Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
4 November 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 12 November 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 3 December 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 15
October 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
CROMER - PF/15/1186 - Variation of condition 1 of 99/0949 to allow A1 retail
use for a wider range of goods.; Cromer Furniture Ltd, Cadogan Road for QD
Market Towns
Page 1
(2)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J
Woodeson
Page 7
(3)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0907 - Erection of 71 dwellings, new access road, side
roads, water attenuation ponds, drainage works, play areas, landscaping and
associated works (Phase 1- full planning) and Phase 2 of up to 129 dwellings,
side roads, primary school, land and community resource centre, play areas,
water attenuation ponds and drainage works (outline permission with all
matters reserved); Grove Farm Land for Amstel Group Corporation Ltd
Page 17
(Appendix 1 – page 61)
(4)
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
Page 45
(Appendix 2 – page 64)
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
(5)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 46
(6)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 46
(7)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 57
(8)
NEW APPEALS
Page 58
(9)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 59
(10)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 59
(11)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 60
(12)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 60
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 12 NOVEMBER 2015
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 - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
CROMER - PF/15/1186 - Variation of condition 1 of 99/0949 to allow A1 retail use
for a wider range of goods.; Cromer Furniture Ltd, Cadogan Road for QD Market
Towns
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 October 2015
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19990949 PF - Continued use for retailing of furniture - Approved on 6th
September 1999.
PLA/19940221 PF - Change of use from coach garage to furniture retail warehouse Temporary Approval granted on 1st July 1994.
THE APPLICATION
Temporary planning permission was granted in 1994 to change the use of this unit from
a coach garage to a furniture retail workshop (ref: PLA/19940221/PF), with a permanent
permission granted in 1999 (Ref: PLA/19990949) for the continuation of this use. This
permission seeks to vary condition 1 of planning permission ref: 99/0949 in order to
allow the A1 retail use of a wider range of goods than previously permitted.
Condition 1 of permission 99/0949, which the applicant is seeking to vary, restricts the
use of the building (formally Brammalls Furniture) as follows;
1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country
(Use Classes) Order, 1987, the building shall be used only for the sale of furniture and
allied products and for no other purpose.
Reason: The building lies outside the town centre for Cromer as designated in the North
Norfolk Local Plan and consequently the Local Planning Authority wishes to retain
control over the future uses of the building in the interests of protecting the vitality and
viability of the town centre.
Development Committee
1
12 November 2015
The unit is currently vacant, and this application would allow the unit to be occupied by
QD Stores, who are a value general merchandise retailer with stores in town centres
throughout East Anglia. No internal or external alterations are proposed as part of this
application.
The application is supported by the submission of a Sequential Test and Impact
Assessment and the agent has provided additional supporting information in respect of
how the business will operate. The application seeks to allow the QD Cromer Store to
sell comparison goods from 85% of the net floor space of the 714 metre square unit and
15% for convenience goods. The range of comparison goods proposed to be sold from
the premise include DIY and gardening products, electrical goods, furniture and
furnishings (including soft furnishings), pet goods, car accessories, home improvement
good and accessories (including home fittings), bathroom and kitchen equipment,
leisure goods including arts and crafts, books, magazines, camping equipment,
luggage, toys, eyewear, seasonal goods (ie. Christmas products together with ancillary
products. The range of non-convenience goods would include edible and non-edible
groceries. 'Edible groceries' includes tinned food, snacks, biscuits, milk, non-alcoholic
drinks whilst the 'non edible groceries' includes articles like hair and personal care
products. The remainder of the floor space (approximately 70 square metres would be
used for staff welcome and storage).
The agent has also indicated that approximately 14 full time/part time jobs would be
created, as well as additional seasonal staff as required.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to consider the policy implications of the
proposal.
TOWN COUNCIL
Concerns raised regarding deliveries and request that NNDC consider carrying out an
impact assessment concerning both the products to be sold and the effect on the town
and current traders.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following
grounds:
* Detrimental impact of larger businesses such as QD on the vitality of the town centre
and other smaller local businesses.
* Warehouse would be better reused for other purposes (ie. children's nursery etc)
* Level of job creation from use would be offset against number which may be lost if
other businesses are negatively affected.
* Surplus of other businesses operating in the town selling similar products.
* Impact on highway safety including congestion and parking problems.
* Detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby properties if business has different
opening hours, disturbance from deliveries etc.
CONSULTATIONS
NCC Highways - No objection on the grounds of highway safety, given the proximity to
the town centre and public car parks and the fact that the scheme would not affect
current traffic patterns.
Environmental Health - No objection on the grounds of environmental protection subject
to the imposition of a condition in respect of the installation of any ventilation/extraction
equipment in the future.
Development Committee
2
12 November 2015
Planning Policy - Subject to additional information being sought and considered
acceptable, it would appear that the proposed use would broadly comply with Policy
EC5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and on that basis there would be no
Policy objections in respect of this policy only. Consideration should be given to
whether you agree with this assessment and the imposition of a condition controlling the
types of goods sold (in respect of floor space area given over to comparison and
convenience goods), to enable control over future potential A1 uses.
Policy considerations:
Nationally, in particular, paragraphs 23 – 27 of the NPPF outline how Local Planning
Authorities should ensure the vitality of town centres.
One of the principle policy considerations for this application is the acceptability of the
proposed use in an area outside Cromer’s designated Primary Shopping Area and
Town Centre. Policy EC5 (Location of Retail and Commercial Leisure Development)
therefore applies. Policy EC5 generally seeks to ensure that new retail development of
the proposed size is located in the District's Primary Shopping Area of Principal or
Secondary Settlements, primarily to protect the defined retail hierarchy and to help
maintain the vitality and viability of these centres.
Policy EC5 states that new retail proposals with a net sales area of 500 – 749sqm
should be sited in a defined Primary Area of a large or small town centre. For a site that
does not comply with this, it should be demonstrated that:
 a need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed;
 no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with
town centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations);
 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, and;
 the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
Having regard to local and national policy requirements, the Applicant has submitted a
Planning Statement and a Sequential Test and Impact Statement, which, amongst other
things, seeks to set out the development proposed and address the sequential test and
impact test requirements.
Policy Assessment:
The adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy includes visions and Town Strategies for each
of the towns in the district. In respect of retail, the strategy for the Principle Settlement of
Cromer (SS 7) includes the below:
 Cromer has the second largest retail centre in the District and shop vacancy
rates are generally lower than the national average. Cromer town centre offers a
wide choice of shopping and services…;
 There is an identified need for additional comparison goods shopping (non-food)
within Cromer. This should be provided either within, or as close to, the town
centre as possible to enhance its vitality and viability.
The Planning Policy team agree with the Applicant’s description of the site as an ‘edge
of centre’ location; the edge of Cromer Town Centre only approximately 130m on foot
from the site, with the edge of Cromer’s primary shopping area lies approximately 175m
on foot from the site. In terms of considering sequentially preferable sites, there is
therefore a need to consider preferable town centre and edge of centre sites.
Development Committee
3
12 November 2015
In view of the identified need for additional comparison goods shopping, two sites within
the town centre (one which fronts onto a Primary Retail Frontage area) were allocated
under the Site Allocations Site Development Plan (2011) as retail opportunities (ROS3
and ROS4).
In terms of sites within the town centre, the NNDC Annual Monitoring Report (2013 –
2015) identified no vacant units within Cromer’s Primary Retail Frontage.
In terms of the wider town centre and edge of town sites, limited units were identified
during an internet search for commercial property to let and for sale, with those
available being considerably smaller than being proposed under this application. A
limited sequential search has been carried out by the Applicant, but even in the wider
catchment area of Cromer there are unlikely to be any sequentially preferable and
available sites.
Consideration should also be given to whether the proposed relaxation in the range of
goods being sold would, 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 this instance, some weight should be given to the fact that Cromer is a town where
there are currently no vacant units within the Primary Shopping Area and where a need
for additional comparison goods shopping has been identified; this proposed change of
use would help to meet this need. Further, given the relatively easy access and close
proximity of the Application site to the town centre, it is considered likely that customers
would consider linked trips, visiting both the proposed site and the town centre.
Given the modest size of the unit, it is considered unlikely that there would be any
demonstrable reduction in turnover in the town centre or any significant reduction in the
town’s overall attractiveness or the wider catchment area of the proposed use.
It is also considered that some weight should be given to the proposal to bring back into
use a currently vacant building and job creation (the Planning Statement proposes that
the use would deliver 15 full-time and part-time jobs, although doesn’t provide
information on how this translates into full-time equivalents).
In terms of connectively, paragraph 24 of the NPPF makes it clear that, when
considering edge of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites
that are well connected to the town centre. In this instance, Cromer Town Centre and
Primary shopping area would be close and relatively easily accessed on foot (footpaths
(although with road crossings) link the site to the town), by public transport (the site lies
approximately 140m away from the town’s bus station), by cycle and by car (a 120
space public pay and display car park is sited opposite the Applicant site).
Clarification is required on exactly what types of comparison goods would be sold to
enable a full assessment and to establish what restriction on the range/floor space of
specific goods sold would be required. Further, no turnover details have been
submitted.
Further details have now been submitted in respect of turnover, types of goods to sold
and delivery arrangements.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Committee
4
12 November 2015
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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 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) Impact on the town centre
3) Residential amenity
4) Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The application site lies within Cromer which is designated as a Principle Settlement
under Policy SS1 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Policy EC5 states that retail
proposals with a net sales area of between 500 and 749 square metres (as is the case
with this application) will only be permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of
large or small town centres. However, retail proposals which are located outside the
defined primary shopping area, such as that being proposed, may also be permitted
provided that they meet the following criteria:* A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed (starting with town centre, edge of centre sites followed by out of centre
locations,
* No sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable,
* 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 and
* The proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport,
including public transport, walking, cycling and car.
Development Committee
5
12 November 2015
In this case, as stated in the Sequential Test Report, it is considered appropriate to
classify the site as being in an ‘edge of centre’ as opposed to 'out of town' location.
The edge of Cromer Town Centre is relatively close to the site, being only 130 metres
away on foot, with the edge of the primary shopping area only 175 metres away. The
site would also be easily accessible by various modes of public transport, with a public
car park directly opposite the site. A need for additional comparison goods shopping in
Cromer has been identified, with two sites within the town centre (one which fronts onto
a Primary Retail Frontage area) having been allocated under the Site Allocations Site
Development Plan (2011) as retail opportunities. In terms of the availability of other
sites within the town centre, the NNDC Annual Monitoring Report (2013 – 2015)
identified no vacant units within Cromer’s Primary Retail Frontage, and within the wider
town centre and edge of town sites, limited units were identified during an internet
search for commercial property to let/for sale. Of those that were available, they were
considerably smaller than the proposed unit subject of this application, and therefore
unlikely to be suitable for the business proposed. Whilst a relatively limited sequential
search has been carried out in support of the application, even in the wider catchment
area of Cromer there are unlikely to be any sequentially preferable and available sites.
Concerns have been raised by both the Cromer Town Council and local residents that
the scheme would potentially have a detrimental impact on the vitality of Cromer town
centre, and in particular smaller local businesses. Policy EC5 also requires that
consideration to be given to whether the proposed relaxation in the range of goods
being sold from the unit would, individually or cumulatively, have a significant adverse
impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centre or nearby Service Villages or
Coastal Service Villages. In this case, there are currently no vacant units available
within the Primary Shopping Area, and where a need for additional comparison goods
shopping has been identified; this application would help to meet this need.
Furthermore, given the relatively easy access and close proximity of the site to the town
centre, it is considered likely that customers would consider linked trips, visiting both the
proposed site and the town centre. Given the modest size of the unit, and subject to
the imposition of conditions restricting the types of products to be sold and controlling
the percentages of comparison and convenience goods, it is considered unlikely that
there would be any demonstrable reduction in turnover in the town centre or any
significant reduction in the towns overall attractiveness or the wider catchment area of
the proposed use.
Residential amenity
Concerns have also been raised by local residents that the unit lies in close proximity to
a number of residential properties, and therefore there is potential for the proposal to
impact on the residential amenities of the occupants of these properties, particular in
respect of noise and disturbance. Notwithstanding these concerns, the application has
been assessed by the Council's Environmental Health Officer who has raised no
objections on amenity grounds, based on the additional information provided in respect
of how the business will operate, and subject to the imposition of condition controlling
the installation of any extraction/ventilation equipment. On this basis, it is considered
that the scheme would adequately protect residential amenity, and accord with Policy
EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Highway safety
The agent has confirmed that whilst the unit benefits from a right of way over the access
lane on the eastern side of the building, as it does not form part of this planning
application, it has been excluded from the planning application site boundary.
Confirmation has also been provided that the loading/unloading arrangements will
remain as for the previous retail use (ie; from the front of the building) and will not utilise
Development Committee
6
12 November 2015
the lanes either side. It is anticipated that there would be an average of three deliveries
per week, coordinated with the North Walsham store and taking approximately 40
minutes. The application has been assessed by the Highway Authority who have
raised no objection to the scheme based on the information provided, given the
proximity of the site to the town centre and public car parks, and the fact that the scheme
would not affect current traffic patterns. The scheme would therefore safeguard
highway safety, and accord with the requirements of Policies CT5 and CT6 of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Other issues
Whilst it is acknowledged that the site lies within the Cromer Conservation Area, given
the nature of the application, it is considered that the scheme would protect the
appearance and character of the Cromer Conservation Area in accordance with Policy
EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
On balance, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to control the future
occupation of the unit, including restricting the types of goods and products sold, the
application to vary condition 1 is considered acceptable, and would comply with the
relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(2)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J Woodeson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 September 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two
storey replacement dwelling and garage.
The proposed dwelling has an 'L' shaped footprint, and would be constructed along the
north and east boundaries of the site. The ground floor level of the proposed dwelling is
to be earth sheltered by re-grading of the garden banks to the north and east
boundaries. The first floor level would consist of two separate "pavilions".
The materials to be used on the external exposed walls at ground floor are brick, flint
and pintiles bedded into lime mortar with brick quoins to openings and corners. At first
floor the appearance would be more of a lightweight structure clad in Larch timber
boarding and allowed to weather grey, with a zinc coated aluminium standing seam
roof. External joinery would be Passivhaus standard, triple glazed, powder- coat faced
aluminium/timber frames. Thermal storage in conjunction with solar gain and a heat
Development Committee
7
12 November 2015
recovery system may result in the house not requiring heating.
There are also a number of dilapidated outbuildings and sheds across the site.
Amended plans have been submitted reducing the width of the service tower from 5m to
3m, and introduction of a glass box over staircase. A street scene plan has also been
submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor G Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
1. Local opposition
2. Impact on skyline next to church
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting to allow Members of
the Committee to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council voted unanimously against this planning application for the following
reasons:

The village is a conservation area and the application is next to the church which
is a listed building.

The Parish Council has no aversion to modern architecture in the right setting,
these plans are alien in relation to other buildings in the village.

The planned building in the heart of the village bears no relativity to the context
of the village,

The situation, next to the church and opposite what will be a new sympathetic
build will make this appear even more alien.

The lower storey of the building which will not be seen is made from materials
sympathetic to the surrounding but the upper storey which will be on view from
many parts of the village is made of larch and zinc totally foreign in the
surroundings.

The amount of glass in the building gives concern for the amount of light
pollution this could produce.

The building has many glass windows to give views over the village, but we have
been told by the architect that the building will be hidden by trees and hedges
and the owner 'is not intending to remove these' therefore making the views
limited, the more the views are opened up the more on display this building will
be.

The zinc roof likened to an industrial building will become the dominant feature
of the skyline, spoiling views of the village and the church.

