area appraisal.
 The conversion of Fakenham Methodist Church which dates from 1908 and which
Development Committee
20
12 June 2014
has also been identified as a locally listed building, to four dwellings. An indicative
layout submitted as part of the application indicates that this would consist of two
one bedroom dwellings, one two bedroom dwelling and one three/four bedroom
dwelling.
Given the mix and type of dwellings proposed it is considered that the scheme as
proposed would accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy HO1.
Turning to the design and impact of the proposed development on the Fakenham
Conservation Area at this stage only a change of use is being sought in respect of the
church hall and church and as such only an indicative layout has been submitted.
However in response of the concerns raised by English Heritage regarding external
alterations to the main church the applicant’s agent has indicated no new doorways
are proposed to the northern elevation or any of the other existing walls. In addition,
the proposal makes use of the existing openings only, in order to minimise the impact
of the conversion on the exterior of the building. In terms of the internal spaces whilst
the agent accepts that some of the characteristics would be lost the division of the
building into four units is preferred over a lesser number of dwellings as the smaller
units would is be more marketable, given the restricted amenity space associated with
the development.
As indicated by the Council’s Conservation and Design Section whilst more than a
degree of unease surrounds the conversion of the main church into four dwellings,
given the significant want of repair and confines of the site, it is difficult to imagine
anyone wanting to create a lower number of higher end properties. Furthermore with
retail and community uses also unlikely to secure the future of the building in the long
term, it is considered that the current proposal is broadly acceptable and there are
insufficient grounds to sustain a refusal purely on Conservation grounds.
As far as the level of amenities within the site, as proposed the five dwellings to the
northern edge of the site would each have adequate amenity area, albeit not
particularly private, whilst the four dwellings within the main church would have a very
limited area of outside space to the rear north western corner of the building, which
would also house a refuse/ cycle storage area. Whilst this level of provision would fall
well short of the amenity space sought in the North Norfolk Design Guide, given the
location of the development, surrounding development, much of which has very limited
amenity space, and the site constraints this is considered to be acceptable.
In terms of the potential impact on neighbouring properties whilst there are a number
of dwellings in the vicinity of the site it is not considered that the conversion/alteration
of any of the buildings would result in significant issues of loss of amenity or
overlooking.
Turning to the issue of access and car parking. The scheme as proposed would utilise
the existing access off Oak Street, immediately to the north of the main church. At its
narrowest point closest to Oak Street the driveway is some 3 metres in width and
extends approximately 15 metres back into the site before opening out into the
existing car parking area which is some 730 square metres in area. Further into the
site the driveway would be 4.5 metres in width with designated parking for 14 vehicles
towards the western end of the site.
Supplementary information provided as part of the application indicates that the site is
currently used by a number of groups including, Brownie’s, Badminton, Fakenham
Wives and the Community Choir. As a result, Monday to Friday the average weekday
traffic movements are 81 and over a period of seven days is 65. Whilst traffic
Development Committee
21
12 June 2014
generated by the tenants of the existing two cottages on the site has not been
included as this use would continue under the proposed development. The submitted
information also indicates that at the present time there are number of unauthorised
users of the car park, who find the location convenient for shopping or visiting local
business. Based on this submitted information, whilst the Highways Authority
recognise that the access onto Oak Street is very narrow and incapable of
accommodating two way vehicular movements and suffers severely restricted visibility
due to the roadside frontage, given that the existing use exceeds the likely use of the
site they do not considered refusal of the application on highway safety grounds would
be sustainable. Whilst in terms of the actual level of car parking the provision of 14
spaces would comply with the parking standards contained in the Core Strategy.
In summary, it is accepted that there are significant issues surrounding the proposed
development both in terms of the access arrangements and the potential impact on
the character and appearance of the main church within the Conservation Area.
However, given that the Highways Authority are now satisfied that the proposed
development would not increase the usage of the access and the Council’s
Conservation and Design Section do not consider refusal of the application to be
sustainable, on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable, does not
significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies and would help to secure
the future, particularly of the church and church hall.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
6.
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0310 - Conversion of barns to three residential
dwellings, re-location of access and change of use of land from agricultural to
residential; Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Roadfor Blue Tile Farm Barns Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 May 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070474 PF - Conversion of Barns to Three Residential Units
Approved 28/10/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of barns to three permanent dwellings with associated gardens,
garaging and outbuildings, requiring a change of use of land from agricultural to
residential, as well as partial demolition and infill of roadside wall and relocation of
vehicular access.
Amended plans have been received following the request for additional parking
provision to be provided by the Highway Authority and alterations required to satisfy
Building Control in order to comply with the regulations in terms of means of escape.
A further amended plan has been received in terms of car parking layout should Unit 3
have four bedrooms rather than three.
Development Committee
22
12 June 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue(s):
To discuss and consider the planning issues raised by the Parish Council and local
residents.
It was also deferred at the last meeting to allow Members to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object for the following reasons:
1. There are concerns over the enlarged plot and additional buildings on this site,
leading to fears that future applications for infill development will be made.
2. The splays in the road are close to another splay on the opposite side of the road.
There will be problems with large farm machinery passing and using the access for
the farm.
3. Regarding window frames these should be wooden in keeping with the surrounding
old buildings.
4. There are no plans for trees to be planted at the boundary of Blue Tile Farm.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Concerns over enlarged plot.
2. Concerns over additional buildings.
3. Potential for further development.
4. Concerns over access considered to be another urbanisation of the countryside.
5. Access will restrict the road at a point very close to another splay, which must make
it difficult for large farm machinery to pass without mounting the kerbs or pavement.
6. Wooden window frames and doors would be more in keeping with the old buildings.
7. Colour of window frames important.
8. Concerns over the appearance that the excess residential creep would have on the
area.
9. Concerns over a 'garden centre landscape' of non-indigenous species.
10. Landscaping potentially detrimental to the agricultural nature of the barns and their
immediate surroundings.
11. Loss of view.
The applicant has confirmed that he will be using mini-treatment systems for the
disposal of foul water and that he is in agreement with a condition to be imposed for
implementation of the development within one year of the decision date.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection to amended plans. Conditions required regarding
provision and retention of new access, access and egress as shown on approved
plans, no gates, bollard or chain or other means of obstruction at access, visibility
splays, access, and on site car parking and turning in accordance with approved plan,
detailed scheme for off site highway improvements (new kerbline to facilitate improved
visibility splays).
Environment Agency - No objection. Advice offered in relation to foul water disposal.
Building Control - No objections to amended plans regarding means of escape, and
Development Committee
23
12 June 2014
the proposed use of treatment plants for the foul drainage is also preferable and
acceptable.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - Despite having
reservations about several aspects of this new scheme, it is not considered that an
objection can be sustained on Conservation & Design grounds.
Providing the hedge screening the extended curtilage is maintained at a height greater
than 900mm to contain the inevitable domestication (i.e. not less than 1800mm), the
development should not unduly harm the appearance and character of this part of the
Conservation Area. In the event of an approval being issued conditions are requested
regarding materials, external colour finishes and full details of the sheds and bin
stores.
In addition to the suggested conditions, it is assumed that PD rights will be withdrawn
for all extensions and curtilage buildings/structures, and that a full hard and soft
landscaping scheme will be sought (to include the surfacing within the existing
farmyard). Lastly for the record (as the applicant has previously queried it by email),
there is no requirement in this instance for the rooflights to be conservation-type
examples – this is because they would not be readily visible from any public vantage
points.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - The Landscape Section does not
object to the application subject to the following comments and conditions:
The application involves the conversion of former barns at Blue Tile Farm, Field
Dalling. The application was supported by a Protected Species Survey prepared by
The Ecology Consultancy Limited final revision dated March 2014. The surveys were
completed by Suitably Qualified Ecologists following recognised procedures and
guidelines.
The surveys concluded that the former agricultural buildings (principally the main barn)
proposed for conversion is used intermittently as a day roost by small numbers of
common bat species (brown long-eared, Natterer’s and common pipistrelle) and a
likely singleton male barbastelle. Hibernation use of the buildings cannot be ruled out
due to the number of deep internal cracks within the masonry. The proposed
conversion works will eliminate one or all of these bat roosts and a possible brown
long-eared feeding perch and has the potential to kill/injure or disturb bats if present
during the construction works. The consulting ecologist has specified that a European
Protected Species (EPS) Licence will be required to carry out the works to convert the
buildings.
The Landscape Section considers that an offence under Article 12 of the European
Directive and Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) will occur, with or without mitigation.
