OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 13 DECEMBER 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Unauthorised installation of a shopfront and roller
shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within Cromer Conservation
Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
This report updates the Committee on the current situation with regard to
unauthorised works at the premises and requests the Committee’s instructions
with regard to further action.
BACKGROUND
Planning application 20090929 for “Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller
Shutter and Air Conditioning System” and advertisement consent application
20090930 for “Display of Illuminated Advertisements” were submitted on 17
September 2009 on behalf of Iceland Foods Ltd, who had bought the former
Woolworths premises at 57 Church Street, Cromer.
At the same time as submitting the application, work began to replace the shopfront
at the premises and the applications were therefore retrospective in nature by the
time that the Development Control Committee considered the planning application on
26 November 2009. The planning application was refused on 18 December 2009 on
the grounds that “the design for the replacement shopfront is damaging to the
character and appearance of this highly prominent part of the Conservation Area in
that it fails to respect the balance and symmetry of the building, creates a flat and
featureless facade, lacking depth and modelling, and includes a deep fascia which
bears no relationship to the capitals which define the lateral extent of the shopfront.
The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and conflicts with the above policies of the Development
Plan”.
An Enforcement Notice was served on 8 January 2010 which required the applicant
to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter within three months from the
effective date of the notice, which was due to take effect on 12 February 2010.
On 10 February 2010 appeals were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in relation
to the planning application, advertisement consent and enforcement notice and dealt
with by the Planning Inspector by way of Informal Hearing.
While the Inspector allowed part of appeal relating to the non-illuminated loading bay
door sign, in all other respects the appeals were dismissed and the Enforcement
Notice was upheld but with a varied compliance period of 8 months, which took effect
on 11 October 2011. The applicant therefore had to comply with the requirements of
the notice to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter by 10 June 2011.
On 21 July 2011 the Development Committee considered the position at that time
and resolved „That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
Development Committee
1
13 December 2012
commence prosecution proceedings under Section 179 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland Foods Ltd for failure to comply with
Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002 unless acceptable plans have been submitted as a
formal application within 28 days‟.
Following the Committee resolution on 21 July, a further planning application was
submitted by the applicant on 6 September 2011 under planning ref: PF/11/1082 for
„Installation of replacement shopfront‟. The application was considered by the
Development Committee on 10 November 2011 where it was resolved „That this
application be refused on the grounds that the design for the replacement shopfront
would continue to damage to the character and appearance of this highly prominent
part of the Conservation Area in that it would fail to respect the balance and
symmetry of the building, would create a flat and featureless facade, lacking depth
and modelling, and would include a deep fascia which would bear no relationship to
the capitals which define the lateral extent of the shopfront. The proposal would
therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area and would conflict with adopted Core Strategy policies EN 4 and
EN 8 of the Development Plan and would also fail to accord with Government
guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic
Environment‟.
The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of the Council and the
Planning Inspectorate subsequently dismissed the written representations appeal by
way of decision dated 21 November 2012 (Copy attached at Appendix 1).
SUMMARY
Whilst every effort had been made to guide the applicants towards producing an
acceptable solution, it is clearly of concern that to date no acceptable proposals have
been formally proposed.
The Development Committee has on two occasions resolved to refuse replacement
shop front designs put forward by the applicant and on both occasions the decision of
the Development Committee has been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate at
appeal.
The Council therefore has no alternative other than to consider the further options
open to it including prosecution in the Magistrates Court, particularly given the fact
that no acceptable alternative proposal has been put forward by the applicant.
In this case it is considered that the applicant has been given ample opportunity to
address the concerns of both this Committee and the Planning Inspectorate in
respect of the harmful effect on the Cromer Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to commence
prosecution proceedings under section 179 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland Foods Ltd for failure to comply with
Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002
(Source: Geoff Lyon, Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) ext 6226)
Development Committee
2
13 December 2012
2.
SHERINGHAM – Enforcement enquiry ENQ/12/0141 – Construction of singlestorey extension in materials not in accordance with planning permission
reference PF/11/0204, 34 Augusta Street
Report seeking the Committee’s agreement not to take action in respect of a breach
of conditions in relation to materials used to construct a two-storey/single-storey
extension.
Background
On 12 April 2011, planning permission was granted for the erection of a twostorey/single-storey extension to replace an existing extension on the rear of the
property. The dwelling lies on the corner of Augusta Street and Victoria Street, and
is readily visible from those streets.
The main dwelling is constructed in red brick, grey flints, and a pantiled roof. In
submitting the application, the agent indicated that the proposed materials for the
extension were to be brick and flint with clay pantiles for the roof.
In granting planning permission, the following three conditions (amongst others) were
imposed;
6.
The bricks to be used in the construction of the replacement extension shall
exactly match the colour and texture of the existing bricks on the original
property.
7.
The flints to be used on the replacement extension shall be grey in colour and
shall have a diameter of less than 125mm when measured in any direction.
8.
The mortar mix to be used in the construction shall contain no grey Ordinary
Portland Cement.
Following the commencement of work on the site, the Planning Division was
contacted by the agent in respect of condition 8 and the appearance of the mortar.
His client was concerned that without using grey cement it was very bright in
appearance. Officers therefore suggested to the agent that a soot wash be used to
tone down the colour of the mortar. (It is understood that at this time the walls had
been constructed using grey flints.) It is believed, however, that the developer
decided to take down the flint facing that had been undertaken and start again.
Following the commencement of the reconstruction the Planning Division was
contacted by a nearby local resident in Victoria Street, concerned that materials
being used were non-matching bricks and brown rather than grey flints, as required
to match the existing building and all other surrounding properties. He was
concerned that the visual effect was contrary to the requirements of the planning
permission and that the property was also in a Conservation Area.
Appraisal
Following receipt of the complaint Officers visited the site and discussed the matter
with the agent. In relation to the flints, Officers were advised that grey flints were
difficult to source. This information was relayed to the complainant and subsequent
Development Committee
3
13 December 2012
to that response, he replied indicating that he considered that the Council was being
“taken for a ride” by the contractor on this matter. He states that when the extension
was initially built by the contractor he did indeed use correct grey flints. However, the
wrong mortar was used and the whole façade was taken down. The objector
considers, therefore, that the correct stones in the right quantity were available for
the rebuild and it was only laziness on his behalf and a lack of attention by the
Planning Department to make sure that these were used. He considers that correct
stones are easy to source as he has used them for his own build recently. He
considers that the breach of planning regulations should be enforced, otherwise there
is little point in the Development Committee considering the matter carefully and
specifying the appropriate brick and flint type. He considers that unless the matter is
taken further, developers will not bother to take notice of planning conditions and the
area will lose its unique character.
In response to being contacted by the Enforcement Officer, the agent stated that, in a
letter to his clients in March 2012, he advised that he had spoken to a Conservation
Officer and that he had suggested that they investigate products which would darken
the mortar to a more satisfactory shade. However, this was some time before the
complaint was received and related to the development constructed at that time. He
also indicated that the development was then nearing completion and a soot wash as
previously discussed would be applied to the brickwork and flintwork before
completion in order to tone down the colour of the materials used.
In response to these submissions from the agent, although Officers agreed that the
application of a soot wash would be an appropriate way to improve the appearance
of the development, there was nevertheless a breach of conditions in respect of the
materials used. On that basis, the agent was offered the opportunity to make an
application in order to regularise the situation through a „without prejudice‟ application
to vary conditions 6, 7 and 8 of planning permission reference PF/11/0204.
However, such an application has not been forthcoming and the development has
now been completed. It is, therefore, now necessary to bring the matter before
Committee for further consideration.
It is the view of Officers that, whilst it is unfortunate that a significant proportion of
flints used are a brown colour rather than grey, and the bricks used are somewhat
lighter in colour than would have been ideal, following the application of the soot
wash the appearance has been improved, and the whole development will tone down
further over time. Overall, the appearance of the development is considered to be
acceptable in this location in the Conservation Area, and seeking to take any further
action is not considered to be either necessary or proportionate in this case.
RECOMMENDATION
That no further action be taken.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
Development Committee
4
13 December 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
HOLT - PF/12/0604 - Erection of side, front and rear extensions; 16 Cromer Road
for Mrs Hill
- Target Date: 20 July 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect single-storey side, front and rear extensions. The proposed
development is part of a wider scheme of extensive refurbishment to the property.
The rear extension would measure approximately 7.3m deep by 5.1m/7.35m wide.
Maximum height would be 4.6m.
The front/side extension to the eastern elevation would measure approximately 3.65m
deep by 2.45m wide. The extension would incorporate a flat roof with a lantern
rooflight, maximum height of 2.9m.
The front/side extension to the western elevation would have a staggered depth,
maximum 10.2m by 8.6m/3.85m. Maximum height would be 5.1m.
Amended plan received proposing minor window design changes.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Baker and High having regard to the following planning
issue:
Overdevelopment of the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
A petition, signed by 5 people, has been submitted in support of the proposed roof tile.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Whilst I have no objection to the proposed extension to the
property, there is a new access and parking area proposed to the side of the dwelling
onto the private road.
The existing traffic uses the private road to the east of the site to gain access to a
garage building to the southern boundary of the site.
The new relocated arrangement provides an increased parking area and space to turn
within the site, whilst this may be constrained due to the width of the parking area and
its proximity to the hedge/private road, this would be acceptable given that there is no
intensification of use of the site.
Development Committee
5
13 December 2012
Should your authority be minded to the grant of consent, I would request the inclusion
of an access/parking/turning provision condition.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): Following
discussions with the applicant, this scheme has not progressed as we might have
hoped. Hence, the alterations to the windows remains the only revision secured to
date. As a result, the original Conservation & Design concerns still largely apply;
namely: That the scheme involves a relatively substantial increase in accommodation on
what is a relatively modest plot. In particular, the utility extension looks as though
it would be pressed into the back corner of the site.
That the proposals would result in the loss of some of the features which best
characterise and add interest to the existing property; i.e. the bay window which
provides a focal point on the front elevation, the brick quoins which frame the
elevations and the original tiles which help to ground the building in its context.