Current roofing material in the village is Norfolk Pantiles could the plans/slope of
the roof be amended to allow the use of local materials rather than zinc.

The plans are for a building approximately double the size of the current
structure, does this conform with current planning rules?
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection and one comment have been received raising the following
points:
1. Out of character with area
Development Committee
8
12 November 2015
2. Inappropriate development in village setting next to ancient church
3. Not visually attractive
4. Contrary to NPPF
5. Impact on heritage asset
6. Fails to integrate into the natural, built and historic environment
7. Poor design
8. Fails to improve character and quality of area
9. Out of scale with site
10. Footprint greatly exceeds the property which it is proposed to demolish
11. Design bares no relationship to context of surrounding buildings nor to North Norfolk
domestic architecture
12. Roof height is excessive and clad in appropriate industrial material
13. Extensive glazing increasing light pollution
14. Unsympathetic materials
15. Concerns at loss of trees surrounding site
16. Overlooking
17. Erosion of Conservation Area
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): Although a
longstanding part of the village, Conservation & Design are unable to sustain an
objection to the demolition of the existing building for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is not of any particular architectural or historic merit,
It has been heavily altered over time,
It is in a particularly poor state of repair, and
It makes a negligible contribution to the wider Mannington & Wolterton Conservation
Area by virtue of its modest size and relatively private setting.
In terms of the replacement proposals, the following comments can be offered:
Scale & Massing
The proposed building would clearly have a much greater footprint than the existing
cottage and would thus provide a substantial increase in floorspace. Despite this,
however, it is not considered that the new build would be out of scale with its
surroundings or its own site. This is largely because it would be broken up
three-dimensionally and would affectively consist of a single-storey core sandwiched
by a pair of two-storey pavilions. Hence, it would not be viewed as a single monolithic
mass.
Form
Under this heading, an L-shaped plan-form has been proposed specifically in response
to the encircling contours of the site. This should ensure that the new dwelling is
properly housed on the site rather than appearing as an unsympathetic addition. As
regards the mono-pitch roofs, it has always been considered that these would have
been better turned through 90˚ so that they slope down into their respective
embankments. However, the fact that they would appear to run counter to the levels is
not seen as a sustainable ground for objection given the discrete nature of the site.
Design & Appearance
Although clearly contemporary in its elevational treatment, the new build would be
grounded on the site through its solid brick and flint plinth. With this also interlaced with
pintiles, the net result should provide an attractive arts & crafts base to the dwelling. At
first floor level, meanwhile, the building has been given a more lightweight treatment to
further reduce its apparent bulk and to reflect its verdant setting. The net result should
Development Committee
9
12 November 2015
be a bespoke composition which provides a level of visual interest way in excess of that
provided by the existing cottage.
Materials
In addition to the vernacular materials mentioned above, the larch cladding proposed
will go grey over time and will be relatively recessive material within its treed surrounds.
It should also blend well with the zinc proposed for the roofslopes. Whilst accepting that
there is no immediate precedent for its use within Little Barningham, zinc is in fact a high
quality material which has been used successfully elsewhere within and outside the
District in a traditional context (Dragon House, Thornage; Holt Church Extension; Curve
House Edgefield; Norwich Cathedral Refectory, etc). There is therefore no reason to
believe that it would not produce a similar complimentary (and yet contrasting)
appearance here.
Conclusion
In offering the above comments, C&D are mindful and respectful of the concerns
expressed locally about the design and materials proposed. At the same time, however,
we do have to give weight to the mix of building styles and materials found locally. We
also have to acknowledge that the proposed building would be an honest design which
has been informed by its site and which would be distinct to its locality. For these
reasons, and because; a) the conservation area designation relates primarily to the
wider Mannington & Wolterton estate rather than to the village itself, and b) the new
build would not compete with, or impinge upon any of the existing views of, the Grade II*
Listed St Andrew’s Church, it is not considered that the proposed scheme would result
in any harm being caused to the overall significance of the existing heritage assets.
In the event of approval being issued, conditions covering the prior agreement of bricks
and zinc samples are requested
County Council Highway Authority: No objection subject to parking and turning be
conditioned.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to imposition of advisory notes.
Environment Agency: No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape):The proposed dwelling
will have a significant visual impact in the local environment. The height of the building
(particularly the main north-western element of the dwelling) will be visible from the
south-west and from the north-east across the fields (a northern elevation drawing has
not been provided). The building will rise up above the existing retained vegetation with
limited scope for future screening on the northern elevation. The proposed orchard on
the southern elevation is unlikely to reach sufficient height to screen the building
completely. The Council therefore has to be confident that the design of the
replacement dwelling is suitable and capable of sitting comfortably within the
Conservation Area and adjacent to the Church. Colleagues in Conservation and
Design are able to provide comment on this subject area.
Although the Arboricultural Report illustrates that majority of the trees on the southern
boundary will be removed (specifically trees T12, T11 and Group 3), the report does not
illustrate trees outside of the boundary of the property. Therefore a number of trees will
remain between the church walkway and the site boundary helping screen the building
from the south-westerly direction and can be supplemented by replacement planting.
Development Committee
10
12 November 2015
With respect to the impact on trees, the Arboricultural Report indicates that one
category B tree, seven category C trees and three groups of trees will be removed to
facilitate the development. These tree removals are acceptable in association with the
construction of the replacement dwelling subject to replacement planting. However,
because of the remaining retained trees on the site and the size and position of the
replacement dwelling, there will be an impact on the existing trees. The consulting
arborist is confident that the dwelling can be constructed without having a detrimental
impact but this will require root pruning to some trees, extensive protective barriers and
temporary ground protection as well as arboricultural supervision. The construction will
be a complicated process and constrained by the trees and from experience it cannot
always be guaranteed to be completed according to the methodology. There is likely to
be an additional resource placed on the Council to ensure that the development is
completed in accordance with the tree protection measures and specified methodology.
A tree has been missed off the tree survey, this is a mature holly growing in the hedge
on the south boundary. This tree has an approximate diameter of 20cm and should be
classified as a tree under the survey and would be protected as part of the Conservation
Area regulations. The tree is not part of the holly hedge that delineates the boundary
and has not been managed as part of the hedge. The survey and method statement
need updating to reflect this omission. In addition Section 6 of the Arboricultural Report
indicates that some of the existing hedging will be removed yet this is not clear on the
plans? This should be clarified as the existing hedging is important and contributes to
screening the proposed dwelling.
In addition to the above, an ecological report has been submitted. This has been
prepared in accordance with the British Standard for Biodiversity (BS42020:2013) and
by Suitably Qualified Ecologists. The survey did not identify any bat roosts or bats
within the property although the dwelling did provide some potential roosting
opportunities. Bird nests were identified therefore mitigation will be required. The
report provides recommendations for mitigation and enhancement which will safeguard
ecology at the site, subject to the implementation of these recommendations there is no
objection in respect of ecology and policy EN9.
Although the Landscape Section does not object to the application, this is subject to
conditions and subject to Conservation and Design colleagues being accepting of the
design, the site does pose a number of constraints to development which will need to be
carefully managed and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, some further
clarification is required with respect to the arboricultural report.
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).
Development Committee
11
12 November 2015
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon Conservation Area and setting of Grade II* listed Church
4. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
5. Impact upon trees and protected species
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to visit the
site.
1. Acceptability of development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (SS2) as designated in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location replacement dwellings are
permitted. There can therefore be no policy objection to the principle of the proposal.
However, such proposals in this location are required to comply with Policy H08 which
permits replacement dwellings provided that they:
a) would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
b) would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside
In determining what constitutes a 'disproportionately large increase' account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been or
could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of
the area.
The existing dwelling is a fairly modest cottage set back into the north east corner of the
site, over 35 m from the road. Whilst the overall length of the existing dwelling measures
approximately 19m from east to west, it has a low ridge height of some 5m making it no
taller than most single storey dwellings. It has a footprint of approximately 116sqm, and
total floor area of approximately 217sqm. There are a number of detached and
dilapidated outbuildings across the site which are to be demolished as part of the
proposal. These structures have a cumulative floorspace of approximately 116sqm, in
their own right.
Development Committee
12
12 November 2015
The proposed replacement dwelling has a footprint of approximately 364sqm, total
floorspace of approximately 522sqm and varying roof heights ranging from
approximately 3m to 8.5m. There is also what is referred to as a service tower which is
approximately 9.5m in height. The increase in floorspace between existing and
proposed is approximately 140%. However, if the existing outbuildings on the site are
included in this calculation the increase in total floorspace from all structures is
approximately 63%.
In terms of comparing these floorspace figures there is no dispute that the proposed
replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing dwelling on the site.
However, the majority of the overall floorspace of the proposed replacement dwelling is
at ground floor level, and utilises the existing topography of the site. This is by partially
building the proposed dwelling into the sloping banks to the north and east boundaries
and re-grading these areas to create a part earth sheltered house. The proposed
dwelling would therefore be partially 'lost' into the existing landscape features on the site
minimising the overall visual impact and appearance of scale.
At first floor level two separate 'pavilions' are proposed. They would be separated by the
newly created roof garden above the ground floor. The floor space of the 'pavilions'
constitutes less than half of the floor space proposed at ground floor level
(approximately 43%). The height of the 'pavilions' vary which is partly because of slight
variations in ground levels across the site, but also because of the mono-pitch roof
design ranging from 5m up to 8.5m. This would be up to a 3.5m increase in height when
compared to the existing dwelling. However, given that this increase in height is not
across the whole of the first floor areas due to the mono-pitch roof design, it is not
therefore considered that the height of the proposed dwelling is disproportionate to the
existing.
Given the position of the existing dwelling on the site there is limited scope for
alterations under permitted development rights. This is due to the site constraint of
steep sloping banks to the north and east boundaries and that the site is located within
the Conservation Area, where there are restrictions in terms of extending a dwelling
without planning permission.
In terms of prevailing character of the area there is a mix of dwelling type, scale, design
and use of materials. It is not an area where one character prevails over another. There
are disused barns opposite the site to the south, the church to the east on significantly
higher ground than the application site and surrounding properties, and to the west are
two storey dwellings which although 'modern' have a traditional appearance in the
sense that they have pitched roofs. The ridge height of these immediate neighbouring
dwellings is approximately 8.5m, across the whole roadside frontage, and
approximately 9.5m to the top of the chimneys. The proposed replacement dwelling is
no taller than this at its highest points. The proposed service tower is approximately
9.5m in height which is again no different to the neighbouring dwellings including the
their chimneys. The ground levels between the site and the neighbouring dwellings
differs, as the levels drop the further west you are from the site. This means that the
dwellings all gradually step down from the application site by approximately 1m.
Whilst there is a significant increase in floorspace and the scale is greater than the
existing dwelling it is in part mitigated by the use of topography on the site, design and
materials. There is also a clear increase in height, but given the mix and scale of
dwellings in the immediate area it is not considered to be disproportionate. The site is of
more than ample size to accommodate the proposed dwelling. There is therefore no
objection to a replacement dwelling on this site which is larger in scale than the existing.
Development Committee
13
12 November 2015
Notwithstanding the comments of the Landscape Officer the site would not be visible
from the east until you are directly outside the site. Views approaching from the west
would also be limited until in closer proximity. Whilst there are steep banks with
vegetation to the north and east the upper levels of the proposed dwelling would be
visible from the north, but no more so than a traditional style two storey dwelling. Given
that the site is located within an already developed settlement and is not in an isolated
location there are dwellings to the west and south east, disused barns to the south and
the church to the east, it is not therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would
materially increase the impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
2. Design
The design of the proposed dwelling is "unashamedly contemporary", as stated by the
applicant's agent in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application.
This is in contrast to the traditional and modest appearance of the existing dwelling
which is fairly inconspicuous in the street scene, and is considered to be of no
architectural merit, contributing little to the character of the area.
The Committee will note the objections received from local residents in the
Representations section of this report and from the Parish Council. A number of issues
have been raised regarding the design, materials and appropriateness of such a
proposal in this location, given that the site is in the Mannington and Wolterton
Conservation Area and adjacent to the Grade II* listed St Andrews Church.
However, in this case it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating a
dwelling of a contemporary design. Whilst the proposed dwelling is significantly larger
than the existing dwelling it has been designed in such a way to minimise the visual
impact by using the topography of the site, and re-grading the existing sloping banks
within the site boundaries, as well as breaking up the scale and mass of the first floor by
creation of two separate 'pavilions'. The height and proportions of the two storey
elements of the proposal are not out of keeping with the scale and massing of the
neighbouring dwellings. The use of differing materials and fenestration has also been
used to break up the elevations and create visual interest. Given the mix of architectural
styles in the immediate area a contemporary design is supported.
The design includes Passivhaus standard, triple glazed, powder-coat faced
aluminium/timber frames. Thermal storage in conjunction with solar gain and a heat
recovery system is also proposed and may result in the house not requiring heating.
The orientation and glazing would help to maximise solar gain from the site.
Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy positively encourages high quality, innovative and
energy efficient design. In addition paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that "Planning
policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular
tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through
unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is,
however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness".
Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that " In determining applications, great weight should
be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design
more generally in the area".
The North Norfolk Design Guide also provides a number of guiding principles when
considering a contemporary and locally distinctive building under paragraph 2.3.1. It
Development Committee
14
12 November 2015
refers to successful architecture having less to do with a particular style and more to do
with the successful co-ordination of proportions, materials, colour and detail, and how it
also creates its own sense of place and character. It also refers to a development
relating well to their context by making the most of existing landscape features and
topography, and that developments should respond to the scale and massing of their
neighbours and to the overall rhythm of the street scene.
In terms of materials a solid brick and flint plinth, interlaced with pintiles is proposed at
ground floor. It is considered that this would ground the development on the site, and
use the more traditional materials found in North Norfolk. The timber cladding is
proposed at first floor along with areas of glazing, which would provide a more
lightweight treatment creating visual interest. The cladding would be larch which would
be allowed to weather naturally to a silver/grey creating a more recessive appearance.
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of zinc on the roof. However, Officers
have no objections to the use of this material. While it is accepted that there is no
immediate precedent for its use within Little Barningham, zinc is a high quality material
which has been used successfully elsewhere within and outside the District in traditional
context. The Design Guide advises that in terms of materials it is not necessary to
slavishly copy existing materials. It can involve creating interesting contrasts and
textures between complementary materials creating a richness and variety not
sameness and uniformity.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer who has
raised no objection to the proposal.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of design in accordance
with Policy EN4.
3.Impact upon Conservation Area and setting of Grade II* listed church
The site is located within the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area, and is
located to the west of the Grade II* listed St Andrews church. The Conservation and
Design Officer has been consulted on this matter and has raised no objection. He
considers that weight has to be given to the fact that there is a mix of building styles and
materials locally, and that it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would be an
honest design which has been informed by the site and would be distinct to its locality.
He also states that for those reasons and because the conservation area designation
relates primarily to the wider Mannington and Wolterton estate rather than to the village
of Little Barningham itself and that the new building would not compete with or impinge
on any of the existing views of the Grade II* listed St Andrews Church. it is not therefore
considered that the proposed scheme would result in any harm being caused to the
overall significance of the existing heritage assets, including the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of compliance with Policy EN8.
4. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
The nearest neighbouring dwelling is Pound House, a 'modern' dwelling, to the west of
the site. There is a field access track in between Pound House and the application site.
The eastern gable of Pound House would face the application site, and has no first floor
windows. There would be approximately 37m between Pound House and south
projecting wing of the proposed dwelling. Whilst there is a first floor window to a small
kitchen area and glazing to a studio, these face the gable of Pound House, and given
the positioning, distance and boundary treatments it is not considered that this would
constitute any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to Pound House.