In accordance with the Standing Advice issued by Natural England, as part of the
decision making process, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether an EPS
Licence is likely to be granted by Natural England in order to derogate from the
protection of the Habitats Regulations 2010. Information has been provided by the
ecological consultant on why they consider a Natural England EPS Licence is likely to
be granted by reference to the ‘three derogation tests’ (Regulation 53 of the Habitats
Regulations 2010).
Development Committee
24
12 June 2014
The ecological consultant concludes that with appropriate mitigation and
compensation, which includes new roost facilities (including a dedicated bat loft in a
new building and bat tubes and bat boxes), the favourable conservation status of the
local bat populations affected, would be maintained. Based on the evidence provided,
I can see no reason why a Natural England EPS Licence would not be forthcoming
with respect to the FCS test subject to the provision of appropriate mitigation and
compensation measures.
The British Standard for Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development
(BS 42020:2013) indicates that where a European protected species is affected by
development and where an offence cannot be avoided through mitigation, the
competent authority should impose a planning condition preventing development from
proceeding without first receiving a copy of the EPS licence. The Landscape Section
recommends conditions in relation to protected species, external lighting and
landscaping.
Environmental Health - No objection in terms of contamination, advisory note required.
With regard to foul water would prefer to see use of mini-treatment system. If this is
not possible then further consultation with Environmental Health would be required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
Development Committee
25
12 June 2014
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon Conservation and Area
4. Highway safety
5. Landscaping
6. Impact upon amenities of adjoining dwelling
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow
Members to visit the site.
This application follows the approval of planning application 07/0474 on 28 October
2011. That application was for the conversion of the barns to three residential
dwellings. Planning permission 07/0474 is extant and could still be implemented prior
to the 28 October this year. This is a material consideration in the determination of the
current application (reference:14/0310).
The principle of the barns being converted into three residential dwellings has
therefore already been established. However, notwithstanding this the application site
is located within the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for the conversion and
re-use of rural buildings as dwellings are required to accord with the five criteria of
Policy H09 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
This policy permits the conversion of buildings in the countryside to permanent
dwellings outside of the H09 zone subject to the buildings being worthy of retention
due to its appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. It is considered that
the barns are of quality and of historic, architectural and landscape merit and in good
condition. They therefore comply with the requirements of criteria 1 and 2 of Policy
H09.
Criterion 3 requires the building to be structurally sound and suitable for conversion to
a residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension and the alterations protect
or enhance the character of the building and its setting. The building is considered to
be in good condition. Whilst some extension is proposed under the current application
it is not considered to be substantial. The extensions are proposed within the internal
courtyard. There is a narrow extension to the east of Unit 1, facing the internal
courtyard. It is to create a hallway to access the bedrooms. This extension is single
storey and measures approximately 1.5m wide by 12m in length. There is also a
further extension to this same unit (Unit 1) on the eastern elevation, and backing onto
the road. This again is single storey and consists of a bedroom and bathroom. The
footprint of this extension is approximately 6.5m wide by 5m deep. To the south east
corner of the courtyard a single storey garage structure is proposed measuring
approximately 7m wide by 5m deep. This new structure along with the extension to
Unit 1 reinforces the enclosure to the courtyard from the road. There are already
boundary walls fronting the road to the south, and such a layout is not uncharacteristic
of some farmsteads. A further detached double garage is proposed to Unit 2, which is
to the rear (north) of the barns. Its siting it is not in a prominent position in the
landscape. This building would measure approximately 5.5m x 6.5m. Each unit also
Development Committee
26
12 June 2014
has a large shed for storage measuring approximately 3m x 5m. It is not considered
unreasonable to expect the need for some structures for storage of garden
paraphernalia associated with the dwellings. The extensions and elements of new
build are not considered to be substantial.
Apart from the extension to Unit 1 the barn structure itself remains basically intact with
some fenestration changes. There are five new openings in total proposed along the
western elevation. Two openings were previously approved under 07/0474. On the
northern elevation a former opening is to be re-instated. This was approved under
07/0474. There are four additional rooflights in the northern elevation from what was
approved under 07/0474, and five new roof lights on the eastern roof slope of Unit 1.
All other fenestration/openings are as original and previously approved under 07/0474.
The proposed alterations to the fenestration will not be clearly visible from public view
points and it is not considered that they would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the character and appearance of the building and its setting. The proposal is
therefore considered to comply with criteria 3 of Policy H09.
Criterion 4 requires the scheme to be of an appropriate scale in terms of the number
of dwellings proposed for the location. Given the extant permission is for three
dwellings it is considered that three is acceptable in this location.
Criterion 5 states that where it is viable to do so, on all schemes resulting in two or
more dwellings that not less than 50% of the total number of dwellings proposed are
affordable or an equivalent contribution is made in accordance with the requirements
of Policy H02. However, given that there is no requirement for affordable housing on
the extant permission this is a material consideration in the determination of this
application. Given that 07/0474 can be implemented now there would be no affordable
housing provision. Furthermore, the District Council is currently promoting a Housing
Delivery Incentive Scheme. This means that there is no requirement for an affordable
housing provision should the applicant agree to a condition to implement the
application within one year of the permission date. The applicant has confirmed that
he would agree to such a condition. Criterion 5 of Policy H09 does not therefore apply
at this time.
Policy H01 regarding dwelling mix and type would normally require, on schemes of
three dwellings, for at least one dwelling to comprise not more than 70sqm internal
floorspace and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. However, given the extant
permission did not comply with this policy and that this is a material consideration in
the determination of this application it is not considered that non-compliance with this
policy alone would be sufficient grounds for a refusal. Particularly where the District
Council is promoting the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme to encourage
development quickly.
The curtilage to the barns has increased in size from the approved development under
07/0474. Previously the garden areas were approximately 12m deep. Under the
current scheme the garden depth to Unit 1 is approximately 24m deep. This also
applies to Unit 2, but extends to approximately 26m to the north. Unit 3 has a garden
depth of approximately 27m which also extends approximately 23m to the west which
is approximately 13m further than previously approved. The curtilage to Unit 3 now
extends around and along the northern boundary of the adjacent property. A shed has
also been positioned adjacent to this neighbouring dwelling. However, this relationship
to surrounding neighbouring dwellings is considered to be acceptable.
The applicant has negotiated this increase in the curtilage of the barns to incorporate
the drainage fields that are required for the foul drainage. This is because the
Development Committee
27
12 June 2014
drainage fields are required to be a minimum of 15m from the dwelling to comply with
Building Regulations.
In terms of foul drainage the applicant has confirmed that he will be using minitreatment systems which is acceptable to both Environmental Health and Building
Control.
A new vehicular access and farm track is also proposed. The existing farm track
access is to be stopped up and re-located beyond the new boundary top the gardens
of the barns. This is considered to be acceptable and like the extensions to the front of
the site the blocking up of the existing access will reinforce the sense of enclosure
along this part of the road.
The Highway Authority have raised no objection subject to a number of conditions as
provided in this report.
The design of this scheme is considered to be acceptable, and as the site is located
within the Conservation Area the Conservation and Design Officer has been
consulted. Committee will note from his comments that it is not considered that an
objection can be sustained on Conservation and Design grounds, and that a number
of conditions are required should the application be approved. Subject to the
imposition of these conditions it is not considered that the development would unduly
harm the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area. These
conditions include details of materials and colour finishes.
The Committee will also note that the Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the
application in terms of impact upon the landscape, biodiversity and Protected Species
subject to the requested conditions being imposed on any approval.
Whilst this application may not comply with Policy H01 the proposal is considered to
be in accordance with other relevant policies of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. The
extant permission for this site is a material consideration in the determination of this
application and it is not considered that based on this previous decision and noncompliance with Policy HO1 that there are sufficient grounds to refuse this application.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and apart from Policy H01 is in
compliance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to appropriate conditions including one
year implementation, amended plans, removal of all permitted development
rights (extensions, alterations, new windows and openings, outbuildings,
structures, enclosures), materials, external colour finishes, full details of sheds
and bin stores, landscaping, external lighting, protected species, drainage,
provision and retention of new access, access and egress, no gates, bollard or
chain or other means of obstruction at access, visibility splays, on site car
parking and turning, scheme for off site highway improvements and an advisory
note regarding contamination.
Development Committee
28
12 June 2014
7.
