OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 13 OCTOBER 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/11/0517 – Erection of 36 dwellings; Land off Wood
View for Youngs Homes
Background
This planning application was reported to Development Committee on 21 July 2011.
The proposal is for a development of 36 affordable dwellings on existing agricultural
land adjacent to the development boundary for North Walsham. The application was
considered under the terms of Core Strategy Policy HO 3 – Affordable Housing in the
Countryside. (The relevant policy extract of the Core Strategy is attached in
Appendix 1). A considerable number of letters of objection have been received from
local residents to the application. The Town Council has also raised objections.
At the July meeting the recommendation on behalf of the Head of Planning and
Building Control was for delegated authority to approve the application subject to the
following:
1) An archaeological evaluation of the site being undertaken to the satisfaction
of Norfolk County Council.
2) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to include securing the
provision of the affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy HO3, payments towards library and fire hydrant provision
to Norfolk County Council, and the provision of landscaping which is not
shown within the application site.
3) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include road construction
details, a construction traffic management plan, landscaping, tree protection,
materials, minimum code level 3 construction, details of 10% renewable energy
provision, surface water drainage and a scheme for future maintenance of the
open space, together with any other conditions considered necessary by the
Head of Planning and Building Control.
The Committee voted against the recommendation and after considerable discussion
resolved as follows:
That the Committee is minded to refuse this application on grounds that the
development on the edge of town would be detrimental to the open
countryside setting of the site, is remote from the town centre, would result in
an increase of traffic in the area and place an unacceptable strain upon
inadequate local infrastructure.
This resolution (‘minded to refuse’) followed advice from the Planning Legal Manager
that in his view refusal of the application would represent a significant departure from
policy and officers were not convinced that there were sound planning reasons for
such a departure. As the authorised representative of the Head of Planning and
Development Committee
1
13 October 2011
Building Control the Development Manager advised the Committee that in these
circumstances determination of the application should be deferred to seek the views
of the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer. The relevant part of the
Committee’s Terms of Reference is paragraph 5, which states as follows:
When a determination under paragraph 1 or 2 would, in the view of the Head of
Planning and Building Control;
a) have major implications for planning policy or
b) be a significant departure from the Development Plan without sound
reasons for doing so
that matter will be deferred until a subsequent meeting of the Development
Committee when the membership will be invited to consider and determine
that matter, following consultation, in appropriate cases, with the Council’s
Monitoring and Section 151 Officers.
As a consequence this matter is reported back to Committee for a formal decision on
the planning application.
Copies of the July Committee report and minute are attached in Appendix 1.
Since the July meeting further letters from three local residents have been received
repeating previously expressed concerns regarding increased traffic generation, that
derelict sites in the town should be developed for affordable housing in preference to
the application site, drainage, and the potential precedent for further development in
the area. The Town Council has also written to re-iterate its original objections
commenting that analysis shows there are plenty of sites suitable for residential
development within the town.
In addition, since the July meeting there has been correspondence between the
Council’s Strategic Director and the applicants (Youngs Homes) regarding the choice
of this site as opposed to other potential development sites in North Walsham (copies
of which are attached in Appendix 1).
Observations on Grounds for Refusal
As referred to in the resolution of the July Committee meeting, four grounds for
refusing permission were proposed, these being detriment to the open countryside,
remoteness of the site from the town centre, an increase in traffic, and a strain upon
local infrastructure. The following observations are made on each of these issues:
Impact upon the Countryside
Following the July Committee meeting the Council’s Landscape Officer was asked to
provide further comments on this aspect with particular reference to the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009). These are as follows:
The proposed development is located within the Low Plains Character Type,
specifically within the North Walsham Character Area (LP5), as identified in the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment SPD. The Low Plains Character Type
occupies a large part of the eastern side of the District and stretches from the coastal
area south of Paston and Bacton to the edge of the Broads at Hoveton and Horning.
The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) has indicated that the defining features
of the area include a predominantly arable land use, with medium to large sized
fields, frequently without hedges creating a sense of an open, uninterrupted
landscape. North Walsham town is identified as the largest settlement in the area
with the remaining settlement consisting of rural villages, with the overall character of
Development Committee
2
13 October 2011
the landscape being mainly rural. It is noted within the LCA that the entrances to the
town from the south, north and west are dominated by the buildings rising up out of a
relatively open landscape, contributing to the ‘poor to moderate’ condition of the
landscape. The LCA remarks that additional development around the town would
benefit the wider landscape if it worked with existing screening features and build
upon these.
The visual effect of the existing housing forming the boundary of the Wood View
Estate and the countryside is one of a distinct hard edge to the edge of the town
reinforcing the landscape character appraisal. The proposed development
incorporates a woodland screening belt which would create a new ‘softer’ edge to the
built environment and most importantly would link up to existing mature trees and
hedgerow to the south of Skeyton View and Millfield Primary School. Rather than
seeming out of place in the open landscape the proposed woodland belt would sit
comfortably within the landscape, help integrate the built form with the rural
countryside and provide some link with the adjacent Wooded With Parkland Type to
the south-west of the development site. Overall, the proposal would contribute to the
enhancement of the landscape character as required by Policy EN2 of the Core
Strategy.
Remoteness from the Town Centre
The site which is on the south-western edge of North Walsham is (‘as the crow flies’)
1.2 km from the centre of the town (Market Cross). This distance is very similar to
other residential areas on the periphery of the town (e.g. Thirlby Road to the southeast (1.2 km), Brick Kiln Road to the east (1.4 km), Wharton Drive to the north-east
(1.2 km), and Bradfield Road to the west (1.1 km).
Certain of the objectors have referred to a previous decision to refuse planning
permission for residential development on grounds of its distance from the town
centre and local services. The case in question relates to the former Marricks Wire
Ropes site on Cromer Road (on the north-western outskirts of the town). Two outline
planning applications were submitted in July 2007 (references 07/1135 & 07/1136)
for residential development. (The reason two applications were submitted was that
one was for a larger area of land). Both applications were refused. The reasons for
refusal related to the fact that the land was allocated for employment use not
housing, and that the site was considered unsuitable for housing development
“..given its proximity to existing industrial land, lack of integration with adjoining
residential development and its distance from the town’s principal services and
facilities, which would fail to discourage residents from travelling by car in
accordance with the principles of sustainable development”.
An appeal was lodged against both refusals and a public inquiry was held in July
2008. The appeals were dismissed. In his decision letter the Inspector considered
that there were two main issues, firstly the effect upon the supply of employment
land, and secondly; “..whether the sites are suitable for housing development
particularly in respect of sustainability and neighbouring uses of land”. On the first
issue the Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposals would be detrimental
to the supply of employment land in North Walsham. On the second issue he stated
“… I consider that the sustainability of the site in regard to accessibility would be at
best neutral and provides no support for residential use over employment use on this
edge of settlement site”. Evidence presented by the Council at the inquiry to support
its case on the sustainability issue included an assessment of walking times and
distances from the site to key facilities such as the town centre itself, schools, health
centres, the library, the sports centre and the railway station.
Development Committee
3
13 October 2011
Caution should be taken in making direct comparisons between the proposals for the
appeal site and the current application site. Firstly the former was not compliant with
the site’s land use allocation whereas the latter does comply with the location criteria
for affordable housing in the Countryside policy area (Policy HO 3). Secondly, given
the wording of the Inspector’s decision letter it is open to question whether he would
have dismissed the appeals on sustainability grounds alone in the absence of the
employment land issue. Thirdly the two sites are broadly equivalent in distance to
some of the town’s key facilities but Wood View is closer to others, notably Millfield
Primary School. Finally it could be argued that the routes to many of these facilities
from Wood View are more conducive for walking and cycling than they are from the
Marricks site which is located on a busy arterial road into the town.
A copy of the appeal decision is attached in Appendix 1 (in particular paragraphs 15
& 16).
Finally, it is pointed out that it is inevitable that any proposals approved under Policy
HO 3 will be on the edge of a town or village boundary.
Increase of Traffic in the Area
The Committee will be aware that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection
to the application. In terms of vehicular traffic movements from the development, the
Highway Authority has since advised that, as a ‘rule of thumb’ they would expect any
dwelling to generate 8 movements per day. They advise that this figure does not take
into account the age or employment status of the occupants or the specific location
of a site which could well result in lower traffic generation figures. However on the
basis of this formula there would be 288 movements per day. It would be expected
that 10% of the total movements would occur during each of the morning and
evening peak hours. This would equate to approximately 30 movements during each
of these peak hours (i.e. one movement every two minutes).
Strain upon Local Infrastructure
Since the July Committee meeting the Council has written to Anglian Water Services
Ltd, UK Power Networks and the two doctor’s surgery in North Walsham, to seek
clarification as to whether the application raises any issues relating to the delivery of
their respective services. The responses received are as follows:
Anglian Water Services Ltd - Confirms that there is sufficient water resource
capacity to supply the development and that this can be provided by the existing
network system. Comments that they would wish to see measures taken by the
developer to ensure that buildings are constructed to high water efficiency standards,
which can be achieved in line with the Code for Sustainable Homes. (Anglian Water
had previously confirmed that there is currently available capacity at the North
Walsham sewerage treatment works to accommodate flows from the development).
UK Power Networks - Advises that the proposed development does not raise any
energy issues/concerns with regard to the existing infrastructure which supplies the
surrounding area or within the town.
Paston Surgery - Advises the surgery has ‘no comment to make’.
Birchwood Surgery - No particular comments to make regarding the application or
the additional patients that the scheme will generate.
Development Committee
4
13 October 2011
Alternative Sites for Affordable Housing in North Walsham
Whilst not a suggested reason for refusal as stated in the Committee’s July
resolution (nor a requirement of Policy HO 3), the Town Council and a number of
objectors have argued that existing derelict (‘brownfield’) sites within the town should
be developed for affordable housing before developing ‘greenfield’ sites, such as the
current application site. This issue has also been the subject of discussion between
officers and some local Members since the last meeting.
The table in Appendix 1 lists sites in the town which have either been granted
permission for housing development or are allocated for housing or mixed use
(including housing) development in the adopted Site Allocations Development Plan
Document. The table distinguishes between those sites which are ‘brownfield’ and
those which are either ‘greenfield’ or in existing alternative uses. The table also
indicates the number of affordable houses which have been secured through
planning permissions, (where this is known). In the case of the allocated sites the
percentage policy requirement for affordable housing and respective number of units
is included in the same column. It should however be appreciated that this
percentage requirement is subject to the financial viability of any development
proposals applied for. There are infrastructure costs associated with these sites
which may well reduce the level of affordable housing the sites will be able to deliver.
The timescale for the delivery of these sites is also unknown. A plan showing the
location of these sites as well as the current application site at Wood View is
attached in Appendix 1.
The figures indicate that there is currently the potential for the delivery, over time,
and at the most optimistic level, approximately 250 affordable dwellings on the sites
shown in the table. However it has to be emphasised that it is highly unlikely that this
figure would be achieved given viability issues and the likelihood of all these sites
coming forward, certainly in the immediate future.
There are currently 1023 households on the housing register who have requested to
be re-housed in North Walsham. This represents the best available indicator of
housing need at a particular snapshot of time.
These figures demonstrate that even the most optimistic amount of affordable
housing which could be developed in the town over an indeterminate future period
falls well short of the current level of housing need.
At the meeting on 21 July the Development Manager stated that if all the allocated
land for housing within the town came forward with a 45% affordable requirement it
would meet only 10% of the identified need in North Walsham. This statement was
erroneous and in the light of the table referred to above requires correction. At the
most optimistic level, these sites would meet some 24.4% of affordable housing need
in North Walsham. If the application site was developed as proposed, this figure
would rise to some 28% of the need.
Section 151 and Monitoring Officer Comments
The S.151 Officer advises that having studied the correspondence that has been
received in respect of the application since the July Development Committee
meeting, she is satisfied that there is no report of a financial nature that needs to be
made at this time.
Development Committee
5
13 October 2011
The Monitoring Officer advises that he is satisfied that appropriate enquiries have
been made in relation to the matters raised at the meeting held on 21 July 2011 and
that Members should have sufficient information to make an informed decision and
complete the planning process. As a consequence, he has no further comments to
make.
Recommendation:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the following:
1) An archaeological evaluation of the site being undertaken to the satisfaction
of Norfolk County Council.
2) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to include securing the
provision of the affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy HO3, payments towards library and fire hydrant provision
to Norfolk County Council, and the provision of landscaping which is not
shown within the application site.
3) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include road construction
details, a construction traffic management plan, landscaping, tree protection,
materials, minimum code level 3 construction, details of 10% renewable energy
provision, surface water drainage and a scheme for future maintenance of the
open space, together with any other conditions considered necessary by the
Head of Planning and Building Control.
(Source: John Williams, Team Leader (Major Developments) Ext 6163)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 October 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk Area
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Bacton Gas Terminal Buffer
Major Hazard Zone
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19801353 PF - Erection of seven holiday chalets
Approved 25/11/1980
PLA/19830094 HR - Removing and replacing 3 caravans removing and replacing
2 caravans
Approved 13/05/1983
PLA/19900392 PO - Demolish & replace dwelling & chalet blocks
Approved 05/07/1990
Development Committee
6
13 October 2011
PLA/19920661 PF - Variation of holiday occupancy condition
Approved 13/08/1992
PLA/19930716
PF - Remove 6 obsolete twin units & replace with 9 modern
caravans
Approved 02/08/1993
PLA/19931251 PF - Alteration including pitched roof to reception & shop building
Approved 19/10/1993
PLA/19940277 PF - Replacement of fifteen holiday units and one shop with eleven
holiday caravans and a single domestic garage
Approved 27/04/1994
PLA/19960351 PF - Change of use of first floor storage area to residential and
alterations including dormer windows
Approved 15/05/1996
PLA/19960352 PF - Modifications and extension to existing clubroom building
Approved 09/05/1996
PLA/19990745 PF - Extension of period for occupation of static holiday caravans to
the period 1st March to 14th January
Approved 23/07/1999
PF/10/0963 PF
Removal of condition 2 of planning ref: 92/0661 to permit all year occupancy of
caravans and lodges
Approved 13/10/2010
THE APPLICATION
Proposes retention of club house extension and continued use of two additional
holiday flats.
The clubhouse extension is sited at the western end of the building and is a flatroofed extension measuring 1.8m wide x 12.4m deep and approximately 2.5m high.
The extension is sited close to the western boundary of the site with Seagull's Field.
In respect of the two flats, the extension forming part of Flat 6 is located to the
side/rear of the holiday park reception building and comprises a 14.5 sqm extension
to the existing flat to provide an enlarged disabled access flat with a total floor area of
approximately 38sqm. The extension has a flat roof with a maximum height of 3.1m.
Flat 7 is sited in a ground floor wing attached to main two-storey building on the site.
Flat 7 has a floor area of approximately 23 sqm.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Barry Smith in view of the planning history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the extension of the clubhouse as it is an unsightly addition and something
which should be avoided where possible. The extension to the clubhouse is publicly
visible from Seagull's Field and the prospective new statutory coastal access route.
The Clubhouse extension is unsightly with a felted flat roof and situated close to the
boundary fence. If permitted would request that a deciduous hedge is planted and
maintained adjacent to the boundary.
There is no objection to the retention of the 2 flats.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received, objecting on the following grounds (summarised):
1. The applicant has made various changes to the site without the benefit of
planning permission;
Development Committee
7
13 October 2011
2. The applicant has disregarded regulations and requirements of the planning
system;
3. The Council would fail in its duty if it approved the application.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objection or comment
Further comments awaited in respect of parking.
Environmental Health - No objection or comment
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (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
1. Principle of development in the area
2. Impact on character and appearance of the area
Development Committee
8
13 October 2011
APPRAISAL
Castaways Holiday Park site is located in the Countryside policy area to the north of
Bacton village where proposals for extensions to existing businesses and for
recreation and tourism uses will be permitted in principle subject to satisfactory
compliance with relevant policy requirements.