Development Committee
15
12 November 2015
There is also a window at first floor to a bedroom facing the north west corner of the
application site. However, this is a secondary window, and is some 20m away from the
boundary with Pound House. It is not therefore considered that this would result in any
significant overlooking or loss of privacy.
The first floor terrace garden would also have views to the west, but again due to
distances between dwellings and boundary treatments it is not considered that this
would result in an unacceptable relationship between dwellings. The main grassed
garden area still remains at ground floor in a central position to the site. There is a
terrace on the first floor garden area but this screened to the west preventing any
possible overlooking.
5. Impact upon trees and protected species.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application. It states
that "the design has been developed with the benefit of arboricultural advice sought at
an early stage in order to retain screening and keep the most prominent mature trees".
One Category B tree and seven Category C trees are to be removed for development
purposes along with three groups of conifers. They are to be replaced with seventeen
new heavy standard trees which will include large native species such as Oak and
Beech to maintain long term mature tree cover, a new orchard and new native hedging
approximately 30m in length supplemented by ornamental tree planting. All retained
trees will be properly protected in accordance with the appropriate BS during
construction. The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has raised no
objection to the application but has requested additional information in terms of an
updated tree survey as a Holly tree appears to have been missed, what hedge removal
is proposed and clarification around trees to be retained/removed along the south east
boundary. At the time of writing this report this information was awaited.
However, the Arboricultural Consultant has advised that they will be appointed to
supervise the construction and oversee tree protection measures. Prior to and during
construction details of tree protection measures will be submitted to the Landscape
Officer to ensure tree damage is minimized and retained trees continue to provide visual
amenity and screening benefits for years after the build. He also states that the
applicants fully intend to ensure that no net loss of tree cover takes place. A landscaping
plan will detail methodologies, maintenance and planting details. The northern
boundary, the north east corner and south east corner of the plot will be the primary
locations for new planting including 30m of new mixed native species hedge. The
revised report will clarify this, but hedge removal would be to north west corner of the
site and part of the hedge flanking the existing gated driveway. He confirms that the
main hedge to the south will remain and continue to offer the screening it currently
provides. This information will be assessed once received. The Committee will be
updated at the meeting.
In terms of protected species a survey has been submitted with the application and
concludes that no bat roosts were found. Bird nests were identified and mitigation is
therefore required and can be addressed by way of condition. The Landscape Officer
has confirmed that there are no objections in terms of ecology on the site. The proposal
is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EN9.
Conclusion
The Committee will note that no response has been received from the Environment
Agency and that no other consultees have raised an objection. Notwithstanding the
objections of the Parish Council and local residents the proposed replacement dwelling
is considered to be acceptable in this location. Whilst the dwelling would be significantly
larger than the existing dwelling it is not considered that this would have a significant
Development Committee
16
12 November 2015
detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the area or on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area or setting of the Grade II* listed Church. The
relationship to neighbouring dwellings is also considered to be acceptable.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies.
Therefore subject to no objections being raised by the Landscape Officer on receipt of
the additional information requested the recommendation is one of approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections
from the Landscape Officer following receipt of the requested additional
information and imposition of appropriate conditions including statutory time
limit, in accordance with approved and amended plans as well as Arboricultural
Impact Assessment and Protected Species mitigation, materials, landscaping,
and any other conditions deemed necessary by the Landscape Officer.
(3)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0907 - Erection of 71 dwellings, new access road, side
roads, water attenuation ponds, drainage works, play areas, landscaping and
associated works (Phase 1- full planning) and Phase 2 of up to 129 dwellings,
side roads, primary school, land and community resource centre, play areas,
water attenuation ponds and drainage works (outline permission with all matters
reserved); Grove Farm Land for Amstel Group Corporation Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 23 September 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
Development within 60m of Class A road
C Road
Unclassified Road
Restricted Byway
Cycleway
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/0520 PF
Use of land for school playing field with car parking, ecology study area, foot and cycle
paths, fencing and formation of access
Approved 29/07/2014
THE APPLICATION
This is a 'hybrid' planning application. In other words it is partly an application for full
(detailed) planning permission and partly for outline permission.
Development Committee
17
12 November 2015
The entire application site measures approximately 16.0 ha. That part of the application
for detailed approval represents what would be the first phase of the proposed
development. This comprises an area of approximately 8.5 ha. and includes a new
spine road extending from the A148 to link with Moor Lane, 71 dwellings, together with
areas of both formal and informal open space.
The remaining parts of the site are for outline planning permission with all matters of
detail reserved for subsequent approval. This is for a further 129 dwellings, a new
primary school site (1.0 ha. approx) and land for a 'potential' community building (0.26
ha. approx). The phasing arrangements for these elements are not currently proposed.
It is also proposed to offer 10ha. of land immediately north of the application site (but in
the same current ownership) as informal open space.
The application proposes a Section 106 Planning Obligation which is 'expected' to cover
the following:
 The provision of affordable housing.
 Reserved and serviced plots for self build and/or custom-build dwellings.
 Provision of a new 120 place primary school.
 Provision of public open space.
 Provision of site for a community centre.
 Bus stop provision.
 Cycle paths.
 Travel plan.
An accompanying application is also made under the Council's Housing Incentive
Scheme. This proposes that between 15-25 dwellings plus the spine road would be
completed within 18 months of the grant of planning permission, in exchange for the
amount of affordable housing to be limited to 20% (15 units), together with a relaxation
of renewable energy and Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.
The application is supported by the following documents:
• Planning Statement.
• Statement of Community Engagement.
• Heritage Statement.
• Design and Access Statement.
• Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
• Tree Survey.
• Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report.
• Ecology Surveys Interim Report.
• Transport Assessment.
• Residential Travel Plan.
• School Travel Plan.
• Energy and Sustainability Statement.
• Geophysical Survey Report (Archaeological Assessment).
• Land Contamination Assessment.
• Flood Risk Assessment (incl. Surface Water Drainage Strategy)..
• Utilities Constraints Assessment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
Development Committee
18
12 November 2015
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
 Unsustainable site for 200 dwellings.
 Highway safety.
 Unrealistic to suggest residents would walk/cycle to Fakenham.
 Impact on wildlife.
 Flood risk.
 Lack of local employment.
 Question of whether there is the need for a new primary school.
 An Environmental Impact Assessment should be provided.
 Contrary to the local development plan.
 Negative impact upon listed buildings and the village conservation area.
 Inadequacy (and safety implications) of Moor Lane to cater for likely additional
traffic from the development.
Full response attached in Appendix 1 together with an accompanying letter from the
Hawk and Owl Trust.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Council has received representations objecting to and supporting the proposed
development.
A total of 192 representations have been received objecting to the application on the
following grounds:
1.
Existing drainage on The Street and Creake Road is very bad. Experts have noted
that the extra dwellings would inevitably create flooding further down the village,
to include Creake Road. Insurance for existing properties will go up due to the
flooding risk and may not even be available
2.
Roads flood even in lighter rain
3.
Adjacent properties to the attenuation pond would be placed at risk from flooding.
Is a pond the size of football pitch and higher than neighbouring properties
acceptable to anyone who does not own their own ark? Risk of children drowning
in pond due to size. If it is not lined property adjacent properties would be at risk
from subsidence. failure to maintain the water quality would create a health
hazard.
4.
Existing water pressure is already only just above acceptable levels; the addition
of more properties would adversely affect this
5.
Water table is very high
6.
Adjacent to a high risk flood zone
7.
Several underground streams link to several ponds and wells - unlikely to cope
with extra development
8.
Can the sewerage network cope?
9.
Could have a knock on effect re flooding elsewhere
10. 2nd year in 5 that the aquifers at Syderstone haven't filled
11. Smaller scale developments over the years have had a negative impact upon the
drainage and flooding
12. Access off the A148 to the village is very hazardous and not suitable for extra
traffic - anticipated approx 400+ extra cars
13. Extra traffic in the area would hinder the route of emergency vehicles to Kings
Lynn hospital
14. Access from the north via Creake Road is also dangerous with fast traffic in both
directions and a hidden dip
Development Committee
19
12 November 2015
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Traffic is accentuate during rush hour and holiday season. The traffic survey
submitted is misleading in only covering the winter
The roads are not suitable for the extra traffic, which would compromise the safety
of the users, including pedestrians and horse riders.
Safety of the users of the national cycle route 1 would be adversely affected
Photograph within the submitted application of the end of Moor Lane is not an
accurate portrayal of the traffic problem
Map is not to scale and does not show a section between nos 8 and 19 Moor Lane
which is only one car width and has been the scene of a number of emergency
stops, minor incidents and a child being hit by a car
There are no footpaths for most of Creake Road and Moor Lane - increase in both
foot and vehicle traffic would not be safe
Emergency services already have problems accessing the village as some roads
are narrow and one car width
Walking to Fakenham is perilous. There are no footpaths along the A148, the
verges become overgrown and it takes you past a busy building yard. Secondary
school children have to make this trip. This could inevitably lead to parents driving
their children to school thus causing more traffic
Access from the site onto Moor Lane is not appropriate
Roundabout may aid the access off the A148 but it makes the use of the new
spine road as a rat run highly likely, splitting the village in two
An existing pedestrian link to the site alongside Grove Farm Barns is shown on
the developer’s plans, but at no point was this a defined access. Pathway would
share the access with vehicles and is highly unsuitable for this. In addition part of
this proposed pathway is shown to go straight through a designated parking area
for properties 2 and 4 Grove Farm Barns.
Entrance to a business frequently using agricultural machinery would be right
opposite one of the proposed entrances to the site
Part of the land used for the revised access to the A148 belongs to the Parish
Council
Development would put a strain on the local services
The existing school is adequate for the local children. It is busy because children
from the wider area attend as it is a good school.
The proposed Community Centre and playing Field are not required as
Sculthorpe already has these facilities
Doctors within Fakenham are already over stretched
Area has a lot of wildlife, much of which use the field. This includes; roe deer,
stouts, natterjack toads, great crested newts, marsh harriers, barn owls, many
bats, sky larks, red kites, rare orchids, fungi, badgers, moles, stoats, field mice,
harvest mice, marsh harrier
Adjacent to a Hawk and owl Trust nature reserve
Risk of pollution entering Wensum Valley from flooding, increasing nitrate levels
Negative impact upon the protected trees
Loss of mature hedgerows
Site close to SSSI and SAC and these should be protected from harm - could be
harmed as a result of flooding from the site
Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) para 109 re
protecting the landscape and biodiversity
Field is currently used for silage and is therefore not disturbed for most of year. As
such there is a good biodiversity of insects and wildlife
Submitted environmental study is not complete, as stated by the consultants.
Village is a Dark Skies village
Development would lead to light pollution
Would be visually detrimental to such a beautiful village, impacting the landscape
negatively. Impact exacerbated from the rising gradient
Development Committee
20
12 November 2015
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Village layout should be preserved
Adverse impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area and village's listed
buildings, conflicting with para 132 NPPF
Would result in the loss of many properties' views
Development is out of character and scale to the existing village; proposal would
nearly double the number of dwellings and completely change the nature of the
village, losing the rural character. Conflicting with North Norfolk Development
Framework 1.2.1 and EN 1 (AONB)
Would conflict with NNDC's policy to 'protect the built and natural environment
and local distinctive identity'
Development would seriously affect the current sense of identity and community
the area has and destroy its character
Existing properties would be reduced in value
Britton v SoS case included the wider Countryside under the Human Rights Act.
Article 8 states “that a person has substantive rights to respect for their private
and family life”. Following this case protection of the Countryside now falls within
the interests of Article 8 private and family life.
The development plan shows allocated sites within Fakenham (approx 800
dwellings) which would meet the demand and be better served in terms of
infrastructure. Permitting this proposal would prejudice the delivery of the more
sustainable sites
Proposal is not in accordance with the council's planning policies for the area
NNDC has a 5.4yr land supply and up to date Local Plan so para 49 in the NPPF
does not apply
Proposal would conflict with Planning Policy Statement 3 which says that 'good
design should contribute positively to making places better for people'
Would conflict with the 3 dimensions of the NPPF - economic, social and
environmental
Site is within a Green Belt - these are meant to be protected for future generations
Site is Greenfield and should be used for agriculture. Brown field sites should be
used instead
Unsustainable location as there are few/no amenities in the village. Would need a
car to get to jobs, shops, doctors and other amenities
Buses aren't frequent enough to allow access to Norwich or Kings Lynn for work.
There are few jobs available more locally.
Poor internet and mobile signal
No gas supply to the village
Overdevelopment - Development is creating a village within a village
Land is grade 3 agriculture and should be designated as Open Space
Development does not reflect the local need or character. Most of the dwellings
wouldn't be affordable for local people
Could lead to urban expansion of Fakenham and Sculthorpe becoming a suburb
Only jobs created would be for the build itself
Build itself would take years and cause local disruption
If piling is required, as it was for Foundry Close, this would create extended noise
problems and damage to existing properties. Many properties are very old and do
not have foundations or footings
Submission regularly overstates the limits of land ownership with the development
transgressing into one objectors land and parish land
Application underestimates distance to Fakenham. Any problems are disregarded
and any perceived benefits exaggerated
Viewpoints chosen regarding the impact upon the church aren't the most crucial
views
Layout and access would segregate the new development
Would increase the fear or crime due to the number of new paths at the back of
Development Committee
21
12 November 2015
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
houses
Proposed flats are particularly inappropriate and would be completely overbearing
and adversely affect the character of the village
Create overlooking into properties at Foundry Close and Moor Lane - buffer zone
not large enough
Houses are too big and too many - not in keeping with the rest of the village
Many houses would be likely to become second homes and holiday lets and be
vacant for long periods
Proposed new school car park has bad visibility and access would be dangerous
Objection received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) on following
grounds:
 Level of development is much higher than what is planned within the Core Strategy
and represents an over large expansion of a relatively small rural village.
 The development would result in unacceptable negative impacts on the local
character and on the surrounding landscape; principal of concerns is a damaging
increase in light pollution. Sculthorpe is currently mainly unlit and is part of the
Rural Dark Landscape as defined within the Norfolk County Council's
Environmental Lighting Zones' policy.
 A recent appeal decision confirms that the Council can demonstrate a five year
land supply.
 The proposed development is unsustainable.
 The application is contrary to both the policies of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.
Three letters of representation supporting / commenting on the proposed development
have been received, citing the following:
1. More homes are required everywhere
2. Close to Fakenham which has a lot of facilities
3. Access via the A148 is excellent
4. Field has not been used for meaningful agriculture for years
5. The site does not currently has permitted public access, so it cannot be described
as an amenity
6. Development has the opportunity to unify the 3 parts of the village around a more
central located residential area
7. Village has no distinct vernacular style of buildings so such a development would
not look out of place
8. Thought needs to be given to providing adequate foul and surface water drainage
and the prevention of any flooding.
9. Traffic calming should be provided to prevent excessive speeds throughout the
village
10. Continuous pathway should be provided throughout the village
CONSULTEES
Fakenham Town Council - Objects on the following grounds:
a) The application is outside the Core Strategy permitted area of Development.
b) The development would be to the detriment of the planned northern development of
Fakenham which is part of the Core Strategy. It would put extra pressure on services,
infrastructure and amenities all of which are in Fakenham.
Anglian Water - Advises that the foul drainage from this development is in the
catchment of Fakenham Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for
these flows. In terms of the foul sewerage network advises that the development will
lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage strategy will need to be
Development Committee
22
12 November 2015
prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine mitigation measures.
Advises that the surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the
planning application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable as it states that
infiltration methods will be utilised, whereas the application form states that a
connection to the main sewer is required. Anglian Water will require a clear drainage
strategy.