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/0388 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two twostorey dwellings; 3 Melton Road for Orchard Developments (EA) Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 23 May 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071804 PO - Erection of four dwellings
Refused 10/03/2008
PLA/20080461 PO - Erection of three dwellings
Approved 12/05/2008
PM/11/0376 PM - Erection of three dwellings
Approved 05/05/2011
PF/13/0997 PF - Erection of one two-storey dwelling and two single-storey dwellings
and detached garages (revised design)
Approved 15/11/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish an existing dwelling and erect a pair of two-storey two/three
bedroomed dwellings.
Amended plans have been submitted to address highway concerns that the garages
were of insufficient size to count as a car park space.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wright having regard to the following planning reason:
 The site is within the built-up area of the village;
 The dwellings would have a similar footprint to the existing dwelling;
 Additional dwelling would help support the village.
PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council has no objection to this application in principle.
However it would like the following requests to be considered:
1. The site was formerly a builder’s yard and as such should be recorded as part of
the industrial heritage of Hindolveston and Norfolk. While it is perhaps not worth
keeping the former workshop, it should be recorded in photographs, drawings, written
report etc. for posterity.
2. It was also noted that a 6 ft brick wall should be erected in place of the wire fencing
between the property and the Village Orchard (as agreed in previous proposals to
develop the site).
REPRESENTATIONS
One objection received raising the below objections (summarised):
 Overdevelopment of the plot. One house with a larger garden would enhance the
appearance of the development but two would have a negative impact;
 Insufficient parking as many families have two or even three cars.
Development Committee
29
12 June 2014
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) Thank you for the amended consultation received recently relating to the above
development proposal, which now details an improved parking arrangement.
No objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health I have concerns about the location of air source heat pumps, having undertaken
calculations based on the noise data provided for the ASHPs (air source heat pumps)
in the applicant’s spreadsheet. I have noted the noise calculator spreadsheet
provided. I understand the calculator’s purpose ascertain whether the ASHP’s would
comply with permitted development noise limits which are not relevant to this
application, rather than to assess residential amenity issues.
I believe one of the ASHP’s should be relocated within its own plot due to the risk of
noise affecting the first floor of its semi- detached neighbour as follows:
The east semi - detached house proposed should have the ASHP moved eastwards
near the road side boundary. The west plot does not appear to require relocation as
the neighbouring plot is believed to be a single storey bungalow. (Described as plot
three in planning reference 13/00997)
I would suggest the location of the air source heat pumps could be dealt with by
condition. Please note I would recommend close boarded fencing to be provided to
the north site boundary and between plots. I would require the sight of the datasheet
for the ASHPs as part of the condition details but the value given would appear to be
in the range expected for an ASHP.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)(verbal discussions) Protected species survey required.
Historic Environment Service- The proposed development affects undesignated
heritage assets – house with a two-storey outbuilding associated possibly with early
industry. Both buildings are indicated on the tithe map of c.1840. The house is of
limited interest owing to extensive alteration but the two -storey outbuilding is shown
on the tithe map as uninhabited and appears not to have had agricultural use. We
request that the consent, if given, is subject to a condition for a programme of
archaeological work, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework
(March 2012) para 141. We suggest that the following condition be imposed:No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or their agents or
successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of historic building
recording in accordance with a brief issued by the Historic Environment Service.
In this case the recording will comprise a photographic survey of the buildings
according to a brief which will be issued on request to The Historic Environment
Service, Union House, Gressenhall, Dereham, NR20 4DR, 01362 869293.I attach a
copy of the brief which would be used.
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.
Development Committee
30
12 June 2014
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 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 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact 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 development
2. Design
3. Impact on neighbouring amenities
4. Highways issues
APPRAISAL
The application site is located on Melton Road within Hindolveston, which is not a
settlement selected for development. Whilst it is recognised that the dwelling would
not be remote from neighbouring dwellings, the site lies over 3km as the crow flies
from the nearest designated residential policy area of Briston and Melton Constable. It
is therefore located in the Countryside policy area (Policy SS 2) where the
replacement of existing dwellings on a one-for-one basis is considered to be
acceptable, but where there is a presumption against new market housing unless
other material planning considerations are felt to outweigh this policy objection.
Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework is considered relevant to
this application. Paragraph 187 states; Local planning authorities should look for
solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to
approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning
authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that
improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
The Council has an up to date, sustainably led, Core Strategy that remains broadly in
line with the National Planning Policy Framework. With the adopted planning policy
being a significant material consideration the ability to work proactively with a proposal
Development Committee
31
12 June 2014
that is contrary to such an overriding policy is limited. Moreover, the statement
requires the developments should improve conditions for the area (para. 55 NPPF
'...To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located
where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.). The applicant is
not proposing that the proposed dwelling falls into any of the housing exceptions
categories set out in Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Although the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration it
clarifies the primary status of the Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for
decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan
should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused
unless other material considerations indicate otherwise'.
The agent's case for development is based on the following 'other considerations':
First, the context of the site, which adjoins a site granted Outline permission in 2008
for the erection of three dwellings. Second, that the re-use of the outbuildings on the
site to dwellings would be considered acceptable in principle, which could result in an
additional dwelling on the site. Third, that the retention of the existing house would
detract from the approved dwellings on the adjacent site and the environment. Fourth,
that the site forms part of the built-up area of the village, despite the lack of a
settlement boundary. Five, that the two new dwellings would provide an opportunity for
additional population in the village and this will support local services. Six, that two
smaller dwellings would make a more positive contribution to the housing stock than
one large house and finally that the dwellings would provide an example of the
application of green technologies.
It is considered that the issues raised regarding sustainability have been addressed
above; the current sustainability led adopted Core Strategy does not identify
Hindolveston as being suitable for new residential development. Outline planning
permission (reference PLA/20080461) for the erection of three dwellings on adjoining
land was granted in 2008 under the superseded Local Plan. This was a material
consideration when the subsequent Reserved Matters application was approved in
2011 (reference PM/11/0376) and when an application for a revised design was
approved in 2013 (reference PF/13/0997).
In respect of the argument that the conversion of the outbuildings to a residential
dwelling would be acceptable in principle, this application is not being considered
under that policy and it has not, therefore, been assessed as to whether a scheme for
their conversion would comply with Policy HO9. However, the current HO9 approach
is in compliance with the NPPF when read as a whole and seeks to strike a balance
between protecting the Countryside from development pressures and promoting
sustainable rural communities. Policy H09 is not a policy which was devised to deliver
housing; it is a policy which was introduced to recognise the desirability of retaining
and reusing good quality buildings. As this proposal would not see the retention of the
outbuildings, it is not considered that this consideration should outweigh the policy
conflict.
In respect of the visual amenities of the area, Policy SS2 does not prevent the
principle of either the renovation or the replacement of the dwelling on a one-for-for
basis.
Whilst it is recognised that this site is not truly isolated, development here would
nevertheless be unsustainable both in terms of location and the impacts such
developments, when considered cumulatively, would have on the character of the
Development Committee
32
12 June 2014
area. For example, the nearest primary school is approximately 3.8km away without a
footpath route and the local shop is approximately 3.7km away, again, without a
footpath route. There are no daily bus services serving Hindolveston. It is therefore
concluded that the majority of trips would be made by private car and that the
proposed development would be unsustainable.
Whilst it is recognised that the proposal would add two three-bedroomed dwellings to
the housing stock, it is not considered that this should outweigh the sustainability
issues. Policy SS 1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out the sequential hierarchy of
sustainable locations for housing. Hindolveston is a village lacking in services and is
not, therefore, viewed as a sustainable location for new-build dwellings.
The Council will shortly be publishing the annual statement of housing land supply in
which it is concluded that the Council can demonstrate 5.4 years of available housing
land. Unless there are other material considerations the decision should therefore be
made in accordance with the adopted Development Plan.
Consequently it is considered that none of the other material considerations put
forward in support of the application are of sufficient weight as to outweigh the primary
material consideration that the proposal is contrary to the adopted Core Strategy and
the National Planning Policy Framework.
In respect of design, it is recognised that dwellings within the vicinity are mixed in
respect of form and styles.
With the exception of the garage roofs appearing top heavy, there are no significant
concerns in respect of the form, proportions, scale or materials proposed, which are
considered to be acceptable within this location.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plots, sufficient private garden
areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended purpose would be achieved
on the proposed plots and, in line with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations;
the area of the plot given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint
of the dwellings.
The form and layout is considered to be acceptable.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
In respect of highway issues, the proposed development is considered to be
acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
2 parking spaces have been provided per dwelling, which is in compliance with the
Council's adopted Car Parking Standards.