Core Strategy Policy EC7 indicates that proposals for new tourist accommodation
and attractions in the Countryside will be permitted subject to compliance with Policy
EC3 relating to extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside.
The key policy test (Policy EC 3) suggests that development 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 this instance the applicant proposes to retain relatively modest
extensions/enlargements already made to the existing holiday park comprising of an
extension to the existing clubhouse and the retention of two holiday flats (flats 6 and
7). Whilst the flats are both generally small in scale (and would not be likely to be fit
for permanent occupation), they are both to be used for holiday accommodation
purposes only and such a use would be conditioned upon approval. The club house
extension, at approximately 22sqm in size, is also considered to be of limited scale
compared with the existing structure. Taking account of scale, it is considered that
the proposed development would accord with the requirements of Policy EC 3.
In respect of impact on neighbouring amenity and impact on the character and
appearance of the area, it is considered that the extensions would not have a
significantly detrimental impact on any adjacent residents. Whilst the comments of
the Parish Council are noted, the impact of the extension from the adjacent Seagull's
Field is considered negligible and it is considered that refusal on the grounds of
significant adverse impact or detrimental effect on the character and appearance of
the area could not be supported. Whilst planting trees, as suggested by the Parish
Council, might hide the club-house extension to some degree, there is insufficient
space available between the extension and the edge of the site for meaningful
landscaping to grow. In any event, it is considered that the introduction of a hedge or
trees would add a landscape feature that would be out of character with that of the
adjacent Seagull's Field, which is primarily open in character.
In respect of car parking, whilst the applicant has not indicated specific parking
spaces for the flats or the club house extension, the Highway Authority has been
asked for a view and Committee will be updated orally. In any respect and
notwithstanding the opinion of the Highway Authority, it is considered highly unlikely
that an objection to the proposal based on a lack of parking could be sustained.
Finally, in relation to use of the site, Committee should be mindful of application
reference PF/10/0963 in respect of which temporary permission has been granted
until 8 October 2015 to allow the caravans and lodges to be used for holiday
accommodation purposes or to house construction workers employed on projects
involving the Bacton Gas Terminal.
On balance, having taken account of all relevant material considerations and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the application is considered to comply
with relevant Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
9
13 October 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no over-riding objections on parking grounds
from the Highway Authority and to the imposition of conditions including
limiting the use of the club house extension for purposes ancillary to the
holiday park and a condition limiting the use of the flats to holiday
accommodation only or to the use permitted under application reference
PF/10/0963 for a similar duration.
3.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 October 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20010325 PF Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 29/05/2001
20021341 PF Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 01/11/2002
20101055 PF Erection of single storey dwelling
Refused 24/12/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a three bedroom, split level, contemporary design, single storey
dwelling having a gross floor area of 110 sq metres with the external walls being a
mix of traditional red brick and cedar cladding with two panels of flintwork to the
eastern elevation. The main body of the dwelling would have a flat sedum roof, whilst
to the south eastern corner would be a shallow mono pitched roof element with north
facing clerestory glazing, finished in vertical cedar cladding. The window and door
frames would be of powder coated aluminium. To the eastern side of the dwelling
would be a sunken patio garden leading over a bridge to the front door. To the south
part of the existing garage to No.4 Meadow Cottage would be incorporated into the
dwelling in order to create an en-suite bathroom.
The majority of the dwelling would be “dug in” to the site by 1m with the western and
northern walls of the dwelling being 1.5 metres from the boundary at it closest point,
with the boundary itself being formed by a 1.8 m high wall.
Access to the site would be via an existing unmade driveway off Beeston Common
with parking and turning area for two vehicles.
An amended plan has been received which corrects inaccuracies in the position of
the western boundary, and also shows adjoining properties.
Development Committee
10
13 October 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning history
of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the development would be out of character with the
Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection which raise the following concerns (summarised):
1. Plans misleading as neighbouring properties are not accurately shown as is the
boundary with adjoining property.
2. A change in materials and orientation does not overcome previous objections of
overlooking and overdevelopment.
3. Design and Assess Statement is incorrect in its description of the location of the
site.
4. Limited access to the site due to narrowness of single track driveway which is
also a public footpath and bridleway leading to the Priory ruins.
5. Unsuitable for delivery vehicles.
6. Car parking area of the dwelling is outside development boundary.
7. Cramped form of development.
8. Design out of character within the Conservation Area
9. Adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
10. Materials are inappropriate.
11. Dwelling would result in the creation of a new right of way.
12. The fence to northern boundary is not within the applicants control and neighbour
does not wish to see fence removed.
13. How will the soil be retained to prevent damage to neighbouring properties.
CONSULTATIONS
Sheringham Town Council - comments awaited.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Awaiting response.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
11
13 October 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Visual impact, including impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
In December 2010 planning permission for a flat roofed contemporary style dwelling
built up to the western boundary of the site was refused by the Committee owing to
its floor area, position on the site and close relationship with neighbouring properties,
resulting in a cramped form of development, which would not be compatible with the
form and character of the area and surrounding properties. The current application
seeks to address these concerns.
The western corner of the site which would accommodate the proposed dwelling is
within the development boundary for Sheringham as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy whilst the remainder of the site, which has an area in the region of 700 sq
metres including the access, is within the Countryside policy area. In addition the
whole of the site is within the Conservation Area whilst the proposed garden area is
within the Undeveloped Coast.
Since the proposed dwelling would be within the development boundary, in principle
this would comply with Core Strategy Policies SS1 and SS3 which direct new
development in North Norfolk to the towns and large villages, of which Sheringham is
a Secondary Settlement. However as part of the site is within the Countryside policy
area it is also considered that Core Strategy Policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN8 are
applicable. Policies EN2 and EN3 require that development proposals should
demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve
and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the
area including the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas. In addition
proposals should not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character of the
undeveloped coast. Polices EN4 and EN8 require that all development is designed
Development Committee
12
13 October 2011
to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient
design will be particularly encouraged. Furthermore development proposals,
including alterations and extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated asset, in this case the Conservation Area. In addition
Policy EN4 also states that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should
provide acceptable residential amenity.
The site forms part of the garden area of No. 4 Meadow Cottages running in a
northerly direction to the east of Nos. 96 - 99 Church Lane, with the proposed
dwelling itself being contained in the smaller area immediately to the rear of the
garage to No. 4 Meadow Cottage. The dwelling would be 1.5 metres from the eastern
boundary with No. 3 Meadow Cottages at its closet point, which is currently defined
by a close boarded fence and would be to the south of the garden area of No. 99
Church Lane. As part of the scheme it would be necessary to remove three fruit trees
in the area of the dwelling whilst to the north east are three large conifer trees which
would be retained. Immediately adjoining the site to the east, which is separated by a
flint wall, is an overgrown area of land similar in proportions and size to the
application site which has a well defined hawthorn hedgerow to its eastern and
northern boundaries.
Given the relatively secluded location of the proposed dwelling, its low profile and
use of recessive materials coupled with the amount of screening afforded by the land
to the east in is not considered that the property would have a significantly harmful
impact on the Conservation Area or wider landscape, being seen amongst other
properties which form the built edge of Sheringham. Whilst there are traditional
cottages to the south of the site, there are also more modern dwellings to the north,
and due to the particular design and secluded nature of the site it is considered that
its development would not adversely affect the form and character of existing
development in the area.
In respect of proposed dwelling’s relationship with neighbouring properties, given the
fact that it would be “dug in” to the site by 1 metre this would effectively mean that the
dwelling would have an eaves height of 1.7 metres from the existing ground level.
Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling would be fairly close to No. 3 Meadow Cottage
and No.99 Church Lane, given the fact that the property would be single storey, its
impact would be no more than that of a boundary fence of a similar height.
Furthermore unlike the dwelling refused in 2010, the western elevation of which
formed the boundary with No.3 Meadow Cottage, in this particular case there would
be a minimum separation distance of 1.5m to the western and northern boundaries
with the boundaries themselves being formed by a 1.8 metre high wall.
Given the dwelling's proposed layout the only potential for overlooking would be from
the bedrooms to the north elevation but since the dwelling would be set 1m into the
ground the window heads would be approximately 1.4 m above existing ground level,
well below the height of the fence. In terms of the visual impact of the property when
seen from the upper floors of the adjoining dwellings, the use of a sedum roof would
soften its appearance. Furthermore unlike the previous scheme, which had an east
facing zinc roofed dormer, it is considered that the mono-pitched roof element to the
south-eastern corner would have significantly less impact when viewed from the west
due to its profile, the use of cedar cladding to the roof and cheek and the fact that it
would be partially screened by the existing garage building. From the north although
there would be high level clerestory windows which would serve the lounge, these
would be in excess of 9m from the nearest boundary. Given the semi-urban nature of
the area they would not result in any significant light pollution to neighbouring
properties.
Development Committee
13
13 October 2011
It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a significantly
adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties, in terms of overlooking,
loss of light or visual impact, whilst the dwelling itself would have adequate amenity
area and car parking to the east.
In terms of the access via Church Lane, although this is fairly narrow it is considered
that it is adequate to serve a single dwelling and the Highway Authority has raised no
objection to the proposal. It is pointed out that many bridleways co-exist with routes
that are used by people exercising private rights over them.
On balance, therefore, since the dwelling would be within the development boundary,
given that the property would not significantly affect neighbours’ amenities, it is
considered that the scheme is acceptable and would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
BRISTON - PF/11/0373 - Erection of agricultural contractors storage and
maintenance building; Land off Tithe Barn Lane for Mr C Nutkins
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20010971 PF - Continued use of agricultural land as agricultural contractor's
storage yard
Refused 31/08/2001
Appeal Dismissed 15/04/2002
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the erection of an agricultural contractor's storage and
maintenance building.
The proposed building would measure approximately 12m x 18m and 7m to the
ridge. The walls of the building would be constructed in concrete blockwork for the
first 2.5m above ground level, and the remaining walls and roof would be clad in box
profile sheeting in the colour of Dark Green or Vandyke Brown.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support
Development Committee
14
13 October 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents, four of which are
from the same objector raising the following points:
1. No change since previous application refused under 20010971
2. Highway network unsuitable for heavy traffic caused by an agricultural contracting
business.
3. Site already used for storage of large equipment without permission.
4. Highway safety
5. Detrimental impact upon residential amenity
A supporting letter was submitted by the applicant with the application, explaining
that the building is to be used in connection with the applicant's agricultural
contracting business for storage and maintenance of their machinery, and why the
building is needed. A copy of this letter is contained in Appendix 2.
A further letter has been submitted by the applicant's agent regarding vehicular
movements, indicating that in his view there will be very little such movement. It is
explained that the reason for this is that when the machinery is contracted out it may
not come back to the yard for anything up to 3 months and is moved from farm to
farm. There may only be movement of tractors or equipment once or twice a month.
A copy of this letter is contained in full in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - Object. The access and junction visibility do not conform
to the standards and that the proposal would engender an intensification of use of a
narrow sinuous road network to the detriment of highway safety. The full letter is
contained in Appendix 2.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations the erection of an agricultural style
building in the proposed location would not affect the landscape character or be
visually intrusive. Roadside views of the site are limited by mature hedgerows and
the site itself sits within the fold of a small almost imperceptible valley with trees and
other taller structures visible in the skyline. A dark olive green colour (BS4800 - 10 C
39) for the metal cladding would be most appropriate in this location integrating well
with the existing vegetative cover.
Environmental Health - No objection. A condition regarding ventilation and extraction
systems is required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 for the
reasons recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance
with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
15
13 October 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact upon landscape
3. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit.
The application was originally submitted as an agricultural storage building. However,
following further consideration of the applicant's supporting information the use
proposed is that of an agricultural contractor's storage and maintenance building.
The description of the application was therefore amended and re-advertised and the
appropriate re-consultations carried out.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Policy SS2 limits
development to that which requires a rural location. Agricultural uses are acceptable
in principle in such a location. However, the proposal is for an agricultural
contractor's storage and maintenance building which is not an agricultural use in
itself. This use falls under B8 (storage) of the Use Classes Order 2010, and
agricultural vehicle and machinery rental and maintenance depot is 'sui generis' and
does not therefore fall under any specific use class. Policy SS2 also refers to new
build employment generating proposals being acceptable in principle in such a
location but this is subject to there being a particular environmental or operational
justification.
It is stated on the application form that no employees are anticipated to be located on
the site. Therefore, whilst this is a new build proposal there is no employment directly
related to the site. Furthermore, the applicant has also confirmed in his supporting
statement that he is currently renting a building in Holt, but that it is not secure
enough. However, it is not considered that this is sufficient environmental or
operational justification for such a building or for such a use in this Countryside policy
area location and the proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to Policy SS2.
These issues have already been explored through an appeal from 2002, which was
dismissed. That appeal was in relation to application 20010971 for an agricultural
contractor's storage yard on the same site by the same applicant. Whilst that
application was determined under the policies contained in the now superseded
Development Committee
16
13 October 2011
North Norfolk Local Plan the issues remain primarily the same and that appeal
decision is therefore considered to be material to the determination of this
application. The appeal decision is therefore included in Appendix 2.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
not raised an objection to the application on design or landscape grounds. Whilst a
building required in the location for specific agricultural purposes could be made
acceptable in design and landscape setting terms, Members will be aware of the
fundamental policy issue discussed previously.
The Environmental Protection Officer has been consulted on the application has
raised no objections subject to a condition in relation to any ventilation or extraction
systems being installed. It is not therefore considered that the proposed building
would have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and residential
amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.
In terms of highway safety if the proposed building were to be used solely for
purposes which are ancillary to existing agricultural uses of the land and no
commercial use whatsoever were being carried then the Highway Authority has
confirmed that it would not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission. However,
given that the site is being proposed for a commercial use the Highway Authority is
objecting to the application. The Committee will note the detailed comments of the
Highway Authority in Appendix 2.
The Highway Authority has advised that the applicant has provided additional
information in relation to the amount of machinery that would be on site and the
estimated traffic movements; vehicles can be on hire for months at a time. However,
it is considered that the proposed development would, without question, generate a
considerable number of new vehicular movements to a site which is currently fallow
agricultural land and would not previously have generated any independent traffic
movements. The width of the carriageway is also considered to be insufficient for
anything other than single file traffic and is certainly not suitable for commercial
vehicles without causing obstruction and deterioration of the road and verges to the
detriment of highway safety. The development would engender at least 4 additional
daily movements plus an increase in agricultural and goods vehicle movements via a
substandard access and road network. Furthermore the access and junction visibility
does not conform to the appropriate standards and the proposal would engender an
intensification of use of a narrow sinuous road network to the detriment of highway
safety.
The proposal is, therefore, considered to be contrary to the provisions of Countryside
Policy SS2 and Transport Policy CT5.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy CT5: The transport impact of new development
Development Committee
17
13 October 2011
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate
sufficient justification for the location of the proposed commercial building in the
Countryside policy area.
Furthermore, the road network serving the site is considered to be inadequate to
serve the development proposed by reason of its poor alignment, restricted width,
lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions.
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
highway and the development would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
policies.
5.
HICKLING - PF/11/0854 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling with
detached garage and re-location of stables; Old Manor House, Sutton Road for
Mrs P Jarvis
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 September 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area
Flood Zone
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19980855 PF - Conversion of barn to craft workshop, ancillary office and
storage
Approved 02/09/1998
PLA/19890365 PF - Conversion of barns to letting units for holidays and travellers
Approved 31/08/1989
PLA/20030856 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension
Approved 16/07/2003
PLA/20041693 PF - Erection of single-storey extension
Approved 12/11/2004
THE APPLICATION
There are three elements to this planning application:
1. The conversion of part of a large barn at the rear of the Old Manor House to a
dwelling, part of which has been for some time used as a swimming pool. The
proposal is to convert the remaining portion of the barn to a four bedroom house.
2. The relocation of stables adjacent to the fields.
3. The erection of a detached garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Property is occupied by a Member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to the provision of a turning area
and the holly hedge being reduced to 1.05m and conditions.