Recommends conditions requiring a foul water strategy and a surface water
management strategy.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations) - In terms of education, advises that
the proposed development would result in the following additional child / pupil places:
Nursery school - 18
Primary school - 50
High school - 33
6th form - 3
A financial contribution of £372,608 is sought for primary education. This would be used
partly towards a limited available expansion of Sculthorpe Primary School to
accommodate an additional 16 pupils. The remainder would be used towards additional
accommodation at Fakenham Junior / Infant Schools where the remaining 34 pupil
spaces would be allocated. Both of the Fakenham schools lie within the statutory
maximum distance a child would be expected to travel (i.e. 2 miles for age 5-8 and 3
miles for age 8 plus).
No contributions are sought for high school and 6th form education as there is existing
spare capacity.
Commenting on the potential offer of a new primary school, this "would require
significantly more funding than outlined above (i.e. a 1 Form Entry school [210 places] is
likely to cost around £4.5 million plus land [1.0 ha]). This scale of school (1 Form Entry)
cannot be justified based on the number of existing children at the primary school and
those likely to arise from this development. The County Council could not insist on such
a new school as this would be contrary to the legal tests set out in Reg 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) as amended". Nevertheless in the
event of the applicants clearly demonstrating that they could deliver the school, unaided
by funding from the County Council or Diocese the proposal would be broadly
supported.
The development would require 4 fire hydrants at a total cost of £3,248.
A contribution of £60 per dwelling is required for library provision.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Objects. Notes that this site is not allocated land
and is located in a small village outside of Fakenham which has a very large site
allocated part of which has been approved for planning permission. In comparison this
site is far less sustainable despite the assertions made in the Transport Assessment.
The Highway Authority does not accept the findings of the Transport Assessment both
in principal and in detail. It is not accepted that this is a sustainable location for large
estate scale development. The layout design for phase 1 is not acceptable. The design
for the A148 junction is not accepted. The development does not provide a safe route to
school for pupils of middle and high school age who will need to walk to school in
Fakenham. Pupils would be expected to cross two lanes of high speed traffic on the
A1065. It is not accepted that an adequate frequency of bus services exist for an
Development Committee
23
12 November 2015
enlarged scale of development.
In the light of the above the Highway Authority recommends an highways objection for
the following reasons:1. The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims of
sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to encourage
walking, cycling, use of public transport and reduce the reliance on the private car as
represented in national and local policy. Contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework and Policy 5 of Norfolk's 3rd Local Transport Plan, entitled Connecting
Norfolk.
2. The application is not supported by sufficient highways and transport information to
demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the satisfactory
functioning of the highway and highway safety. Contrary to Development Plan Policies
and the NPPF (paragraph 32).
3. The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians /cyclists / people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others
with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and local services in Fakenham.
Contrary to Development Plan Policies and the NPPF (paragraph 32).
4. The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to additional right hand turning
movements across the opposing traffic stream of a busy principal route which would
interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic and cause danger and inconvenience to
highway users. Contrary to Development Plan Policies and the NPPF (paragraph 32).
5. The layout of the proposed highway corridor in this residential development does not
accord with the Norfolk Residential Design Guide in that it does not provide convenient,
safe and attractive pedestrian, cycle and public transport links within the estate and to
the existing community. Contrary to Development Plan Policies and the NPPF
(paragraph 32).
Norfolk County Council (Public Rights of Way) - The site layout indicates a number
of 'recreational' routes for both walking and cycling across the site. These are as yet
undefined as to whether they will be adopted or not. The links offer useful off-road
alternatives from the north of the village across the open site, funnelling towards the
A148 and the unclassified road leading into Fakenham so offer an alternative to driving
into Fakenham town. Road crossings may need to be evaluated for safety
improvements to accommodate an increase in walkers and cyclists. There is no
pedestrian route linking the east of the site onto Creake Road (other than that provided
near to the sports pitch) which decreases the accessibility of the site for recreational
users from Creake Road.
No objections to the application - however, there needs to be more information in regard
to the status of the proposed footpaths/footways and in turn, who will be responsible for
their future maintenance. Dependant on the designation of these route we may seek a
financial contribution for their upkeep.
Norfolk County Council (Flood and Water Management) - No formal response
received. Refers to published standing advice.
Internal Drainage Board - Pleased to see that the site is to incorporate SuDs, however
seeks clarity on where increased flow volumes of surface water will be discharged to.
Should this be to the Norfolk Rivers IDB system then consent would be required.
Development Committee
24
12 November 2015
Norfolk County Council (Historic Services) - Advises that the application does not
address the potential of the site for as yet undiscovered heritage assets of
archaeological interest. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires developers to describe the
significance of any heritage assets affected, and the impact of the proposals and the
impact of the development on them. The site has not been the subject of any
programmes of archaeological work, formal or informal, and lies in an area that has not
been studied in any depth. Hence an archaeological desk based assessment is unlikely
to add anything to what we already know about the site.
The site itself sits in a triangle of roads surrounding a slight promontory above the river
Wensum to the south. Its topography gives the site some potential for prehistoric
remains, which are frequently placed in highly visible locations over river valleys. By the
time of Thomas and Milne's map (published by Faden in 1797), the modern road layout
had been established, and the focus of the village was shifting from the Creake road to
the Street. The earliest surviving building on the Street dates from the 17th century. The
few artefacts recorded from the surrounding area (a record reflecting a lack of
investigation, rather than a lack of potential) include a number of Roman and Medieval
artefacts.
Recommends that the Applicant be requested to withdraw the application pending the
results of a programme of trial trenching, or that the application be refused for lack of
information of the impact of development on the historic environment, in accordance
with paragraph 128 of the NPPF.
Norfolk Constabulary - Comments only apply to the detailed proposals. No objection
to the overall layout and the crime prevention measures put into place to enhance the
security of the site. However advises against the introduction of small play areas (as
opposed to larger ones less close to houses) and the design of a footpath which is
proposed to run through the centre of the housing development.
NHS England - No objections. There is current GP capacity in the Fakenham locality.
Environmental Health - Raises concerns regarding surface water drainage,
specifically the potential increase in flood risk to downstream properties. Strongly
suggests that without sight of further information the application should be refused.
However if the application is approved, recommends that conditions are imposed to
cover the following matters: sewage disposal, surface water drainage, land
contamination, lighting and noise control.
Natural England - Advises that the application site is in close proximity to a European
designated site (River Wensum Special Area of Conservation) which is protected under
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Under the provisions of
these Regulations the District Council (as a 'competent authority') should have regard to
any potential impacts the proposed development may have upon the designated site.
The District Council should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a
significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment
stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. There is currently not enough
information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out.
Recommends that to help undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment confirmation
is sought from Anglian Water that there is adequate capacity in the local sewerage
treatment works to cope with the additional housing. This is in line with Policy SS08 of
the North Norfolk Local Plan that states developments in Fakenham must demonstrate:
“..there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works (upgrades programmed for
post-2016) and should ensure no adverse effects on European sites.”
Development Committee
25
12 November 2015
Comments awaited in response to the Habitats Regulations Assessment undertaken by
the Council.
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments are divided into four areas; heritage
assets, housing layout, housing design and materials.
Heritage Assets - These include the Sculthorpe Conservation Area and three listed
buildings, all within the nearby vicinity of the site. In terms of the Conservation Area (CA)
(which adjoins the south-western corner of the application site comprising the older part
of the village), the main impacts of the development would be the loss of views (mainly
private) from the CA across the existing fields towards the distant church tower as well
as views back towards the CA, which would result in a level of harm. "In terms of
quantifying this harm, it is acknowledged that; i) the views are intermittent rather than
universal and have not been purposefully designed, ii) the conservation area is primarily
inward rather than outward looking, and iii) a landscape buffer would be provided
between the existing and proposed buildings to reduce the direct conflict between the
two. It is also accepted that there would be a modest benefit associated with pulling the
through traffic out of the village centre. As a result of this mitigation, the level of harm
can be classified as ‘less than substantial’ as outlined in the NPPF".
The listed buildings comprise 4 Moor Lane, Grove Farmhouse and the Church of St
Mary & All Saints. In the case of the former two which closely border the site, the main
effects of the development would be an interruption of the open views they currently
enjoy and the suburbanising impact upon the character of the area in which they are
currently situated. In both cases the level of harm caused can be classified as ‘less than
substantial’. In the case of the Church this Medieval//Victorian structure stands at the
head of the village and creates the impression of looking down over it. In practice,
however, the topography and the various intervening hedges restrict any real views
down into the site. The more significant visual link is actually the other way from the
village up to the church which stands as an important historic reference point. Against
this context, infilling the triangle with development would sever these existing
connections and thus must have a detrimental impact upon the historic value of the
church to the village. Again, in the context of the church's much wider setting, the impact
is considered ‘less than substantial’.
Whilst the harm upon these heritage assets cannot be classified as ‘substantial’, it
nonetheless means that each asset would suffer some loss of significance as a result of
the development. The findings of the submitted Heritage Statement downplays the
various impacts and surprisingly concludes that there would be no harm to any of the
assets; this is disputed.
Housing Layout - Comments that the masterplan breaks the scheme into a series of
individual character areas which seek to respond to their immediate context. In principle
this is considered to be a logical approach which could in theory promote variety and
avoid uniformity within the village setting.
In respect of the detailed housing element comments that the road layout is somewhat
regimented notwithstanding that effort has been made to vary plot frontages and the
parking arrangements, "...the scheme is likely to only be partially successful in its
pursuit of informality". Further comments that "The point about regimentation also
extends to the creation of character. Hence, within traditional North Norfolk villages,
there are commonly chance built forms and groupings which co-exist in unexpected and
curious ways. This often promotes additive street scenes which have depth and visual
interest (e.g. the position of the Hourglass within The Street and the way it channels the
view and then leads on to the unmade Chapel Lane). Whilst the submitted scheme does
look to vary the position of its buildings, there is a general consistency of approach in
places which is based around a plot-drive-plot-drive rhythm and the strong east-west
Development Committee
26
12 November 2015
orientation (which in fairness is reflected in the village). This, it is considered, could
restrict the opportunities for creating the desired layering and character. In offering this
comment, however, it is acknowledged that the majority of the buildings do follow the
natural contours and would benefit from solar gain. It is also recognised that the
permeability provided by the footpaths within and around the perimeter of the site would
help in providing interest. They would not, however, entirely combat the fear that the
scheme leans too closely towards the suburban rather than the rural"
Housing Design - Comments that whilst the scheme treads little new ground
architecturally with many of the buildings featuring well-rehearsed elevations and
design detailing, acknowledges that a valid attempt has been made on some of the
more important plots to ‘plug into’ the North Norfolk vernacular. Included amongst these
are a range of feature gables and elevations which generally include wide frontages and
narrow gables and which are, for the most part, of appropriate scale for their
surroundings, which should result in an element of local distinctiveness.
Notwithstanding this a number of detailed comments are made with a view to improve
the appearance / design of certain of the dwelling types.
Materials - Notes that whilst the application does not propose specific materials a
restricted palette is proposed to reinforce local distinctiveness. Whilst this is fine in
principle, the Roof Plan actually shows a high proportion of properties being covered
with slate and clay tiles (assumed to be plain pintiles). This tends to run contrary to the
local position where pantiles are the predominant roof covering.
The designs appropriately mix render and brick and also correctly use flintwork as a
supporting material to be used on the occasional feature gable (which could arguably be
used less sparingly to help enliven some of the potentially oppressive brick gables).
In terms of fenestration, comments that the scheme is very one dimensional in its
approach and feature the same style of casement window across all units. This would
tend to promote uniformity and blandness rather than quality and interest. It certainly
does not reflect the local position where a range of different sized casements sit
comfortably alongside sashes.
Comments that surface finishes and boundary treatments generally seem to be
appropriate.
Landscape Officer - Comments cover landscape character and visual impact,
landscaping proposals, impact upon trees (arboriculture) and ecology.
Landscape character and visual impact - The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA) describes the application site as an open grassland area defined by
garden boundaries, with the southern half of the site more enclosed by hedgerows,
woodland and high quality trees. The field is essentially isolated from the wider rural
landscape. The LVIA suggests that the current quality or condition of the site is low with
the exception of some of the moderate landscape features such as the Category B
trees, woodland and pond areas. The LVIA proposes that the development will create a
village of more distinct quality with a stronger defined heart however it also
acknowledges that there will be a change in views and a degree of harm caused and
change to the character of the green open space. To mitigate this, the LVIA states that
the development has been landscape led to ensure that harm to views are minimised
and that enhancements are made to green infrastructure and biodiversity, this will
create a high quality development that will not appear out of place with the surrounding
village. In general the LVIA provides a fair assessment of the landscape character and
visual impact of the proposed development.
The North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (NNLCA) includes the site within
the 'Rolling Open Farmland' character type, an area which is generally associated with
Development Committee
27
12 November 2015
the chalk upland of ‘high Norfolk’ in the west of the County, which has an open character
with a gently rolling topography with a large domed plateau giving a feeling of height.
The application site generally reflects a micro-version of this, with long views available
from north to south, and west to east; and subtle topographic changes which generate a
relative feeling of height at a central location and towards the west of the site. Distant
views of the Wensum Valley can be seen from this location, otherwise the site is
generally enclosed by the current village form, hedgerows, mature trees and woodland.
Sculthorpe is recognised as a non-typical village settlement within the area, but with no
cohesive style other than the central core of the village around the conservation area
and the ribbon development along the roads to the north, west and south-east.
The NNLCA suggests that the landscape in general is not overtly sensitive, valued
(other than locally), or constrained. Any potential development on the site should
therefore be mindful of Core Strategy Policy EN2, which seeks to ensure that
development is respectful of the local landscape character and provide enhancements
where possible. Enhancements include the creation of new grassland areas,
landscaping which builds upon and enhances existing trees, hedges and other features
on and adjacent to the proposed development site, and reinstatement of ponds.
The NNLCA does indicate that development should not ‘stand out’ but should be almost
un-noticeable and un-remarkable as an additional element within the existing
development structure, taking account of building/development size, location,
surrounding landscaping and existing land uses. Clearly, given the size and scope of
the proposed development, the development will result in a fundamental change in
character of the village and will create its own character. Therefore, adherence to this
particular element of the NNLCA is almost impossible given the scale of the proposals.
This does not however preclude the requirement for the development to respect the
individual form of the settlement or the character in terms of design, materials and
landscape treatment which on balance it achieves.
The proposals reflect the settlement character to a degree, recognising in the design the
ribbon development along Moor Lane and Creake Road, retention of the long distance
views to the church and creating a landscaped buffer strip to the Conservation Area. In
addition, the masterplan layout, green infrastructure, and the soft landscape proposals
provide enhancements that reflect the requirements of the NNLCA for example the
creation of grassland, extension of hedgerows and the creation of wetland areas
through the SUDS proposals. There is however a concern about the loss of a significant
landscape feature of the mature trees on the southern boundary which are likely to be
removed for the access road.
It is clear that the proposals would fundamentally change the immediate landscape
character for the settlement of Sculthorpe however the wider impacts on the landscape
character of Rolling Open Farmland are limited. The quality of the design and green
infrastructure, and the implementation and maintenance of the landscape proposals,
will define how much the development will erode or enhance the local landscape of the
village. Any enhancement may be compromised by the loss of the mature trees to the
south of the site.
One of the twelve core principle identified in the NPPF is that planning should take
account of the character of different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and
beauty of the countryside. The proposed development is within designated ‘countryside’
and on an existing green field site, however the site is unusual for a countryside location
being surrounded (in the main) by the village and existing housing.
Development Committee
28
12 November 2015
Although the development is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the wider
landscape character, the development does not sit comfortably within the requirements
of policy EN2 of the Core Strategy or the NPPF due to the scale of the development in
association with a green field site in a countryside location.