The latter is particularly curious as the host property in no way lends itself to
black glazed pantiles (which in their traditional, handmade form are normally
reserved for more „polite‟ forms of architecture). By comparison, the proposed
tiles are machine made examples which have a relatively one-dimensional,
engineered appearance.
That the scheme would introduce a couple of flat roof pieces of infill on the front
elevation. Although partly „lifted‟ by their glazed lanterns, these would still have a
rather functional appearance which would hardly enhance the appearance and
character of the property.
Taken together, it is difficult to see at first sight how the end result could hope to
accord with the aims and objections of Policy EN4 of the LDF Core Strategy. In
mitigation, however:
The surrounding area does feature a variable mix of property types and plot
sizes, some of which have little in the way of amenity space.
The site does not lie within a designated Conservation Area or impact upon any
heritage assets.
Some of the alterations to the existing building could be carried out as permitted
development, &
The two hipped gables would provide the main focus for the property when
viewed from Cromer Road and would therefore draw attention away from the
more recessive flat roof elements. They would also help to break up the overall
mass of the building by creating a more additive form.
For these specific reasons, it is extremely doubtful whether there are sufficient
conservation and design grounds to substantiate a refusal in this instance. Indeed, this
is one of those applications where any decision made would be finely balanced taking
into account all of the material considerations.
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.
Development Committee
6
13 December 2012
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Overdevelopment
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Holt Settlement Boundary, where proposals for extensions to
existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, providing there is
compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
The property is a detached, single-storey dwelling, facing onto the Cromer Road. The
property lies outside Holt Conservation Area and is not of special architectural or
historic interest. The property does, however, date back to the inter-war era and
occupies a prominent position on one of the main routes into and out of the town.
Officers have had extensive discussions with the applicant to try and secure a scheme
that would better preserve the existing character and appearance of the property and
reinforce local distinctiveness, as there are concerns that the scheme as proposed
would result in the loss of the features which best characterise and add interest to the
property, as well as the introduction of features not compatible with the host dwelling
or local context. The bay window would be removed, as would the existing brick
quoins and the original tiles. In addition, the development would see the introduction of
flat-roof forms and would see the introduction of machine-made black glazed pantiles.
Having said this, it is also recognised that a number of the alterations proposed to the
existing property could be carried out without planning permission. This includes the
change of the existing tiles and windows and the loss of the brick quoins and bay
window.
The applicant has made some minor changes to improve the scheme, including the
raising of the cills and the introduction of mullions to some of the front elevation
windows. The applicant has also raised the cill height and introduced mullions on the
replacement windows within the existing property to supplement the windows on the
new extension, although this is something over which the Local Planning Authority
does not have control.
In terms of the scale of the development, the proportions and scale proposed are
considered to be broadly acceptable. Whilst it is recognised that the development
would reduce the amount of private amenity space available, it would still exceed the
footprint of the dwelling as extended, thus complying with the requirement for new
dwellings set out in the adopted North Norfolk Design Guide. Furthermore, given that
there is little uniformity in plot size in the street, it is not considered that
overdevelopment is a justifiable reason for refusal in this case.
Development Committee
7
13 December 2012
Since the extension would be single-storey, it is not considered that the proposed
development would have a significantly detrimental impact on neighbouring dwellings.
Having regard to the amendments that have been made to the scheme, Officers
consider that the development is now generally compliant with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted Core Strategy and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
HOLT - PF/12/0999 - Siting of freezer and condensing units; 39 Hempstead Road
for Wilson Hotel Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Young
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19811377 PF - Change of use from manufacture of inflatable craft to storage of
fruit and vegetables
Approved 15/09/1981
PLA/20051875 EF - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of ground floor for a1
(retail)
Approved 10/03/2006
PLA/19760982 PF - Conversion of warehouse into factory for manufacture of air
lifting salvage bags
Approved 09/08/1976
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks the siting of a freezer and separate condensing unit. The freezer
would measure 10m long x 3.5m wide and 2.5m high and would be sited across the
back section of the yard to the east of the depot. The condensing unit would be
positioned behind the depot at the north. There are currently a freezer and condensing
unit on the site in connection with a commercial bakery business.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors High and Baker having regard to the following planning
issue: Intensifying commercial activity in a residential area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from the occupier of 41 Hempstead Road on
the following grounds:
1. The noise produced by the proposed freezer and condensing unit; and
2. The closeness of the unit to their property.
Development Committee
8
13 December 2012
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objections subject to a condition that a noise level scheme
is submitted.
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 EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbours' amenities.
APPRAISAL
The site is within a designated Residential area just outside of Holt Town Centre
where as stated in the Core Strategy appropriate residential development and
compatible non-residential development including small-scale business, community,
leisure and social uses will be permitted.
With regard to the concerns raised about the intensification of commercial use in a
residential area, the existing use of the site is for non-residential use, and the addition
of the proposed freezer would not increase the scale of the business, and therefore
the proposal is considered to be compliant with SS3 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore the National Planning Policy Framework is supportive of development
which supports economic and sustainable expansion of all types of businesses and
enterprises in rural areas in order to create jobs and is therefore a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy EN4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged.
In addition the policy requires that proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
It is not considered that the freezer and condensing unit would have a detrimental
impact on the surrounding area. Although the proposed materials for the freezer would
not match the existing building, with the use of white rigid polyurethane panels; it
would be located to the rear of the yard and given its height of 2.5m would be limited
in terms of its impact visually. The host building would also partially screen it from
Hempstead Road. Large trees at the rear boundary means only the top of the freezer
would be visible from Gravel Pit Lane located to the north of the site, and the freezer
would not be visible from the western side as it would be screened by the mature trees
along that boundary.
Development Committee
9
13 December 2012
It is recognised that the noise produced by the condensing unit might be more than
the noise currently generated at the site, but the unit would be positioned in the best
location to reduce the impact, i.e. to the north of the depot with the proposed freezer
placed between the condensing unit and the nearest neighbour, Number 41. The
freezer itself would not produce noise.
The condensing unit would have little impact on the neighbours to the west in view of
its current use as a scrap yard. The large trees along the western boundary
separating the site from the scrap yard would reduce the visual impact of the proposed
freezer and condensing unit.
The Council's Environmental Health team have considered the potential for noise
nuisance and consider that it is acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions. On
the basis of the above the proposal is considered acceptable under Policy EN13.
Therefore the proposed freezer and condensing unit are considered to comply with
adopted Core Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following condition :
5.
2.
Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which
specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the
site. The development shall therefore be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme.
3.
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
HOVETON - PF/12/1166 - Extension to boat building workshop; Landamores,
Tilia Business Park, Tunstead Road for Tilia Business Park
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 January 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030608 PF - Installation of nitrogen gas storage tank on concrete pad
Approved 04/06/2003
PLA/20011437 PF - Change of use from B8 (warehouse) to B2 (additional food
processing & storage facilities)
Approved 14/01/2002
PLA/20061875 PF - Alterations to factory building, including partial raising of roof by
4.6m and minor demolition works
Approved 25/01/2007
Development Committee
10
13 December 2012
THE APPLICATION
The application is to rebuild the eastern part of buildings occupied by Landamores
boat builders. The building is a replacement for a part of the eastern side of the
premises which are brick built and currently difficult to utilise for modern industrial
practices.
The proposed extension measures 42 metres x 23.2 metres with a ridge height of 13
metres and a eaves height of 11.5 metres
In footprint the extension would be marginally smaller than the building it is to replace
but with a mezzanine floor in the northern side which would increase the floorspace by
213 square metres. The facilities would provide three boat building bays and office
space on the mezzanine floor suspended over the northern side of the extension.
Three roller shutter doors would provide access to the building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in order to facilitate resolution of
this application.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters have been received from local residents; one letters objects the other does
not object in principle to the extension.
Both letters raise concerns over noise,
pollution and emissions from the chemical and dust creating activities associated with
boat building and highway safety
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - Holding objection.
The full response is set out in Appendix 2, but to summarise the Highway Authority
has raised a holding objection to the effect that the Tunstead Road access is
unsuitable to serve any further intensification of development, therefore, no
development whatsoever should take place until an access to the south onto Belaugh
Road is improved to serve the whole of the Employment Area allocated in North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a condition on implementation of
the Sustainable Construction details supplied with the application.
Environmental Health - Comments awaited.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager The Economic Development Unit has no hesitation in supporting this development
proposal recognising the following strengths associated with this application.
Company – Employs 80 full-time staff with a further 30 proposed employees as part of
the planned expansion.
Sector – Oyster Yachts are boat builders of world-wide distinction championing a
world class sector here in North Norfolk.
Geography – Being based on the east coast provides close business links to Europe
especially with the new Outer Harbour off Great Yarmouth. The inland waterways are
a major asset in the area attracting vast numbers of tourists and business.
Development Committee
11
13 December 2012
Supply Chain – Oyster Yachts has provided a strong foundation for the economy in
North Norfolk. As a result there is a diverse range of businesses and service
providers supporting a self-sustaining supply chain.
Skills – Oyster Yachts has historically maintained strong ties with marine and maritime
skills development supporting initiatives such as Apprenticeship. This has resulted in
a unique skill set and the provision of specially training facilities.
The full response is set out in Appendix 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
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 11: Hoveton (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The boat building operation occupies a large building within the centre of an area
identified in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as a General Employment Area
so redeveloping part of the existing building for its B2 use is in principle acceptable.
The extension is sought to improve the boat building and handling facilities within the
premises as well as facilitating the capacity of the site to build larger yachts. The
Company states in its submission that in the long term it proposes to bring overseas
production of such yachts back to Hoveton.
The Highway Authority has raised a holding objection to the proposal over the
possible intensification of development on the site and is concerned regarding the
implications for highway safety through the increased use of the access onto Tunstead
Road. This is because of the poor visibility at the junction onto Tunstead Road directly
opposite the access to Broadland High School.