Development Committee
18
13 October 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection, subject
to a condition regarding the implementation of a protected species mitigation and
compensation measures as detailed in the Protected Species Survey.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection, subject to implementation of sustainable
construction checklist condition.
Environmental Health - Awaiting response, following the submission of a
contaminated land questionnaire.
Environment Agency - No objection to the proposed development on flood risk
grounds, providing the Authority is satisfied with the measures identified to ensure
the safety of the proposed development and its inhabitants.
Emergency Planning Officer - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, 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 HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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. Design
3. Flood Risk
Development Committee
19
13 October 2011
APPRAISAL
The application site is located a short distance from the village of Hickling within the
Countryside policy area and also within the area defined by Policy HO 9 regarding
rural dwelling conversions. Consequently, converting the former farm buildings into a
residential use is in principle acceptable providing the design of the conversion and
the mitigation of the flood risk is also acceptable.
Although just within the area identified by the Environment Agency as at a 1 in 200
year risk of flooding, the site lies outside the area identified in the Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment as at risk from tidal and fluvial flooding including any anticipated
risk from climate change. The remaining risk is therefore that of a coastal breach.
As the site is more than 5km from any potential coastal breach the Environment
Agency is satisfied that the site specific flood risk assessment establishes the risk to
the property as minimal, as long as the Flood Response Plan is satisfactory. In the
circumstances, provided the Emergency Planning Officer accepts the Flood
Response Plan the proposal is considered to pass the sequential test as set out in
PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk.
In terms of design, the conversion proposes few changes that do not reuse existing
openings, of which there are many in the new extension to the barn. The only
exception is the introduction of dormer windows in the newer element of the building.
The dormer windows have been discussed with the agent and it is anticipated that
amended plans will be submitted removing most of the dormers, with the exception of
two. It is considered that the dormer in the south west elevation, facing the rear of
the Old Manor House, could remain in the scheme and that a single dormer in the
north west elevation, that closest to the main barn, could be changed to a sloping
roof dormer without harming the agricultural character of the barns.
As for relocation of the stables to the rear of the paddock, the site is regarded as
suitable since they would be well-related to the proposed group of buildings without
harm to the wider landscape.
The Old Manor House has an access on either side. It is proposed that the eastern
access would remain to serve the Old Manor House and the western access would
serve the new dwelling. Consequently, any garage would need to be located on the
western and more prominent side of the barn.
As proposed, the garage would not enjoy a comfortable relationship in terms of
layout with the main barn, nor is the style of building considered appropriate in terms
of an acceptable addition. Amending the appearance of the garage to a cartshed
style and relocating the garage to the rear boundary of the site, next to the stables,
has also been discussed with the agent. Again it is anticipated that amended plans
will be submitted reflecting this advice.
On balance, providing the plans include suitable amendments to the proposed
dwelling and the appearance and location of the garage it is considered the scheme
would comply with policies of the Development Plan. It is therefore recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended
plans, the imposition of appropriate conditions and no objections from the
Emergency Planning Officer.
Development Committee
20
13 October 2011
6.
HOLT - PF/11/0703 - Conversion of and extension of outbuildings to retail units
and construction of pedestrian access; 1 Bull Street for Greenways Holt Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 August 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion and extension of the flint and brick outbuildings to the rear of
Greenways, a Grade II listed building to 4 small retail units, with the layout of Unit 5
having the potential to be used as a café/restaurant. Access to the site for
pedestrians and deliveries would be from the main entrance to the site off Bull Street.
In addition the ground floor of a further building, Unit 2, which is physically attached
to the western elevation of main dwelling and is accessed off the pedestrian route to
the Albert Street car park, would be converted to a further retail unit. In total the 5
units would provide a further 186 sq metres of retail space within the town centre.
An amended set of drawings have been received which delete the pedestrian access
in the north western corner of the site which it was originally intended would serve as
a point for deliveries into the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker for the following planning reason:
Car parking in relation to provision within the town centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection raising the following concerns (summarised):1. Proposed rear access.
2. Proximity of toilet block to neighbouring properties.
3. Impact on residential amenities and maintenance of adjacent buildings.
One letter of comment which queries the use of the word pedestrian access when it
is to be used for deliveries and also possible conflicts with use of car park by delivery
vehicles.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Development Committee
21
13 October 2011
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
RELEVANT CORE STRATEGY POLICIES
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 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring properties
3. Car parking
APPRAISAL
The site is located with the development boundary for Holt in an area designated as
Town Centre as defined by the adopted Core Strategy. It is also with the Holt
Conservation Area. In addition the group of outbuildings are listed through their
association with the main dwelling.
The relevant Core Strategy Policies are SS5, EN4, EN8, EC5, CT5 and CT6. Policy
SS5 states that the role of town centres as a focus for a broad range of shopping,
commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported, with scheme in the smaller
Town Centres being limited to those that meet local needs and support their roles as
visitor and tourist destinations. Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy
efficient design will be particularly encouraged. In addition alterations and extensions
Development Committee
22
13 October 2011
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in
this case the listed building and wider Conservation Area. Development that would
have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be
permitted. Policy EC5 seeks to direct new retail uses to Principal and Secondary
Settlements and should be of a size commensurate with its location. In addition
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development be designed to reduce the need
to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its
particular location and is capable of being served by safe access to the highway
network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality. In addition it
should provide adequate car parking.
As far as the principle of development is concerned the site is located in the town
centre where the size of units would comply with the requirements of Policy EC5.
The development would also support the aims of Policy SS5 in that the retail units
would help to meet local needs and further enhance Holt as a visitor and tourist
destinations.
In terms of the actual scheme of conversion this would involve an element of new
build primarily to Unit 5 at the northern end of the site, thereby creating an “L” shape
and would have a kitchen and WC facilities which it is envisaged could be used as a
café/restaurant. In addition it is proposed to construct a lean to toilet block along the
western boundary of the site, which is currently enclosed by a 2 metre high wall.
However the remaining buildings within the complex, the majority of which are in
good structural condition, would be converted without significant reconstruction and
or alteration. It is therefore considered that their re-use would enhance the setting of
the main listed building and ensure the future of this complex of outbuildings in the
wider Conservation Area.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned, the nearest dwellings
to the site are No. 2 Bull Street which abuts the western boundary, whilst to the east
1-6 Lees Yard consist of a mix of retailing at ground floor with residential above. In
addition the rear garden area of 19 Lees Yard also abuts the eastern boundary of the
site.
As originally submitted it was proposed that there would be a pedestrian access to
the north-western corner of the site which would provide access for deliveries.
Following the concerns raised by the neighbour this has been deleted from the
scheme with the result that all deliveries would be from the Bull Street entrance. The
same neighbour also raised concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed toilet
block to her property. The applicant's agent has indicated that his client wishes to
retain this element of the scheme. Given that this building would be some 12 metres
from the neighbouring dwelling at its closest point and Environmental Health has
raised no objection it is not considered that refusal of the application would not be
justified in relation to this element of the scheme.
Since the properties to either side have no windows facing the site it is not
considered that the use of low level lighting, in this town centre location would have
an adverse impact on their amenities, whilst in respect of the concerns raised by the
owner of Lees Yard regarding the future maintenance of his property the extension to
Unit 5 would be at least 1m from the boundary; this is a civil matter and not a concern
for the Local Planning Authority.
Turning to the access and car parking arrangements, the Highway Authority has
previously indicated that it would not wish to see any intensification in the use of the
access due to poor visibility. Following the deletion of the pedestrian access the
Development Committee
23
13 October 2011
amended plan shows deliveries to the site from a stopping point in Bull Street close
to the site entrance. The Highway Authority has indicated that it has no objection to
this arrangement.
In respect of car parking, as far as an A1 retail use is concerned the Council's
adopted parking standards require 1 space per 20 sq metres, which equates to 9
spaces. Given the restricted access to the site and the limitations of the site itself it is
not intended to provide any on-site parking. However given the town centre location,
proximity to the public car park and access to public transport, although this
arrangement does not comply with the Core Strategy it is not considered that the lack
of car parking would provide sufficient justification to refuse the application,
especially given the overall benefits of the scheme.
It is therefore considered that whilst the scheme has shortcomings in terms of lack of
a delivery area and car parking facilities, the benefits of the scheme in securing the
future of an important group of building and enhancing the vitality and viability of Holt
as a retail centre outweigh these disadvantages. On balance the scheme is
acceptable and would accord with key Development Plan policy objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (drawing numbers) 041-P-003a, 005a and 006a and the amended
plans (drawing numbers) 041-P-002b, 004b, 007a, 009a and 010a received by
the Local Planning Authority on 22 August 2011.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The existing clay pantiles shall be reused as part of any re-roofing of the existing
buildings and any shortfall shall be made up from tiles which exactly match the
colour, composition and profile of the existing unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority .
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Prior to their use on site, samples of the bricks and tiles to be used in the
construction of Unit 5 and the WCs shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority . The new build shall then be constructed using
only the approved materials.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
24
13 October 2011
5
Prior to the installation of any new or replacement windows or doors, detailed
horizontal and vertical sections through the new joinery at a scale of not less than
1:20 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority .
The replacement joinery shall then be installed only in strict accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
To ensure any new or replacement windows or doors complementary to the
appearance of the building, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
6
Prior to their installation, full details of the approved rooflights shall be submitted
to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The rooflights shall then
be inserted only in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the rooflights are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7
Prior to its construction and erection, full details of the new entrance gates and
signage feature shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority . The work shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to retain control over these aspects of
the development and to ensure that any new gates of signage feature is
complementary to the appearance of the development, in accordance with Policy
EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
8
The retail units the subject of this permission shall not be open to the public
except between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 on any day.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
9
No deliveries relating to the retail units the subject of this permission shall be
taken at or despatched from the site except between the hours of 8:00 and 20:00
on any day.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
10 Prior to the first use of the premises hereby permitted full details of any proposed
ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration or mechanical extractor system to be
installed as part of the approved development, shall be submitted to and
Development Committee
25
13 October 2011
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall
specify measures to control noise, dust and odour from the equipment. The
equipment shall be installed and maintained thereafter in full accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
To control the noise, dust or odour emitted from the site in the interests of
residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
11 The external lighting hereby approved shall be installed and operated in
accordance the lighting details indicated on (drawing numbers) 041-P-006a, 005a
and the amended plan drawing number 041-P-002b received by the Local
Planning Authority on 22 August 2011 and shall be thereafter maintained in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of the visual and residential amenities of the area and to avoid
light pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.3.70 of the explanatory text.
12 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for
the introduction of nest boxes for swallows shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The nest boxes shall be installed in
accordance with the approved details before the next available breeding season
and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
In order to protect wildlife interests in accordance with Policy EN9 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the building
subject to this permission shall not be occupied until the following measures
identified in the Sustainable Construction Checklist submitted with the planning
application have been implemented:
1. Dedicated low energy light fittings to be installed.
2. All new windows and doors to be of timber from a sustainable source e.g. FSC
or equivalent
3. Installation of taps with a maximum flow rate of 4l/min and WCs with a 6/3l
dual flush or lower in the toilet block.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
26
13 October 2011
7.
HOVETON - PF/11/0762 - Erection of 120 dwellings, new vehicular access and
creation of public open space; Land off Stalham Road for Persimmon Homes
(Anglia) Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 28 September 2011
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Public Right of Way
Residential Allocation
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the erection of 120 dwellings comprising 82 houses (2,3,4 & 5
bed units), 26 bungalows (2 & 3 bed units) and 12 flats (1&2 bed units).
54 units comprise affordable housing, 32 houses (2,3,4 &5 bed units), 10 bungalows
(2&3 bed units) and 12 flats. Tenancy would be split 80:20 comprising 43 dwellings
for affordable rent and 11 shared ownership.
The dwellings would be largely single and two storey with one property incorporating
a third storey within the roof space.
The proposal includes 2.1 hectares of public open space in three linked locations,
adjacent to an existing public footpath and Summer Drive, centrally within the site
and at the Stalham road frontage.
The proposal also includes the construction of a new roundabout on Stalham Road
from which access to the site would be gained and the upgrading of an existing
footpath to the south of the site, to a combined pedestrian and cyclist route.
Amended plans have been received including changes to the layout of the
development and the appearance of the dwellings.
The application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Transport Assessment and Residential Travel Plan
Ecological Assessment
Tree Survey and Arboricultural Assessment
Statement of Community Involvement
Flood Risk Assessment/Waste Water Statement
Sustainability Appraisal/ Energy Assessment
Air Quality Assessment
Archaeology/Geophysical Report
Affordable Housing Statement
Heads of Terms (S106 Obligation)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Oppose the application for the following reasons:
a) the development would result in substantial increases in traffic through Hoveton
village with a consequent increase in pollution.
b) there is insufficient provision for access for pedestrians and non-motorised
vehicles between the development site and the centre of Hoveton village.
Development Committee
27
13 October 2011
c) there is no provision for the crossing of the A1151 to Hoveton St John School on
Horning Road by parents and children.
d) there is no evidence that any part of the education payment to be made under the
proposed agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
would be allocated to St Johns Nursery School
The Parish Council held a public exhibition of the planning application plans and
documents and collected the views of people attending who wished to comment: 25
residents made comment 13 against, 10 neutral, 2 in favour. Comments made
include: concern about extra traffic, inadequate bus services, effect of wildlife; no
proper archaeological survey; percentage affordable housing, 30mph speed
restriction should be extended; loss of agricultural land, brownfield land should be
developed; impact on schools and medical centre; flooding; impact of roundabout on
egress of properties near to it; emergency vehicle access.
In relation to amended plans, detailed comments made in relation to:
1) Grass cutting of 'open space' - Understand that this would be responsibility of
Persimmon or NNDC
2) Street Lighting - Understand this would be the responsibility of the County Council
3) Litter bins on community area - Understand this would be the responsibility of
NNDC
4) Naming of roads on the site - Understand the Parish Council will make final choice
5) Detailed design queries relating to bungalow type/cill levels/appearance of house
type P1100S
6) Adoption of Tunstead Road/ Stalham Road footpath
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection and one letter of comment received, raising the following
matters: scale of development excessive and will harm unique character of Broads
village; brownfield sites in North Walsham should be developed; existing traffic
excessive; development should be considered in the context of proposed
development in Wroxham and Rackheath; drainage system already overloaded;
impact on medical centre.
One letter making representations on behalf of the Summer Drive Residents
Association, generally accept the proposed application subject to the following points:
footpath alongside Summer Drive should be fenced in with metal railings to make
certain pedestrians do not conflict with vehicular traffic (they propose to gift land to
allow such footpath to be provided); rear access should be provided to the medical
centre; street lighting should be subdued; conditions should be imposed to prevent
open spaces being built upon; PD rights should be restricted to ensure village
character; advice should to taken regarding creation and maintenance of wildlife
habitats; on-street parking should be restricted; maintenance of open space in
perpetuity through the creation of a residents trust company.
CONSULTATIONS
Natural England - No objection. Consider that either alone or in combination with
other plans and projects, it would not be likely to have a significant effect on the
important features of the Broadland SPA/ The Broads SAC/Ramsar, or any of the
features of special scientific interest of component Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), including the Bure Broads & Marshes SSSI. This comment is conditional on
the provision and future management of the public open space proposed within the
development.
Development Committee
28
13 October 2011
Broads Authority - Refer to the Appropriate Assessment of the Allocations Document
and the need to consider the impact of increased visitor pressure on the Broads SAC
- although have acknowledged the position of Natural England
Broadland District Council - Subject to highways issues being satisfactorily
addressed, no comment.
Environment Agency - No objection to the proposals subject to an appropriate
surface water management condition being appended to any approval granted.
Anglian Water - Confirm that foul drainage from this development is in the catchment
of Belaugh STW that at present has available capacity. In addition the foul sewage
network at present has available capacity for the predicted flows.
Norfolk County Council (Highways)
No objection to approval of the application, subject to the securing of a S106
agreement to fund the Travel Plan and the imposition of the appropriate highway
conditions.