Landscaping proposals - Considers that the detailed landscape proposals for Phase 1
are acceptable in principle but more detail will be required in terms of the management
of the landscape both for public amenity and ecological enhancement features. This
should also incorporate the management of the SUDS feature. Queries whether the
SUDS feature will contain permanent standing water or be more ephemeral.
Arboricultural impacts - The Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Survey which
accompanies the application accurately plots trees and hedgerows on and around the
site but is flawed when compared with the proposed plans, in particular in relation to the
new access road layout to the south of the site and which trees will be affected. This is of
significant concern as the most noteworthy amenity trees are situated in this area. The
Council has been approached by Sculthorpe Parish Council to serve a Tree
Preservation Order on these trees.
Ecology - Ecological reports submitted with the application (prepared by suitably
qualified ecologists) identify a number of species and habitats present at the site. These
include breeding birds, barn owls and great crested newts. Whilst no evidence was
found of bats using trees which are proposed for removal, it is not clear from the
submitted information whether an adequate survey was undertaken.
As part of the application it is suggested that there exist the following ecological
opportunities:
 Diversification of retained habitat – creation of areas of species rich grassland
(benefit invertebrates, birds, bats and plants)
 Provision of new ponds and or other water features possibly as part of a SUDS
proposal (benefit invertebrates, amphibians, as well as generally birds and
mammals)
 Planting of native species of trees and shrubs
 Planting of lengths of native hedgerows, or infilling of gaps of existing
hedgerows or planting of a new length of hedgerow adjacent to existing to form
double hedgerow.
 Provision of bat and bird boxes, tubes or bricks incorporated into the
development and new buildings
 Provision of brash, log and stone piles in landscaped areas to provide cover and
habitat for invertebrates and other small fauna.
Should planning permission be granted a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan
(LEMP) should be required by condition. The LEMP should incorporate all of the
mitigation and enhancement recommendations specified in the Ecological and
Landscape Character reports to maximise any potential enhancement opportunities.
Other matters - In response to the application a Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) has been undertaken by the Council in its role as a 'competent authority' under
the Habitats Regulations (2010) in order to consider the impacts of the development on
the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The HRA concludes that
significant effects on the conservation objectives of the River Wensum SAC are
considered unlikely. It is suggested that the HRA is forwarded to Natural England for
comment.
Development Committee
29
12 November 2015
A lighting design strategy should be required to ensure that excessive lighting from the
development is minimised in the interests of ecological impacts.
It is important that any sustainable drainage system proposal includes features to
improve biodiversity and landscape character, and is not just a hard engineered
solution. Long term management and maintenance of the feature will also be required.
Conclusions - There are still outstanding issues to be resolved before a complete
assessment of the proposed development can be made. However, on the basis of the
assessment thus far, there are concerns over the potential loss of significant landscape
assets (mature trees) and the scale of the proposal in the context of the small village of
Sculthorpe. Although enhancement opportunities may arise as a result of the
development in terms of green infrastructure and biodiversity, the success of the
enhancement opportunities would be dependent on delivery and long term
management. The landscape section remain to be convinced that the enhancement
opportunities outweigh the cumulative impacts of the development on the landscape
(including biodiversity and trees) and consider that other residential growth
opportunities exist in the area that provide a more favourable alternative.
Strategic Housing Officer - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in
Sculthorpe with 42 households on the Housing Register and in addition there are a
further 33 households on the Transfer Register and 336 households on the Housing
Options Register who have stated that they require housing in Sculthorpe.
The application has been accompanied by a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme which
if approved would reduce the affordable housing provision from 50% to 20%. The
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application suggests that within 18 months of the
date of planning permission the new spine road and between 15-25 dwellings will be
completed. If this delivery timescale is met, the affordable housing requirement would
reduce from 50% to 20%. The proposed delivery and timescale is acceptable as long as
at least 15 dwellings are completed within the 18 month period.
The proposed (20%) affordable housing mix does not fully reflect the identified housing
need for Sculthorpe and some amendment is required. If the delivery requirements of
the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme are not met, 50% of the total number of
dwellings will be provided as affordable housing, but the Applicant has not provided an
affordable housing mix for this provision and this will be required in case the delivery
requirements of the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme is not met.
The design ethos for the site is applied equally to the market and affordable dwellings so
that the affordable dwellings are visually integrated into the scheme whilst being
physically located in two distinct groups. This is welcomed as is the comment that the
affordable dwellings shall be provided to the Lifetime Homes standard which provides
for future adaptability.
If this application is approved a Section 106 Agreement will need to be completed which
shall provide for the provision of the on-site affordable housing in phase one. If the
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application is approved for phase one, the Section
106 Agreement will allow for the affordable housing provision to be provided as 20% of
the total number of dwellings as long as the delivery requirements of the scheme are
met. In respect of the future phases which are included as an outline application, the
Section 106 Agreement will need to ensure that the policy amount of affordable housing
is provided subject to any viability assessment submitted immediately prior to or part of
a reserved matters application. The Section 106 Agreement will also include provisions
to ensure that the affordable housing provided in all phases is protected as affordable
Development Committee
30
12 November 2015
housing in perpetuity and include appropriate phasing arrangements to ensure that the
affordable housing is provided throughout the development.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that the open space requirement for
200 dwellings is around 1.4Ha. The application provides for well in excess of this
amount. The application states that the developer would anticipate establishing a
management company to carry out grounds and other maintenance works. This may be
an appropriate means of managing the site providing sufficient funds were generated
from residents to cover annual expenditure
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
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 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Development Committee
31
12 November 2015
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). The following policy
headings are relevant to the application:
 Achieving sustainable development
 Promoting sustainable transport
 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
 Requiring good quality design
 Promoting healthy communities
 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development Plan Policy and National Planning Policy
2. Five Year Land Supply
3. Sustainability
4. Layout / Design / Heritage
5. Heritage Issues
6. Landscape Impact / Ecology
7. Highway Safety
8. Housing Mix/Type
9. Community Facilities
10. Drainage
APPRAISAL
The Site
The small, characterful village of Sculthorpe lies approximately 2km west of Fakenham
immediately north of the A148 Kings Lynn road. The application site covers an area of
approximately 16ha. It comprises a mix of open grassland with pockets of woodland. It
is generally flat with only minor variations in gradient. It forms part of a larger area of
undeveloped land roughly triangular in shape which is surrounded on three sides by
roads and for the most part housing development. To the south the site borders The
Street and the older historic core of Sculthorpe village as well as where The Street joins
with the A148. To the east and west the site borders Creake Road and Moor Lane
respectively and the ribbon development which is served off these roads The northern
extent of the application site is undefined by any physical features, beyond which the
open grassland continues further up towards where Creake Road and Moor Lane
converge.
Planning Policy Overview
The Development Plan for North Norfolk comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy
(adopted 2008) and the North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document
(adopted 2011).
The Core Strategy (CS) includes policies in relation to the provision and location of new
housing development in the district during the plan period 2001-2021. Of these, CS
Development Committee
32
12 November 2015
Policy SS1 sets out a hierarchy of locations for where the majority of new development
will take place. These are 'Principal Settlements' (Cromer, Holt. Fakenham and North
Walsham), 'Secondary Settlement' (Hoveton, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells), and a
number of larger 'Service Villages'.
Elsewhere, in the 'Countryside', CS Policy SS2 restricts new development to particular
uses which support the rural economy and only limited forms of new housing
development are permitted, including affordable housing schemes in accordance with
the Council’s rural exception site policy and the conversion of existing buildings.
Fakenham and its urban extension for in the region of 1,000 new dwellings. The village
of Sculthorpe is not a location designated for new residential development in the Core
Strategy, and is outside of both Fakenham and its urban extension. Sculthorpe forms
part of the 'Countryside' policy area and as such this planning application represents a
significant departure from the Development Plan.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 14 makes it clear that at the
heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that in
terms of decision making this means:
 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay, and
 where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in
this Framework taken as a whole; or
 specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Footnote 9 to paragraph 14 identifies some of the policies in the NPPF which indicate
development should be restricted. These include policies relating to the protection of
designated heritage assets, which are found at paragraphs 131-134 of the NPPF.
The Applicant's Case
The case put in support of the application can be summarised as follows:





The District Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. In
which case, policies for the supply of housing in the Development Plan are out of
date, and the determination of the application should be made in accordance with
paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which provides for a presumption in favour of
sustainable development unless any adverse impacts would significantly outweigh
the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be
restricted.
Sculthorpe is a potential location for sustainable development being approximately
1km from Fakenham and 2km from the town centre (a 5 minute car journey, 10
minute cycle ride or 30 minute walk to the town centre).
Economic benefits including Council Tax revenue (approx £300,000 pa.), New
Homes Bonus (approx £1.4m), net household expenditure (approx £3m pa.), the
equivalent of 16 permanent construction jobs and construction training
opportunities.
Social benefits comprising new housing (including affordable housing), a new
primary school, publically accessible open space and a community resource centre
should the need arise.
Environmental benefits comprising good design, habitat enhancements,
floodwater management, reduction of traffic through the village (new link road) and
use of renewable heat sources in the construction of the new buildings.
Development Committee
33
12 November 2015



There would be no significant landscape or visual impacts.
There would be no harmful impacts on the historic environment.
There would be no harmful transport impacts.
Housing Land Supply
Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should "identify and
update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’
worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%
(moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the
market for land". Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery the NPPF
states that the buffer should be increased to 20%.
Paragraph 49 states that "Housing applications should be considered in the context of
the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply
of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." If such policies are
out-of-date, then the second and third bullet points of paragraph 14, set out above,
apply.
In other words, if a local planning authority fails to demonstrate that it has a five year
land supply, paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that policies for the supply of housing in
its Development Plan cannot be considered to be up-to-date. Accordingly, paragraph 14
applies and applications for housing development should be granted permission unless
the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits of doing so or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be
restricted. An increasing number of planning appeals are being allowed on this basis.
As referred to above, a main part of the Applicant’s case is based on the assertion that
this Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply and that there should
be a presumption in favour of granting permission for what they consider to be a
sustainable development.
This Council's current annual published 'Statement of Housing Land Supply and
Housing Trajectory' (April 2015) identifies a supply equivalent to 5.4 years (using a 5%
buffer). More recently however the Council's land supply position was challenged on
appeal by Gladman Developments Ltd following the refusal of permission for up to 170
dwellings on land south of Holt. A public inquiry was held in July this year at which
evidence concerning the Council’s supply of housing was tested. Members will be
aware that the appeal was subsequently dismissed.
In reaching his decision, the Inspector concluded that the housing targets included in
the Core Strategy were out of date and were an inappropriate basis for determining
whether the Council had a five year land supply. This was because the Core Strategy
targets were not based on recent evidence and may not be sufficient to address housing
needs. Furthermore, given the importance the Government attaches to boosting the
supply of housing, the inspector considered that applying a 20% buffer would increase
the likelihood that sufficient land would be available to meet future housing targets,
since the Council has fallen short of reaching its annual housing requirement on several
occasions over the last decade.
The Inspector assessed whether the Council could demonstrate that it had a five year
housing land supply. He took into account the recent evidence of housing need in the
draft Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which he decided
provides ‘the best available evidence for estimating future housing needs’, and which he
Development Committee
34
12 November 2015
found was preferable to the evidence produced by the consultants acting on behalf of
the appellant. He concluded that the Council could demonstrate 5.4 years’ worth of
deliverable housing supply.
This appeal decision evidences that the Council can demonstrate a five year land
supply. Accordingly it is considered that paragraph 49 of the NPPF does not apply in the
case of this application, in as far as it states that in the absence of a five year land supply
relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.
Members should be made aware that Gladman Developments Ltd have recently
commenced proceedings at the High Court challenging the appeal decision. The
Inspector’s position on the district’s five year housing land supply position does not,
however, form part of the grounds of appeal.
The mere fact that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply is not a
sufficient reason alone for rejecting the proposed development. The five year supply is a
minimum, not a maximum, and CS policy SS3 also acknowledges that the housing
provision for the district represents a minimum figure. The Committee therefore needs
to go on to consider whether the proposed development would amount to sustainable
development. This is considered below.
Layout and Design Issues
Assessment in terms of the site layout can be divided into two areas, the indicative
masterplan for the whole site and the detailed element for part of the site.
The masterplan splits the site into three main elements: those areas to be built on
(housing, school / community land), public open space (including drainage ponds) and
road infrastructure. In general terms, the amount and distribution of these elements in
the context of the size and nature of the site are considered reasonable. The masterplan
divides the housing development into four character areas which would vary in dwelling
sizes and density. This is considered to be a logical approach which could in theory
promote variety and avoid uniformity within the village setting. The amount of public
open space would exceed the Council's normal requirements for a development of this
size. Established pockets of woodland and open greenspace would be retained at the
southern entrance to the site, a central 'village green' would be provided together with a
network of greenspace throughout the site, including 'buffer areas between existing and
proposed development. The school and community land would be served directly off the
main spine road.
In terms of the detailed housing layout members are referred to the comments (above)
of the Conservation and Design Officer who whilst acknowledging certain attributes of
the scheme nevertheless raises concern over the regimented road layout which is more
suburban in nature rather than reflecting the characteristics of a rural village. Similarly it
is recognised that an attempt has been made to introduce an element of local
distinctiveness into certain of the house designs, although the Conservation and Design
Officer has raised a number concerns, principally in relation to the scale and proportions
of certain buildings. It is understood that the applicants are intending to try and address
these issues of concern by submitting amended plans.
Heritage Issues
In the context of this application 'heritage issues' comprise the adjoining Sculthorpe
Conservation Area, nearby listed buildings and the potential archaeological interest of
the site.
Development Committee
35
12 November 2015
Sculthorpe Conservation Area adjoins the site along its south-western boundary. In
addition, two listed buildings closely border the site and the listed church is more distant
but still visible to the north. CS policies EN2 and EN8 require that development
proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale and design will protect,
conserve and, where possible, enhance conservation areas and should preserve or
enhance the setting of designated heritage assets.
Local Planning Authorities are required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay “special attention”
to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas are
not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a local
authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building
or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
This is reflected in paragraph 132 of the NPPF, which requires that ‘great weight should
be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, such as conservation areas
and listed buildings. Paragraph 134 requires that, where a development proposal will
lead to 'less than substantial harm' to the significance of a designated heritage asset,
this harm should be taken into account, and should be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. The NPPF defines
‘significance (for heritage policy)’ as ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological,
architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s
physical presence, but also from its setting.’
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring to
issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities must
approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the 1990
Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple balancing
exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in favour of
preservation.
The NPPF defines ‘setting of a heritage asset’ as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or may
be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The Applicant has provided a Heritage Statement which concludes that there would not
be harm to any heritage assets or to their setting.
This conclusion is disputed by the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer, who
identifies that there are four heritage assets within the vicinity of the site which it is
considered would be affected by the proposed development; namely the Sculthorpe
Conservation Area, the Grade II Listed 4 Moor Lane and Grove Farmhouse, and the
Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary & All Saints. The Officer assesses the impact of the
proposed development on each of these heritage assets and their settings, and
Development Committee
36
12 November 2015
concludes that there would be harmful impacts, although they should be classified as
‘less than substantial’. The Officer considers that the Applicant’s Heritage Statement
downplays these various impacts.
In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is
engaged by the harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and
there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the character and
appearance of the conservation area. Members of the Committee will have to consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. (Refer to
'Conclusions' below).
Similarly, in light of the duty in section 66 of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory
presumption is engaged by the harm to the settings of 4 Moor Lane, Grove Farmhouse
and the church of St Mary & All Saints. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the character and appearance of the listed
buildings. Members of the Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. (Refer to 'Conclusions' below).