Development Committee
12
13 December 2012
Ever since the site was first designated for employment there have been discussions
about improving the access to the General Employment Area. Those discussions
between the landowner, the Planning Division and the Highway Authority concern the
provision of an improved access/egress through the southern side of the site which is
or was owned by a third party. The Highway Authority would prefer no further
development of the General Employment Area until such time as the improved access
is made available to serve the whole of the General Employment Area. It is believed
that progress is being made towards securing that improved access and an update on
that progress is being sought from the agent. If the provision of the southern access
were imminent then the extension could be approved with a condition that it should not
be brought into first use until such time as that access has been provided. Such a
condition would allow the simultaneous construction of the access and the extension.
It should also be borne in mind that the boat building operation enjoys a legitimate
access via Tunstead Road. Furthermore, in the past the access probably experienced
greater traffic flows because historically there was a retail business on the site
involving large delivery vehicles. Unless it is established there would be a significant
increase in traffic movements it is unlikely that a planning refusal could be sustained.
A further consideration is the Government's policy contained in the National Planning
Policy Framework with its policy focus towards growth through business to reverse the
current economic situation.
The response of the Environmental Health Officer is awaited, but in general concerns
regarding noise and emissions likely to arise from such a business can normally be
adequately mitigated by the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.
With regard to appearance, the extension is proposed in materials to match the
existing building; the lighter coloured cladding would reflect light and make the scale of
the building less oppressive than the existing building. There are no dwellings in such
proximity to the site as to be adversely affected by the size of the extension.
The business is a significant employer in the District, employing a highly skilled
workforce of currently 70 people. However, the Company states that 30 people
recently laid off will be re-employed directly as a result of the proposed extension.
The response from the Economic & Tourism Development Manager explains the
importance of the business to the local economy. It should also be borne in mind that
the Broads Authority has long recognised the importance of the boat building industry
through reports commissioned into this topic. Through its planning policies has sought
to halt the decline in the boat building within Norfolk and Suffolk. Though the site is
not within the Broads Authority jurisdiction neither are the economic implications of
such businesses confined to their boundaries, with many supporting suppliers located
throughout Norfolk and Suffolk dependent upon the boat building industry.
At the time of writing this report further information was being sought as to the
anticipated staffing levels, the number of boats likely to be built on site, the timing of
boat movements to and from the site, and most importantly, when it is envisaged the
new access would be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
A recommendation will be made at the meeting following the receipt of further
information from the applicant and the further views of the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
13
13 December 2012
6.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0931 - Erection of replacement single-storey/twostorey rear extensions and insertion of windows to front elevation; 21 Station
Road for Mr & Mrs N Dyke
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 October 2012
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760895 EF - Hairdressing salon (ladies) and living accommodation
Approved 02/07/1976
PLA/20041896 PF - Erection of first floor rear extension and conservatory
Refused 22/12/2004
PLA/19771898 PF - Erection of lounge and kitchen extension
Approved 20/01/1978
PLA/20050901 PF - Erection of single-storey side extension and conservatory to
rear
Approved 24/06/2005
PLA/20042213 PF - Erection of first floor rear extension and conservatory
Refused 17/02/2005
PF/12/0932 PF - Change of Use from a mixed use of A1 (hairdressing salon)/C3
(residential) to C3 (residential) - undetermined
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a replacement single-storey/two storey extension and
conservatory to the rear of the property along with external alterations to the front
elevation. The new extension would replace a single storey extension and
conservatory.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received highlighting the following concerns:
1. Overshadowing and loss of light to conservatory/patio/lounge window (number 19),
overshadowing of garden and property (number 23);
2. Obtrusive and overbearing effect; and
3. Extension protruding beyond rear elevation of no. 23 dominating eastern and southeastern aspects.
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.
Development Committee
14
13 December 2012
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with this application, having deferred determination at the last
meeting for a site visit.
The property in question lies within a Residential Policy area where extensions to
existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies. The property is a two-storey detached
dwelling facing onto Station Road and situated between two two-storey dwellings, with
the Victory Leisure Centre entrance/grounds opposite.
The two-storey element of the extension would be approx. 4.9m deep and 5m wide,
situated on the western half of the rear elevation. It would include a red pantile hipped
roof along with a first floor window facing south-west and a small first floor obscureglazed window facing north-west along with another obscure glazed window to be
inserted on the original dwelling (again facing north-west). The eastern half of the rear
elevation would have a single-storey extension of the same depth and 4m in width,
incorporating a flat roof with large rooflight and rear door. A single-storey flat-roofed
extension acting as a conservatory (replacing the existing larger conservatory) would
be added onto the end of the two-storey extension, and would measure a further 3.4m
deep and 3.7m wide. This would incorporate a south-east facing window and southwest facing French doors opening into the garden.
In terms of materials, both the red brickwork and roof pantiles to be used are intended
to match the existing dwelling. The conservatory would be constructed of timber
cladding to add a more contemporary appearance.
The proposals also include modernising the front elevation. On the eastern half of the
property (containing the current ground floor hairdressing business) a new timber front
door, ground floor cladding and covered porch area would be introduced, replacing the
existing shop windows, and a large thin ground/first floor window, with similar windows
positioned either side of the front door. The western half of the front elevation would
have slightly altered ground/first floor windows.
In 2004, a scheme was submitted for the same property to construct a two-storey rear
extension, which was refused on the grounds of overbearing effect, loss of light and
overshadowing.
With regard to the current application, the proposed single-storey extensions are not
considered to have any significant impact on neighbouring amenity. The neighbour
concerns are largely centred upon the two-storey element of the extension. The
extension would be significantly smaller than the one proposed in 2004. It would
Development Committee
15
13 December 2012
extend across just over half of the rear elevation and not the whole elevation as
proposed at that time. It would also have a ridge height lower than that previously
proposed. With regard to the property to the south-east, the reduction in width of the
proposed extension would bring it away from the south-eastern boundary and it is
considered would not have any significant overbearing or dominant effect, nor result in
any significant overshadowing or loss of light to that neighbouring property.
Regarding the property to the north-west, the two-storey part of the extension would
project beyond the rear building line of the neighbouring property by approx. 3m. This
is likely to result in a small amount of early morning light loss and overshadowing to
that property, but the lower roof height than previously proposed, combined with the
hipped design of the roof, should keep this to an acceptable level and this issue is not
considered significant enough to warrant a recommendation of refusal. It is not
considered that the two-storey extension would result in any unacceptable
overbearing effects. In addition, there should be no loss of privacy to either
neighbouring property, with only one first floor window facing a neighbouring property
(no. 23), which would be obscure glazed and facing a blank wall. There would be no
significant impact upon any dwellings to the south-west (along Millfield Road).
Visually, the two single-storey flat roofed rear extensions would conflict with the advice
in the North Norfolk Design Guide, which indicates that flat roof forms are generally to
be avoided. However, in this case, as the extensions would replace an existing flat
roof extension and almost flat roofed conservatory, the proposed roof design is
considered to be acceptable. The extensions would appear sufficiently subservient to
the existing dwelling and would consist of mostly matching materials; although the
timber cladding would be different, it is not considered to be inappropriate. Overall, it is
considered that in terms of scale, visual impact and neighbouring amenity, the
proposals are compliant with Policy EN 4.
The modernisation of the front elevation, although not very sensitive to the character
of the street, is not considered sufficiently adverse as to warrant a recommendation of
refusal. The existing glazing/signage on the shop front and colour of the dwelling
already catches the eye, and therefore the introduction of ground floor timber cladding
and general modernisation of the front elevation should not have a detrimental visual
impact.
The development is considered to accord with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/0962 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement
dwelling and building for storage and repair of plant and machinery; Land
opposite Orchard Farm, Marshgate, Spa Common for Mr & Mrs Cushion
Minor Development
- Target Date: 19 October 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Development Committee
16
13 December 2012
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
CL/12/0329 CL - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of land for storage of
hobby, agricultural and horticultural machinery, storage and repair of construction
plant and existing use of structure as residential dwelling.
Approved 26/07/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the replacement of a dwelling consisting of two static caravans with linking
corridor, which has a footprint of 122 sq metres, with a one and a half storey dwelling
and the erection of a workshop/storage building for the storage and repair of plant and
machinery.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore having regard to the following planning
issues:
Potential increased traffic movements and noise and disturbance generated by
activities within the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from the owner of a neighbouring property
which raises concerns that periodically since March 2012 machinery, which sounds
like something being planed or cut, has been operating within the site which is
extremely noisy and disruptive. This disruption has been more frequent since
September 2012 and the objector has noted four dates within that period when the
machinery has been in use, on one occasion for up to two and a half hours. The
objector also confirms that there is no real objection to a dwelling being built to
replace the existing caravans.
An e-mail has been received from the applicant‟s agent which indicates that the
incidents referred to in the letter of objection in respect of noise from the site relates
directly to the applicant clearing firewood from the site which will soon be complete.
Meanwhile efforts will be made to further reduce the noise while working.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No objection, subject to the provision of a visibility splay
to the south-western side of the access, with a minimum set back of 25 metres.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to the dwelling complying with Code
for Sustainable Homes, Code Level 3 rating.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition restricting the hours of
work.
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.
Development Committee
17
13 December 2012
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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 EN13: 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 neighbours.
3. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy where Policies HO8, EN4, EN13, CT5 and CT6 are relevant.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would not
result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside. In determining what constitutes a
„disproportionately large increase account will be taken of the size of the existing
dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been extended or could be extended
under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of the area.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition, proposals should
not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN13 requires that all development proposals should minimise, and where
possible reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise
pollution.
Policies CT5 and CT6 requires that the proposal is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality and the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could
be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or
character of the surrounding area or highway safety. In addition, adequate vehicle
parking facilities will be provided by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed
development.
Development Committee
18
13 December 2012
On 26 July 2012 a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (CLEUD) was approved
which allowed the use of the application site for the following purposes:
1) The stationing of two linked caravans used for residential purposes and having a
footprint of 122 sq. metres and also a Portakabin used for the storage of household
effects.