The original and amended supporting information has been assessed and an
appropriate package of measures agreed to mitigate the transport impacts of the
development. The mitigation package includes the site access roundabout, footway
improvements in Tunstead Road as per document 1098/CW/EFP/09-11, public
footpath upgrade to adopted footway in Summer Drive and improvement of the public
footpath from Summer Drive to Tunstead Road to part adopted footway and part
shared use footway/cycleway. A Travel Plan is proposed with appropriate funding to
maximise non-car mode travel and to minimise the traffic generation of the site.
The internal estate road layout indicated on the revised plan numbered 6457 SL01
Rev G is satisfactory
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligation Requirements): seek the following
financial contribution via a S106 Obligation
Education - £606,768 (fund additional capacity in both primary and high schools)
Fire Service - £2406
Library Provision - £7,200
Norfolk County Council (Historic Environment Service) - The proposed development
site lies in an area where cropmarks relating to field systems of Roman date have
previously been recorded. A geophysical survey at the site has identified a small
number of anomalies which may relate to former field boundaries and other features.
The applicant has therefore been requested to undertake further archaeological
investigations through targeted trial-trenching.
Norfolk Constabulary - Objected to the original layout - in particular given the number
and form of proposed parking courts. Amended layout has largely addressed these
concerns. Has now withdrawn original objection.
Environmental Health - Air Quality : Full comments attached at Appendix 3. Development is unlikely to
adversely impact on air quality. Recommend developer contribution towards the
costs of air quality monitoring in the vicinity of Wroxham Bridge.
- Flood risk/drainage
Plans as first submitted - Requested further details in relation to the FRA. Comments
to revised FRA awaited
Recommend imposition of planning condition regarding sewage system design.
- Refuse collection plan - Details are satisfactory.
Development Committee
29
13 October 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Design) Original scheme - Full comments attached at Appendix 3. Scheme offers a good
deal of promise where the overall layout and landscaping are concerned. However
concerns raised about the house types proposed and the opportunity missed to
improve the quality and character of the area.
Amended Plans - In terms of the amended layout, the main concerns previously
centred around the over dependency on rear parking courts and in particular the
problems these might cause in terms of parking overspill, poor surveillance and a
lack of animation within the street scene. The revisions made have begun to address
some of these problems. Whilst not fundamentally moving away from the basic mix of
parking, some of the courts have been broken up and some have been redesigned.
With some of the individual units having also been realigned to improve overlooking,
the scheme has undoubtedly taken a step forward in terms of addressing the S.17
concerns and in improving the usability of the courts. Whilst there is still every
suggestion that the scheme would be linked by roads rather than real streets, the
grounds for objection have to some extent been mitigated.
As regards the house types, the applicants have taken on board the earlier criticisms
about the lack of real distinctiveness and the predictability of the individual designs.
Their response has been to make more use of contrasting materials and to sprinkle
some architectural details across the scheme to try and add some interest to the
elevations. In respect of the former, the use of the timber boarding and the render
has been fairly well considered and will undoubtedly provide welcome relief from the
principal red brickwork. Within this, we can also welcome the revisions to the colour
finishes which should now tie the scheme to the area rather better than the
Suffolk/Essex colours previously proposed.
In terms of architectural features, a series of buttresses, oriel windows and Juliette
balconies have been added across a limited number of the units. Whilst there can be
question marks over the positioning of some of these additions (e.g. the buttresses
should logically be positioned at the end of rows to act as stopped ends, or at the
entrance to roadways to act as framing features), they do help in ‘lifting’ some of the
units. Given their limited number and size, however, it has to be accepted that these
changes would not substantively change the overall perception of the scheme.
Fundamentally, the house types would still be relatively conventional compositions
which would tread familiar neo-traditional paths. Whilst perfectly polite and
inoffensive, they clearly have no pretensions for taking forward the District’s built
environment in the ways espoused by the Design Guide. In the absence of such
genuine innovation or imagination, the scheme still places great reliance on the areas
of open space and landscaping to provide its defining character. It will therefore be
for Committee to weigh this up against the other material considerations, being ever
mindful that the scheme does not lie within a designated conservation area or
obviously impact upon any heritage assets.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
Original scheme - Full comments attached at Appendix 3. The principle of a strong
landscape framework to this scheme is to be welcomed. The naturalistic planting
design is appropriate for the rural setting and will help to ‘bed’ the development into
the local surrounds. More detail requested regarding the planting design, particularly
in relation to the detailed layout of the central open space and the landscape within
the housing and the use of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes).
Development Committee
30
13 October 2011
Amended Plans - The planting proposals put forward for the landscape infrastructure
of the site are appropriate. The hierarchy of tree species is suitable, as is the
species choice for the structural planting, boundary hedge planting & ornamental
planting. Selected seed mixes are also appropriate, so long as ground preparation
and maintenance are clearly built into working drawings.
The indicative soft landscape proposals designed are acceptable in principle.
However I would like to see the naturalistic theme carried a little more effectively
through to the residential areas than the suggested plant selection implies. Hedge
species such as eleagnus ebbingei and prunus laurocerasus are rather suburban
and do not reflect this theme or the rural location of the site. Species such as privet,
escallonia and hornbeam would be more appropriate. Similarly incorporation of more
native shrubs into the indicative shrub mixes would complement the infrastructure
planting for the scheme. I am satisfied that these details can be resolved by
condition.
The additional information relating to Surface Water Drainage contained within the
Addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment is satisfactory.
Sustainability Team - The application complies with Policy EN6 based on information
submitted in the Sustainability Statement and Energy Assessment. All dwellings are
proposed to meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and 20% of the
developments needs would be generated through renewable technology (air source
heat pumps) fitted to at least 66 dwellings. Planning conditions are recommended to
ensure implementation of measures.
Strategic Housing Further to my memorandum of 7 July 2011 concerning the full planning application
for the provision of 120 homes of which 45% or 54 dwellings are proposed to be
affordable further information has now been received from the applicant concerning
the affordable housing provision. No public subsidy is required to provide the
affordable housing as required by Core Strategy Policy H02.
The applicant has provided details of the phasing arrangements which will ensure as
a minimum that the affordable housing will be delivered in 2 phases and that by the
sale or occupation of half of the market dwellings on the site that half of the
affordable dwellings will have been handed over to a Housing Association. Prior to
the sale or occupation of the last market dwelling all of the affordable dwellings will
have been handed over to a Housing Association. This phasing arrangement has
been agreed with Housing Services and is acceptable and appropriate for this site.
The applicant has confirmed that 80% of the affordable housing will be provided as
affordable rented homes with the remaining 20% for sale on a shared ownership
basis. The type of affordable housing to be provided was previously agreed with the
applicant and reflects the housing need.
It was stated in the memorandum of 7 July that the location of the affordable housing
within the overall proposed development is acceptable.
A Section 106 Agreement will be required for this development to secure the number
and type of the affordable housing (including the number for rent and shared
ownership) and the phasing arrangements which will apply to the delivery of the
affordable dwellings.
Development Committee
31
13 October 2011
To conclude, the applicant is offering 45% of the total number of dwellings as
affordable with 80% to be for affordable rent and 20% for sale on a shared ownership
basis. The phasing arrangements agreed with the applicant are acceptable. Housing
Services strongly supports the approval of this planning application as it will provide
54 affordable dwellings in Hoveton of a size and type to meet the identified housing
need.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The landscape proposals when implemented will
deliver a high quality public open space with a variety of interesting features.
Significant provision is made for play and recreation in the provision of designated
play space together with grassland and planted areas of varying maintenance
regimes to provide opportunities for a range of informal recreation and to enhance
the visual amenity and biodiversity of the area as a whole.
The open space will therefore provide a valuable resource for residents of the new
development together with that of the wider community.
I believe that because the open space is of significant size and that it provides a
resource for the whole local community, it would be most appropriate for it to be
adopted by North Norfolk District Council and managed along with other public open
spaces throughout the district with a similar purpose. The developer has already
been advised of the necessary commuted sum that would be payable for future
management to be transferred.
In summary I therefore support the provision of the open space as proposed and that
NNDC adopts responsibility for it’s future management. The following commuted
sums are sought in relation to the provision:
Grounds Maintenance - based on 15 years maintenance cost £95,171
Play provision
£54,683
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
Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011)
Policy HV03: Land adjacent to Doctors Surgery, Stalham Road (Land allocated for
residential development)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
32
13 October 2011
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework - As this document is at consultation stage and
may be subject to change, it should be afforded little weight.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Site layout
2. Housing mix and affordability
3. Design
4. Sustainability
5. Amenity considerations
6. Landscape and Open space
7. Transportation impact and access
8. Air Quality
9. Planning Obligations
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit on 1 September
2011.
The site consists of seven hectares of agricultural land allocated for residential
development in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted February
2011). The site is bounded by agricultural land (to the north-west and north-east),
Summer Drive (to the south-west) and by the rear boundaries of residential
properties and the Hoveton and Wroxham Medical Centre on Stalham Road. The site
also has a direct road frontage on to Stalham Road from which vehicular access is
proposed. The development proposed, (120 dwellings and 2.1 hectares of public
open space) complies with the scale and mix identified as suitable for the site in the
adopted Site Allocations Document (Policy HV03). Key to the consideration of the
planning application is therefore whether the full planning application complies with
the detailed development requirements set out in Policy HV03 and all other relevant
policies of the Core Strategy.
Site Layout
The layout has been influenced by a number of factors, in particular: the point of
access from Stalham Road; the need to provide sustainable drainage and the Policy
HV03 requirements to provide at least 2 hectares of public open space, including a
landscape buffer between the development and the existing public footpath from
Summer Drive to Tunstead Road. The result is a layout focused around three linked
areas of open space, that would retain a line of existing mature oaks trees and which
would provide an uninterrupted view through the development towards St Peter's
Church. The road layout has been designed around the greenspace network with
Development Committee
33
13 October 2011
the majority of the proposed houses fronting either on to the greenspace or the new
circular estate road. Development to the north of the site is proposed to be served by
a number of shared private drives, creating 'mews' type groups of dwellings and
optimising views over agricultural land to the north.
Parking provision to comply with Core Strategy requirements is proposed for all the
properties. The layout provides for a mix of parking solutions, primarily either on plot
or within communal parking courts. The Norfolk Constabulary Crime Prevention
Design Advisor raised objections to the original layout in regard to over reliance on
parking courts, the relationship of the parking spaces to the properties they serve and
the lack of surveillance of these parking areas from properties. In addition comments
were also were made by the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who advised that the layout would benefit from the introduction of a much
broader mix of parking solutions. The amended layout would largely address these
comments by reducing the number of courts and ensuring that occupiers have a
view of and direct access to the parking spaces reserved for their use.
Housing Mix and Affordability.
The proposed development includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes, including
flats, bungalows and houses. Reflecting the objectives of Policy HO1, 48% of the
proposed dwellings would be modest in size, with two or fewer bedrooms. In addition
given the number of bungalows and ground floor flats the proposal broadly meets the
policy requirement to include at least 20% that are suitable or easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
In full accordance with Policy HO2, 45% of the proposed new homes would be
affordable. The house type mix directly responds to identified housing need as
assessed by this Council's Strategic Housing Section. Worthy of note are the 12 flats,
3 four bedroom houses, the five bedroom house and 10 bungalows (4 designed for
wheel chair users) that address particular deficiencies in the existing affordable
housing stock. In accordance with Policy HO2 the proposal includes a 80:20 tenure
split (43 dwellings for affordable rent and 11 for shared ownership). The affordable
housing provision would be secured through a Section 106 Obligation that would also
specify phased delivery and transfer on completion to a Registered Social Landlord.
Housing Services strongly support the approval of this application given the
substantial and valuable contribution it would make to addressing housing need in
the District.
Design
Policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high quality and reinforce
local distinctiveness. Given the scale of the housing proposed here and on other
allocated sites in the District, achieving high quality designed schemes is considered
a key policy objective.
The proposed dwellings in terms of scale and form would be broadly compatible with
their surroundings. The two storey and single storey properties would comprise
detached, semi-detached and short terraces, built forms characteristic of Hoveton. A
variety of house types is proposed along with a palette of materials including clay and
concrete rooftiles, brick, render and cladding. The varied use of access
arrangements, house types and materials across the development would assist in
creating some variation in street scene and character.
Committee's attention is drawn to the comments of the Council's Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Appendix 3). Although broadly supportive of the
general layout, the design of the open space and proposed building materials, the
Development Committee
34
13 October 2011
comments raise concerns over the standardised approach to house types and siting,
which rather than creating a distinctive scheme results in a rather formulaic and
bland outcome.
Following the receipt of amended plans the Committee will note that the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that these in part have
addressed earlier criticisms. However, the scheme still falls short of gaining his full
support given that the overall perception of the scheme remains unchanged and is
still considered to lack innovation or imagination.
Notwithstanding these comments, it is acknowledged that this part of Hoveton
currently lacks a distinctive character and that the applicant's approach is 'polite and
inoffensive'. The amended house types do represent an improvement to the original
scheme and considered in the context of the high quality open space and
landscaping proposals, would assist in creating a positive defining character to the
new development.
Amenity Considerations
It is proposed that the occupiers of all properties, including the flats, would have
access to a private garden area. The size of gardens would vary depending on the
type and location of the properties but all comply with Design Guide
recommendations. Care has been taken to site properties to ensure reasonable
levels of privacy, minimising the risk of unsatisfactory level of overlooking from
neighbouring properties.
Existing residential properties on Stalham Road, backing on to the site have gardens
a minimum of 20m in length. Proposed dwellings with curtilages abutting this
boundary would all be single storey. Given the location of these single storey
properties relative to this boundary, there would be no adverse amenity impact on
existing occupiers. In addition single storey properties are proposed to the rear of the
Medical Centre to minimise the risk of overlooking into existing ground and first floor
windows.
Sustainable Development
Policy EN6 requires all new dwellings to achieve at least a three star rating under the
Code for Sustainable Homes and on sites of this scale, the use of on-site renewable
energy technology to provide for at least 10% of the predicted total energy usage. On
the basis of information and details contained in the Sustainability Statement and
Energy Assessment, the Council Sustainability Officer has confirmed that the
proposals fully comply with the requirements of Policy EN6. In relation to the use of
on-site renewable, it is proposed that the 20% requirement could be met through the
use of Air Source Heat pumps, although the applicant has requested that the actual
means be controlled by condition, given the wish to utilise best technology at the time
of implementation.
Landscaping and Open Space.
The Design and Access Statement indicates that the vision for the new open space
has been the creation of a village green in a natural setting. The line of existing
mature oak trees running through the site would be retained as a key feature of the
open space and new planting would create grassland/meadow areas, half of which
would be managed for the benefit of wildlife. The open space, which would include
significant areas at the site entrance and adjacent to Summer Drive, amounts to
around 2.1 hectares, and would fully comply with the requirement of Policy HV03.
The open space would have a multi-functional use, providing visual interest within the
development, biodiversity benefits, play facilities and via swales and lagoons
Development Committee
35
13 October 2011
sustainable drainage. The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
welcomes the strong landscape framework and the naturalistic planting design which
is considered appropriate for the village/rural setting and compliant with Policy EN9 in
terms of biodiversity enhancement.
Seven trees on the Stalham Road frontage of the site are proposed for removal to
facilitate the construction of the roundabout. Although this is regrettable the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that adequate mitigation in
the form of new tree and shrub planting is proposed and, on the basis of the survey
information, that there would be no adverse impact on protected species.
The open space and the landscape proposals for the site would provide a valuable
recreational asset of benefit to both existing and future residents and the Countryside
and Parks Manager has confirmed his support. New footpaths are proposed
providing access to the new open space and connecting it with existing footpaths
adjacent to the site. The Appropriate Assessment, carried out in relation to the Site
Allocations DPD, highlighted the need to ensure that any increase in visitor pressure
resulting from housing growth in the District, should not adversely impact on such
sites. The scale and nature of the open space would provide enhanced recreational
and walking opportunities for the village and assist in managing the impact of new
housing growth on the Broads, an area including sites of European importance.