In terms of archaeology a Geophysical Survey Report submitted with the application
provides the results of a magnetic survey carried out on the site, a method used to
locate archaeological anomalies on land. The report concludes that the survey did not
identify 'any anomalies of probable archaeological origin'. Norfolk County Council
(Historic Services) however do not consider that this type of survey is adequate in this
case and are of the view that a programme of trial trenching on the site should be
undertaken prior to any decision to grant planning permission. In the absence of this the
County Council considers that the application should be refused.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that "Where a site on which development is
proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological
interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate
desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation". Clearly in this case
(on land which has not been the subject of any programmes of archaeological work,
formal or informal, and lies in an area that has not been studied in any depth) the County
Council considers that the latter option for a field evaluation should apply, and have
stated that they would be prepared to defend this position in the event of an appeal.
Landscape Impact / Ecology
In considering these issues members are referred also to the comments of the Council's
Landscape Officer (above).
Given the rather unique enclosed nature of the site it is acknowledged that the visual
impact of the proposed development will be more significant locally than upon the wider
landscape. It will be evident from residential properties that border the site's southern,
eastern and western boundaries as well as from further views across open land to the
north in the direction of the church. In addition the new road entrance from the A148 will
have a visual impact upon the currently tree lined southern boundary (which is of
concern to the Landscape Officer). It is also acknowledged that the quality of the
landscape in this area (as recognised in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment) is not overtly sensitive and that of the site itself is limited. With the
exception of the removal of trees to accommodate the new access road, the proposals
are designed to retain and build upon those landscape attributes from which the site
does benefit (woodland and wetland) and to provide enhancements elsewhere.
Development Committee
37
12 November 2015
Notwithstanding this assessment, the development will have a significant impact upon
the existing open character of the area. The site forms part of the North Norfolk
countryside and is designated as such to safeguard it from the type of development now
being proposed. In addition one of the core planning principles referred to in the NPPF
is to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Whilst the
proposals put forward may well retain and enhance certain of the landscape features on
the site, this does not disguise the fact the site is located in an area of open countryside
which should benefit from protection against such forms of large scale development,
unless there are overriding planning reasons to do so. The Council’s Landscape Office
identified that the development does not sit comfortably with CS policy EN2.
There are two types of potential ecological implications resulting from the proposed
development, off-site and on-site. The off-site implications relate to any potential
impacts upon the nearby River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The
Habitats Regulations Assessment which has been undertaken by the Council in respect
of the application concludes that any significant effects arising from the development
upon the SAC are unlikely. Those potential effects considered were a change in the
water quality of the River Wensum, increased noise, lighting, dust pollution and
increased recreational pressures. Natural England have been asked to comment on the
HRA and a response is currently awaited.
On-site ecological implications relate to a number of species (see Landscape Officer
response), but it is considered that these could be mitigated against (and enhanced) by
measures secured by a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, in the event of
planning permission being granted.
Highway Issues
The application proposes both a new access road and changes to the existing road
system in the village. Presently there are two main points of access into Sculthorpe from
the A148 (an easterly and a westerly entrance). The proposals affect the easterly
entrance which itself presently has a two junction arrangement. It is proposed to close
both of these junctions and replace with a newly formed single junction from where the
new spine road would extend through the site and merge into Moor Lane. The new road
would be the priority route with The Street being re-aligned to form a junction with it.
Similarly the southern section of Moor Lane would form a junction with the new spine
road.
Members will note that the Highway Authority has raised a number of objections to the
application. These can be divided into matters of 'in principle' and those of detail. In
principle the authority fundamentally disagrees with the conclusions of the submitted
Transport Assessment and considers the site to be in an unsustainable location for a
development of this type and scale. The nearest facilities of Fakenham would not be
easily accessible other than by the private motor vehicle. In terms of detail the authority
does not accept the proposed new junction arrangement with the A148 in terms of
highway safety and raises a number of concerns regarding the design of the detailed
part of the application. The applicants are in discussion with the Highway Authority with
a view to overcoming these technical issues.
Housing Mix and Type / Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. This policy can only be
presently applied to the detailed element of this application (71 dwellings). The
proposed development meets this requirement with 46% of the proposed dwellings
comprising 2 or fewer bedrooms.
Development Committee
38
12 November 2015
In terms of the Council's policies on affordable housing provision, as the site is located
in the countryside, the relevant Core Strategy policy is Policy HO3 (Affordable Housing
in the Countryside). Under this policy only schemes comprising affordable housing are
acceptable in principle in the countryside. However, given that this is clearly not the
intention of this application, which is for a mix of both market and affordable housing it
would be more appropriate to consider it against Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable
Housing) which requires 45% affordable housing provision in the district's towns and
50% provision in service villages, subject to viability. As Sculthorpe is no more than a
small village it is considered that the 50% figure should be used in assessing this
application.
As referred to above an accompanying application has been submitted under the
Council's Housing Incentive Scheme in respect of the detailed housing proposals. This
proposes an early delivery of the development by completing between 15-25 dwellings
plus the new spine road within 18 months of the grant of planning permission. This
would be in exchange for the requirement of affordable housing being reduced to 20%
(15 units). A plan indicating 50% affordable housing (35 units) has also been submitted
which would apply if the target for early delivery was not complied with. Where agreed,
proposals under the Incentive Scheme are secured by a S.106 Planning Obligation.
The Housing Incentive Scheme which was introduced two years ago and currently runs
until the end of this year states in its introduction that: "The purpose of the scheme is to
incentivise the quick delivery of developments which have been granted planning
permission, and to encourage applications and house building on those sites which are
allocated for development in the adopted North Norfolk Site Allocations Development
Plan or are in locations where planning permission would normally be granted. The
scheme is not intended to allow building in locations where planning permission would
not normally be approved".
This site is in an area designated as ‘countryside’ and is not in a location where planning
permission for this sort of development would normally be granted. Consequently, the
proposed development does not comply with the requisite criteria in order to benefit
from the Incentive Scheme and it is the view of officers that there is no reason for the
Council to accept the reduced level of affordable housing being proposed as part of this
application.
For the remaining amount of housing proposed in outline form (129 dwellings), in the
event of planning permission being granted a S.106 Planning Obligation would need to
require the provision of 50% affordable housing subject to any viability assessment
which may demonstrate a lower percentage is necessary to enable the development to
proceed.
Members will note the response of the Strategic Housing Officer (above) who
comments that if the application is to be approved together with the Housing Delivery
Scheme application, amendments should be made to the mix of affordable units
currently proposed.
School / Community Use Proposals
The 'outline' element of the application includes land (1.0 ha) for a 120 place primary
school and adjoining land (0.26 ha) for a potential community building.
In the case of the school the applicants have confirmed that they "... will provide a new
primary school, comprising a site of sufficient size and a building or buildings suitable for
primary education provision for up to 120 pupils (all in accordance with DfE guidance).
As well as the land, the applicant will commit to funding the delivery of part, and if no
Development Committee
39
12 November 2015
funding is available, all of the proposed school..... When and who will deliver the new
school requires further discussion, but the applicant will meet most, if not all of the cost
of providing a new school".
The proposal would be as a replacement to the existing primary school in the village (a
voluntary aided church school).
The County Council has stated that it could not insist upon a new primary school being
provided for the number of new dwellings being proposed. Pupils arising from the
development could be accommodated partly at Sculthorpe Primary School and partly at
Fakenham Junior and Infant Schools, subject to a developer contribution of £372,608 .
They have further stated that no public funding would be available and query the
financial viability of providing a new school on a development of this scale. However in
the event of the applicants clearly demonstrating that they could deliver a 120 place
school, unaided by the County Council or Diocese, the proposal would be broadly
supported.
The Applicant has stated its intention to secure the provision of the new school by
means of a S.106 Planning Obligation in the event of planning permission being
granted. Logically this would specify the phased delivery of the completed school in
relation to the remainder of the development.
Planning Obligations should meet the statutory tests set out in S.122 of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. These are that the requirements of a Planning
Obligation should be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,
directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
Given the response from the County Council, as attractive as the prospect of providing a
new school may appear, it does not meet these statutory tests as it is not necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms.
The position is similar regarding the land for community use (which has the potential to
provide a benefit to the local community). As part of a proposed S.106 Planning
Obligation the Applicant states that it would include 'provision of a site for the
construction of a community resource centre and the transfer of land to a suitable body'.
However, the responses to the Applicant’s community engagement showed that there is
no need for a new community resource facility. There is no policy requirement for such a
facility. Accordingly, the provision for such a facility does not meet the statutory tests.
Drainage
The site is located in a low risk flood zone (Zone 1). A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
has been submitted with the application. The FRA identifies that there are no
watercourses / formal drainage arrangements on the site (which is split into two distinct
surface water catchments, north and south) and that surface water drains to a
combination of ponds both within and outside of the application site. There is a land
drain connection from one of these ponds to a surface water sewer in Creake Road. The
FRA proposes a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) to cater for surface water
drainage runoff from the development. This would be by a variety of means including
the creation of two water attenuation basins within the open areas of the site. Whilst
these measures are ones which in principle accord with both local and national policy
guidance, officers have questioned the adequacy of detail submitted with the
application given that part of it is for detailed approval.
In times of heavy rainfall the proposed attenuation basins would have the capability of
discharging at a regulated rate to drains off-site. Members will note the response of the
Development Committee
40
12 November 2015
Environmental Health Officer (above) who has raised concerns regarding the potential
risk of downstream flooding at times when there would be discharge off-site, as well as
the related queries raised by the Internal Drainage Board. In this respect paragraph
103 of the NPPF states that "When determining planning applications, local planning
authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere."
The applicants have indicated that they will respond to the above concerns. Members
will be updated at the meeting on this issue.
Sustainability
The relevant strategic policies contained in the Core Strategy (policies SS1, SS2 and
SS3), together with the land allocations promoted through the Site Allocations DPD,
represent a sustainable approach to development in the district, which is in conformity
with the ‘core planning principles’ referred to in paragraph 17 of the NPPF. The
proposed development conflicts with policies SS1 and SS2. There is further conflict with
policy EN2 arising from the harm to the setting of the Sculthorpe Conservation Area,
and the impact of the development on the immediate landscape character of the
settlement of Sculthorpe and the loss of open space .
Paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that "The purpose of the planning system is to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable development" and that the policies
contained in the NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view as to what
sustainable development means. It goes on to explain that there are three dimensions
to sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental, which give
rise to the need for the planning system to perform three roles, an economic role, a
social role and an environmental role.
Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that "Housing applications should be considered in
the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development".
Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that, in determining planning applications, local
planning authorities should take account of:
‘● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and
putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
● the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to
sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character
and distinctiveness.’
The Applicant relies on the contention that the proposed development would deliver
benefits which would meet the three dimensions of sustainable development as stated
in the NPPF (referred to above in 'The Applicant's Case').
It is acknowledged that certain economic benefits will accrue from the proposal in the
form of Council Tax and New Homes Bonus revenue, together with increased
expenditure in the local economy by future residents and increased jobs in the
construction industry. However these benefits apply to all housing developments and on
their own are not considered sufficient reasons to grant planning permission in the case
of a proposal such as this which is so clearly contrary to development plan policy.
It can be argued that social benefits of the development include the provision of new
housing (including affordable housing) and the provision of significant areas of public
open space. In the case of the provision of new housing however it can also be argued
that there would be a social disbenefit by introducing such a large development in what
is currently a very small village with practically no local facilities.
Development Committee
41
12 November 2015
The offer of providing a new primary school and land for community use can also be
considered as a benefit which could enhance the social sustainability of the village,
albeit the village already has a primary school of sufficient capacity to cater for current
needs. However, only limited weight can be attached to this benefit, as there is a
significant question over the legality of securing the funding of a new school by means
of a S.106 Planning Obligation, and there is also the likelihood that such funding would
impact upon the financial viability of providing any or any appreciable amount of
affordable housing on subsequent phases of the development.
The Applicant argues that the development would result in environmental benefits, but
fails to take into account two important factors. The proposed development would result
in the loss of open countryside and would have an impact upon heritage assets in the
area. The 'environmental role' of the planning system as referred to in the NPPF
includes "contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic
environment". Furthermore one of the 'Core Planning Principles' specified in the NPPF
(paragraph 17) is "...recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".
The development would not satisfy these aims. The environmental benefits identified by
the Applicant (use of renewable heat energy; potential reduction in traffic and SuDs) do
not outweigh the harms identified above.
The location of the proposed development and the accessibility of local services are
also relevant to assessing its sustainability. The village of Sculthorpe has no community
facilities apart from the primary school, the church and village hall. There is a
restaurant/bar, but no public house and no shop. There are a handful of small local
businesses. Residents of the village rely on the services and facilities of Fakenham for
their primary needs (i.e. shopping, health services, social activities and secondary
education). The town also provides the nearest opportunities for employment.
Fakenham is reasonably close to Sculthorpe (the town centre is approximately 2km
distance) which involves a five minute car journey or a thirty minute walk. The two
settlements are also linked by part of the national cycle network. They are nevertheless
geographically separate and the likelihood of Sculthorpe residents walking or cycling to
and from Fakenham to any significant extent is extremely remote, bearing in mind that
there are no formalised footpath links and the journey would involve crossing two busy
A roads (A148 and A1065). Far more likely is that residents would be reliant on using
cars. On this basis members will note that the Highway Authority has raised an
objection to the application stating that this is not "...a sustainable location for large
estate scale development". Such a conclusion is consistent with the underlying
principles behind the Spatial Strategy outlined in CS Policy SS1 which aims to deliver
new housing development in sustainable locations within the district.
Conclusions
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. This proposal for a large scale residential development in the countryside
represents a significant departure from the Development Plan, contrary to Core
Strategy Policies SS1 and SS2. The proposed development is also contrary to Core
Strategy Policies EN2 and EN8 as it would result in harm to the Sculthorpe
Conservation Area and harm to the setting of listed buildings (albeit that the harm is
‘less than substantial’ under the NPPF).
The Applicant’s case is that the District Council does not have a five year supply of
housing land and the proposal represents a sustainable form of development which
would not cause any significant harm and consequently should be granted planning
permission.
Development Committee
42
12 November 2015
Officers take the opposite view. Firstly, it has been recently concluded at appeal that the
Council has a housing land supply equivalent to 5.4 years. Secondly it is not considered
on balance that the proposal represents a sustainable form of development.
It is acknowledged that the proposal offers certain economic and social benefits in the
form of additional housing, public open space and the prospect of a new primary school.
These represent 'material considerations' in the determination of the application.
However these benefits are tempered by the loss of a significant area of open
countryside, a limited amount of affordable housing being proposed, and the fact that
the school is only being proposed as a result of the housing development and the
funding for which is not secure. The proposed development would also cause harm to
a conservation area and to the settings of three listed buildings. Whilst this harm is
considered to be 'less than substantial' it is not considered that any public benefits of the
proposed development (when factoring in the disbenefits) outweigh this harm (which is
the test required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF). Neither do these benefits overcome
the legal requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the setting
of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas.
Fundamentally the site is not in a sustainable location when considered both in isolation
and when considered in comparison to those sites which have been allocated for
housing development in the Development Plan.
Furthermore there are a number of technical highway objections to the proposal, and
there are concerns relating to the level of archaeological investigation which has been
undertaken and the level of detail provided as to how surface water drainage will be
dealt with.
Accordingly it is concluded that there are no material considerations sufficient to
indicate that the application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with
the Development Plan. Refusal is recommended.