2) Storage of horticultural and agricultural hobby machinery.
3) Storage and repair of earthmoving and construction plant and machinery in that
part of the site adjacent to the south western boundary of the site.
Although situated within the Countryside policy area where there is normally a
presumption against new dwellings, with the granting of the CLEUD it has been
established that a permanent residential dwelling exists on the site and as such the
current proposal relates solely to its replacement. At this stage the application is only
seeking to establish the principle of replacing the dwelling and the erection of the
proposed workshop/storage building together with the access arrangements, with the
appearance, layout, scale and landscaping reserved for later consideration.
The site, which is some 0.56 hectares in area, abuts the western side of Marshgate
and has an existing access at its northern end adjacent to Marshgate Lodge and a
builders yard. At the present time the static caravans are sited in the north-western
corner of the site adjacent to the northern boundary, along which are also sited a
former refrigerated lorry trailer and smaller container from a rigid lorry.
It is the applicant‟s intention that the replacement dwelling would be located diagonally
across the site at an angle, north east to south west, immediately to the south of the
access driveway, within the northern half of the site. The dwelling would be
constructed in the local vernacular of red brick and tiles and would have the same
footprint as recognised in the CLEUD, plus any permitted development rights, to one
and half storeys. In this location the dwelling would be partially screened by the
roadside hedge and a number of trees within the site, including a Chilean pine. In
addition, it would be well screened from the north by existing trees, whilst the western
boundary is also densely planted. At this stage there are no details of the proposed
dwelling but it is considered that a one and half storey property, commensurate in
floor area with the existing dwelling would not materially increase the impact of the
property on the appearance of the surrounding countryside and the dwelling would
therefore comply with Policy HO8. In addition, a dwelling in the position proposed
would be sufficiently far away from neighbouring properties so as not to result in direct
overlooking and would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers, as required by Policy EN4.
Turning to the proposed workshop/storage building, the CLEUD established that the
site could be used for the storage of horticultural and agricultural hobby machinery
and the storage and repair of earthmoving and construction plant and machinery
adjacent to the south western boundary of the site.
Furthermore the National Planning Policy Framework is supportive of development
which supports economic and sustainable expansion of all types of businesses and
enterprises in rural areas in order to create jobs and is therefore a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
Development Committee
19
13 December 2012
The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application indicates that as a
business the applicant repairs and stores Plant Hire tools on the site. In addition, he
collects and restores plant and machinery, predominantly agricultural and horticultural,
which again are stored on the site. As a result, at the present time there are a number
of vehicles and machinery, including a digger stored in the open adjacent to the
western boundary. The statement also indicates that no operation of plant or storage
and repair of plant is proposed other than that which is within the control of the person
residing on the land and that no part of the application is for road haulage vehicles. In
addition, if necessary the applicant would be prepared to accept a condition restricting
the hours of work to 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 1.30pm
Saturdays and no working Sundays or Bank holidays other than for emergencies.
Whilst at this stage no details of the scale or design of the workshop/storage building
have been submitted, in principle it is considered that a suitably designed building
would be acceptable in this location set against the backdrop of the trees to the
western boundary and would not be unduly intrusive in the landscape. Furthermore,
subject to a suitable colour finish, the building would not be visually intrusive to the
occupiers of those dwellings to the eastern side of Marshgate, especially if as part of
the reserved matters application a landscaping scheme were agreed in order to
reinforce the planting on the eastern boundary of the site.
In addition, it is considered that the repair of machinery within the building, together
with a restriction on the hours of use would help to reduce any potential noise and
disturbance experienced by the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Furthermore,
the applicant‟s agent has indicated that the building would be beneficial for security,
helping to prevent or reducing burglaries which have occurred at the site and which
have been reported to the police.
The comments of the Council‟s Environmental Protection Team are currently awaited
in respect of the proposed workshop/storage building and also in respect of the
comments received from the objector.
As far as the access to the site is concerned, as outlined above the applicant has
indicated that no operation of plant or storage and repair of plant is proposed other
than that within the control of the person residing on the land and that no part of the
application is for road haulage vehicles. It is therefore considered that the proposal
would not result in any significant increased traffic movements. Furthermore, the
applicant has indicated that he would be agreeable to a condition restricting the use of
the workshop/storage building solely to the applicant, his daughter and son for the
storage and maintenance of plant, equipment and vehicles in their ownership or under
their control, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Whilst there is some merit in such a condition it leaves open the question as to the
future use of the building when it is no longer required by the current applicants or
their family.
The Highway Authority has indicated that subject to improvements to the visibility from
the site and the access gates being set back a minimum of 25 metres from the edge
of the carriageway it would have no objection to the proposal.
In summary, it is therefore considered that in principle the erection of a one and half
storey dwelling on the site together with a workshop/storage building is acceptable
and would generally result in a tidying up of the site. Furthermore, the
workshop/storage building could potentially help to reduce any noise and disturbance
to local residents with repairs taking place within the building rather than in the open,
which is currently the case. In addition, it is recommended that conditions be imposed
Development Committee
20
13 December 2012
restricting the hours of use of the workshop and its use. The appearance, layout and
scale of the dwelling and workshop would need to be the subject of a reserved
matters application, which should include a landscaping scheme for the reinforcement
of the planting to the eastern boundary of the site.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no objection from the Council’s Environmental
Protection Team and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
RYBURGH - PF/12/0904 - Change of use from residential to mixed use of
residential and A5 (hot food takeaway); 19 Station Road, Great Ryburgh, for Mr
Buxton
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19990149 PF - Change of use from vacant hall to offices (Use Class B1,
Business)
Approved 23/03/1999
PLA/20030168 PF - Conversion and extension of office to form a dwelling
Approved 18/03/2003
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of a residential dwelling to a mix of A5 hot food takeaway
shop and residential use. The building would be subdivided into a one bed dwelling
and the take-away premises.
2 parking spaces would be retained for the residential use.
There would be no on-site parking for the take-away.
Limited alterations are proposed to the front elevation of the building in order to
facilitate the change of use. One existing triple-pane window would be altered to
create a new entrance into the take-away. The remaining windows and doors to the
front elevation would serve the one-bed dwelling.
A bin storage area projecting 2m to the front of the building and 1m wide would be
created at the front of the building and would be enclosed by close boarded fencing
and gates. Bollards would be erected in front of the take-away.
The front area would be subdivided by the erection of a 0.9m close boarded fence
which would graduate to 2m towards the building to form the bin store.
Development Committee
21
13 December 2012
An extraction system would be installed and the flue would largely be accommodated
in the existing redundant chimney stack at the rear of the building. A jet cowl would
protrude above the existing chimney by 0.7m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green having regard to the following planning issue:
Local facility in the village.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application for the following reasons:
1. There are road safety issues as the site is on a bend.
2. There are insufficient parking facilities.
REPRESENTATIONS
72 letters in support of the application and 14 letters of objection received.
72 letters in support on the following grounds:
1.The existing bungalow will be brought up to modern standards as a result of the
work required for the subdivision.
2. Will create jobs.
3. Will provide a valuable local service.
4. Will mean no longer need to drive to Fakenham for a take-away.
5. The building has a history of commercial uses.
6. Gt Ryburgh is a large village with a large population with only a pub and a shop and
a lack of other facilities.
14 letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Noise pollution to neighbouring residents.
2. Odour of the fryers would affect residential amenity.
3. Light pollution.
4. Would increase congestion on the road which is already a problem with lorries
passing through.
5. Would encourage dangerous parking on this extremely tight 90 degree bend.
6. Would be detrimental to highway safety
7. There have been recent car accidents on this bend
8. There is a nursery school opposite and the increase in traffic at this dangerous
bend would be a safety issue.
9. Potential fire-hazard as the building is in the middle of a densely populated area.
10. Litter could become a nuisance.
11. Impact on drainage - the change of use would alter the nature and increase the
volume of demand already put on the inadequate drainage system and would
contribute to the danger of local flooding which has already been an issue.
12. No provision for on-site parking.
13. Inappropriate for a Conservation Area.
14. Gt Ryburgh has a problem with vandalism and a shop like this may well become a
meeting place for groups of youths.
15. Shame to reduce the size of the house so small when there is a housing need.
16. Will need to rely on passing trade not just the local village to be viable.
17. It is to the extreme east of the village and therefore not accessible by foot to most
in the village.
18. Would like to see a chip shop in Gt Ryburgh but this is not the right location.
19. Proposed opening times would be detrimental to neighbouring dwellings.
20. There is no demonstrated need for a chip shop in the village.
Development Committee
22
13 December 2012
The applicant has submitted a letter in support of his application with the following
points (summarised):
1. The building has a history of commercial use - 1750 - Blacksmith shop; 1915 - Seed
store; 1962 - St Johns village community hall and lastly 2000 - Law firm's office before
being used for residential in 2003.
2. Would benefit those in the community who have no or limited access to transport to
access a hot food takeaway.
3. Would be utilised by those working at the industrial park.
4. Would expect the majority of customers to come on foot.
5. Would expect the majority of the heavy goods movements to stop around 4.30pm
and so the evening trade would not conflict with this traffic.
6. The introduction of a chip shop would only help benefit the local community.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - This change of use raises no
obvious Conservation and Design concerns. Assuming that there will not be a
prominent stainless steel flue, the scheme should not harm the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area.
County Highway Authority - This development proposes the subdivision of a
residential property to create a fish and chip shop, whilst retaining a single bedroom
unit with two frontage parking places.
The proposal site is situated on the C355 Station Road on the outside of a near 90
degree bend at a point where the C355 is narrow, measuring 5.25m in width.
There is a footway fronting the application site, which varies in width ranging from a
base width of 1.04m along the frontage of no.21, widening up to 3.6m to the northern
boundary of no.19, then back to approximately 1.0m over a short radial distance of 1718 m. Opposite the site the footpath measures approximately 1.4m in width around the
frontage wall and fence to the Children's Nursery. These measurements fall below
standard requirements (between 1.8m and 2m) to allow pedestrians to navigate free
passage along the highway in safety.