Natural England has confirmed that the open space proposed as part of this
development is sufficient to mitigate adequately any impact arising from the
development and as such criterion k) of Policy HOV03 would be satisfactorily met.
Given the scale of the open space and its wider community benefit, the Countryside
and Parks Manager has recommended that following the laying out of the open
space in accordance with the agreed scheme, the land be gifted to the Council for it
to maintain, together with a maintenance sum, in accordance with the normal
practice.
Transportation Impact and Access
In accordance with Policy HV03 vehicular access to the site is proposed through the
provision of a new four-arm roundabout on the A1151. This would replace the
existing A1151/Grange Close three arm priority junction. A Transport Assessment
assessing the traffic impact of the development on the local road network has been
submitted, as well as a Residential Travel Plan which proposes a strategy to manage
the trips generated by the new housing in a sustainable way.
During the preparation of the Sites Allocations Document a large number of
representations were raised locally concerning existing traffic flows on Stalham Road
and congestion associated with Wroxham Bridge. At that stage the Highway
Authority advised of capacity in the existing local road network to accommodate
additional traffic and considered the location offered the opportunity to discourage the
use of car journeys arising from development, given the range of services and
facilities accessible locally and the availability of bus and train services within the
village. These matters were considered by the independent Inspector appointed to
examine the suitability of the Hoveton site for 120 dwellings for inclusion in the
Allocations Document.
Given that the site is an adopted residential allocation the focus for consideration
remains the technical design of the junction/estate roads and the suitability of existing
pedestrian routes to promote convenient and safe access to key facilities in the
village. The proposals include: the upgrading of the existing footpath between
Tunstead Road and Summer Drive to a combined cycle/footpath; the provision of an
Development Committee
36
13 October 2011
adoptable standard footway along Summer Drive and the widening of the footway
along Tunstead Road (as far as the High School). The Highway Authority has
confirmed that these measures along with the proposed road works would comply
with the requirements of Policy CT6 and would satisfactorily manage the
transportation impact of the new development.
A number of representations have highlighted the desirability of providing a direct
pedestrian link from the development site to the Medical Centre, providing easy and
convenient access to a key village facility. Policy HV03 criterion c) requires
pedestrian access to the medical centre to be provided and the applicants have
confirmed their agreement to such provision. The Medical Centre (Patient
Participation Group PPG) and the freeholder owner of the site, have considered this
possibility but have advised that they do not consider such a direct pedestrian link to
be desirable. Although they are supportive of ensuring patients have good access to
their services, they consider that such a link could be used as a 'cut through' resulting
in possible misuse, anti-social behaviour, security issues and health and safety
concerns for the medical centre. They consider that the adopted footways proposed
adjacent to the new road network, linking the development to Stalham Road, provide
the best access option for patients of all age groups, abilities and needs.
Notwithstanding this, it is understood that the applicant has approached the future
RSL over the possibility of reserving a strip of land to allow for the provision of a link
if circumstances were to change in the future. Members will be updated on this
matter at the meeting. However, although it is accepted that the link would offer some
benefit, given the stated position of the Medical Centre on this matter and the
availability of satisfactory alternative pedestrian routes, it is considered that this
matter is not key to the determination of this proposal.
Air Quality
An Air Quality Statement has been submitted with the application. During the
preparation of the Site Allocations Document, the Council's Environmental Protection
Team highlighted air quality concerns in Hoveton and the need for such issues to be
addressed when considering future planning applications for major new
developments in this location. Policy HV03 criterion (h) expressly requires the
consideration of air quality as part of the assessment of the development of this site
The District Council has regulatory responsibility for air emissions and has the duty to
monitor air quality, in particular Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels (associated with vehicle
emissions) to ensure compliance with EU limit values and UK Air Quality Objectives.
In the case of Nitrogen Dioxide an EU annual average limit values of 40 µg/m3 is
binding in locations where there are residential properties. In the event of the annual
average of N02 exceeding 40 µg/m3 then an Air Quality Management Zone must be
declared. This Council, for a number of years has monitored Nitrogen Dioxide levels
in the vicinity of Wroxham Bridge using diffuse tubes and in May 2011 installed a
continuous monitoring station.
The Air Quality Assessment submitted with the application seeks to 1) quantify
Nitrogen Dioxide levels associated with the additional traffic movements generated
by the new housing development, 2) predict the extent to which this will increase the
annual average in the location and 3) assess whether as a consequence the EU/UK
limit values may be breached. The Environmental Protection Team have considered
the report and made a number of comments (Appendix 3). In summary, it is
accepted that the assessment provides a reasonable estimate of the likely
contribution that the proposed development would make to existing and projected
Nitrogen Dioxide levels and that the increase is likely to be relatively small (1.3%,
assuming an existing level of around 37.69 µm3). It is accepted that this is unlikely to
Development Committee
37
13 October 2011
result in EU values being breached although this judgment it is to some extent
hindered by the absence of robust baseline data. In this context the Environmental
Protection Service have recommended that the developer makes a financial
contribution to the cost of further air quality monitoring in Hoveton. A figure of £12000
has been agreed with the developer and this would be secured as part of a Section
106 Obligation.
Planning Obligations
Core Strategy Policy CT2 requires, on major housing schemes where there is
insufficient capacity in infrastructure, services, community facilities or open space,
that improvements which are necessary to make that development acceptable are
secured by planning conditions or obligations. Norfolk County Council have indicated
that this development will need to fund additional capacity in the local primary and
high schools and a sum of £606,768 is sought for that purpose. The County Council
is also seeking contributions towards S106 monitoring, fire hydrant provision and
library provision. These payments will be secured through a Section 106 Obligation.
In addition, the District Council is seeking air monitoring funding as referred to above,
and play provision/open space maintenance funding.
Conclusion
A key aim of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy is to address the housing the
needs of the whole community; the Site Allocations Development Plan Document
represents the mechanism by which such development will be delivered over the
next 10-15 years. This application provides a very positive indication of the
substantial benefit the allocated sites are able to deliver.
Although there remain some design reservations, particularly in relation to the
Council’s desire to deliver locally distinctive developments, taken on balance and as
a whole the proposed development is considered commendable. The North Norfolk
Design Guide recognises that high quality new development is not just about
architecture. Good design, particularly on large schemes is about ' place making',
creating distinctive, sustainable developments where a full range of households can
and want to live and where they feel safe. In this respect, the proposal is considered
to offer the prospect of delivering on a broad range of Development Plan policy
objectives including the required proportion and type of both affordable and market
housing, full compliance with sustainable construction policy, and a substantial and
high quality area of public open space.
Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and necessary planning
conditions it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to the following:
A S106 Obligation securing the provision and phasing of affordable housing,
financial contributions as requested by the County Council and by the District
Council in relation to air quality monitoring, play provision and open space
transfer/ maintenance.
The imposition of necessary planning conditions, in particular to include:
implementation of necessary highway works; implementation of sustainable
and renewable energy measures, prior approval of management plan for the
Development Committee
38
13 October 2011
future maintenance of the open space area, safeguarding of open space in
perpetuity, protection of trees on the site during construction, removal of
permitted development rights for the dwellings on plots 7,8,9, 107, 108, 109,
110, street lighting and any other conditions considered necessary by the Head
of Planning and Building Control.
8.
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 September 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080987 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 24/12/2008
PLA/20090850 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling (revised design incorporating
rear extension)
Approved 19/10/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks design amendments to the dwelling approved under planning permission
20090850. These include the insertion of two dormer windows to the southern
roofslope of the dwelling to facilitate the conversion of the roofscape to habitable
accommodation and the installation of a rooflight to the eastern and western
roofslopes of the rear wing. In addition, it is proposed to remove two single light
windows, one from the front, north elevation and the other to western gable end.
An amended plan has been received showing the parapets to the roof retained and
the chimney stack raised up.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Savory and Terrington in relation to the following
planning issue:
Overdevelopment of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the following grounds.
1. Overdevelopment due to the creation of a first floor which would result in 2
additional bedrooms and a bathroom which represents some 19% increased in
the overall area of the original small 2 bedroom bungalow.
2. Increased number of occupants would have an adverse impact on the amenities
of neighbouring properties whilst the dormer windows would result in overlooking
and loss of privacy.
Development Committee
39
13 October 2011
3. The increased residential capacity of the property would significantly increase
traffic using the site, which exits onto a narrow section of highway where visibility
is restricted. The additional traffic will increase the likelihood of accidents.
4. The design of the dwelling does nothing to enhance the appearance of the village
or the setting of Rowan Cottage to the west, which is a listed building.
5. This is the third time the design has been changed and each time it has been
increased in size.
6. The property offers nothing for those in local housing need.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the owner of the property to the south which raises
concerns that the rear dormer windows would overlook her garden and bedroom
windows.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) –
Considers that the introduction of the dormers windows to the rear of the property
would have a negligible impact upon the character and appearance of this part of
Langham’s Conservation Area. Two areas where the scheme could be improved
would be the reinstatement of the parapets, which help set the building apart from a
standard bungalow and also raising up the chimney stack to the rear gable in order to
give it more presence in the street scene. However the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers that neither suggestion would be the difference
between a recommendation of approval or refusal.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
40
13 October 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the Conservation Area and setting of Listed Building.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy where there would now be an objection in principle to the erection of a new
dwelling. However following the granting of planning permission 20090850 a start
has been made on site, with the ground level of the site having been lowered by
0.3m and a brick and flint wall erected to the western boundary between the site and
Rowan Cottage. As such that permission is held in perpetuity and the current
application relates solely to the acceptability of the proposed design amendments to
that scheme.
The application therefore needs to be considered against Core Strategy Polices EN4
and EN8. These require that all development be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does
not preserve or enhance the character and quality of the designated asset, in this
case the Langham Conservation Area and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed
cottage will not be acceptable. 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.
As far as the impact on the Conservation Area and setting of the Listed Building are
concerned, given the dwelling's position towards the rear of the site the proposed
dormer windows and rooflights would not be visible from any public vantage point.
Given the fact that the site is some 0.3m lower than the Rowan Cottage to the west
and is now separated by a 2 metre high wall it is not considered that the
amendments would have an adversely impact on the setting of that property or the
wider Conservation Area. The reintroduction of the parapets and raising of the
chimney stack has also overcome the concerns raised by the Conservation Design
and Landscape Manager.
In terms of loss of privacy and overlooking of Rowan Cottage, again given the
position on the site together with the boundary treatment it is not considered that the
amendments would have any adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of that
property.
Concerns have been raised by the owner of the dwelling to the south, No.1 Hollow
Lane, in respect of potential overlooking. The scheme would comply with the
Council's Amenity Criteria in respect of window to window distances. Due to
lowered ground level and a 2 metre high fence to the southern boundary of the site,
coupled with the fact that the dormer windows would be 10 metres from the boundary
a projected line of sight would suggest only a degree of overlooking of part of the rear
garden area. This would be further mitigated due to fact that the proposed dwelling
would be located in line with the bottom of the garden of No.1 so any overlooking
would be confined to a fairly small area. In addition the roof to rear wing of the
proposed bungalow would prevent any significant overlooking from the master
bedroom window, blocking any views of the main garden area and house.
Furthermore the garden of No.1 has a number of large shrubs in its which again
would reduce any impact. As such the only possible views would be from bedroom
four. However given that bedrooms tend not to be constantly occupied, whilst there
may be a perception of being overlooked, this in itself is not considered be sufficient
justification to warrant refusal. The two rooflights to either roofslope of the rear
extension would be above eye level and would not result in any overlooking.
Development Committee
41
13 October 2011
As far as the Parish Council’s concerns regarding increased traffic generation, based
on the standards contained in the Core strategy a four bedroom dwelling would
require a minimum of three parking spaces. This together with adequate
manoeuvring area is achievable within the site and the visibility onto the public
highway would comply with the requirements of planning permission 20090850.
It is therefore considered the amendments are acceptable and the proposal would
accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
9.
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0232 - Continued use of land as airfield on a permanent
basis; Land at Winspur Farm for Mr C Gurney
Major Development
- Target Date: 14 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
National Air Traffic Service
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081434 PF - Change of use of land to aerodrome
Approved 07/01/2009
PLA/20090096 PF - Use of land for siting of portable building
Approved 11/03/2009
PF/09/1082
PF - Removal of Conditions 1 and 3 of Planning Permission ref:
20081434 and Variation of Conditions 4, 5 and 8 to Continue Use of Land as
Aerodrome with an Increase in Aircraft Movement from 1780 to 2100 per Annum and
to Permit Take-off and Landing at Any Time in an Emergency and Limited Banner
Towing.
Approved 14/05/2010
PF/10/0196 PF - Continued Use of Land for Siting Portable Building
Approved 14/05/2010
THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought for the continued use of land as an airfield on a
permanent basis as approved under temporary permission 20091082.
This includes the continued use of a metal container used for storage and a portable
building used as the Control Room covered by the previous permissions (08/1434
and 09/1082). A further portable building has been removed from the site and the
portable building used as a refreshment room/café does not form part of this
application.
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application in accordance
with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 1999.
Development Committee
42
13 October 2011
Whilst the 1999 EIA Regulations have now been revoked by the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 which came into
force on 24 August 2011 (“the 2011 EIA Regulations”), Regulations 65(1) and 65(2)
make clear that such revocation does not affect the continued application of the 1999
EIA Regulations to an application lodged or received by the relevant authority before
the commencement of the 2011 EIA Regulations. This is also clear from Regulation 3
of the 2011 EIA Regulations which makes it clear that they only apply to applications
lodged on or after 24 August 2011. Since this application was received before that
date, reference is be made to the 1999 Regulations
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the complexities of the
application and legal issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Supporting statements have been received from the applicant explaining what has
been done to ensure compliance with the conditions on 09/1082 (letter dated 13
February 2011), setting out comments in relation to a letter from Richard Buxton,
objectors’ Solicitors (letter dated 9 June 2011) and a letter clarifying a number of
points which the applicants have suggested have been incorrectly circulated by
objectors (letter dated 1 August 2011). See Appendix 4.
A further letter has been received from the applicant dated 9 August 2011 (see
Appendix 4) following the applicant’s concerns that objectors are intending to submit
alleged evidence of the applicant’s failure to comply with planning conditions. The
applicant’s letter explains what he believes the allegations to be and what has been
done in respect of them. This includes provision of details about aircraft movements
which the applicant states have not exceeded the 2100 movements permitted, and
explanation of the situation that arose with the operator of ‘Catch a Cloud’ flight
training school. The applicant states in his letter that this operator was not operating
within the airfield rules and that it could well account for approximately 100
unrecorded movements during the period of the temporary permission. The applicant
states that this operator was repeatedly asked to leave and finally left unannounced
in March 2010. The applicant confirms that he has no plans or intentions to operate
another flying school from the airfield.
The applicant has also provided details describing the different types of aircraft that
may use the airspace in North Norfolk for clarification purposes, which details are
contained in Appendix 4.
Letters and e-mails from approximately 225 people have been received supporting
the retention of the airfield as a well-run valuable facility for recreational flying which
also has benefits for the tourist industry in the area, and setting out views to the
effect that the airfield is considered to be essential when involved in air search duties
and a landing ground for emergency services.
Fifteen letters of objection have been received from local residents, mainly on the
grounds that the use causes noise and disturbance and loss of privacy from low and
slow flying aircraft, particularly microlights, gyrocopters and powered hand-gliders.
Objections have also been raised regarding the danger from banner towing and
increases in numbers of flights.
Development Committee
43
13 October 2011
In addition an email, with a copy of a detailed letter from the previous 09/1082
application attached, has been received from the owner of the airstrip on New Road,
Northrepps. The email re-iterates the objection on grounds of noise and disturbance,
and states that the airfield at Winspurs Farm is not a replacement of the New Road
airfield. It states that he New Road airfield is not closed and an operator is currently
being sought. The email also refers to what are stated to be the flouting of planning
restrictions at the Winspurs Farm site including operating on Sundays, operation of
flying school, storage of fuel, on site aircraft hangarage, camping and that complaints
that little or no enforcement action has been taken. It is said that the previous
permissions have been based on misleading and woefully inadequate information. It
states that other businesses are affected. The representations sets out safety
concerns regarding the low flying, noisy and slow nature of microlights frightening
animals and what are stated to be disastrous effects on wildlife.