Finally, Members of the Committee should be made aware that the applicant is in the
process of submitting amended plans and further details in order to try and address
technical highway matters, design and layout issues and drainage information. These
plans will need to be subject to further consultation and publicity. Whilst these will not
alter the recommendation for refusal, they may result in certain of the reasons for
refusal specified below being amended.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Authority to REFUSE planning permission for
the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on the 24th September
2008 and the North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan in February 2011. The
National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012. Collectively these
provide the context for the determination of planning applications in accordance with
Section 38 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.
The Core Strategy includes the following applicable policies:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 3 - Housing
SS 6 - Access and Infrastructure
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
Development Committee
43
12 November 2015
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
EN 10 – Development and Flood risk
Contrary to submissions made as part of the planning application, as evidenced by the
recently tested draft Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the
District Council's latest statement of Five Year Land Supply (September 2015 update),
the Council can demonstrate 5.4 years’ worth of deliverable housing supply.
Furthermore in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal represents an
unsustainable form of development, where any benefits are outweighed by the
disbenefits, and which is contrary to the above development plan policies in the
following respects:
1) The proposed development is for a large scale housing estate on a site which is
located in an area of open countryside as designated under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy. Policy SS2 prevents new housing development in the countryside apart
from certain limited exceptions which do not apply in this case. The countryside
represents a principal element in the rural character of North Norfolk. Sculthorpe is a
small characterful village set in attractive undeveloped countryside. The proposed
development by virtue of its location and scale would be harmful to the character,
appearance and intrinsic beauty of this part of the countryside contrary to the objectives
of Policy SS2 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2) The village of Sculthorpe lacks local services or facilities and is too distant from the
nearest local service centre (Fakenham) to realistically expect residents of the
development to travel to any significant extent other than by means of the private car.
This would conflict with the aims of achieving sustainable development by minimising
travel by encouraging walking, cycling, use of public transport and reducing the reliance
on the private car.
3) The application, without justification, fails to deliver a sufficient level of affordable
housing, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HO2 and consequently will not adequately
meet the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities as required by
paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4) The application lacks sufficient information with regard to the potential of the site
containing as yet undiscovered heritage assets of archaeological interest. In the opinion
of the Local Planning Authority, as the site has not been the subject of any previous
programmes of archaeological work, formal or informal, and lies in an area that has not
been studied in any depth, a field evaluation comprising a programme of trial trenching
should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 128 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
5) In light of the statutory presumptions in sections 66 and 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the
less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Sculthorpe
Conservation Area and to the settings of the Grade II Listed 4 Moor Lane and Grove
Farmhouse, and the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary & All Saints are not outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal.
In addition, in the absence of satisfactory amended plans to overcome the
current technical objections raised by the Highway Authority, the additional
reasons for refusal also to be included:
Development Committee
44
12 November 2015
1) Insufficient highways and transport information has been submitted with the
application to demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the
satisfactory functioning of the highway and highway safety, contrary to the objectives of
Core Strategy Policy CT5 and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2) The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians /cyclists / people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others
with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and local services in Fakenham,
contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy CT5 and paragraph 32 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
3) The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to additional right hand turning
movements across the opposing traffic stream of a busy principal route which would
interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic and cause danger and inconvenience to
highway users, contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy CT5 and paragraph 32
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4) The layout of the proposed highway corridor in this residential development does not
accord with the Norfolk Residential Design Guide in that it does not provide convenient,
safe and attractive pedestrian, cycle and public transport links within the estate and to
the existing community, contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy CT5 and
paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
(4)
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the second quarter of 2015/16.
5 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 96 minor
applications and 241 other applications, a total of 342 applications, a decrease of 5
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw all of the major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 100%. Up from the 50% for the previous quarter. The
cumulative figure for 2015/16 is 63.16%, comfortably above the 40% figure set for
special measures by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance increased by 13.37% to 50% over the
previous quarter, as against the Council’s target of 70%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 14.72% to
75.93%, above the Council’s target of 70%.
Members will appreciate that performance has improved in all 3 areas over the last
quarter.
Pre-application enquiries were down 20 on the previous quarter. Discharge of
Condition applications were up by 2. ‘Do I Need Planning Permission’ enquiries were
up. Duty Officer Enquiries were down from 768 to 737.
Development Committee
45
12 November 2015
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 95.27%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 3
decisions were made, 1 allowed and 2 dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 690 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, an increase of 84 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the second quarter of the new year has seen an improvement in
performance in respect of all application types, as the two new members of staff in
team have had an impact. However, workloads remain high and there remains a
vacant post into which it has not been possible to recruit into. Performance is also
likely to be affected in the near future as the team contribute to implementation phase
of the Business Process Review of the service.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
(5)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
TUNSTEAD – PF/15/1024– continued use of agricultural land for B1 (business),
B2 (general Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses at Beeches farm,
Crowgate Street for Mr Paterson
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning due to implications to businesses and to allow
the Committee to see the site and surrounding road network in context.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
(6)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - LA/15/0913 - Internal and external alterations and
extension to reading rooms to facilitate conversion to wedding venue; The Old
Rectory, Church Road, Alby, NR11 7HF for Mr S Williams
(Listed Building Alterations)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/1162 - Removal of shop-front and demolition of single
story side and rear extensions and erection of two-storey side and single-storey
rear extensions; Village Antiques, The Green, Aldborough, Norwich, NR11 7AA
for Mr & Mrs Holdgate
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
46
12 November 2015
BACTON - PF/15/1181 - Erection of single-storey extension to outbuilding,
conversion of outbuilding to studio/workshop and insertion of replacement
joinery to front elevation; The Old Vicarage, Church Road, Bacton, Norwich,
NR12 0JP for Mr N White & Mrs P Fellgett
(Householder application)
BACTON - LA/15/1182 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate conversion
and extension of outbuilding to studio/workshop and insertion of replacement
joinery to front elevation; The Old Vicarage, Church Road, Bacton, Norwich,
NR12 0JP for Mr N White & Mrs P Fellgett
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/15/1192 - Erection of detached summer house to front of dwelling;
3 Coastguard Cottages, Walcott Road, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0HB for Mr S
Lunniss
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - PF/15/1089 - Erection of rear extension and detached studio in rear
garden; 121 Fakenham Road, Houghton St. Giles, Walsingham, NR22 6AQ for
Mrs S K P Kerr
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - LA/15/1090 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate erection of
rear extension; 121 Fakenham Road, Houghton St. Giles, Walsingham, NR22
6AQ for Mrs S K P Kerr
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/1349 - Erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling; Old
Mill Bungalow, Smallburgh Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8YT for Mr
Swetman
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/15/1209 - Erection of extension to front and side of dwelling; 1 The
Common, Cockthorpe, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1QS for Mr J Case
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/15/1152 - Erection of two-storey extension and replacement
dormer, single storey entrance lobby and porch and alterations to fenestration.;
Priory Cottage, 8 Langham Road, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0DW for Mr & Mrs
Frost
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1219 - Variation of conditions 2, 7, 10 and 13 of planning
permission ref: PF/15/1219 to permit reposition of plots 3, 4 and 5 revised
planting scheme; Greencroft, 10 Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BE for
London and Country Homes (Blakeney) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0440 - Demolition of detached two-storey dwelling and
erection of detached replacement two-storey dwelling, detached open-fronted
car-port and creation of new drive; The Brecks, Bilsey Road, Blakeney, Holt,
NR25 7DE for Mr Harcourt
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
47
12 November 2015
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1000 - Erection of extension to front and side of dwelling
following demolition of garage (Revised scheme 15/0210 refers); Blakeney
Downs, Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BG for Mr R Cole
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1094 - Erection of first floor extension to side and
conservatory with balcony roof and external staircase to rear of dwelling.; East
Holm, Langham Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PG for Mr P Tatam
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1214 - Demolition of rear extension and erection of
single-storey extension; 79 High Street, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NA for Mr & Mrs
Buscall
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1175 - Removal of conditions 3 and 6 of PF/10/0550; Westview
House, 36 Church Street, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LE for Mrs R Grand
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/15/1124 - Erection of extension to side and rear of dwelling
following demolition of previous extension.; Foxglove Cottage, The Street,
Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5AA for Mr and Mrs Bacon
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - COND/15/1261 - Discharge of condition 4 of planning permission ref:
07/1664; Land off New Road, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5BQ for Arcwest
Ltd
(Condition Discharge)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0919 - Conversion of and erection of side
and rear extensions to agricultural barn to residential dwelling; Millers Barn,
Matlaske Road, Saxthorpe for Mr & Mrs Last
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0340 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 11/0747 to allow installation of one air source heat pump to unit
A; Manor Farm Barns, Norwich Road, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QD for Mr L
Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0932 - Erection of single-storey extension
to rear of dwelling and detached garage; Laurel Cottage, Town Close Lane, Little
London, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QA for Mr J S Bannister
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/0856 - Single-storey extension to rear of swimming pool
building; 95 The Grove Overstrand Road, Cromer, NR27 0DJ for The Grove
Cromer LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/15/1212 - External alterations to facilitate insertion of French door;
Peele House, Tucker Street, Cromer for Ms Carson
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/15/1332 - Extend width of dormer window on front of roof; 12
Development Committee
48
12 November 2015
Arbor Road, Cromer, NR27 9DW for Mrs Paul
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/1168 - Erection of conservatory to front of bungalow.; 26 Holt
Road, Cromer, NR27 9JW for Mrs Billington
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/1374 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of dwelling
(Revised scheme PF/15/0927 refers); Tanglewood, The Warren, Cromer, NR27
0AR for Mr and Mrs Steward
(Householder application)
DILHAM - PF/15/1237 - Variation of condition 3 of planning ref: 07/1148 to allow
two barns for permanent residential occupation; Brick Kiln Barns, Honing Road,
Dilham for Dr T Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/15/1281 - Drainage improvements to include packaged sewage
treatment unit, construction of infiltration trench and associated works; Canal
View, The Street, Dilham, NR28 9PT for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0946 - Erection of garage/outbuilding and creation of new
access; Simms Cottage, Back Lane, East Ruston, Norwich, NR12 9FH for Miss
Leslie
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1119 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/1060 to allow revised access and gate details; The Mount, Hunworth Road,
Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AE for Mr Buckman
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1331 - Variation of condition 4 of PF/10/1199 to allow annexe
to be used as a separate dwelling.; The Stables, Street Farm Annexe, Ramsgate
Street, Edgefield, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2AX for Mrs J Pointen
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AN/15/0853 - Display of non-illuminated signs; Sue Ryder,
Fakenham Superstore, Greenway Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8ET for Sue Ryder
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1205 - Erection of boundary wall and alterations to railings
and wall; Manor House, Tunn Street, Fakenham, NR21 9BJ for Mr Lynam
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/1206 - Erection of boundary wall and alterations to railings
and wall; Manor House, Tunn Street, Fakenham, NR21 9BJ for Mr Lynam
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1244 - Conversion of storage/office to create dwelling; 26-30
Oak Street, Fakenham, NR21 9DY for Mrs K Duffield
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1282 - Erection of single-storey front extension (Revised
scheme 15/0730 refers); 2 Garden Court, Fakenham, NR21 8HL for Mr and Mrs M
Development Committee
49
12 November 2015
Riseborough
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PO/15/1036 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (Outline); 1 Jubilee
Avenue, Fakenham, NR21 8DG for Victory Housing Trust
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - HN/15/1423 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4.2 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 2.95 metres and an eaves height of 2.7 metres;
66 North Park, Fakenham, NR21 9RQ for Mr D Mayes
(Householder Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - PO/15/1048 - Variation of condition 5 and 8 of planning permission
reference PO/05/1170 (access and on-site parking and details of external lighting
scheme) to allow alterations to parking and turning area and external lighting
installations and removal of condition 7 of planning permission reference
PO/05/1170 (height clearance); 109 Holt Road, Fakenham for Youngs Homes
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PM/15/1049 - Variation or removal of conditions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8,
and removal of condition 4 of reserved matters application PM/08/1342; 109 Holt
Road, Fakenham for Youngs Homes
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0642 - Erection of two, two-storey dwellings and associated
car parking; Land north of 18 Greenway Close, Fakenham, NR21 8DE for Victory
Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0646 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings and associated
car parking; Land to the front of 10 Lancaster Close, Fakenham, NR21 8DW for
Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1217 - Conversion of detached garage/shed to residential
ancillary annexe; 45 Greenway Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8DF for Miss G de Jong
Cleyndert
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1294 - Retention of steel/ timber mesh fencing, door and
external garden centre; Morrisons, Clipbush Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8SW for Wm
Morrison Supermarkets Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/15/1177 - Erection of single-storey side and front extension;
12 The Terrace, Aylsham Road, Felmingham, North Walsham, NR28 0LG for Mr
Pepperell
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/15/0917 - Demolition of existing single-storey extension,
erection of two-storey side and rear extension, single-storey side/rear extension,
detached double garage/store and creation of new access; Croxton Cottage,
Croxton Road, Croxton, Fakenham, NR21 0NP for Mr and Mrs M Buckle
(Householder application)
Development Committee
50
12 November 2015
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/1329 - Conversion of barns to five residential dwellings
(Resubmission, PF/14/0706 refers); Barns at Church Farm, Church Street,
Gimingham, Norfolk, NR11 8HF for Mr and Mrs P Hinton
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/15/0939 - Conversion of barns to form two dwellings;
School Farm, Fakenham Road, Great Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0HG for Mr
Perowne
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - PF/15/1234 - Variation of condition 2 of PF/15/0566 to allow
alterations to layout and render.; 17 Cromer Road, Lower Gresham, Norwich,
NR11 8RF for Mrs C Dennis
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/15/1199 - Variation of condition 2 of PF/11/1203 to allow
revised layout; San Dunes, 19 Doggetts Lane, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12 0QL
for Mr & Mrs R Abrey
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - NMA1/15/0010 - No material amendment to change the cladding to
the gable (side) elevation from a full vertical timber boarded finish to part timber
and part red facing brick; Chapel Cottage, Chapel Lane, Hempstead, Holt, NR25
6LA for Martindales Architects Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HICKLING - PF/15/0981 - Conversion of redundant barn to form 1 dwelling
(Part-revised scheme PF/14/1264 refers); Brightmere Barn, Brightmere Road,
Hickling, NORWICH, NR12 0AE for Caddow Design and Build Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/15/1267 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
PF/14/1453 to permit revised window details; Meadow Farm, Heath Road,
Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AX for Mr M Johnson
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/15/1286 - Erection of extensions to dwelling to provide, side
extension and first floor accommodation; Robins Dyke, Stubb Road, Hickling,
Norwich, NR12 0YR for Mr and Mrs Mason
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/1279 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and rear
and single storey extensions to side of dwelling; Birchwood, Vale Road, High
Kelling, Holt, NR25 6RA for Mr Gardner
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1326 - Erection of extensions to rear of dwelling and
alterations to detached garage; Fayrewai, Wells Road, Hindringham, Fakenham,
NR21 0PL for Mr & Mrs Harris
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0604 - Conversion and extension of detached single-storey
outbuilding to create ancillary annexe; 76 Grove Lane, Holt, NR25 6ED for Mr
Fields
Development Committee
51
12 November 2015
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/15/0534 - Non material amendment request to allow revised