The frontage of the application site is already served by an existing dropped kerb
arrangement to allow parking to the front of no 19. The current arrangement appears
to allow some manoeuvring area within the fenced frontage.
It is proposed to retain 2 end-on parking places for the residential element of this
proposal and amend the frontage of the proposed shop to provide a tapered approach
to the private access between no.19 and 21 Station Road, which currently is limited to
approximately 3.0m in width. This widened area would also serve as pedestrian
entrance to the fish and chip shop, potentially resulting in conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicles.
No parking is proposed for the hot food takeaway use.
Norfolk County Council considers that trip destinations need to be able to cater for
their own parking demands. Pushing vehicle parking onto the adjacent public highway
diminishes the streetscape and potentially obstructs emergency services.
The amended parking arrangements remove the turning facility currently available for
the residential use of the site, and these amendments are considered to be
detrimental to highway safety.
Development Committee
23
13 December 2012
With consideration of the road layout and the type of traffic using the C355 Station
Road, the lack of any parking provision for the fish and chip shop would result in
customers parking on the public highway on or close to a near 90 degree bend in the
road alignment.
Forward visibility around the bend is limited due to the existence of high security
fencing around the Children's Nursery play area.
From photographs supplied by an objector to the proposed development and the fact
that the Maltings site is some 400m west of the site, it is evident that large goods
vehicles regularly use this route and regularly use the full width of the C355 Station
Road to negotiate this and another severe bend in close proximity to the proposal site.
Given that the proposed development does not provide any customer parking,
resulting in the potential for a significant increase in on-street customer and delivery
parking at a point on the highway where forward visibility is restricted and large
vehicles regularly utilise the full road width to negotiate a series of near right angled
bends, I find that the alteration to the current residential parking arrangements and the
change of use to a Hot Food Takeaway without any customer or delivery parking
would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, Norfolk County Council
recommends refusal.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer - comments awaited.
Environmental Health - According to our records the site was formerly associated with
a forge/smithy, which operated around the approximate date of 1881, and as such
there is potential for contamination to exist. A note on any permission is therefore
required in this respect.
The suggested hours of use and odour control information are noted and
Environmental Health are satisfied with the detail subject to a condition that the
development is completed in accordance with those details.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy 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).
Development Committee
24
13 December 2012
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 the development
2. Impact on the Conservation Area
3. Neighbouring amenity
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the village of Gt Ryburgh which for the purposes of development is
classified as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy. The re-use and
adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes in the Countryside is acceptable in
principle as is development to support the rural economy. Gt Ryburgh has limited
facilities to support the community and it is considered that the introduction of a hot
food take-away would help the vitality of this rural community where the nearest hotfood takeaway or indeed restaurant is in Fakenham. The principle of a new hot food
take-away in Gt Ryburgh would therefore be considered to be a positive addition to
the community and would be acceptable subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies.
Furthermore the NPPF is supportive of development which supports economic growth
in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity and promotes the retention and
development of local services and community facilities in villages. This is therefore a
material consideration in the determination of this application.
Limited alterations are proposed to the front elevation of the building. The key change
to the appearance of the site would be a new fence delineating the boundary between
the take-away and the house and the creation of a fenced bin storage area and
bollards to the front of the take-away. Both the fence and the gated bin storage area
could be completed under the permitted development which the dwelling currently
enjoys and the proposed appearance of these is considered acceptable, being
constructed of a close boarded fence and double timber gates. It is not considered
therefore that the addition of these boundary treatment or the bin enclosure would
result in any harm to the character or appearance of the dwelling nor of the designated
Conservation Area. In addition, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
has advised that the change of use raises no concerns and assuming the stainless
steel flue required for the extraction would not be prominent, considers that the
scheme overall should not harm the appearance and character of the Conservation
Area.
The flue would largely be contained within the existing chimney stack. The application
indicates that a jet cowl of 0.7m above the existing chimney stack would be visible.
The cowl duct is located to the rear of the building and would not be highly visible from
public vantage. No details of its appearance have been submitted. However, subject
to a condition requiring precise details of the cowl duct to be submitted to and
Development Committee
25
13 December 2012
approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure its satisfactory appearance and
colour finish, it is not considered that given its position to the rear that it would have
any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the dwelling, street scene or
indeed the designated Conservation Area.
In respect of the impact on neighbouring amenities, the application proposes flexible
opening hours of between 11am and 9.30pm on Tuesdays to Sundays, but would
provide no parking facilities on the site. It proposes a dedicated bin storage area to
the front and extraction and ventilation to the rear of the building. The Environmental
Health Officer confirms that subject to a condition requiring the development to be
completed in accordance with the submitted extraction details and restricting the hours
of opening in line with the applicants suggested times, that it is considered there would
be no concerns in respect of impact on residential amenity. Furthermore, as there
are no on-site parking facilities and the opening hours would not extend beyond
9.30pm, it is not considered that the proposed hot food takeaway use would result in
any significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby dwellings by way of
noise and disturbance of the coming and going of customers in their cars or on foot on
the site. It is therefore considered that subject to conditions, the proposal would result
in no adverse impact neighbouring amenities and the proposal is considered
acceptable under Policy EN13.
In respect of size of the reduced residential dwelling (no.19), this would exceed the
minimum habitable floor area of 20sqm required by the North Norfolk Design Guide
and a garden area to the rear would be retained for outside amenity and clothes
drying; a gravelled area to the front would be retained for parking and bin storage. It is
therefore considered that the scheme would deliver a dwelling that retains acceptable
residential amenity both internally and externally.
In respect of highway safety, the site is located on Station Road on the outside of a
near 90 degree bend at a point where the road is narrow. The Highway Authority has
advised that given that the proposed development does not provide any customer
parking, resulting in the potential for a significant increase in on-street customer and
delivery parking at a point on the highway where forward visibility is restricted and
large vehicles regularly utilise the full road width to negotiate a series of near right
angled bends, it considers that the alteration to the current residential parking
arrangements and the change of use to a Hot Food Takeaway without any customer
or delivery parking would be detrimental to highway safety.
Therefore notwithstanding that the proposal would comply with other policies, it is
considered to result in detriment to highway safety contrary to policies CT5 and CT6 of
the Core Strategy. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
At the time of writing this report comments were awaited from the Police Architectural
Liaison Officer. If objections are raised they may need to be included in the reasons
for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse for the following reasons, subject to any further
grounds of objection that may be raised by the Police Architectural Liaison
Officer:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the unclassified road serving the site is
considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its poor
alignment and restricted forward visibility. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely
Development Committee
26
13 December 2012
to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Core Strategy
Policy CT5.
In addition, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking or
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority. The
proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in
on-street parking to the detriment to highway safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy
CT6.
Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate facilities for the servicing of
the premises and would therefore result in the manoeuvring of vehicles on the
adjoining highway to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy
CT6.
9.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1105 - Variation of Condition 21 of planning permission:
10/0920 to delete reference to 'playing pitch'; Land at Cromer Road for Tesco
Stores Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 23 November 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0920 PF - Demolition of all buildings except 7, 9 & 11 Cromer Road and
erection of A1 retail food store, 2 A1/A2/A3 retail units, 2 residential units and D1/D2
community space, with associated access, landscaping, car parking and servicing and
pedestrian link to Station Road
Approved 27/10/2010
PLA/20041009 - Demolition of buildings and erection of community hall with access
and parking and use of land as multi-purpose open area
Approved 10/04/2008
PF/11/0692 – Erection of community hall with access and parking
Approved 03/04/12
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to vary Condition 21 of planning application PF/10/0920 which
stated:
'Demolition of the community centre that is currently erected on the site and removal
of the playing pitch adjacent to it shall not commence until the Local Planning
Authority is satisfied that construction of a replacement community centre and
replacement playing pitch is practically completed and they are ready to be brought
into beneficial use.
Reason:
To ensure that replacement facilities are constructed prior to the demolition of the
existing in accordance with Policy CT 3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy'.
Development Committee
27
13 December 2012
The application seeks to delete the reference within the condition to the requirement
for a replacement playing pitch which was originally planned to be provided on the
new Community Centre site on Holway Road, Sheringham.
A copy of the applicant's supporting letter dated 25 September 2012 is attached at
Appendix 3.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the range of
planning issues involved.
TOWN COUNCIL
Originally objected to the proposal on the following grounds:
Strongly objects to this application which seeks to cancel a commitment formally and
openly entered into by the applicant when securing its store consent in 2010. The
Town Council demands that NNDC secure by whatever means necessary the
provision of the replacement playing pitch for the town strictly in accordance with the
terms of Condition 21 so as to secure an important sporting facility for the local
community replacing the facility to be lost.(See copy at Appendix 3).
Further comments awaited following receipt of further comments from the applicant.
REPRESENTATIONS
25 letters have been received, 23 against and 2 making comments.
Summary of objections:
1. The applicant should be held to account to provide for replacement facilities;
2. The younger people in the town need recreation facilities;
3. Sports groups need this facility;
4. In the year of the Olympics it would be a shame to deny access to sport for
younger people;
5. We need a floodlit sports facility in Sheringham;
6. Put floodlights at the high school;
7. The Baptist Church need a floodlit sports pitch;
8. There are six youth football teams that need a facility to practice and train.
Two letters received from applicants (see Appendix 3).
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No comments
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Development Committee
28
13 December 2012
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of the proposal.
APPRAISAL
Background
Condition 21 of application ref: PF/10/0920 was imposed to ensure that a replacement
community centre and playing pitch were provided before the existing Community
Centre and informal grass area/playing pitch on Cromer Road were removed to make
way for the Cromer Road supermarket development, in accordance with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy CT 3.