Two detailed and lengthy letters have also been received from a Solicitor acting for
local residents who believes that the Council must refuse the application, and
considers that upon expiry of the temporary permission on 31 May 2011 the Council
must ensure that the use of the aerodrome ceases forthwith. It is said that to do
otherwise would involve a serious failure in relation to the Council’s EU law
obligations. The letter goes on to refer to the planning history and statements made
regarding the previous temporary permissions in relation to usage, aircraft types and
numbers, tranquillity and the AONB, roads, unauthorised works/activities, nature
conservation and wildlife, Environmental Impact Assessment and other legal issues.
Copies of these letters dated 20 May 2011 and 8 July 2011 are contained in
Appendix 4 .
An application has been made to the High Court for permission to claim judicial
review of the Council's alleged failure to take enforcement action in relation to the
continued operation of the airfield following expiry of the temporary Planning
permission on 31 May 2011. The current position on this application is noted in the
Appraisal under section 1 on the background to the application.
CONSULTATIONS
Civil Aviation Authority - Confirms that the CAA does not have regulatory oversight of
unlicensed aerodromes, such as the airfield at Northrepps, and therefore has no
comments to make.
County Council (Public Rights of Way) – No response received.
County Council (Highways) – Given that this site has the benefit of an existing
temporary planning consent I find a refusal of this proposal difficult to substantiate.
Should your Authority elect to issue a permanent approval to this proposal I would
request the re-imposition of all highway conditions previously imposed under the
aforementioned temporary consent.
Thorpe Market Parish Council - Supports.
Southrepps Parish Council - Objects - use produces unacceptable levels of noise
and disturbance to residents of Southrepps. Full response included in Appendix 4.
Sidestrand Parish Council – No response received.
Cromer Town Council - No objection.
Development Committee
44
13 October 2011
Hanworth Parish Council – Have concerns over the number of air traffic movements,
especially microlights. The application reports fewer than 2000 movements over the
past year, but the original application requested permission for up to 5,000
movements, more than double the amount of current movements. While light aircraft
are seen as bearable/acceptable as they tend to move quicker out of earshot there is
concern about any increase in microlight activity. These are noisier, move slowly and
tend to circle more as their only purpose is recreation. We would oppose any
application which saw an increase in the number of microlight flights.
Roughton Parish Council – No response received.
Overstrand Parish Council – No response received.
Sheringham Town Council – No objection.
National Air Traffic Services – No safeguarding objections.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No response received.
The Wash & North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site Management Scheme – Will
not be making a direct response, but information has been provided to Natural
England from whom you should take further advice before considering and making a
decision on this application as required under the Habitats Regulations 2010 in
relation to Plans and Projects in proximity to European Marine Sites.
Network Rail - No response received.
Defence Estates - No safeguarding objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection. An
Appropriate Assessment was carried out as required under the Habitats Regulations
to determine if there would be any significant effects on the European Sites as a
result of the proposal. Based on the precautionary principle the Appropriate
Assessment concluded likely significant effects, however a mitigation strategy was
proposed to limit and reduce these effects. These included new advisory notices,
improved flying maps noting the reserves, improved communication and monitoring.
The recommendations of the Appropriate Assessment (dated 11 March 2010) were
implemented and reports from the Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Site
Management Scheme (who operate the Incident Recording scheme) specify no new
disturbance reports from aircraft originating from Northrepps aerodrome. In addition,
Natural England has concluded (in their letter dated 11 April 2011) that the proposal
is not likely to have a significant effect on the special interest features of the
European sites (representing their official response under Regulation 61(3) of the
Habitats Regulations 2010).
This response is based on the continued
implementation of the mitigation measures specified in the Appropriate Assessment,
which would form a condition of planning. It can therefore be reasonably concluded
that full consideration has been given to the likely significant effects of the application
on European sites and that, subject to the provision of the recommended condition,
the Council has fulfilled its duties in relation to the Habitats Regulations (the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010).
With regard to landscape impact and based on the results of the Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) it can therefore be concluded that there would be
no significant detrimental impact to the landscape. Full comments contained in
Appendix 4.
Development Committee
45
13 October 2011
In addition to the above comments the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager states that in accordance with the guidelines contained in Circular 06/2005,
the District Council is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment as
stipulated in the Habitats Regulations 2010 and can be seen to have discharged its
duties under those same regulations (subject to conditions of planning). It is
recognised that the proposal is neither directly connected with or necessary to the
site management for nature conservation however confirmation has been received
from Natural England that they take the view that the proposal is not likely to have a
significant effect on the European site(s).
Furthermore, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has clarified his
position with regard to the impact of the application ref. 11/0232 on the North Norfolk
Coast AONB. Reference is made to a previous consultation response, dated 26th
November 2009, for application ref. 09/1082. No significant detrimental impact on
the AONB was identified as a result of making the airfield permanent, however
concern was raised over part of the 2009 application to vary conditions 4 and 8 to
increase the amount of aircraft movement on the site (5000 movements per annum)
and the type of aircraft (trailing banners and aerobatic displays). This was
considered to have a degree of negative impact on the qualifying features of the
AONB, specifically the perception of the [tranquil] landscape with an increase in
‘unnatural’ disturbance through significant increase in noise and traffic.
Subsequently the application reduced the proposed aircraft movements from 5000
per annum to 2100 per annum and a restriction to banner towing to 6 per annum.
This was deemed acceptable and sufficient to reduce the impact on the AONB,
resulting in conditions on the permission restricting the aircraft movements to no
more than the reduced number.
This application (ref. 11/0232) has been assessed by the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager on the assumption that the aircraft movements/banner towing
would be restricted to those imposed on the 2009 application with no increased
negative impact on the AONB. The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager
has therefore concluded that subject to the provision of conditions restricting the
aircraft movements to 2100 per annum and banner towing to 6 per annum, there will
be no significant negative impact on the AONB and the application will accord with
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy.
Environmental Health – No objection. A number of complaints have been received
relating to perceived breaches of planning conditions. It would appear that some
residents have been told that there is a ‘no fly’ zone over the village of Northrepps,
but this is not the case. Complaints have been formally recorded and logs sent to
complainants. These have been assessed and the frequency of these events is low.
Environmental Health does not consider that the current level of activity gives
sufficient grounds to object to the current planning application to remove the
temporary permission and allow the permanent use of the site. The conditions on the
previous permission should remain to protect the amenity of local residents. (See full
comments in Appendix 4).
Further comments have been received from the Environmental Protection Officer
following specific points made in relation to the consultation response received from
Southrepps Parish Council, an incident involving a local resident and her horse in
respect of a low-flying aircraft and issues raised in relation to the Environmental
Statement, in particular how noise has been addressed. A copy of this
correspondence is contained in Appendix 4.
Development Committee
46
13 October 2011
Norfolk Coast Partnership – No response received.
Natural England – No objection. It is our view that, either alone or in combination with
other plans or projects, it would not be likely to have a significant effect on the
important interest features of the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection
Area/Ramsar, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). The applicants have implemented the recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment (11 March 2010) to the previous application (Ref:09/1082) since the
granting of this permission, and no incident of disturbance as a result of the practices
of pilots flying from this aerodrome have been reported to Natural England through
The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site Management Scheme. In
addition, we have not been made aware of any incidents through any other means.
We are therefore able to conclude that the measures introduced have been effective
at minimising the incidence of disturbance of features of the European sites as a
result of flying activities from the application site, and recommend that the measures
detailed in the Appropriate Assessment be made a condition of planning permission,
should the Council consent this application.
Norwich Airport Safeguarding Co-ordinator – Provided it is constructed as shown on
the drawings and plans Norwich Airport would offer no safeguarding objections to the
application.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Support.
The Economic
Development Unit has considered the application for continued usage of this land
and has taken into account the additional comments made by the owner in support of
the case. In providing Officer comments in respect of this application, the following
statements are made:
The Economic Development Unit recognises that Northrepps Airfield continues to
make a significant contribution towards the tourism and leisure activity in the District.
The mix of activity has continued to develop since they have moved to the site.
The level of goodwill towards the airfield remains at a very high level.
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 in light of all the relevant material, 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
East of England Plan: The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of
England (May 2008):
Policy EC6: Tourism
Policy ENV2: Landscape Conservation
Policy ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
Development Committee
47
13 October 2011
The East of England Plan has been re-instated as part of the Development Plan for
an unspecified period, and is therefore material to the determination of planning
applications. The Secretary of State has re-affirmed his intention to abolish the
Regional Plan and maintains that his letters, confirming and re-affirming the intention
to abolish are material to the determination of applications.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Background
2. Environmental Impact Assessment
3. Principle of the development.
4. Impact on residential amenity through noise and disturbance.
5. Impact on the tranquillity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
6. Wildlife impact.
7. Landscape impact.
8. Transport impact/highway safety
9. Economic Impact
10. Unauthorised works
11. Potential Cumulative Impact of Two Airfields
APPRAISAL
1. Background
The Committee will be familiar with this application following a recent site visit and
consideration of an item on the agenda at the meeting on 21 July 2011. This followed
the Committee’s consideration of enforcement action following receipt of a letter from
solicitors, acting on behalf of local residents, warning of the potential judicial review
of the Council’s alleged failure to take enforcement action following expiration of
temporary planning permission in respect of the continued use of the airfield. A copy
of this report is contained in Appendix 4.
Temporary planning permission was originally granted in January 2009 for 15 months
under reference 08/1434 for the change of use of agricultural land to an aerodrome
on land at Winspurs Farm. The reason for the temporary permission was 'to enable
the effects of the development on the residential amenities of the surrounding area to
be properly established'.
Development Committee
48
13 October 2011
In May 2010 a further temporary permission until 31 May 2011 was granted under
09/1082 to remove and vary a number of conditions imposed on the earlier planning
permission (08/1434), as follows:
Condition 1 restricted the life time of the permission until 31 January 2010. The
application sought to remove that condition to permit a permanent permission for the
use of the land as an aerodrome. However, this was not approved. A further
temporary permission was granted ‘to enable the effects of the development upon
the residential amenities of the surrounding area to be properly established, and to
enable the impact of the use of this site by aircraft upon the North Norfolk Coast and
The Wash wildlife sites to be effectively monitored’.
Condition 3 required cessation of an agricultural contractor’s operation on the site by
the end of February 2009. The applicant sought to remove this condition. The use
had ceased and the condition was removed.
Condition 4 limited the total number of aircraft movements per year to 1780, with no
more than 659 movements during the months of June, July and August. It was also
specific to the proportion of particular types of aircraft usage. The 09/1082
application as originally submitted was to amend this condition to permit an annual
total of 5,000 aircraft movements. This figure was reduced by the applicant to a
proposed maximum of 3,500 movements. However, this figure was not approved.
The Environmental Health Officer suggested a maximum of 2,100 movements, which
was agreed and the proposal amended to that effect with no more than 800 aircraft
movements during June, July and August.
Condition 5 limited the take offs and landings of aircraft to times between 7.30am and
8pm. The application sought to vary this condition to permit activity outside these
hours in cases of emergency. This was granted accordingly.
Condition 8 prohibited use for parachute operations, aerobatics, banner towing and
hosting of public displays. Variation was sought to allow limited banner towing (six
days per year) and two public events annually. This was granted accordingly.
Prior to the airfield being operated from the land subject to this planning application, it
was located at an airfield to the north east off New Road, Northrepps. It is understood
that since the applicant moved sites the New Road airfield has not been in use.
However, Officers are led to believe that the owner of that other site is currently
seeking an operator. It is not therefore considered that the airfield subject to this
application can be classed as a replacement to the New Road airfield. It is therefore
possible that the airfields could be operated at the same time.
The current planning application was submitted on 17 March 2011 seeking
permission for the continued use of the airfield on a permanent basis, A supporting
letter was submitted with the application from the applicant dated 13 February 2011
(see Appendix 4). In that letter the applicant states what has been done to ensure
compliance with the conditions imposed on the previous temporary planning
permissions (application references 08/1434 and 09/1082), therefore demonstrating
that the airfield can be operated within the conditions imposed. However, the
applicant advises that he is now seeking a permanent permission as a further
temporary permission would not be beneficial to the future of the airfield and its
desire to enhance safety and ‘neighbour’ considerations. Consequently, the current
application has been submitted seeking a permanent use in accordance with the
conditions previously imposed on 09/1082. The previous temporary permission
(09/1082) expired on 31 May 2011. However, due to the complexities of this
application extensive consultation has been required prior to bringing the application
before Committee.
Development Committee
49
13 October 2011
Whilst the temporary planning permission has now expired on this site the current
planning application was submitted prior to its expiration. It is normal practice in the
case of the renewal of an extant temporary permission for Local Planning Authorities
to await the consideration of the application before determining what if any
enforcement action may be required, and this is consistent with the Council’s
Planning Enforcement Policy.
At the meeting on 21 July 2011 the Committee was asked whether it wished to take
enforcement action as set out in paragraph 24 of the objecting solicitor’s letter dated
8 July 2011 (see Appendix 4). The Committee were also advised in the report of
three matters to which Members would need to have regard (see Appendix 4).
It was resolved at that meeting that the Committee undertake a site inspection prior
to consideration of this planning application and also that Environmental Health
monitor the Open Day on 23 July and in the event of significant problems this matter
be reported back to Committee on 18 August for consideration of enforcement action,
or if no significant problems were found, the planning application be reported to a
future meeting.
Whilst the Open Day took place on 23 July the Environmental Health Officer advised
that the weather conditions were bad and other than two aircraft departing from the
airfield no other aircraft movements were planned. However, whilst the
Environmental Health Officer was in Southrepps a microlight was heading towards
Northrepps and flying at low level. Having checked with the airfield the Officer was
advised that the microlight did not take off from there. Notwithstanding this the Officer
observed the microlight and whilst the noise of the engine could be heard the Officer
did not consider the noise to have any significant impact on the amenity use of the
gardens in the area. Furthermore, it was not considered by the Officer that that the
noise would be clearly audible inside any of the local properties. It was not therefore
considered that there were any significant problems which required the application to
be referred back to Committee on the 18 August or for any enforcement action to be
taken pending determination of the planning application.
Since then the solicitors acting for objectors made an application to the Courts for an
urgent Judicial Review of the Council’s approach to enforcement. This proposed
claim is made on the basis of what is considered to be the District Council’s unlawful
failure to take enforcement action following expiry of the temporary permission on 31
May 2011. The objectors’ solicitors claim in the application to the Courts for an urgent
Judicial Review that ‘this matter is urgent because there is persistent harm to
amenity resulting from continuing aircraft movements from the Interested Parties
(IP’s) airstrip and there is no conceivable proper public or private interest in the
unlawful continuation of those activities. In the circumstances there is a compelling
need to require compliance with EU law including protecting the amenity of those
affected. The people in the locality are suffering serious disturbance which is
unacceptable particularly in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’. The application
goes onto say that ‘the Council’s failure to put a stop to the unlawful activity or issue
the IP a breach of condition notice is a serious failure in relation to its EU law
obligations. The IP is therefore operating the site unlawfully without the benefit of
planning permission which requires urgent consideration due to the harm it is causing
the people in the locality’. The Council has responded with correspondence to the
Court and submitted an Acknowledgement of Service resisting the claim. The
application for urgent consideration was considered by the Court on 2 September
2011 and an Order was issued on 6 September. A copy is contained in Appendix 4.
The application for urgent consideration was refused and an order made for the
application to be listed for hearing (this will take place in the Administrative Court on
Development Committee
50
13 October 2011
9 November 2011). In making the Order, the Deputy High Court Judge observed that
"The Court should be cautious before it assumes what in substance is the planning
enforcement function of the local planning authority conferred on it by Parliament
under the statutory planning code.”