The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposals, subject to conditions being
imposed.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside
policy area where there is a general presumption against residential development. It is
considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are
Development Committee
33
12 June 2014
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this
case.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the Polices SS 2, EN 2 and EN
4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to add any additional ground of refusal that
may be appropriate following receipt of any Protected Species Survey.
8.
HOLT - PF/14/0538 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission ref: 12/0929
to permit increase in floor retail space for non-convenience goods; Thaxters of
Holt Ltd, Old Station Way for Norwood Homes (Westgate) LLP
Major Development
- Target Date: 30 July 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Employment Area
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/0929 PF
Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and erection of A1 (retail) food store,
associated accesses, car parking and servicing area
Approved 23/09/2013
THE APPLICATION - The permitted retail supermarket currently comprises a net
sales area of 895sqm (using the Competition Commission definition of sales are which
is defined as the sales area within a building (i.e. all internal areas accessible to the
customer), but excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer
toilets and walkways behind the checkouts). The proposal seeks to vary Condition 4
of planning ref: PF/12/0949 to increase the amount of non-convenience goods sold
within the building from 90sqm (approx. 10%) to 179sqm (approx. 20%).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE - At the request of Cllr Mike Baker in
view of concerns that the proposed change could harm town centre businesses
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL - No Objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of representation have been received. Summary of objections:
1. Opposed to any changes to the original planning condition;
2. Will have a detrimental effect on retailers in the town centre;
3. A 10% restriction on non-convenience goods was considered to be a mitigation
factor to protect the retail sector of Holt;
4. Aldi should not take on the building if they cannot occupy the unit in accordance
with the planning restrictions;
5. Moving the goal-posts is not acceptable and sets a dangerous precedent;
6. The proposal risks businesses in the town centre and will compete directly for
trade;
7. If permission is granted then the S106 Obligation should be increased further.
Development Committee
34
12 June 2014
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection
Holt Chamber of Trade - Objection - This was discussed at the last Chamber meeting
and Members present felt that condition 4 of the planning permission granted should
not be varied as it was contrary to the reason for the planning permission being
granted, which was to provide a competitive supermarket offering.
I have written to all members twice to check that there are no members who wish to
express an alternative view to the above.
When the original planning application was made the Retail Impact Assessment (RIA)
said that there would be a detrimental effect on retailers in the town centre. This was
to be mitigated by the condition that 90% plus of the retail space was to be for
convenience goods. There are other conditions such as those related to parking which
were designed to help ensure that the new retail business would not take trade away
from Holt Town centre. It is important to all Holt Chamber members that these
conditions are upheld.
I would like to raise two related issues whilst responding on this planning variation.
Holt desperately needs more parking to increase trade in the town. I hope that we can
meet to discuss this and try to find a solution. Potentially related to this is the S106
payment relating to the original application which NNDC Planning said should be
spent on mitigation for Holt Traders, Please consider allowing the Holt Chamber or
NNDC itself using the S106 amount to support parking initiatives.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle
Impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre.
APPRAISAL
Principle
The principle of an A1 (retail) store at the Thaxter's site was established through the
grant of planning permission under application ref: PF/12/0929. This permission has
Development Committee
35
12 June 2014
yet to be implemented and contains a number of planning conditions. In particular
Condition 3 states:
'The total retail sales floor space of the supermarket hereby permitted shall not exceed
895 sqm (using the Competition Commission definition of sales area, which is defined
as the sales area within a building (i.e. all internal areas accessible to the customer),
but excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and
walkways behind the checkouts).
Reason:
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant and to ensure that the size of
the store does not have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of
Holt Town Centre in accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and
Practice Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach'.
In addition Condition 4 states:
'Not more than 90sqm of the total retail sales floor space hereby permitted shall be
used for the sale of non-convenience goods.
Reason:
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant and to ensure that the size of
retail sales floor space to be used for the sale of non-convenience goods does not
have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre in
accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and guidance
contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Practice Guidance on
need, impact and the sequential approach'.
The applicant wishes to vary Condition 4 so as to allow 179sqm (approx. 20% of the
total retail sales area) for the sale of non-convenience goods rather than the current
90sqm (approx. 10% of the total retail sales area).
The principle of such a change would be acceptable so long as the change would not
result in significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre, in
accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EC 5 and guidance within
the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.
Impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre.
Holt is defined as a Small Town Centre where Core Strategy Policy EC 5 indicates
that retail proposals with a net sales area above 750sqm may be permitted provided
that, amongst other things, '…’the proposed development would not, individually or
cumulatively, have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing
town centres or nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages…’
In considering the original supermarket proposal under application ref: PF/12/0929,
the applicant submitted a retail impact statement which assessed the likely impact of a
supermarket with a net sales area of 895 sqm. The specific operator of the store was
not known at the time of that application and therefore the retail impact statement
assessed impacts across a range of turnover levels from £4,000 per sqm to £12,000
per sqm and predicted a convenience goods turnover of between £3.24m and £9.72m
in 2017 with a predicted comparison goods turnover estimated to be £0.55m.
The Council's appointed retail consultant advised that, whilst the level of impact is
likely to be greater than set out within the applicant's retail impact statement, on the
Development Committee
36
12 June 2014
basis of the proposed development, ‘...There would be an impact on the town centre
but…our overall conclusion is that this would not be significantly adverse [on Holt town
centre] so as to undermine its vitality and viability as a whole. Nonetheless the Council
should recognise that a not insignificant proportion of convenience goods trade would
be ‘lost’ from the town centre and it would in our view be appropriate to request that
the Applicant accepts the need to mitigate this impact and agrees to fund
improvements which would directly address the loss of trade from the town centre’.
Approval of the application was subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation which
secured a contribution sum of £50,000 to be used for improvements as identified in 'A
Vision For Holt 2012' or such other purposes as shall be agreed between the Council
and Holt Town Council to mitigate the impact of the Development on the vitality and
viability of Holt Town Centre. In addition the applicant is required to provide an A4
folded leaflet with details promoting Holt Town Centre and the Primary Shopping Area
uses with the leaflets to be displayed between the checkouts and the exist to the
store. Furthermore an exterior display board measuring 2000mm x 1500mm is to be
provided with information to promote the town centre.
Now that the likely operator of the store is known (Aldi), a more accurate prediction of
impact can be made. Based on the proposed 80/20 split of convenience/comparison
goods the applicant has indicated a turnover of approximately £5.3 million (£7,435 per
sqm) for convenience spend and £1.1 million (£6,011 per sqm for non-convenience
spend. Even allowing for a 'conservative' prediction by the applicant, this is considered
to be at the lower threshold of impact as set out in the retail impact statement in
support of the original supermarket proposal. Therefore, notwithstanding concerns
from existing businesses within the town, the impact resulting from the proposed
operator is much less than could be the case with other operators. In addition the
existing non-food offer within the town is considered to be strong and competitive and,
although the turnover from the store for non-food would be doubled, it is the impact on
the town centre as a whole that needs to be considered and, based on the figures
submitted by the applicant, the impact is well below the threshold of resulting in
'significant harm'. However, the Committee needs to be mindful that any permission
granted goes with the land and not with the operator and therefore consideration
needs to be given to whether any further restrictions are required to control the impact
based on 20% non-convenience floor area, the concern being that other operators can
have much higher sales densities per sqm which could result in harm to the vitality
and viability of Holt Town Centre based on a larger percentage of non-food items. One
option available to the Committee is the imposition of a Limited Assortment Discounter
condition which would restrict those who could occupy the unit (whilst still allowing the
proposed operator). Such a condition might state: ‘Occupation of the retail
supermarket hereby permitted shall be limited to an operator defined as a Limited
Assortment Discounter (LAD), involving the display and sale of a limited range of
primarily grocery products'. A similar condition was imposed on the Lidl supermarket in
Cromer. This offers the Council a safeguarding mechanism in the event that the
current expressed operator were to change.
Summary
Based on the proposed operator's business model and predicted turnover levels, the
proposed change from 90sqm (10%) to 189 (20%) non-convenience good sales area
would not be likely to result in significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of
Holt Town Centre. Evidence submitted by the applicant would suggest that the actual
overall impact is likely to be considerably less than the upper thresholds predicted
within the retail impact statement submitted as part of consideration of the original
supermarket application. Whilst Officers would not necessarily disagree with the
evidence presented by the applicant, were the current interested operator to change,
Development Committee
37
12 June 2014
the level of impact could also change. Officers therefore recommend that the
Committee considers imposing a Limited Assortment Discounter (LAD) condition
which would offer a safeguard and also offer the opportunity to review the S106
Obligation were it identified that a significant adverse impact would result on the
vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre in the event of a change to a non-LAD
operator.