A replacement Community Centre and playing pitch were proposed on Holway Road,
Sheringham and approved under planning application ref: PF/04/1009. However, an
amended application was submitted under planning ref: PF/11/0692 which sought
removal of part of the playing pitch to provide additional parking and leaving a smaller
grassed area. This application was subsequently approved under delegated powers.
Principle
Core Strategy Policy CT 3 states:
'New or improved community facilities or services will be permitted within the Principal
and Secondary Settlements, Service Villages and Coastal Service Villages, or within
the Countryside where they meet the identified needs of the local community.
Development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or premises currently, or
last used for, important local facilities and services will not be permitted unless:
alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will
be provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts
have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at
least 12 months'.
Sheringham Community Centre is considered to be an important local facility and
whilst provision for a replacement hall has been made and is now substantially
complete, it is the replacement playing pitch which is the subject of consideration as
part of this application.
The applicants have indicated within their supporting letter of 25 September 2012 (at
Appendix 3) that the amended Community Centre application (PF/11/0692) was
submitted at the request of the Town Council following consultation with the local
community to assess the requirements of end users. Whilst there is some
disagreement between the parties as to exactly what was agreed and what led to the
amended application, the key consideration for the Committee is how best to resolve
this matter in the wider public interest and without further delay.
The applicants have been made aware of the concerns of Town Council as set out
within their letter of 17 October 2012. The applicants responded by way of letter dated
20th November 2012 (copy at Appendix 3) which, amongst other things, set out four
Development Committee
29
13 December 2012
possible options to try to resolve the concerns of the Town Council. They put forward
the following:
a. Provide a replacement playing pitch on land it owns adjacent to the new
Community Centre site on Holway Road which is proposed for residential
development;
b. Provide a replacement playing pitch partly on land within the residential
development site and partly within the Community Centre site (and so potentially
replacing either the hard standing area constructed from Grasscrete or similar
intended to provide overflow car parking and/or the grassed area);
c. A contribution to the installation of floodlights at Sheringham High School, a matter
they are aware has been discussed by the Town Council previously;
d. A contribution to improvements to the Recreation Ground off Weybourne Road.
They are aware of current proposals in this regard by Sheringham Sports
Association which they understand leases the land from the Town Council and
which constituted an item at a recent meeting of the Town Council.
In respect of items c. and d., the applicants have indicated by way of letter dated 27
November 2012 that the amount of contribution that they would be willing to offer
would be up to £60,000 (see copy of letter at Appendix 3).
At the time of writing the report the Town Council had been re-consulted in the light of
the latest letters from the applicant. The Committee will be updated orally with regard
to the further views of the Town Council.
Officers consider that either of the options could potentially address the earlier
concerns of the Town Council. Options a. and b. would negate the need for this
current application for variation of condition 21 as they themselves propose a
replacement pitch. However, the Committee should be aware that these options would
likely place a burden on the future owners/operators of the Community Centre to
manage and maintain this facility.
Options c. and d. would address the loss of the replacement playing pitch on Holway
Road with contributions towards projects elsewhere in the town. Officers consider that,
whilst there would be merit in contributing to either options c. or d., the latter may have
the potential to deliver wider benefits in the public interest and could help ensure the
future of existing sports provision for several years to come. In considering options c.
and d., the Committee should be mindful that the works/development that the funding
would pay for may need to be the subject of separate planning permissions. Monies
secured through Options c. or d. would require a S106 Obligation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee will be updated in the light of the further views of the Town
Council, following which an oral recommendation will be made.
Development Committee
30
13 December 2012
10.
THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0936 - Retention and conversion of garage/store to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Nursery Farm, Cromer Road for Mr Barr
and Ms Black
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 October 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Historic Park and Gardens Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871360 PF - Convert barn - 2 self-catering holiday units & shower & wc
facilities for caravan site
Approved 10/09/1987
PLA/19871361 LA - Convert barn to two self- catering holiday units & minor internal
& external alteration
Approved 07/08/1987
PLA/19920552 PF - Conversion of disused outbuilding to holiday home
Approved 30/06/1992
PLA/20011727 PF - Conversion of farm buildings to holiday dwelling
Approved 29/01/2002
PLA/20040767 PF - Conversion of agricultural building to one unit of holiday
accommodation
Approved 27/05/2004
PLA/20070359 PF - Conversion of agricultural buildings to 2 units of holiday
accommodation
Approved 17/04/2007
PF/09/1109 PF - Conversion of Redundant Agricultural Building to One Unit of
Holiday Accommodation
Withdrawn by Applicant 03/12/2009
PF/10/0308 PF - Re-Cladding and Re-Roofing of Garage/Store
Approved 17/05/2010
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is to convert a recently refurbished workshop/garage to a three bedroom
unit of holiday accommodation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management having regard to the planning
policy issues raised in respect of the conversion of recently reconstructed/refurbished
buildings.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters have been received supporting the application on the following grounds;
Because older style cottages are not suitable for disabled people and this proposed
conversion would be safe, suitable, disabled accommodation which is in short supply
in the District.
Development Committee
31
13 December 2012
In support of the application the agent has submitted the following representations;
The proposed new holiday accommodation will compliment the existing use on the site
and add another option to the accommodation on offer. The new unit will have full
disabled access on the ground floor with the option for additional bedroom
accommodation within the roof space for non-disabled family members. The inclusion
of a fully accessible wet room on the ground floor provides this unit with disabled
facilities that are over and beyond the requirements of Part M of the Building
Regulations.
The overall accommodation space in the new unit is slightly larger than the other 5
units on the site which are a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units. This latest proposal will
add 3 bedroom unit to the options on offer and help maintain the viability of the
existing holiday complex.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority -Taking into account the cessation of the farm activities and the
existing holiday accommodation an objection to the principle would be difficult to
substantiate. However, there are concerns regarding the sign erected at the site
access, this severely restricts visibility to the north and is sited over the public
highways and should be removed. If this is removed there would be acceptable levels
of visibility from the site access. If approved request parking condition.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - no objection subject to implementation of sustainable
construction checklist condition.
Environmental Health - Comments awaited.
Planning Policy Manager Given the recent planning history of this site and the variations in the external
appearance of the building (to the approved garage building) the proposal should be
treated as a new building for use as a holiday unit and considered under policies
Policy EC 7 The Location of New Tourism Development.
Policy EC7 allows for new tourist accommodation and attractions in the Countryside
in accordance with other policies for Employment Areas, the Re-use of buildings in the
Countryside and Extensions to Existing Holiday Businesses in the Countryside (EC 3).
Policy EC 3 states that „Extension to existing businesses in the Countryside will be
permitted where it is of a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not
have a detrimental effect on the character of the area’. In addition EC7 states „that
Proposals for new build unserviced holiday accommodation in the Countryside will be
treated as though they are permanent residential dwellings and will not be permitted’.
I understand that the existing holiday business at Nursery Farm comprises 5 x selfcatering holiday cottages and a 5 van CL touring caravan site. In this context a single
new build holiday unit within the curtilage of the site is considered a small scale
extension to the existing business use and, given the previous approved building in
this location, would have no detrimental effect on the character of the area. The
proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EC7 bullet point 2
and as such the statement relating to unserviced holiday accommodation does not
apply, which with reference to para 3.4.26, is directed at protecting the area from
private holiday homes being built across the District.
Development Committee
32
13 December 2012
This policy approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework para
28 which states:
‘plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business
and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well
designed new buildings;’
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the
area).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
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
Compliance with policy for the conversion of rural buildings?
APPRAISAL
Nursery Farm is an existing holiday business consisting of the owner's dwelling, 5
holiday cottages in converted farm buildings and a five certificate touring caravan site.
It lies on the edge of Thorpe Market within an area that is designated as Countryside
policy area, Conservation Area and is adjacent to the Gunton Park Grade II* Historic
Park and Garden. In this location a conversion, providing there is no substantial
rebuilding or extension, to holiday accommodation is in principle acceptable, but a
new build unit would be considered under Policy EC7: The Location of New Tourism
Development.
Development Committee
33
13 December 2012
The building which is the subject of this proposal, is a former farm building that was
originally metal clad on a steel framework. In 2010 planning permission was granted
for the substantial refurbishment/alteration of the building, for use as a garage/store in
association with the existing holiday and for domestic use. The works have been
carried out essentially as approved but with some changes to the door and window
arrangements. It is uncertain as to whether or not it has been used as a garage and
store since being rebuilt, because the internal conversion works have started.
The workshop in question has been extensively refurbished so that to all intents and
purposes it is a new building and such rapid re-use for holiday purpose would be
considered contrary to the spirit of Policy EC2. Given the recent history of this
building the application should be assessed against Policy EC7 as new build tourist
accommodation. This policy allows for new tourist accommodation in the Countryside
only where the proposal involves either the re-use of an existing building or an
extension to an existing business which complies with Core Strategy policy EC3. The
latter is the case here, and taken in the context of the existing holiday business, the
proposal is considered to be of an appropriate scale and would not have any
detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Clarity regarding the policy issue has been sought from the Planning Policy Manager
and Members will note his view that the proposal could be regarded favourably as an
extension to the existing holiday business under Policies EC7 and EC3. Moreover,
subsequent guidance from the Government in the National Planning Policy
Framework encourages the development of sustainable rural businesses for tourism.
The proposal is sufficiently distant from any residential neighbours as to have no
adverse impacts on other properties.
Adequate parking is available within the site to serve all of this holiday business.
The applicant has stated that he is willing to remove the sign that lies within the vision
splay, in which case the Highway Authority would have no objection to the proposal.
In summary, the proposal is considered an acceptable small scale extension to an
established holiday business. The proposal would allow the sustainable growth and
expansion of rural enterprise, a key objective of the National Planning Policy
Framework. The application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of
conditions normally imposed on holiday units and the removal of permitted
development rights for extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions to include the provision of
visibility splays, holiday use only, available to let for a minimum of 140 days, the
keeping of a register of lettings and removal of permitted development rights for
extensions.
Development Committee
34
13 December 2012
11.