2. Environmental Impact Assessment
Solicitors acting for local residents have asserted that the Environmental Statement
submitted with this application is deficient, with particular reference to the issue of the
matter of how noise has been addressed, and it is said that there is a need for the
District Council to request further information in order to deal with the impacts of the
development.
At the time of the submission of this application a Schedule 2 Screening Opinion had
been carried out in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.
The Screening Opinion established that an EIA was required. An Environmental
Statement was submitted under previous application reference 08/1434 which was
updated with a covering letter under 09/1082. This Environmental Statement has
been submitted again under the current application with further information which
includes correspondence between the applicant and The National Trust and the
Project Manager for The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site
Management Scheme.
In relation to the matter of how noise is addressed in the Environmental Statement
the Environmental Protection Officer has responded directly to the points made as
follows:
“The Noise Assessment that was produced by the applicant’s consultant
discusses the methodology used and an adequate assessment of the predicted
noise that would be experienced. From this the report produced LAeq 16 hour
noise contours for the area surrounding the aerodrome.
Environmental Health is satisfied that the report provides an appropriate
assessment of the noise based on the scale of the development.
The site is limited to 2100 movements per year which corresponds to 1050
aircraft landing and taking off, which is an average of 2.9 aircraft per day per
year.
This is further limited to ensure that all the movements do not occur during the
summer months and a condition states that there should be no more than 800
movements between June and Aug (average of 4.3 aircraft per day per during
this period) Should the full 800 movements take place during the June to August
period then this would leave 1300 movements between Sept and May (which
averages 2.4 aircraft per day for the 9 month period).
The aerodrome has strict planning conditions existing and proposed restricting
the hours of operation, the type of activities it can undertake, the number of
aircraft movements and the recording of these movements, which were set
having reviewed the environmental assessment including the noise assessment.
Since this time no significant evidence has been provided that would indicate that
further conditions are required to prevent a significant amenity impact.
Development Committee
51
13 October 2011
If the aerodrome was supporting 30 aircraft movements per day this would lead
to 10,950 movements per year or approximately 1 movement per hour. At this
level of activity the measurement of LAmax (a measure of instantaneous noise)
would have been appropriate and would have been requested. Northrepps
aerodrome has planning restrictions preventing this level of activity which are
aimed at protecting local amenity.
Additional problems arise with this type of monitoring where the frequency of the
events is at such a low level including ensuring the measurements are
representative. Significant variation can occur, including the type of aircraft, the
landing / departure routes and weather conditions. It is also vital to ensure that
the noise monitored, originates from an aircraft associated with the aerodrome
and not additional aircraft in area.”
In addition to the views of the Environmental Protection Officer regarding the
Environmental Statement, none of the other consultees has considered the
information submitted to be deficient. It is therefore the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority that the environmental information submitted is adequate to assess the
environmental effects of the development, and has been taken into consideration in
the determination of this application. In view of this it is not considered that the Local
Planning Authority needs to make a request for further information from the applicant
under Regulation 22 (1) (formerly Regulation 19 of the 1999 EIA Regulations).
3. Principle of Development
The application site occupies 2.6ha of land located between the A149 and the
Norwich to Cromer railway line. The site is in a countryside location and within the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy SS 2 is permissive towards developments which require a rural location and
which are for one of the purposes specified in the policy. An airfield use of this type
by its nature requires a rural location, and the use falls within the recreation and
tourism category of permitted uses. It is therefore considered to be an acceptable
use in principle in this location.
4. Impact on Residential Amenity through Noise and Disturbance.
One of the key objections in relation to this application is regarding noise impact. As
well as the individual letters of objection on this matter the objectors’ solicitors have
referred to specific representations made on this matter in their letter of 20 May 2011
(see Appendix 4). These involve representations made between 1 October 2009
and 7 April 2010 prior to the submission of this current application.
A more recent matter referred to by the objectors’ solicitors in their letter of 20 May
2011 is in relation to an incident which took place on 16 April 2011. A local resident
was riding her horse and has complained that the horse was “spooked” by a
microlight, and she and the horse were injured. The Environmental Protection Officer
confirmed that he was not made aware of this incident and therefore has no
additional information on which to make any comments. He states this is not a matter
that North Norfolk District Council’s Environmental Protection Department can
investigate and that it should be reported to the Civil Aviation Authority. The reason
for this is that aircraft noise is excluded from Part III of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, which means that Environmental Protection have no direct responsibility in
relation to noise from aircraft in the air including departing or landing at the airfield.
The normal method for the investigation of noise nuisance is under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, statutory nuisance legislation. Although the noise
Development Committee
52
13 October 2011
from flying aircraft is excluded from this legislation, in the opinion of the
Environmental Protection Officer it is the most appropriate assessment method to
assess the amenity impact of specific complaints and to determine if further planning
conditions are appropriate.
The Environmental Protection Officer also considers that although there is no
definition of ‘Statutory Nuisance’ an activity would normally be considered to be
causing a Statutory Nuisance if it is causing an unreasonable interference with the
use or enjoyment of someone else’s property. Noise nuisance complaints would be
investigated with a view to informing the Development Committee of identified and
corroborated evidence of the impact of the airfield on local amenity.
The Environmental Protection Officer has advised that the frequency of events being
recorded by complainants is low, and although there are occasions where a resident
has logged several incidents on the same day this is not a regular occurrence. In
April 2011 the Environmental Protection Officer advised of eleven individually logged
noise incidents over nine dates recorded as a mix of 6 airplanes and 5 microlights.
During May 2011 there were eighteen individually logged noise incidents over nine
dates and recorded as airplanes rather than microlights or other types of aircraft. The
last recorded gyrocopter flying was on 30 September 2010. The Environmental
Protection Officer has also confirmed that Environmental Health are satisfied with the
Environmental Statement submitted with the application in relation to noise based on
the scale of the development.
The Committee will note from the comments of the Environmental Protection Officer
that it is not considered that the level of activity is sufficient to warrant refusal of this
application. It is not possible to predict when an event such as an aircraft flying over
or into the area will occur and the frequency of these events is low. Subject to the
imposition conditions on the previous application (09/1082) it is not considered that
the amenity of local residents would be significantly adversely affected, and that
these conditions would safeguard the amenities of local residents. The application is
therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies EN4 and EN13 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Impact on the tranquillity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Objections have also been received in relation to the impact of the proposal on the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its tranquillity, and specific comments made
by consultees on a previous application (09/1082) in relation to this matter have been
highlighted. However, on the previous planning application (reference 09/1082) the
applicant was originally proposing an annual total of 5,000 aircraft movements. This
was reduced to a maximum of 3,500 movements. These movements were not
considered acceptable and the Environmental Protection Officer suggested a
maximum of 2,100 movements, with no more than 800 movements during June, July
and August. This figure was agreed with the applicant and conditioned on planning
permission 09/1082.
As part of the current application submission the applicant has quantified the number
of movements that have taken place from the aircraft movement logs at the airfield
which totals 1884 movements between March 2010 and March 2011, with 292
movements in June, 192 in July and 160 in August. This amounts to some 216
movements less than permitted annually and 156 movements less than permitted
during the months of June, July and August.
The Committee will note from the comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager that it has been explained why concerns were originally raised
on the previous application (09/1082) regarding the number of aircraft movements
Development Committee
53
13 October 2011
originally proposed and the trailing of banners and aerobatic displays and the degree
of negative impact this was considered to have on the qualifying features of the
AONB. This was specifically in relation to the perception of the [tranquil] landscape
with an increase in ‘unnatural’ disturbance through significant increase in noise and
traffic. However, following the reduction in aircraft movements on that application
from 5000 per annum to 2100 per annum, and restrictions on banner towing to six
occasions in a year and displays to no more than two days per year it was deemed
acceptable and sufficient to reduce the impact on the AONB.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager states that this current
application (11/0232) has been assessed on the assumption that the aircraft
movements/banner towing would be restricted to those imposed on 09/1082 with no
increased negative impact on the AONB. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has therefore concluded that subject to the provision of conditions
restricting the aircraft movements to 2100 per annum and banner towing to 6 per
annum, it is considered there will be no significant negative impact or detriment to
the AONB or its setting.
The following consultees - Environmental Health, Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, Natural England, County Council (Highways) and the aviation
consultees are not objecting to the application.
In light of all the relevant material, it is considered that there would be no significant
harm or serious disturbance to amenity or the people in the locality nor any
unacceptable impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application is
therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.Wildlife Impact
The Local Planning Authority is a ‘competent authority’ as defined by The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. These Regulations stipulate
that a competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent,
permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which:
(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore
marine site, and
(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site
must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of the
site’s conservation objectives.
In accordance with Circular 06/2005 the competent authority should consider
whether the effect of the proposal on the site, either individually or in combination
with other projects, is likely to be significant in terms of the conservation objectives
for which the site was classified.
Section 61 (3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010 states that the competent authority
must for the purposes of the assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation
body and have regard to any representations made by that body. In this case the
appropriate body is Natural England.
Natural England, as the statutory consultee on this matter, has responded under
Regulation 61(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010, and concluded that the
application would not be likely to have a significant effect on the important interest
features of the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area/Ramsar, The Wash and
Development Committee
54
13 October 2011
North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation or any of the features of special
scientific interest of the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
This conclusion is subject to the application of the mitigation measures detailed in the
document submitted by the applicant described as “Appropriate Assessment” (11
March 2010) from application reference 09/1082 as being conditions imposed as part
of any planning permission. Natural England has referred to the “Appropriate
Assessment” document submitted by the applicant under application reference
09/1082 and considers that the applicant has implemented the mitigation
recommendations of the assessment. Since the approval of 09/1082, no incidents of
disturbance as a result of pilots flying from this airfield have been reported to Natural
England. Natural England concludes that the measures introduced have been
effective.
These views are also supported by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who considers that it that full consideration has been given to the likely
significant effects of the application on European sites and that, subject to a condition
in relation to the mitigation measures, the Council has fulfilled its duties in relation to
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in that these measures
would ensure that there would be no likely significant effects on the relevant sites
applying the precautionary principle.
It is for the Council’s Development Committee as the competent authority, having
regard to the representations made by the appropriate nature conservation body, to
decide if it is in agreement and to consider whether there is any or no likely
significant effect on a European site such that an Appropriate Assessment is or is not
required to be carried out by the Council for this application, subject to the mitigation
measures detailed in the applicant’s document entitled “Appropriate Assessment”
(11 March 2010) being conditioned as part of the application and planning
permission. In so doing, the Council should apply the precautionary principle and
consider whether there is any risk of such significant effects.
Officers agree with the consultees that the application will not have any significant
likely effects and no appropriate assessment is required. In addition it is considered
that there would not be any material impact upon wildlife, and the application would
therefore accord with Policy EN9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7. Landscape Impact
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has advised that a permanent
permission would not radically alter the impact of the aerodrome on the landscape,
and that the airstrip itself has very little impact. Based on the results of the LVIA it
can therefore be concluded that there would be no significant impact on the
landscape. Consequently, it is considered that there would be no material impacts
and no unacceptable or significant detriment to the special qualities or setting of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application is therefore considered to be in
accordance with Policies EN1 and EN2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8. Transport/Highway Safety
The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the current application, subject to
the imposition of a condition that the parallel visibility splay approved under 09/1082
should be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of
the adjacent carriageway.
The Highway Authority’s objections to the previous application (09/1082), on the
grounds of unsatisfactory visibility from the vehicular access onto the North Walsham
Road (A149), and insufficient information in relation to traffic movements relating to
Development Committee
55
13 October 2011
fly-in visitors, were considered to be overcome by the fact that the applicant owns the
land over which the visibility was restricted, and could therefore make improvements
to the visibility as required by the Highway Authority, and that the aircraft movements
were significantly reduced when compared to the original submission. The applicant
was therefore required to provide a 2m parallel visibility splay in a southerly direction
which was covered by a condition on that planning permission.
Given that the highway objection was resolved on the previous application, the
imposition of a condition on any approval of the current application, requiring that the
splay is maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m, should continue to
satisfy the concern previously raised by the Highway Authority and it is considered it
does not give reason for the Local Planning Authority to be able to substantiate a
refusal on highway safety grounds. It is therefore considered that the application is in
accordance with Policy CT5.
9. Economic Impact
It remains apparent from the level of support and from comments made by the
supporters of the application that the presence of the airfield brings visitors in to the
area, and that at least some of them contribute to the economy of the area during the
course of their visit. There are therefore potential economic benefits to the area in
retaining the airfield use. However, objections have been made regarding noise and
disturbance and to the effect that this is a disincentive to tourism and has a
detrimental impact which should also be taken into account.
The Committee will note the comments of the Economic and Tourism Development
Manager who considers that airfield continues to make a significant contribution
towards the tourism and leisure activity in the District. On this basis it is concluded
that the economic benefits outweigh the disbenefits. Policies SS1 and SS2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy support development which supports the rural
economy, transport, recreation and tourism uses in the countryside. It is considered
that the proposal is in accordance with these policies.
10. Unauthorised works
One of the points of objection from the Solicitors acting for local residents relates to
alleged unauthorised works on the site. Each of these matters is listed below with
clarification on its position.
•
Creation of an access track along the western boundary of the site
The applicants have indicated that a farm track has been made in their view,
“more suitable” for use with the introduction of recycled crushed concrete, along
with a car parking area (see also below). This was to overcome accessibility
issues during wet weather. In the opinion of Officers this is likely to constitute an
engineering operation requiring planning permission.
•
Aircraft hangarage (in two buildings)
The buildings in question are within the red line indicating the extent of the
application site. No formal change of use permission has been granted for the
use of these buildings for such hangarage. A change of use application is
therefore required.
•
Operation of the flying school
Development Committee
56
13 October 2011
The applicant has confirmed in a letter in response to these points that the flying
training (which is a legal requirement) now only takes place on behalf of
Northrepps Aero Club
•
Storage of fuel in a bowser with no catch pit or mitigation measures in case
of spillage
This is a portable fuel bowser and this is therefore a mobile structure. It is not
therefore classed as operational development and it does not require planning
permission
•
Independent café
The applicant has confirmed that the café is owned and operated to supply
refreshments to and on behalf of the Northrepps Aero Club. It is not for the use of
the general public and is for the use of the flying community only. There are no
signs outside the site indicating its presence on site. It is not therefore considered
unreasonable that some refreshment is provided on site for the users of the
airfield and it can be construed as being ancillary to such use. However, the
portable building in which the café is located was subject to a separate temporary
planning permission to the airfield use which also expired on 31 May 2011 this
year. A further separate planning application is therefore required in order to
regularise its use in this location.
•
Caravanning/camping
The applicant has confirmed that camping/caravanning does take place but only
by members of the Northrepps Aero Club. This is normally on ‘working party’
weekends when club members maintain and improve the airfield. Therefore, as
this is taking place on a temporary basis the use is permitted provided it does not
exceed 28 days per annum and does not therefore require express planning
permission.
•
Circuit flying on Sundays and Bank Holidays and outside prescribed hours
contrary to Condition 2 of 09/1082
The applicant has confirmed that in order to comply with the Air Navigation Order
aircraft arrive and depart in the ‘circuit pattern’. No circuit training takes place on
Sundays or Bank Holidays. This can be controlled by way of a condition on any
permission.
Although not raised as an alleged unauthorised work by the objectors’ solicitors, it is
noted that a car park has also been created on site (see previous comments).
The outstanding unauthorised items relate to the surfacing of the access track and
car park, change of use of 2 buildings to aircraft hangarage and the retention of the
portable building for refreshment use. This has been raised with the applicant and he
has confirmed that they do not form part of this application and a further
application(s) will be submitted if necessary.
Although they are likely to be the subject of a further application or applications the
Council should still consider any cumulative development or impacts in respect of
these matters under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and in
respect of the submitted Environmental Statement. In the opinion of Officers the most
Development Committee
57
13 October 2011
significant environmental issues identified in the Environmental Statement relate to
noise and disturbance and the potential impacts on nature conservation interests.