Subject to the following conditions, the proposal would accord with relevant
Development Plan Policies. The Committee should note that all other conditions
attached to planning permission PF/12/0929 would continue to apply (save for the
proposed amendment to condition 4).
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions listed below.
1. Not more than 189sqm of the total retail sales floor space hereby permitted shall be
used for the sale of non-convenience goods.
Reason: To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant and to ensure that
the size of retail sales floor space to be used for the sale of non-convenience goods
does not have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town
Centre in accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning
Practice Guidance.
2. Occupation of the retail supermarket hereby permitted shall be limited to an
operator defined as a Limited Assortment Discounter (LAD), involving the display and
sale of a limited range of primarily grocery products.
Reason: An unrestricted A1 retail use with a greater proportion of non-convenience
goods floor area would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and
viability of Holt Town Centre and the condition is therefore necessary in accordance
with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and the guidance
contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
9.
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19981489
PF - Replace existing conservatory garage and shed with
conservatory garage annex and utility extension
Approved 03/12/1998
PLA/20021931 PF - Erection of garage and single-storey side extension
Development Committee
38
12 June 2014
Approved 28/03/2003
PLA/20070626 PF - Erection of dwelling
Refused 05/06/2007 D 10/04/2008
PLA/20080878 PF - Conversion and extension of nissen hut to provide studio and
workshop and conversion of stable to garden room
Withdrawn 05/09/2008
PF/12/0115 PF - Erection of replacement barn and stables
Approved 27/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is to retain a timber building on the footprint of former stables. An amended plan has
been received amending the door and window styles which has been re advertised.
The building is 4m deep and 9.5m wide and sits directly onto the concrete pad of the
original stables and has an eaves height of 2.4m with a ridge height of 3.7m It is of
timber construction stained a dark grey and the intention is to clad the roof with a grey
corrugated metal sheet roof.
The applicant has clarified that the building will be used for storage in connection with
the land and possibly a stable in the future.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Graham Jones having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
Inappropriate design
Delegated authority to approve the application subject to no new material objections
being raised following readvertisement of the amended plans, was given at the
previous meeting. New material objections have been raised.
PARISH COUNCIL
Mundesley Parish Council - Objects on grounds of traffic and accessibility
Knapton Parish Council - no response
Trunch Parish Council - objects
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from adjoining residents










Raises questions about accuracy of the application and address
The stables were required to be demolished as a condition on the previous
application for a replacement barn and stables.
The barn referred to the Design and Access Statement as being replaced has not
been there for at least 10 years or 20 according to another objector.
Building has UPVC patio doors and probably the intention for UPVC windows is
clearly not suitable for horses and storage of horse feed.
Visible from objector's balcony
What is the purpose of the building.
Concern that it could be converted at some future date to a dwelling.
The newly built structure is larger and taller than the old demolished stable block.
it appears to be a holiday chalet type
He does not need to replace the stables and barn as he already has permission to
Development Committee
39
12 June 2014



do that on the land directly behind no. 35.
A large Oak tree close to be building appears to have been ignored.
Already has permission to replace the stable building behind 35 Trunch Road
As the stables have already been demolished the land should be regarded as
Greenfield.
Following on from the reconsultation of the amended plans further letters of objection
have been received from previous objectors reiterating many of the concerns reported
above.
However, in addition an objector has expressed concerns that if planning permission
12/0115 was also erected it opens up the prospect of him stabling horses
commercially. Resulting in greater volumes of horse traffic on the narrow access
between dwellings and Trunch Road with adverse implications for highway safety.
Also the additional objections have pointed out that the site is within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The applicant has advised that he is not currently in a position to erect the barn
approved under PF/12/0115. It is on the same base as a former timber/corrugated
sheet metal structure which has been removed. The building is intended to be used
for stabling when finance will allow, until then it will be used for storage ancillary to the
use of the land. Existing doors and the rest of the windows and doors can be painted
another colour if necessary. Grey metal sheeting proposed for the roof. No current
plans to store any domestic household items at present, but may wish to at some
stage.
CONSULTATIONS
None
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
40
12 June 2014
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development in the Countryside
2. Design
3. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
This application is being reported back to Development Committee as new material
planning matters have been raised following the re advertisement of the amended
plans.
The application site is agricultural land behind four properties that front Trunch Road
and in the same ownership as 35 Trunch Road. The site lies within the Countryside
Policy area as defined in Core Strategy as well as the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (that half of the site where the building is to be retained), the Area of High
Landscape Value and the Undeveloped Coast. Such a building is acceptable under
Policy SS 2.
The land was formerly a small holding and the use classification remains agricultural.
However, it should be noted that the southern boundary line forms a fairly contiguous
rear boundary line with the other houses along Trunch Road which have all
characteristically long rear gardens.
The building in question has been erected on the same concrete pad as the former
stables and is awaiting the roof cladding pending the outcome of the application. With
an appropriate dark roofing material and sited as it is against back hedge and treed
boundary the building will be easily assimilated into its surroundings. There are no
views of the site from the south because of the topography of the land rising to the
south. In fact from any public vantage point, which is mainly from the north, a suitably
dark-stained, small-scale building would meld into the existing residential character of
the area. Consequently, it is considered there are no significantly adverse impacts
upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Area of Undeveloped Coast or the
Area of High Landscape Value. The proposal is considered acceptable under policies
EN1 and EN3.
The design and materials are considered acceptable under Policy EN 4.
As to the relationship with the neighbouring properties the building is at the closest
point 68 metres to the closest dwelling and the same distance to the boundaries to the
properties directly to the north of the stables. There is clearly no adverse impact upon
the residential amenities of those properties from overshadowing or overlooking or
disturbance from storage and a stable.
There is an extant planning permission to erect a barn and stables directly behind 35
Trunch Road granted in April 2012 on which construction appears not to have begun.
The applicant has been asked to advise what his intentions are with regard to this
permission. However, notwithstanding the fact he could implement that permission it
is considered for the reasons described above there is no significant landscape harm
or adverse impacts on neighbouring properties arising from the retention of this
building.
Development Committee
41
12 June 2014
In respect of the point raised locally that the previous planning permission 12/0115
required the old stables to be demolished, those stables were in a very poor state.
That condition was considered to ensure the removal of buildings that were becoming
unsightly. It does not indicate that a subsequent application for development cannot
be considered on its own merits.
Regarding the local concern that the buildings would facilitate a commercial
equestrian business, the recommended condition 2 would limit the use of the stables.
A change of use to a commercial equestrian use would require a further planning
permission.
The proposal accords with Development Plan Policy and is considered acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated to the Head of Planning to APPROVE.
To include the specific conditions listed below:
(1)
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 02 A3) received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 March 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(2)
The building hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes that are
ancillary/incidental to and in connection with the use of the land.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policies SS 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
10.
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0259 - Erection of two-storey front and rear extensions; 5
Havelock Road for Mr M Bywater
- Target Date: 25 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870275 PF - Kitchen and living room extension.
Approved 06/04/1987
PF/13/1009 HOU - Erection of part two-storey/single-storey rear extension, part twostorey/first floor front extension and first floor side extension
Refused 10/10/2013
Development Committee
42
12 June 2014
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks the erection of two storey front and rear extensions to provide for
additional living space and larger bedrooms to include en suite to the master bedroom
and additional storage. At the front of the dwelling a first floor extension would be
provided forming a front facing gable to mirror the existing two storey front projection.