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1049 - Erection of replacement garage with games room in
roof space and the retention and conversion of cart shed to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Bengate Barn, Yarmouth Road, Bengate for Mr K Jeffries
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19860973 PF - Replacing old outbuildings - already demolished with new
building for storing machinery
Approved 18/07/1986
PLA/19890261 PO - 3/4 bedroomed cottage style house for occupation by
foreman/manager
Approved 15/06/1989
PLA/19902060 PM - Erection of 3/4 bedroomed cottage style house for occupation
by foreman/manager
Approved 11/01/1991
PLA/20000199 PF - Removal of condition 3 (occupancy restriction) of planning
permission 19890261
Withdrawn 22/11/2000
PLA/20021836 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling with annexe
Approved 26/08/2004
PLA/20021837 LA - Alterations to facilitate conversion to dwelling with annexe
Approved 26/08/2004
THE APPLICATION
Includes the conversion of a recently rebuilt cart shed into one self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation and the erection of a four bay garage/carport with a games
room above.
Amended plans have been received resiting the garage closer to the dwelling and cart
shed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management having regard to the planning
policy issues raised in respect of the conversion of recently reconstructed/refurbished
buildings.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comment
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection
Building Control - No comment
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - In terms of conversion the proposal
raises no heritage cause for concern in principle. The building will retain its 'cart
shed'/'outbuilding' style with the timber post still expressed. In terms of detailing, the
Development Committee
35
13 December 2012
brick reveals on either end of the cart shed front elevation should also be covered by
the weather boarding in order to reduce their visual impact. This will help to increase
the emphasis on the timber posts. It would also be beneficial if the eaves wall-plate
was dark stained to match the proposed weatherboarding rather than grey.
The new garage will be a similar design to the existing cart shed, unfortunately the
rooflights do appear dominant of the roofslope, it is recommended that these are
reduced to two-three light windows or 'conservation style' rooflights.
Subject to the amendments no objection to the proposal.
Sustainability Team - The application is only partially compliant with Policy EN 6 and
should be conditioned so as to ensure it does comply with Policy EN 6
Environment Agency - no objection subject to private treatment plant being installed,
maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Environmental Health - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Compliance with policy for the conversion of rural buildings?
Development Committee
36
13 December 2012
APPRAISAL
Bengate Barn lies in a small hamlet adjacent to the A149 within the Countryside Policy
Area where under the terms of Policy EC 2 conversion to holiday accommodation may
be acceptable providing the building is soundly built and suitable for the proposed use
without substantial rebuilding, or extension.
Bengate Barn is a large barn recently converted to a dwelling; it was originally within
the curtilage of Bengate House which is a Grade II listed building and is thus listed by
association. The cart shed is one of two outbuildings within the newly formed curtilage
of Bengate Barn. The other building is a larger industrial style workshop which it is
proposed to demolish and replace with the proposed garage. Neither of the
outbuildings is listed by association as both post-date the listing of Bengate House.
The historic Ordnance Survey maps show that there has been a building on the site of
the rebuilt cartshed since before 1900, although from the photographs submitted by
the agent it is clear that the building had been replaced previously and also that the
cart shed as it stands is a completely new building which needed planning permission.
Thus permission is sought for its retention as well as its conversion to holiday
accommodation. While there is no objection to the building itself because essentially it
is so similar to its predecessor the principle of its conversion to holiday
accommodation also has to be considered in detail.
Policy EC 2 requires that the buildings should be sound without any substantial
rebuilding or extension. The building as far as can be ascertained is the same size as
its predecessor, and although there is no extension it is clearly of very recent
construction. It cannot therefore properly be regarded as a conversion but instead as
new build unserviced accommodation, which, under the terms of Policy EC 7, should
be treated as a permanent residential dwelling and as such is contrary to Countryside
and housing policies. It does not form part of an established holiday business.
As for the proposed garage, there were concerns that in the siting proposed it did not
relate well to the dwelling. The amended plans propose resiting of the garage closer
to Bengate Barn and the agent confirms that on the eastern side of the site it cannot
be resited any closer due to the need to preserve a private right of way to Bengate
House. The agent's case is that as a replacement to the workshop it is proposed to
demolish it is better located away from the barn to open up and enhance the
appearance of Bengate Barn with a more appropriately styled traditional building
reflecting the former agricultural character of the site. There is some merit to this
argument as the existing workshop does crowd the front of Bengate Barn, which is an
impressive two storey barn and listed by association with Bengate House.
As regards landscape impact, the site is scarcely visible from the A149 because of
hedging along the roadside though it is more visible from the lightly trafficked minor
byway which edges the western boundary. Also there would be a small visual
landscape gain in replacing the commercial workshop with a traditional style cart shed
garage.
In summary, while there is no objection to the appearance and siting of the
replacement of the workshop with a garage or to the retention of the cart shed, the
conversion of the cart shed to holiday accommodation is contrary to adopted Policy
EC2 and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to adopted Policy EC2.
Development Committee
37
13 December 2012
12.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications 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.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE – PF/12/1113 – Installation of a 5.7mw solar
farm; land at Strawberry Lane, Saxthorpe for Saxthorpe Solar Farm Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application.
HOLT – PF/12/0929 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and
erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated accesses, car parking and
servicing area; Thaxters of Holt Ltd, Old Station Way for Norwood Homes
(Westgate) LLP
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of one of the Local Members for Holt and to expedite the processing of
the application.
HOVETON – PF/12/1142 – Installation of 12mw solar farm; land at Belaugh
Road for Trafford Estate Solar Park Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application.
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/12/1046 – Change of use from B1 (business) to D1
(place of worship/church hall) at 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for New
Life Church North Walsham
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member in respect of the vitality and viability of the Town
Centre and in particular St Nicholas Court and to expedite the processing of the
application.
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/12/1141 – Change of use of building to B2 (General
Industrial) and B8 (Storage) at Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr P Williams in respect of the impact of the development on
neighbours‟ amenities.
Development Committee
38
13 December 2012
SCOTTOW – PF/12/1094 – Installation of a 12.7mw solar farm; land off Scottow
Road for Shaw Coltishall Solar Park Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application.
WALSINGHAM – PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable energy
facility with associated landscaping and vehicular access; North Creake
Airfield, Holkham Estate, Egmere for Egmere Energy Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member for Walsingham and to expedite the processing
of the application.
WALSINGHAM – PF/12/1318 - Construction of 22 MW solar photovoltaic farm
and associated works including inverter housing, landscaping and security
measures; Land at North Creake Airfield, Egmere for Solar Power Generation
Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member for Walsingham and to expedite the processing
of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
13.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0995 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension;
Withern, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr S Morris
(Householder application)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/12/0985 - Erection of extension to car port to provide
boiler house; Dales House, The Street for Mr J Cooper
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/12/1051 - Erection of single-storey/two-storey side
extension, front porch and two dormer windows; 3 Bittern Crescent for Mr C
Culling
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1020 - Retention of art/sculpture studio and creation of
terracing; The Turning Point, Sheringwood for Ms A Lloyd
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/1057 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land
adjoining Old Engineering Works, Langham Road for Mr M Holman
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
39
13 December 2012
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0706 - Erection of single-storey extension (revised roof
design) and insertion of additional window on northern elevation and rooflights;
South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr Meddle
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/12/1086 - Internal alterations including removal of partition
walls and external alterations including change from window to door; The
Friary, Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs C Skinner
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0922 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 06/0284 to permit one additional bedroom to 9, The Quay; South
Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr Meddle
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/12/1172 - Erection of front conservatory; Holly Farm, Norwich
Road for Mr P Jones
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0946 - Erection of extension to provide car port; The Haven,
Back Lane for Mr B Beard
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/1100 - Erection of boundary wall; 4 The Old
Maltings, High Street for Mr M Rigby
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1078 - Change of use from a mixed use of A3 (restaurant) and
C3 (residential) to C3 (residential); The Aristocrat Tearooms, 5 Bond Street for
Mr P Godfrey
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0966 - Covering of yard to provide single-storey rear
extension; B BS Fun Palace, 11 New Street for Mr J Parkin
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/12/0949 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Hill Buildings,
The Street for J A Paterson & Company Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/1095 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 25
Lowlands, Calthorpe for Mr C Ching
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1099 - Erection of part two-storey/part first floor rear
extension and insertion of rooflight; 7 Heath Rise for Mr S Betts
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0848 - Conversion and extension to garage to create
dwelling; 87 Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Norton
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0858 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjoining 17
Gladstone Road for Mr D Darrell
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
40
13 December 2012
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0539 - Use of land for car wash and retention of canopy; 1st
Stop Fitness, Oak Street for Mr T Wurr
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/0631 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension and
alterations to roof; 1 Church Cottages, Sharrington Road, Bale for Mrs S Pope
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - NP/12/1134 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Willow Farm, Lower Street for Mr B Farrow
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/1140 - Installation of side and rear dormer windows and
re-instatement of gable window; Lyemoon, Vale Road for Mr D Carter
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/1146 - Erection of attached garage; 38 Pineheath Road
for Mrs D Payne
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/1061 - Erection of shed; Pine Cottage, 32 Pineheath Road
for Mr P Holloway
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/1148 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
cladding and rendering of existing extension walls; Sundial House, Wells Road
for Mr P Girling & Mrs L Hazelwood
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/12/0598 - Change of use of land to children's play area and
erection of timber play equipment; Land at Holkham Estate for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PA/12/1200 - Prior notification of intention to install equipment cabinet;
White Lion Street for Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
HOLT - PF/12/0646 - Erection of one two-storey dwelling and detached garage;
Site adjacent to Hunters Lodge, Grove Lane for Mrs J Willimott
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/0971 - Retention of side extension and summer house; 34
Blackthorn Avenue for Mr P Biggs
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0714 - Erection of first floor office extension; 16 High Street for
The James Hay Trustees
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/0715 - Erection of three-storey building to provide ground floor
parking and four residential flats; 16 High Street for The James Hay Trustees
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
41
13 December 2012
HOLT - BX/12/1143 - Retention of portaloo and building previously used as part