fenestration; 24 St Andrews Close, Holt, NR25 6EL for Derek Foreman House
Builders Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - PF/15/1233 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling and
relocation of conservatory; Sanderlings, Thornage Road, Holt, NR25 6SZ for Mr
and Mrs D Wright
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/15/1254 - Replacement of door and windows to rear of dwelling; 25
New Street, Holt, NR25 6JJ for Mrs Couzens
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/15/0796 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Benita,
Neatishead Road, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8LB for Mr D Wright
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/15/0536 - Demolition of existing redundant building and erection
of extension to existing manufacturing facility, construction of new road and
creation of new site junction onto the B1354 (Horning Road West); Tilia Business
Park, off Horning Road West, Hoveton for Tilia Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/15/1126 - Alterations and extensions to include raising of roof
height, raised decking area and extensions to front side and rear of dwelling.; 24
Stalham Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8DG for Mr & Mrs Muddel
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/15/1258 - Retention of storage shed to rear of dwelling; 38 Goose
Lane, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SE for Mrs E Woolnough
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/15/1243 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and rear and
single storey extension to rear of dwelling.; 24 Binham Road, Langham, Holt,
NR25 7AB for Mr and Mrs Taylor-Meeds
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/15/1166 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to residential
dwelling (Revised scheme PF/14/1280 refers); Field Barn, Binham Road,
Langham, Holt for Grove Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/15/1080 - Erection of two-storey side extension and link
extension to existing detached garage to facilitate conversion to habitable
accommodation; 26 Binham Road, Langham, Holt, NR25 7AB for Mrs J
Copplestone
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1190 - Retention of storage container (PF/10/1404 refers);
Mundesley Medical Centre, Munhaven Close, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8AR for
Mrs Marquis
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
52
12 November 2015
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1111 - Retention of use of building as a dwelling (C3);
Seaview Manor, Cromer Road, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DU for Mr & Mrs
Hankinson
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - LA/15/1229 - Demolition of toilet outbuilding; Alderfen Cottage,
Common Road, Threehammer Common, Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8BP for Mr
Danks
(Listed Building Alterations)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1375 - Erection of garage to rear of property; The Old
Victory Hall, The Street, Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8AD for Mr A Crane
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0617 - Change of use of public house to heritage
centre; The Feathers Public House, 1 Market Street, North Walsham, NR28 9BZ
for North Walsham Heritage Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0904 - Change of use from retail (A1) to estate agents
(A2); 31 Market Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BS for Mr A Brady
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0850 - Change of use of part of garage from
residential to hair dressing salon (A1); associated alterations to front elevation
and formation of additional parking; Tall Pines, Happisburgh Road, White Horse
Common, North Walsham, NR28 9LL for Mrs L Drake
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1031 - Replacement Operational Deployment Base for
Norfolk Constabulary including demolition of existing buildings, provision of
temporary POD Unit, Lockers portacabin and construction of hardstanding /
landscaping and external works.; Norfolk Constabulary, Yarmouth Road, North
Walsham, NR28 9AW for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1074 - Erection of extensions to Veterinary Centre
building and creation of parking area.; 40 Yarmouth Road, North Walsham, NR28
9AT for Westover Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1288 - Erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling; 10
Ellinor Road, North Walsham, NR28 9AG for Mr and Mrs Holyland
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1265 - Change of use of first floor from office to
residential flat; 5A Market Street, North Walsham, NR28 9BZ for Mr T O'Shea
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1161 - Erection of 1.8 metre fence to front boundary; 6
Lynfield Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DP for Mr Long
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/1183 - Erection of detached garage; Sally Beans House,
Development Committee
53
12 November 2015
Cromer Road, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0JX for Mr & Mrs Skey
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/1298 - Formation of pitched roof to side of dwelling and
alterations to fenestration; 19 Mundesley Road, Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PT
for Mr and Mrs I White
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/1328 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and
rear of dwelling; 5 Green Lane, Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5LP for
Mr and Mrs Reynolds
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1184 - Change of use of land from agricultural land to garden;
Land to the rear of St Margarets House, The Street, West Raynham, NR21 7EZ for
Mr H Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1211 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission ref:
14/1217 to permit insertion of one additional gate access to land; Land to rear of
St Margarets House, The Street, West Raynham, Norfolk, NR21 7EZ for Mr H
Smith
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1222 - Erection of extension and alterations to garage to
create snug; Primrose Farm Barns, Back Lane, Roughton for Mr and Mrs P
Kluman
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1273 - Erection of single and two-storey extensions to
dwelling; The Cottage, Back Lane, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8QR for Mr N
Dunnett
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/0077 - Insertion of replacement UPVC windows to Flats 6 and 8
and communal areas; Runton House, Cromer Road, West Runton for Holdbury
Limited
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/14/1241 - Construction of fishing lake and improvements to land
drainage; Mill Lodge Farm, 15A Mill Road, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham, NR21 0EB
for Mr Boyce
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/15/1103 - Erection of rear dormer window and rooflights to first
floor, reinstatement of chimney and alterations to fenestration; 18 Bloomstiles,
Salthouse, Holt, NR25 7XJ for Liparion Ltd
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0577 - Change of use of redundant gymnasium building to
play and adventure venue for infant and primary school children and erection of
single-storey link extension; Redundant gymnasium building at former RAF
Coltishall for Mr Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
54
12 November 2015
SCOTTOW - NMA1/15/0760 - Non material amendment request to reduce height
of extension; 40 Barton Road, Badersfield, Scottow, Norwich, NR10 5JR for Mr &
Mrs Stubley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SEA PALLING - PF/15/1220 - Erection of sectional garage; Lark Cottage, Clink
Lane, Sea Palling, Norwich, NR12 0UL for Mr Halliday
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/14/0850 - Non material amendment request to omission of
attic window to west gable and addition of attic window to south gable and
rooflight to main south-facing roof to Plot 3; Land to rear of 15 Weybourne Road,
Sheringham for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/1414 - Non material amendment to add 4 velux
windows to new pitched roof; 6-7 Lifeboat Plain, Sheringham, NR26 8BG for Mr
Platt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0395 - Non material amendment to increase the size of
the front roof light of bathroom; Stafford House, 12 Augusta Street, Sheringham,
NR26 8LA for Mr Stewart
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1302 - Installation of Air Source Heat Pump; 17 Uplands
Park, Sheringham, NR26 8NE for Mr Sidebotham
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1115 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of dwelling;
50 Woodland Rise, Sheringham, NR26 8PR for Mrs K Smith
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1287 - Erection of garden room to side of dwelling; 2A
Morris Street, Sheringham, NR26 8JX for Mr J Parkin
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1020 - Conversion of building from shop and flat to 5
separate dwellings; Creativity at Home, Gun Street, Sheringham, NR26 8BG for
Creativity at Home
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - PF/15/1099 - Conversion of former agricultural buildings to form one
dwelling.; Plum Tree Barn, Swanton Abbott Road, Skeyton, NORWICH, NR10 5AU
for Mr A Peters
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1188 - Erection of single storey extension to side of
dwelling; Yorkdale Cottage, 18 Pit Street, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8UX for Mr
and Mrs Seekings
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - NP/15/1345 - Prior approval of intention to construct reservoir;
Land off Gimingham Road, Southrepps for Wayware Limited
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
55
12 November 2015
STALHAM - PF/15/1218 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Chapel
Cottage, The Green, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9PZ for Mrs Poacher
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/1255 - Erection of extension to front of dwelling; 10 Ellis Close,
Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9EF for Mrs R Mann
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/1339 - Rear Extension (permitted development) and alterations
and extension to front car-port; 6 Rivermead, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9PH for Mr
Jones
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/15/1271 - Erection of extension to side and rear and porch to
front of bungalow; Linden Lea, Wood Norton Road, Stibbard, Fakenham, NR21
0EX for Mr and Mrs W Coulet
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/15/0549 - Retention of chimney, widening of access to 3.6 metres
and erection of replacement 1.2 metre wall to North of dwelling; Rose Cottage,
Brinton Road, Stody, Melton Constable, NR24 2ED for Mr & Mrs Lloyd
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/15/1235 - Variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref:
PF/08/0874 to allow permanent residential use; Barn 8, Cooks Farm Barns,
Rectory Road, Suffield, Norwich, NR11 7EW for Mr D Rogers
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - HN/15/1319 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 5.1 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 3.34 metres and an eaves height of 2.3 metres;
Sutton Hall Cottage, Hall Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9RX for Mr A
Smithe-Norman
(Householder Prior Notification)
SWAFIELD - PF/15/0329 - Change of use of land and barn to a mixed use of
agricultural and dog training (retrospective); Bradfield Hall, Hall Road, Bradfield,
North Walsham, NR28 0QW for Animal Magic Dog Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/15/1051 - Demolition of detached two-storey dwelling and
erection of two-storey replacement dwelling; Park House, Knapton Road,
Swafield, North Walsham, NR28 0RP for Mr McKeever
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0797 - Change of use of land from agriculture to part of
residential curtilage to Cottage Farm. Creation of new access across the land
from Walsingham Road to serve Cottage Farm and two barns to replace existing
access; Cottage Farm, Walsingham Road, Thursford, Fakenham, NR21 0PB for
Mr C Rheinberg
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/15/1274 - Variation of condition 4 of 05/0373 to allow converted
barn to be used for ancillary accommodation; Green Farm House, Balls Lane,
Development Committee
56
12 November 2015
Thursford, Fakenham, NR21 0BX for Mr N Jupe
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1207 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
PF/96/0150 to allow residential occupancy of the annexe; Honeysuckle Cottage,
Mundesley Road, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0QB for Mr Ibbotson
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/15/0934 - Conversion of barn and milking parlour to form one
dwelling with detached annexe; Millers Farm, Mundesley Road, Trunch, North
Walsham, NR28 0QB for Mr and Mrs Bagguley
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/15/0953 - Erection of two dwellings, to replace two existing
caravans in residential use, together with new vehicle access; Land at Hall Farm,
Mundesley Road, Trunch for Mr Larke
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/15/1202 - Erection of log cabin to create residential annex;
Malthouse Cottage, Ostend Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0PG for Mrs E Mitchell
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/0616 - Demolition of existing rear & side extensions and
erection of single-storey side extension and two-storey rear extension; 27 Wells
Road, Walsingham, NR22 6DL for Ms Wood
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1069 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission PF/14/0471 to allow rendering of West gable.; 10 Freeman Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1BA for Mr Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/1104 - Proposed amendment to consented onshore
electrical connection route at the Muckleburgh Collection; Muckleburgh
Collection Airstrip, Weybourne for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - PF/15/1231 - Partial demolition of boundary walling, erection of
detached garden room and detached cartshed garage; Temples Barn, High
Street, Wighton, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AL for Mr & Mrs Shackleford
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/1280 - Drainage improvements to include packaged sewage
treatment unit, construction of new drain and associated works; Bankside,
Tucks Road, Bengate, Worstead for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
(7)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1136 - Insertion of dormer windows and gable end windows
to facilitate loft conversion and erection of first floor extension with balcony
above porch (re-submission); 30 The Pastures, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7LY for Dr
& Mrs Cameron
(Householder application)
Development Committee
57
12 November 2015
EDGEFIELD - LA/15/1120 - Removal of section of internal wall; The Mount,
Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AE for Buck Estate Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1236 - Instillation of illuminated "H" frame totem sign; 16-18
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
(Advertisement Illuminated)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1043 - Siting of 5 holiday-let caravans; Land adj to the Ship
Inn, Cromer Road, Mundesley NR11 8BQ for Mr G Cotsicoros
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1003 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; Land Rear of
33A, B, C and D, Paston Road, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BN for Mr Fortis
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1257 - Conversion of stable/barn to create dwelling
(Revised scheme 15/0952 refers); Barn adjacent to Bells Cottage, Holgate Road,
White Horse Common, North Walsham for Mr F Knights
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1266 - Continued siting of mobile home; Old Bridge
Farm, Skeyton Road, North Walsham, NR28 0LU for Mrs S Burrows
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0521 - Insertion of 3 rooflights and insertion of to
dormer windows to west elevation and insertion of first floor windows and
dormer windows to east elevation; 7 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street, North
Walsham, NR28 9BY for L.Bullimore and Sons Ltd
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0968 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 35
Fairview Road, North Walsham, NR28 9HR for Mr P Banthorpe
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1021 - Erection of an agricultural building for storage of straw;
Land at former West Raynham Airfield, West Raynham, Norfolk for Harrison
Brothers
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
(8)
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1515 - Change of use of land from D2 (visitor attraction)
to siting of thirteen holiday chalets; Priory Maze & Gardens, Cromer Road,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8SF for Priory Maze and Gardens
INFORMAL HEARING
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Development Committee
58
12 November 2015
CROMER - PF/15/0533 - Installation of front elevation first and second floor PVCU
bay windows to replace existing timber bays; 28 High Street, Cromer, NR27 9HG
for Mrs Russell
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 57 Sea View Road, Mundesley, NR11 8DJ for Mr Somers
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh, FAKENHAM, NR21 0DX for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(9)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
No items
(10) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PD for Mrs Cargill
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2PN for Mr L
Kidd
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road,
Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BT for Norfolk County Council
HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8JT for Mr R Kalynuk
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road, North Walsham,
NR28 9HB for Ashford Commercial Ltd.
SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street, Sutton, NR12 9RF for Mr Cutting
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront
(see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham, NR21 9AS
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At, Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Development Committee
59
12 November 2015
Leisure Pk
(11) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
House, The Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for Mr & Mrs Everett
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0419 - Erection of single and two-storey rear extensions;
Annandale Cottage, Ramsgate Street, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AX for
Mr and Mrs S Smith
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
TATTERSETT - PF/15/0240 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear and side
extension; Heath Cottage, The Street, Tattersett, King's Lynn, PE31 8RU for Ms J
Skinner
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
(12) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
60
12 November 2015
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
61
12 November 2015
Development Committee
62
12 November 2015
Development Committee
63
12 November 2015
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 1A – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2011/12
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
13
198
308
425
370
31.58%
68.42%
39.13%
60.87%
53.46%
46.54%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2012/13
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
14
10
163
262
379
331
58.33%
41.67%
38.35%
61.65%
53.38%
46.62%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2013/14
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
30
9
218
262
483
296
76.92%
23.08%
45.42%
54.58%
62.00%
38.00%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2014/15
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
7
1
39
44
102
71
87.50%
12.50%
46.99%
53.01%
58.96%
41.04%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – Quarter 2 2015/16
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
5
0
48
48
183
58
100%
0%
50.00%
50.00%
75.93%
24.07%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – Cumulative 2015/16
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
12
7
85
112
325
148
63.16%
36.84%
43.15%
56.85%
68.71%
31.29%
COUNCIL TARGETS
Development Committee
80%
64
70%
70%
12 November 2015
TABLE 1B – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT WORKLOAD
2011/12
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1543
477
374
201
1982
2012/13
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1408
218
172
192
2153
2013/14
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1545
190
134
200
2161
QUARTER 2 2015/16
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
493
54
17
47
737
CUMULATIVE 2015/16
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
Development Committee
65
962
128
32
108
1505
12 November 2015
TABLE 1C – DELEGATION OF DECISIONS
Year ending 31 March 2012
Year ending 31 March 2013
Year ending 31 March 2014
Year ending 31 March 2015
Quarter 2 2015/2016
Cumulative 2015/2016
%
DELEGATED
93.28
92.48
93.07
94.36
95.27
94.26
TABLE 2 - PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Allowed
Year ending
31 March 2012
Year ending
31 March 2013
Year ending
31 March 2014
Year ending
31 March 2015
Quarter 1
2015/16
Cumulative
2015/2016
Dismissed
Total
4 (28.57%)
10
14
9.5 (35.19%)*
17.5
27
7 (35%)
20
12
9 (52.94)
17
18
2 (28.57)
5
7
3 (30%)
7
10
* Includes 3 appeals part allowed and part dismissed.
TABLE 3 - LAND CHARGE SEARCHES
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Quarter 2
2015/16
Cumulative
2015/2016
Development Committee
Official
Searches
1872
2322
2313
690
Personal
Searches
578
864
850
311
1296
568
66
Total Search
requests
2450
3186
3171
1001
1864
12 November 2015