The eastern elevation would remain single storey at the eastern boundary with the
mono pitched roof gaining 4 roof lights and a gabled roof detail just to the front
elevation. To the rear a two storey gable extension is proposed that would sit off
centre slightly towards the eastern boundary, approx. 3.4m from the eastern boundary
and some 5m from the western boundary. In addition the existing conservatory, which
extends some 4.4m from the original rear elevation, is to be demolished and replaced
with a partial two storey flat roofed extension with single storey mono pitch extension
which would project 4m from the original rear wall (2.2m for the two storey element
and additional 1.8m for the single storey element). No windows are proposed at first
floor level to the western elevation. At ground floor high level windows are proposed;
these would allow limited light into the development and preserve the privacy of the
neighbouring dwelling. The first floor windows proposed to the rear gable extension
would be set back between rendered piers to minimise any overlooking of
neighbouring properties to the east and west. Overall the resultant dwelling would be
significantly altered in appearance with alterations made to the windows throughout
the building, replacement roof materials throughout (from clay pantiles to slate effect
plain tiles) and the introduction of slate appearance plain tiles to the rear gable
elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Hannah for the following planning reason:
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
1 x objection received (from the neighbouring property to the western boundary) on
the following grounds:
 overdevelopment of the site - size is to maximise use of the land and is to the
detriment of the neighbouring properties. Will introduce overshadowing and
potentially reduce the enjoyment of light and privacy.
 easement of light - close proximity will significantly cut out light which has been
enjoyed since adjoining properties were built (1920s). Our conservatory will lose
light
 unsympathetic design - building would be totally out of keeping with the other
properties in the road both in design and materials
(Concerns also raised in connection with the erection of some outbuildings; this is
being investigated outside of the remit of this application)
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
43
12 June 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on amenities of neighbours
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area where proposals of this type are
acceptable in principle under policy SS3. Policy EN4 Design, requires that all
development be designed to a high quality, ensuring that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and are suitably designed for
the context within which they are set. Design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not
be acceptable.
This proposal follows refusal of application ref: 13/1009 and extensive discussions
between the applicant and officers to address concerns regarding, in particular, the
impact of the development on the neighbour to the eastern boundary and the overall
form and character of the original proposal. The revised design preserves the current
arrangement to the eastern boundary of a single storey lean-to element. Four roof
lights are proposed here and the introduction of a gable feature to the front elevation.
It is considered that this arrangement addresses previous concerns of overbearing
impact on the neighbour to the east, where a first floor extension hard to the eastern
boundary was originally proposed.
Objection has been received from the neighbour to the western boundary of the site
on grounds of overbearing impacts, loss of light and privacy in relation to the rear
extensions and unsympathetic design. That neighbouring dwelling extends further
back within its plot than the application dwelling and has a conservatory extension at
the rear. No first floor windows are present in that neighbour's eastern elevation. The
proposal will clearly be visible from this neighbouring property as is the existing
conservatory. Maintaining a partial single storey element, which overall would project
approx. 0.4m less than the existing conservatory, along this boundary would, it is
considered, not introduce any significant detrimental impacts on the amenities of the
neighbour to the west. The proposal may introduce some loss of light early in the day
but as the rear of the dwellings face north it is not considered that this would be
significantly detrimental such as to justify refusal of the proposal. In addition the two
storey element near to the western boundary has been designed with a flat roof,
thereby minimising its height to minimise the impact on the neighbour. The main two
storey rear gable extension would sit approx. 5m from the western boundary; no
windows are proposed to its side elevations thereby protecting the neighbours'
privacy. Two first floor windows proposed to the flat roof extension would be fitted with
obscure glazing also to protect the western neighbour from overlooking. The first floor
windows proposed to the rear gable extension would be set back between rendered
piers to minimise any overlooking of neighbouring properties to the east and west and
the separation distance from the boundary to the rear is some 29m, which exceeds
the recommended separation distance for window to window relationships. In any
case that northern elevation faces a large brick built garage and the proposal would
not therefore introduce overlooking of any private garden area to the north.
Development Committee
44
12 June 2014
In respect of the modern design of the proposal, there is a mix of types and styles of
dwellings along Havelock Road, with no single overriding distinctive design and
character to the dwellings. The materials proposed are a mix of painted render as
existing; alteration from clay pantiled roof to a slate type plain tile roof for the whole of
the dwelling and aluminium powder coated joinery in replacement of white upvc
joinery. It is considered that the proposed materials would not be out of keeping with
those of neighbouring dwellings.
Overall it is considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling would
not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of any neighbouring
dwellings or on the appearance or character of the area or the street scene. The
proposal is considered to comply with the adopted policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions considered to be appropriate
by the Head of Planning.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
11.
ENQ/13/0107 - Horsefen House, Horse Fen Road, Ludham
This report seeks the Committee's agreement to take no action in respect of the
change of use of an area of former agricultural land to residential curtilage.
Background:
On 25 May 2013, it was brought to the notice of the Enforcement team that the use of
an area of former agricultural land, approximately 45m x 27m in area, to the east of
Horse Fen House, Horse Fen Road, Ludham, had been changed to residential
curtilage and various outbuildings had been erected on the land.
An initial site visit was conducted, at which it was observed that the garden area had
no appearance of 'newness' about it, in fact, the residential curtilage seemed to be
well established, with a garden pond and fencing. The eastern boundary of the plot
follows the line of the access track to Beeches Farm and there is no indication that
this line has been altered.
A letter was sent to the occupier of the property on 20 August 2013, requesting he
contact the Enforcement Officer in order that the matter could be discussed. In
response to this letter, the occupier rang and advised that he bought the land from
the neighbouring farmer approx 8 years ago, changed the use shortly after purchase
(this accords with the information from the farmer at Beeches Farm) and did not
realise that he needed planning permission to change the use from agricultural to
residential curtilage.
The Enforcement Officer advised that planning permission was necessary and the
occupier asked for the relevant forms to be sent out to him, which they were, with a
covering letter, on 28 August 2013. It was pointed out to him that the change of use
had taken place within the last ten years and so was not immune from enforcement
action.
Before sending the forms, the possibility of planning permission was discussed with a
Planning Officer and Countryside Officer (with photographs), and neither saw any
difficulty, but the occupier was advised in the Enforcement Officer's covering letter
that this view was without prejudice to any determination on his application.
Development Committee
45
12 June 2014
The complainant was advised of the actions taken in respect of the use of the land in
a letter, he was also advised, however, that the erection of the outbuildings had
occurred more than four years previously and was, accordingly, now immune from
Enforcement action.
No application for the change of use was received from the occupier and so a further
letter, again advising of the necessity of obtaining planning permission and warning
that it would still be open for the Council to take Enforcement action, was sent to him
on 17 October 2013.
As no application was received, a planning officer was asked to take a look at the site
and give a view on whether they thought it was expedient to take any action. The
Officer verbally advised that, taking into account the North Norfolk Core Strategy, in
particular Policies EN2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement
Character) and EN4 (Design), it would not be expedient to pursue the matter. This
was given that any application would be likely to be acceptable in use, appearance
and impact terms.
In accordance with Council protocol, the Local Members for Ludham were requested
to give their agreement to treat the matter as not expedient to pursue. One of the
Members was in agreement but the other was of the opinion that the matter should
be pursued. This report is the result of this disagreement as to how to proceed.
Human Rights Implications:
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 these proposals will not have any significant impact on the
human rights of the neighbouring property owners/occupiers.
Conclusion:
In view of the fact that the land appears to have been used as residential curtilage for
approximately eight years without giving rise to any complaint until last year and that
a retrospective application for the change of use of the land would probably be
granted, it would not be expedient to pursue either the submission of such an
application or to take formal Enforcement action.