of bagging operation (retrospective) (County Ref: C/2012/1009); Holt Quarry,
Hunworth Road for Cemex UK Operations Ltd
(County General Reg 3)
HOLT - PF/12/1038 - Construction of first floor platform and external staircase
and installation of rear door with dormer roof; 37 Bull Street for Mr G Rudd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/12/1039 - Replacement of rear window and installation of external
staircase and rear door with dormer roof.; 37 Bull Street for Mr G Rudd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/12/0875 - Erection of bay window extension; Stable Cottage,
Crostwight Hall, Heath Road, Crostwight for Mr A Messent
(Householder application)
HONING - LA/12/0876 - Removal of French Doors and installation of bay
window; Stable Cottage, Crostwight Hall, Heath Road, Crostwight for Mr A
Messent
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/0762 - Non-material amendment request for revisions to
site layout, materials schedule and entrance walls; Land at Stalham Road for
Persimmon Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOVETON - AN/12/1116 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 7,8 & 9
Tilia Business Park, Tunstead Road for Oyster Marine
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/12/0872 - Formation of agricultural access; Land at Mere
Farm, Matlaske Road, Mannington for Mr W Youngs
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1080 - Change of use from residential to B1 (offices);
Pensthorpe Hall, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Mrs W Jordan
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0853 - Erection of two-storey side extensions; Mill House,
Cockthorpe Road for Mr M Kellett
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0732 - Conversion and extension of attached barn to
residential annexe; Hill House Barn, The Street for Mr and Mrs Mann
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - LA/12/0733 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
habitable accommodation.; Hill House Barn, The Street for Mr and Mrs Mann
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - NP/12/1229 - Prior notification of intention to construct
reservoir; Land at Sinks Plantation, Melton Road for G W Harrold & Partners
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
42
13 December 2012
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1114 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0060 to permit change of roof covering; 11 Marina Road for Mr P
Francis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1050 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 8 Rectory
Close Paston Road for Mr K Partt
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1069 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
reference E4297 to permit all year holiday occupancy; 45 Hillside for Mr G
Newton
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0742 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to one unit
of holiday accommodation; The Old House, 28 High Street for Mr C Brooks
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - LA/12/0898 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, removal of
chimney stack, insertion of window in north/west elevation and internal
alterations; Allens Farm House, School Road for Mr J Longfield
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1087 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Rear of
15 Mundesley Road for Mr S Farrow
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1066 - Installation of free standing ATM pod;
Waitrose, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/12/1067 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; Waitrose, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1004 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 47 Bacton
Road for Mr T Sanders
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0880 - Installation of windows to facilitate conversion
of first floor to self-contained flat; 6A Market Street for Stonefield Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/12/0881 - Installation of windows and internal
alterations to provide first floor flat; 6A Market Street for Stonefield Estates Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0916 - Erection of front porch extension; Loke
House, Happisburgh Road for Mr A Dowling
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/10/1453 - Non-material amendment request for revised
layout to permit erection of electricity sub-station; The Railway Triangle Site,
Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
43
13 December 2012
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0816 - Construction of solar photovoltaic generating
facility; Manor Farm, Crossdale Street for Lumicity Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/1109 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
disabled toilet facilities; Village Hall, School Lane for Northrepps Village Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/1076 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden;
Land rear of Hill Top, Thorpe Market Road for Mr K Hartman
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/1127 - Erection of borehole control kiosk, telemetry aerial and
fencing; Land off Sandy Lane, West Runton for Anglian Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA2/12/0548 - Non material amendment request for change of
cladding material to the north-west elevation; 4 Buxton Close, East Runton for
Mr A Blakey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RUNTON - PF/12/1029 - Erection of side and front extension to annexe and
erection of detached garage; Woodlands, Mill Lane, East Runton for Mr D
Thomas
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/1135 - Erection of detached double garage; Marsh Rise,
Coast Road for Mr R Gayfer
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/1138 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Marsh
Rise, Coast Road for Mr R Gayfer
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/1149 - Raising height of dwelling to provide two-storey
accommodation; 37 Sandy Lane for Mr & Mrs S Cox
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0645 - Removal of condition 13 of planning permission
reference 11/0687 to remove requirement for erection of fence along northern
boundary; Bramble Oaks, Fakenham Road for Mrs R Allum
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/1081 - Erection of front verandah; The Walden, Waxham
Road for Miss Timms
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1082 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings (revised
design); Plots 8 & 9, Land at Cremer Street for Badger Building (E. Anglia) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1064 - Erection of rear extension; 13 Woodland Rise West
for Mr & Mrs C Burton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
44
13 December 2012
SHERINGHAM - PM/12/1016 - Erection of one and a half storey extension to
facilitate conversion to four flats; 9 Vincent Road for Mrs Whitaker
(Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1031 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
porch; 19 Uplands Park for Mr R Picken
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AN/12/1045 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Holly
End, Holway Road for Gordon White & Hood
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SKEYTON - PF/12/0938 - Conversion of four bay cart shed to holiday dwelling or
ancillary accommodation; Willow Farmhouse, Swanton Abbott Road for Mrs M
Peters
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0873 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with
basement; 118 High Street for Mr M Bird
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/1154 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension
(extension of period for commencement of planning permission reference:
09/0913); 9 Bridge Street for Mr D Sowrey
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/12/1155 - Erection of side extension (extension of period for
commencement of Listed Building consent reference: 09/0914); 9 Bridge Street
for Mr D Sowrey
(Listed Building Alterations)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/0964 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to D1 (education
centre); Building at High Sand Creek Caravan Site, Greenway for High Sand
Creek Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - PF/12/1047 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and side porch
and rendering of existing walls (part retrospective); Wayside Bungalow,
Pinkney Lane, Hunworth for Mr N Massingham
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/12/1161 - Removal of garage and erection of two storey side
extension; 14 Halifax Crescent, Sculthorpe for Mr & Mrs B Wheller
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/12/0676 - Erection of one one-and-a-half storey dwelling;
Greenacre, Tatterford Drive, Tatterford for Mr J Browne
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/12/0911 - Erection of marquee to provide catering facilities.;
Thursford Collection, North Lane for Thursford Collection
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
45
13 December 2012
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/1093 - Erection of single-storey front extension and attached
garage; Willowdene, Market Street for Mr J Hart
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/12/1132 - Erection of front conservatory; 31 Ostend Place for Mr
& Mrs Baker
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/1072 - Erection of telecommunications mast and
equipment cabin; Windfarm Place, 1 Edgar Road for Scira Offshore Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/1531 - Installation of replacement front windows; 28
Knight Street for Mrs Miller
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/12/1065 - Internal and external alterations including
installation of rooflights; Chancery House, 3 Friday Market Place for Mr S
Lazarides
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0990 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 Cleaves
Drive for Mr R Taylor
(Householder application)
WARHAM - PF/12/1112 - Construction of balcony with external staircase and
erection of detached garage/stores; Glebe Barn, Wells Road for Mr M
Buckingham
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0900 - Change of use of A1 (Retail) shop to
private laundry; 2 Church Street for Mr A Clayton
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0906 - Internal and external alterations to
facilitate change of use of ground floor from retail (A1) to fish restaurant (A3)
and first and second floor to residential, manager's and holiday flats; Shop With
A View, 12 The Quay and Plattens Fish and Chip Shop, The Quay for Mr P
Platten
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0907 - Change of use of ground floor shop (A1)
to fish and chip restaurant (A3) and ground floor bingo hall (D2) to retail (A1),
replacement shop fronts, conversion of first and second floor existing
residential/office/storage to one manager's, one residential and four holiday
flats, insertion of front dormer windows and front balcony, erection of singlestorey side, first floor rear and two-storey rear extensions; Shop With A View,
12 The Quay and Platten Fish Shop for Mr P Platten
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0784 - Non-material amendment request to
omit central chimney; Smugglers Cove, Northfield Lane for Hodkingson
Builders
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
46
13 December 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/09/0821 - Non-material amendment request for
revised window and door design and revised internal layout; Arch House, 50
Mill Road for Mr P Bonham
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/1035 - Change of use from mixed domestic stables and
livery yard to mixed use of domestic stables, livery yard and riding
centre/school; Springs, Sandy Hill Lane for Mrs A Pope
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/1129 - Erection of replacement garage/outbuilding; Sun
Cottage, Church Road for Mr D Nudd
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - LA/12/1033 - Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation and micro-brewery; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr
D Gilligan
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0957 - Erection of rear conservatory; 4 St Andrews Close
for Mr & Mrs Howard
(Householder application)
14.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/12/1158 - Removal of wall to form vehicular access and
construction of raised platform; South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr S Meddle
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/0970 - Retention of replacement windows and installation of
replacement windows to bay; 3 Haverhill House, 13 Bond Street for Mr N Slater
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PO/12/1062 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and attached
garage; 5 Barons Close for Mr & Mrs Doy
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - AN/12/1151 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 9 Fish Hill for
Fara Foundation
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/12/1018 - Erection of single-storey
rear extension; High Barn, Riverside Road for Mr S Futter
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/12/1071 - Conversion of workshop to residential dwelling;
Unit 1, Camp Farm, Osier Lane for Mr W Dawson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
47
13 December 2012
APPEALS SECTION
15.
NEW APPEALS
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
16.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0298 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Curlew, Mallard, Cottage Loke, Wayford
Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0297 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Avocet, Bittern, Coot, Cottage Loke,
Wayford Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
17.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams, Sea Palling for Mr R
Contessa
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
SHERINGHAM - ENF/10/0221 - Erection of a Balcony; 31 Beeston Road
Development Committee
48
13 December 2012
18.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0412 - Retention of boundary fence; 59 Priory Close
for Mr P Farquharson
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0544 - Installation of replacement capping to mill with
glazed windows; The Mill House, Foulsham Road for Mr M Crookes
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
THURSFORD - PF/11/1434 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden/amenity land; Land adjacent Bell Cottage, 3 Gunthorpe Road for Mrs B
Bullard
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
49
13 December 2012