RECOMMENDATION:That Committee resolve that it is not expedient to take Enforcement action in respect
of the change of use of land from agricultural to residential curtilage on the basis that
if a retrospective application were to be submitted it would be considered acceptable
under Policies EN2 and EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(Source: Debs Struthers, Ext 6228 File Reference: ENQ/13/0107)
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/14/0490 - Erection of single-storey link extension to
existing annexe, installation of windows, raise roof and installation of timber
cladding; Hill House, Pack Lane for Mr B Evans
(Householder application)
Development Committee
46
12 June 2014
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/0340 - Erection of single-storey front and side
extensions; The Haven, The Green for Mr P Wood
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/0483 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1 The
Rosary, Chapel Road, Thurgarton for Mr M Lattaway
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/14/0267 - Installation of stand-alone solar photovoltaic array;
Park Wall Farm, Park Road for Mr & Mrs Colman
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/14/0442 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extensions;
Astley, 26 Beechwood Avenue for Mr D Maude
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/0135 - Change of use of ground floor to three residential flats;
The Ship Public House, Coast Road for The Ship PH
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/14/0333 - Erection of two-storey side extension and porch;
Cleveland Cottage, Keswick Road for Mr & Mrs K Bronze
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0272 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and detached garage; Closewood,
Sheringwood for Mr A Burton
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/0342 - Alterations to dormer windows and erection of first floor
rear extension; The Lodge, 49 Warham Road for Mr & Mrs B Coles
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/14/0024 - Erection of replacement agricultural storage building;
Land at Manor Farm, Field Dalling Road for Manor Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/14/0247 - Dredging operations to restore pond; Selbrigg Pond,
Kelling Road for Mr F Feilden
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/14/0508 - Erection of 1.82m boundary fence; 1 Rose Acre for Mr &
Mrs Bolton
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/14/0354 - Erection of double carport; 1 Belle Vue Farm Barns,
Dereham Road for Mr Weir
(Householder application)
BRINTON - PF/14/0397 - Variation of conditions 2, 5 and 7 of planning
permission reference 13/0985 to permit revised access and position and design
of garage; The Villa, Old Hall Lane for Mr & Mrs Kemp
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
47
12 June 2014
BRISTON - PF/14/0299 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extensions and garage with link extension; 10 Mill Road for Mr D Massingham
(Householder application)
BRISTON - HN/14/0478 - Notification of intention to erect a replacement
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4 metres and
which would have a maximum height of 3 metres and eaves height of 2.3m; 40
Hewitts Close for Mr A Gould
(Householder Prior Notification)
BRISTON - PF/14/0376 - Erection of rear conservatory; 97 Hall Street for Mr G
Lubbock
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/0441 - Relaxation of Condition 11 of planning permission
reference: 13/1505 to allow construction of dwelling without complying with
Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Land adjacent 104 Hall Street for Mr
K Sturman
(Full Planning Permission)
BRUMSTEAD - PF/14/0336 - Construction of biomass anaerobic digester plant
and silage clamps; Home Farm, Common Road for J E & E M E Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0355 - Erection of front conservatory/entrance
porch; Cley House, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs J Everett
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0364 - Erection of replacement garage and section
of boundary wall; Zetland House, High Street for Mr & Mrs J Knapp
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0389 - Erection of car shed/log store; Cley House,
The Fairstead for Mrs J Everett
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0484 - Erection of first floor side extension;
Saltmarsh Cottage, Town Yard for Mr and Mrs R Lawrence
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0099 - Erection of two pig welfare
buildings; Land at Locks Farm, Ramsgate Street Saxthorpe for G W Harrold &
Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0685 - Erection of first floor rear extension and replacement
single-storey extension with roof terrace; The Watch House, The Gangway for
Mr Hill
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/12/0686 - Demolition of rear extension and erection of
replacement extension, with roof terrace, erection of first floor side extension
and internal and external alterations; The Watch House, The Gangway for Mr Hill
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
48
12 June 2014
CROMER - PF/14/0074 - Installation of replacement shop front; 41A Prince Of
Wales Road for Horsford Window and Conservatory Company
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0330 - Erection of single-storey side extension and first and
second floor rear extension; 6 Alfred Road for Mrs J Reedman
(Householder application)
CROMER - PO/14/0102 - Erection of dwelling; 2 Jubilee Terrace, Jubilee Lane for
Mr J Clark
(Outline Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/14/0383 - Demolition of single-storey front extensions and erection
of first floor front extension, raising height of roof with rear dormer windows
and erection of detached cart lodge; Lakeside House, Chapel Road for Mr W
Chambers
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - NMA1/14/0261 - Non material amendment request to permit the
widening of light windows on front elevation, insertion of 2 rooflights to side
elevation and transposition of French doors and window to rear elevation.; By
The Way, Eagle Road, Ingworth for Mr & Ms Payne & Adams
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/13/0382 - Non material amendment request to permit to
raise wall alignment and roof by 150mm, amendment to porch design,
alterations to first floor rear window arrangement and change of window
materials from timber to Upvc; Land off Jubilee Avenue for Draper & Nichols Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0217 - Erection of two-storey extension and construction of
bund; Kinnerton (Confectionery) Co Ltd, Oxborough Lane for Kinnerton
Confectionery Company Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0371 - Erection of extension to roof and installation of side
facing dormer windows; 159 Holt Road for Mr & Mrs G Robson Parker
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0430 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Summerhill
Cottage, 3 Sculthorpe Road for Mr & Mrs Curtis
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0425 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0247 to permit revised internal layout to provide additional
bedroom; 3 Knoll Gardens, Sculthorpe Road for Hall & Woodcraft Construction
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0426 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference:11/1492 to permit revised internal layout to provide additional
bedroom; 3 Knoll Gardens, Sculthorpe Road for Hall & Woodcraft Construction
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
12 June 2014
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0502 - Erection of rear extension; Matt Pope Motorcycles,
Clipbush Business Park, Hawthorne Way for Matt Pope Motorcycles
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - NMA1/12/0987 - Non material amendment request to permit repositioning, increase overall size, height and door and insertion of non-opening
window to west elevation gable; The Cottage, Heath Road for Mr S Groves
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0178 - Installation of buried electrical cable system
(revision to part of previously approved route); Agricultural Land between
Sharrington and Field Dalling for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0373 - Installation of three rear dormer windows and
erection of one and a half storey link extension; 2 Holt Road for Mr C Gadsby
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - NMA1/13/0113 - Non-material amendment request for change of
workshop doors to windows and insertion of additional door; Loke End Cottage,
The Loke for Mrs M Kirk
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GUNTHORPE - PF/14/0321 - Erection of one and a half storey/single-storey side
extension and conversion of garage to ancillary accommodation; Orchard
House, The Common, Bale for Mr & Mrs J Prideaux
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0200 - Erection of single-storey side extensions and
installation of dormer windows and retention of garage/store; Briar Cottage,
School Common Road for Mr & Mrs T Pankhurst
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/14/0331 - Installation of doors to cart barn; 1 Wood Farm
Barns, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr & Mrs T Harris
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/14/0215 - Construction of electricity sub-station in fenced
compound; Site south of Hempton Electricity Substation, Shereford Road for
Good Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar Park (030) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/14/0324 - Erection of one and a half storey front extension;
Crossways, Staithe Road for Mr C Dawson
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PM/14/0328 - Erection of extension to provide twelve supported
residential units; Pineheath Care Home, Cromer Road for Pineheath Care Home
(Reserved Matters)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/0453 - Erection of rear conservatory and detached
garage/studio; Silverbirches, 29 Pineheath Road for Mr H Denner
(Householder application)
Development Committee
50
12 June 2014
HOLT - PF/14/0344 - Conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings; The Old
Telephone Exchange, 37 New Street for Mr & Mrs C Manders
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/14/0360 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension and singlestorey rear extension; 8 The Fairstead for Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0437 - Erection of single-storey side extension to provide
annexe and detached garage; Beech Lodge, Horning Road West for Mr A
Cockburn
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/14/0402 - Formation of vehicular access over ditch; 104 The
Street for Mr J Sheekey
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0271 - Change of use of former MOD building to D1 (visitor
centre); The Langham Dome, Cockthorpe Road for North Norfolk Historic
Buildings Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/0223 - Erection of side extension; Blowing Wild, Ingham
Road for Mr W Sands
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/0394 - Erection of first floor side extension; 1 Moat
Cottages, East Ruston Road for Mrs D Beck
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0416 - Erection of single-storey extension
(revised design); Lavender Cottage, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mrs P
Wake
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/14/0417 - Alterations to facilitate erection of singlestorey extension (revised design); Lavender Cottage, Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mrs P Wake
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0327 - Relaxation of condition 4 of planning
permission reference 10/0871 to delete requirement for Code Level 2 to be met;
45 Happisburgh Road for Mrs Y Bullimore
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/0025 - Installation of ventilation/extraction unit; 9
Market Street for Balkan Food Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0465 - Erection of front extension; 16A Folgate Road
for Falgate Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
51
12 June 2014
PASTON - PF/14/0294 - Conversion of barns to dwellings (revised scheme
incorporating changes to boundaries and parking arrangements to barns 1, 2, 4
and 5 and alterations to cart sheds to provide car shelters); Green Farm House,
The Green for Green Farm Barns (Knapton) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - LA/14/0295 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
residential dwellings; Green Farm House, The Green for Green Farm Barns
(Knapton) Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/14/0236 - Erection of extension to livestock shed; Glebe
Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/1417 - Conversion of redundant stables and kennels to
three residential dwellings; Hill House Farm, Norwich Road for D & M Hickling
Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/0222 - Re-location of coastal lookout station and associated
fencing; Land at Car Park, Beach Road, East Runton for NCI Runton
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/0378 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of twostorey dwelling; Woodhurst, Water Lane, West Runton for Mr Heale
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA1/07/1922 - Non-material amendment request for alterations to
barns 4, 5 and 6 to provide 2 smaller holiday dwellings and associated
laundry/garage; Manor Farm, Top Common, East Runton for Manor Farm East
Runton Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SCOTTOW - HN/14/0461 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 3.9m and which
would have a maximum height of 3.1m and eaves height of 2.2m; 30 Barton
Road, Badersfield for Mr A Panter
(Householder Prior Notification)
SEA PALLING - LA/14/0318 - Installation of replacement windows and door,
internal alterations and blocking up of external doorway; The Thatched Cottage,
Waxham Road for Mr & Mrs Day
(Listed Building Alterations)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0306 - Conversion of garage to residential annexe; The
Summer House, Church Road for Mrs R Branch
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0317 - Conversion of detached double garage to annexe;
The Thatched Cottage, Waxham Road for Mr and Mrs Day
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
12 June 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0334 - Change of use from C1 (bed and breakfast
establishment) to C3 (residential dwelling); 51 The Avenue for Mr D Rayner
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0123 - Erection of eight dwellings; Land at Snaefell Park
for Norfolk Homes Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0352 - Erection of replacement side extension; 52
Woodland Rise for Mr & Mrs Creasy
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0374 - Removal of conservatory and erection of garden
room; Beeston Hills Lodge, 64 Cliff Road for Mr H Slomka
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0444 - Erection of single-storey side extension; White
Lodge, 28 Holt Road for Mrs J Rowland
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/14/0293 - Relaxation of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 13/0139 to delete requirement for Code Level 3 to be met; Oakhurst,
Cross Road for Miss P Ford
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - HN/14/0427 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 5.5m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.2m and eaves height of 2.2m; Meadow Cottage, Church
Road for Mr & Mrs A Morton
(Householder Prior Notification)
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/0260 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 08/0749 to permit full residential occupation; The Barn, Fen Lane for
Mr J Green
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/0431 - Erection of front extension and pitched roof to
garage; Idaho, Low Street for Mr & Mrs Martins
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0470 - Removal of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 13/0316 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; The Bungalow, Thorpe
Road for Graham Hayward Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0467 - Erection of replacement single-storey front
extension; 27 Chapel Street for Mr M Keane
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/14/0423 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 06/0214 to permit full residential occupation and variation of
Condition 2 to permit revised elevations; Barn 1, Chapelfield Farm, Chapel Field,
Chapel Field Road for Mr R Overton
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
53
12 June 2014
STALHAM - PO/14/0512 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Welholme Cottage, Yarmouth Road for RT Grimes, BN Grimes & LK Smith
(Outline Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/14/0185 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension, front
porch, detached garage and rendering of existing walls; Glebelands, Church
Street for Esket Ltd
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/14/0255 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Glen Farm for
Mr D Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/14/0337 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Woodview, The Hill for Mr R Mosedale
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/14/0481 - Erection of front porch and single-storey side
extension; 18 Maple Drive, Wicken Green Village for Mr & Mrs I Urquhart
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/14/0454 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Tatterford
Hall, The Street, Tatterford for Mr J Browne
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/14/0367 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey side and front extensions; Ryder Lodge, Church Road for Mr D Cooper
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0273 - Erection of single-storey rear extension,
installation of side facing roof light and front single-storey extension; 2
Shrublands, Polka Road for Mr R Townsend
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0279 - Installation of blind dormer and
replacement rooflight and removal of existing rooflight to coach house, erection
of glazed cover to swimming pool and retention of entrance gates; The Old
Rectory, Church Street for Mrs S Olivier
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0281 - Internal alterations to coach house,
installation of blind dormer and replacement rooflight and removal of existing
rooflight and installation of gates (retrospective); The Old Rectory, Church
Street for Mrs S Olivier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0320 - Erection of RNLI lifeguard unit with
support frame and staircase; Land at The Beach for RNLI (Trading) Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0162 - Conversion of part first floor to
residential flat; Quayside Court, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
54
12 June 2014
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0382 - Continued use of outbuilding as holiday
accommodation; East Lodge, Mill Road for Mrs J Tennant
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0358 - Erection of two-storey extension to
provide disabled access, re-located Tourist Information Centre, cafe, shop and
gallery space; Wells Maltings, Staithe Street for Wells Maltings Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0359 - Internal and external alterations and
erection of two-storey extension; Wells Maltings, Staithe Street for Wells
Maltings Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AI/14/0435 - Display of fascia sign; Co-Operative
Foodstore, Polka Road for Anglian Regional Co-operative Society
(Advertisement Illuminated)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/13/1276 - Non-material amendment request for
revised joinery and opening lights to southern elevation; Globe Inn, The
Buttlands for Mr S Bournes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0482 - Erection of summerhouse; Wingate, Two
Furlong Hill for Mrs A Richards
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0177 - Installation of landfall transition pit and buried
electrical cable system (revisions to previously approved scheme)
and changes to the construction configuration at the landfall; Agricultural Land
at Weybourne Hope for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0179 - Relocation of construction compound; Agricultural
Land at Weybourne Hope for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0228 - Erection of detached garage with residential
annexe above; Sandy Hill House, Sandy Hill Lane for Venator Legal Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/13/0157 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of additional roof light; 30A Beck Close for Mr C Thomas
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WITTON - PF/14/0370 - Erection of garage, carport and boundary wall;
Whitehouse Barn, Old Hall Road for Mr R Taylor
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/14/0380 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 10/0842 to permit use of annexe as holiday accommodation; Focsle,
The Street for Mr G Mears
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
12 June 2014
WOOD NORTON - PF/14/0491 - Change of use of agricultural land to garden
(retrospective); Paddock View, Blacksmiths Close for Mrs L Tipper
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/0257 - Erection of two-storey rear/side extension; 4 Hill
View, Westwick Road for Mr R Clarke
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HOVETON - PF/14/0377 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage to serve
existing dwelling; The Old Headmasters House, Tunstead Road for Mr G
Foreman
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/13/1489 - Retention of boundary wall; Meadow View, Bears Road
for Mr K Gwynn
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/0357 - Raising height of part roof, installation of front dormer
window and replacement roof covering to rear extension and erection of singlestorey front extension; 3 Farm Cottages, Beach Road, East Runton for Mr J
Pickard
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0391 - Erection of two and a half-storey side extension
and two-storey rear extension with balcony; Abbey Croft, 5 Abbey Road for Mr
& Mrs K Woodhouse
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/13/0941 - Continued use of land for storage of tyres;
Sculthorpe Airfield, Syderstone Road for TP1 Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
HICKLING - PF/13/1456 - Variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref:
12/1397 to permit revised access/visibility details; Bay Cottage, The Green for
Anne Thorne Architects LLP
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road for Mr R Banester
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
Development Committee
56
12 June 2014
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane for Mr T Field
SITE VISIT:- 12 March 2014
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
FAKENHAM - PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, 1 Hayes
Lane for Mr & Mrs R Gordon
SITE VISIT:- 03 June 2014
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House for Miss L Hughes & Mr P
James
SITE VISIT:- 28 April 2014
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/1296 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Woodside, 24 Danish House Gardens for Mr R
Porter
SITE VISIT:- 28 May 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
SITE VISIT:- 21 May 2014
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road for Mr M Goss
SITE VISIT:- 21 May 2014
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
SITE VISIT:- 21 May 2014
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place, Briston, Melton Constable,
NR24 2LD for Mr K Graves
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the conversion and
extension of an outbuilding to create a self-contained annexe. The Inspector
identified the main issues as whether the development would be sustainable having
regard to local and national planning policy and highway safety.
The Inspector noted that the proposed annexe would be located a considerable
distance away from the main dwelling and would be capable of being occupied as an
independent dwelling. The Inspector agreed that the development would conflict with
policies in the Council’s Core Strategy but noted that the site is close to the village
Development Committee
57
12 June 2014
centre and local facilities. The Inspector also concluded that the development would
relate well to the built form of the village and would be largely screened by existing
vegetation.
Assessing the development against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
the Inspector concluded that the development would result in an enhancement to the
appearance of the site, would not result in the creation of an isolated home in the
countryside and would add to the range of housing stock in the locality.
On highway safety, the Inspector concluded that any objection could be overcome by
restricting access to an existing access through an adjacent caravan site.
The appeal was allowed with a condition imposed to restrict access to the existing
(caravan site) access.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext 6016)
18.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
Development Committee
58
12 June 2014