In terms of the unauthorised developments referred to it is considered that they
would not in themselves generate additional aircraft movements or a use of the
airfield which would give rise to additional noise/disturbance or impacts on nature
conservation interests. Furthermore, in any event, the number of aircraft movements
have previously been restricted by way of planning conditions and it is proposed that
they would again be restricted by similar conditions.
The other principal environmental issues in respect of these developments relate to
visual impact and likely traffic generation. It is considered that they are unlikely to
generate any significant additional traffic and that any visual impact would be
restricted to the immediate locality. Indeed, the ability to store planes within existing
buildings on the site could be beneficial visually.
In the light of the above it is considered by Officers that the likely cumulative
development or impacts do not require any additional information or change to the
submitted Environmental Statement.
Should any such new application(s) not be submitted Officers have made it clear to
the applicants that the Council would have to consider taking enforcement action.
On receipt of any such new application(s) the Council would again be required to
consider the details of those proposals (including cumulative development or
impacts) in relation to the Environmental Impact Regulations.
11. Potential Cumulative Impact of Two Airfields
Members will be aware that there is also an airfield nearby which although it has not
been in use in recent years could be brought back into use in the future. In terms of
the main impacts identified in the Environmental Statement submitted with the
current application, i.e. noise/disturbance and potential effects on nature
conservation interests, this application needs to be considered cumulatively with that
existing nearby use. At the time of writing this report the further views of the
Environmental Protection Officer, Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
and Natural England have been sought and their responses are awaited.
Conclusion
Since the Committee last considered this matter in July this year the draft National
Planning Policy Framework has been published for consultation. As this document is
at consultation stage and may be subject to change, it is afforded little weight.
Notwithstanding the objections raised it is considered that the Environmental
Statement submitted with this application is adequate in order for the Local Planning
Authority to assess the environmental effects and allow for the application to be
determined.
The principle of the use proposed in this location is considered to be acceptable, and
whilst there has been a significant number of objections to this application, primarily
on noise and disturbance grounds, Environmental Health have investigated the
complaints made and do not consider the frequency to be of such a level that it is
significantly detrimental to the amenities of local residents. In addition to this the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not consider that the proposal
would have a significant detrimental impact upon the setting and special qualities of
the AONB.
Development Committee
58
13 October 2011
Natural England and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager do not
consider that an Appropriate Assessment is required in light of the proposed
conditions or that there would be a significant detrimental impact upon wildlife.
The visual impact on the landscape is considered to be acceptable, and there are no
significant detrimental highway safety impacts. The proposal is considered to make a
significant contribution towards the tourism and leisure activity in the District.
No objections have been raised by the other consultees. The conditions
recommended below have been recommended by the consultees and are
considered necessary in order for appropriate mitigation to be put in place for the
development to be considered acceptable. There are no overriding material
considerations which would lead to a recommendation of refusal.
It is therefore considered that subject to the Committee confirming Officers’ view that
an Appropriate Assessment is not required, that no objections are received from the
Environmental Protection Officer, Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
and Natural England regarding potential cumulative impact of two airfields, that
conditions are imposed as on the previous application, and that an application is
invited without prejudice for the unauthorised works, the application is acceptable
and in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Committee confirms its view that there are no likely significant effects
on any of the relevant protected sites and that an Appropriate Assessment is
not required.
2. Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from the
Environmental Protection Officer, Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager and Natural England regarding potential cumulative impact of two
airfields, and imposition of the following conditions:
1.
No repetitive circuits shall be flown from and around the airfield other than in
accordance with the following:
a) No more than one aircraft shall fly circuits from the airfield at any one time.
b) No more than four hours of circuit flying shall take place during any one
day.
c) Circuit flying shall only take place in accordance with the agreed circuits
(plans submitted 27th March 2009 - copy attached to this notice). Clear
instructions relating to these circuits shall be displayed at all times in a
prominent location at the airfield.
d) There shall be no circuit flying from the airfield on Sundays or Bank
Holidays nor before 7.30 am nor after 7.00pm on any other day.
Reason:
In the interests of residential amenity because of noise and in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2.
There shall be no aircraft movements to or from the site for the purpose of
parachute operations, aerobatic displays or aerobatics training. Banner
towing shall be limited to six occasions during the year, and there shall be no
more than two public displays or open days at the site annually.
Development Committee
59
13 October 2011
Reason:
In the interests of residential amenity because of noise and in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
The existing hedges on the south-west boundary of the site shall be retained
and maintained, at a minimum height of 3m from ground level, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the character of the countryside and the area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with Policies EN 1 and EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4.
There shall be no more than a total of 2100 aircraft movements (one
movement being either a take off or a landing) during the period of this
planning permission and no more than 800 movements during the months of
June, July and August. There shall be no take-offs or landings outside the
hours of 7.30am to 8.00pm except in the case of emergencies, and the
airfield shall be closed for one day in every week except in the case of
emergencies.
Reason:
In the interests of residential amenity because of noise in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
The parallel visibility splay as approved under planning permission reference
09/1082 shall at all times be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding
0.6 m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.
A written log of all flying from the site shall be maintained and held at the
airfield at all times. The log shall be made available to the Local Planning
Authority for inspection on request. The log shall include details of the
following:
- the registration number of each aircraft;
- time of take-off;
- time of landing;
- the runway used and the direction of take-off/landing;
- whether tuition was offered and, in the case of circuit flying,
- the number of circuits flown.
Reason:
To enable the effects of the development upon the residential amenities of the
surrounding area to be properly established, and to enable the impact of
flying from this site on the levels of disturbance experienced at the North
Norfolk Coast and The Wash wildlife sites to be effectively monitored, in
accordance with Policies EN 9 and EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
7.
The use hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the
mitigation measures identified in the "Appropriate Assessment" report (Wild
Frontier Ecology - 11th March 2010), paragraphs 6.2 to 6.8 inclusive.
Development Committee
60
13 October 2011
Reason:
To encourage a reduction in the impact of flying from this site upon the North
Norfolk Coast and The Wash wildlife sites in accordance with Policy EN 9 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. That an application(s) be invited on a ‘without prejudice’ basis for the
retention of the car park works, the continued siting of a portable building
on the site for use as a café, the retention of access track works and
continued use of two buildings as hangers.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0864 - Installation of 1.2 metre satellite dish;
Wells Community Hall, Staithe Street for Wells Maltings Trust
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 September 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II
Primary Shopping Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Is for the installation of a pole mounted satellite dish on the northern edge of Staithe
Street Car Park adjacent to the Grade II Listed Maltings.
The satellite dish would have a diameter of 1.2m and would be mounted on a pole
and would have a maximum overall height of approximately 3.9m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Terrington having regard to the following planning issue:
Need for the proposal in relation to visual impact.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support on the following grounds:
The benefits to the community would be the ability to transmit live theatrical
performances to the Maltings via the satellite dish. These benefits would outweigh
concerns with the visual impact of the proposed equipment.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) The site lies within the designated Wells Conservation Area and directly adjacent to
the Grade II Listed Maltings one of the town's eminent historic buildings.
In regards to the proposal, the satellite dish will be located remotely within the car
park, measuring 1.2m in diameter and mounted on a pole. Unquestionably the
satellite dish would hold an extremely prominent position within an open area of
public realm.
Development Committee
61
13 October 2011
By its very nature the dish is modern piece of technological equipment which will
stand out as an alien feature within the established historic environment context.
C&D considered that in terms of visual impact the proposal represents the potential
for significant harm both in terms of the setting of the Listed Building and the wider
Conservation Area.
By virtue that the proposal will impact on the significance of the designated heritage
assets, C&D recommend the application be refused under Policy EN8 of the Local
Development Framework.
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.
However, as the applicant is a Trust it is considered that refusal of the application will
have no Human Rights implications.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed building
2. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
APPRAISAL
The principle of a new satellite dish is acceptable subject to compliance with other
Core Strategy policies, specifically in this case policies SS5, EN8 and EN8.
Policy SS5 seeks to support the tourist industry by encouraging new attractions
which help diversify the offer and extend the season, but it advises that proposals
should demonstrate that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on the
environment.
Policy EN4 advises that design which fails to have regard to local context and does
not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
Policy EN8
requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and listed buildings. Development that would
have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be
permitted.
Development Committee
62
13 October 2011
The site lies within the designated Wells Conservation Area and directly adjacent to
the Grade II Listed Maltings one of the towns eminent historic buildings.
The proposed satellite dish would be in an isolated position within the car park, but in
a prominent location and this coupled with its height and scale would result in the
introduction of an alien feature within the established historic environment context.
This would result in significant harm both in terms of the setting of the adjacent listed
building and the wider Conservation Area.
Furthermore, the scheme by virtue of its excessive height and scale and prominent
position, would fail to comply with Policy EN4 as it is not suitably designed for its
context and would not preserve or enhance the character or quality of the area.
Whilst Policy SS5 seeks to support the tourist industry by encouraging new
attractions, this should not be at the expense of harm to the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and special qualities of the adjacent listed
building. The applicant has indicated that the satellite dish would allow for live
remote shows of theatrical productions which is not currently possible without a
satellite dish. However it is not considered that this would outweigh the significant
harm that would result for the historic environment.
The proposal is considered to harm the appearance of the Conservation Area and
adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Listed building, in conflict with Policies
EN4 and EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reason:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal by virtue of its
position, height and scale, would introduce an alien feature to this historic
context and would be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance
of the Conservation Area and special qualities and setting of the adjacent
listed building, contrary to the aims of policies EN4 and EN8 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the applications are
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HOLT - PO/11/0978 - Development of approximately 85 dwellings, access,
public open space and associated infrastructure; Land off Cley Road and
Woodfield Road for Landform Holt Limited
Development Committee
63
13 October 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given that it is
for a major development on an allocation site under the LDF.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/0640 - Erection of rear conservatory, conversion of
outbuilding to detached annexe and erection of cart store; The Haven, Thwaite
Hill for Mr & Mrs A Hall
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0608 - Erection of replacement boarded walkway and
footbridge, earth bank/bund, weir and re-alignment of watercourse; Felbrigg
Hall for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0680 - Erection of garage/store; Apple Pie Cottage, 47-48
The Street for Mr T Williams
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0846 - Formation of lay-by to serve adjacent pumping
station; Land off The Street for Anglian Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0878 - Continued use of land for siting mobile
classrooms; Aylmerton Hall, Holt Road for St Andrew's School Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0885 - Internal alterations to provide ground floor
WC/shower room and re-location of attic staircase; 130 High Street for Mr M
Gowers
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0905 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of planning permission
reference: PF10/0447 to permit extension of standing area and change of
surface finish; Highfield House, 5 Wiveton Road for Mr & Mrs A J Langley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/11/0406 - Non-material amendment request for re-location
of window and revised bi-fold doors; The Roost, Back Lane for Mr S Scott
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRISTON - PF/11/0609 - Retention of re-sited two-storey dwelling; Plot 42, Hall
Street for Necton Management Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/11/0675 - Erection of first floor side extension and rear
conservatory; Briston Lodge, Holt Road for Mr R Simmons
(Householder application)
Development Committee
64
13 October 2011
BRISTON - PF/11/0751 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings (revised
siting); Plots 33 & 34 Hall Street for Necton Management Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/11/0964 - Change of use of former riding school to livery yard;
Willow Farm Buildings, Tithe Barn Lane for Mrs Grand
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0141 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 92/1786 to
permit maintenance of hedge height at 1.7 metres; Willow House, The Street
for Mr P Rumsby
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/11/0821 - Installation of wood burning stove with
replacement hearth and flue liner. Installation of replacement floor. Opening
up of study fireplace and installation of replacement dry lining in kitchen; Well
Cottage, Newgate Green for Mrs J Crane
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0840 - Erection of water treatment buildings and
kiosks and alterations to vehicular access; Glandford Water Treatment Works,
Glandford Road, Glandford for Anglian Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0963 - Insertion of front and rear dormer
windows; 4 The Old Maltings, High Street for Mr Rigby
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/11/0936 - Erection of detached garage; Littlebrook, Bridge Road
for Mr Jordan
(Householder application)
COLBY - NP/11/0995 - Prior notification of intention to install solar panels to
agriculture building; Hall Farm, Church Road for Stratton Streles Estates
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
COLBY - NP/11/1047 - Prior notification of intention to install solar panels to
agricultural building; Land at Hall Farm for Stratton Streles Estates
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CROMER - PF/11/0371 - Variation of Condition 2 and removal of Condition 4 of
permission reference: 10/1295 to permit revised external finishes; Former
Public Conveniences, Promenade for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0558 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement
dwelling; 2 Whitehouse Estate, Jubilee Lane for Mr R Fearn
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0783 - Construction of front dormer window; 3 Arbor Hill for
Mrs I Stubbs
(Householder application)
Development Committee
65
13 October 2011
CROMER - PF/11/0845 - Installation of two first floor side windows to facilitate
conversion of roof space to habitable accommodation; 52 Hillside for Mrs J
Bullimore
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/10/1319 - Non-material amendment request to enlarge an
existing dormer window and rebuild adjacent dormer window in offset positions
to centre on rooms; Upton House, 2 St Margarets Road for Yodude Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EAST RUSTON - NMA1/06/0944 - Non-material amendment request to use thatch
in place of tiles, remove glass roofed area, include attached stables in
conversion, create open porch to rear and amend parking arrangement.; Gothic
Cottage, Mill Road for Mr & Mrs Allen
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0797 - Erection of replacement horticultural/storage
building; Edgefield Nurseries, Norwich Road for Gary Sillis
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/11/0746 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; West End
Farm House, West End, Ingworth for Mr and Mrs Postle
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - LA/11/0825 - Re-painting of exterior; Old Farm House, Butts
Common, Banningham Road, Ingworth for Mr A Suckling
(Listed Building Alterations)
ERPINGHAM - PF/11/0831 - Erection of rear conservatory; Littlewood Lodge,
Butts Common, Banningham Road, Ingworth for Mr & Mrs Clifford
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0896 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
10/0109 to permit re-location of plots 18-20 and re-alignment of plots 21-24;
Land At Anglian Water Tower, Holt Road for Pigeon Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AN/11/0914 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Land at
Clipbush Lane for Travis Perkins
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - AI/11/0950 - Display of illuminated fascia sign; 18-20 Norwich
Street for Hughes TV and Audio
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - AI/11/0955 - Display of 2 illuminated and 3 non-illuminated
advertisement signs; Focus D I Y, Enterprise Way for B&Q PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/10/0934 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of 2 roof lights; Hawthorn Cottage, Southrepps Road for Mr N Rose
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
66
13 October 2011
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/0920 - Installation of solar panels; White House Farm, Bale
Road for Mr A Wallace
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/11/0921 - Installation of solar panels; White House Farm, Bale
Road for Mr A Wallace
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0524 - Revised external elevations, dry store and loggia
projection, relocation of LPG tank, installation of fire escape stair, secondary
entrance door and roof terrace and railings; construction of access road and
erection of storage shed; Elderton Lodge, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market for
Killigrew King Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - LA/11/0525 - Revised external elevations and loggia projection,
installation of secondary external door, fire escape stair and roof terrace
railings; Elderton Lodge, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market for Killigrew King Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0787 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension with
rear balcony; Midway, The Common for Mr J Bridgeman and Mrs J Arnold
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - LA/11/1036 - Retention of timber floor in dining hall, cellar
staircase and balustrade to main staircase and re-location of internal doors,
blocking up of doorway and installation of softwood panelling to dining hall;
The East Wing, Gunton Hall, White Post Road for Mr & Mrs A Young
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0725 - Erection of replacement holiday dwelling; 8,
Doggetts Lane, for Mr E Kelly
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0875 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 4 School
Common Road for Mr A Wright
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0913 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions (extension of period of commencement of planning permission
reference PF/08/1052); The Old Vicarage, The Street for Mr A May
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0926 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference PF/02/0681 to permit unrestricted residential occupancy; Bramble
Cottage, Grub Street for Ms B Fielding
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/11/0781 - Erection of first floor rear extension with balcony; 7
Horns Row for Ms Stubbs
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/11/0802 - Erection of glasshouse; Fakenham Garden Centre, Mill
Road, Hempton for Fakenham Garden Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
67
13 October 2011
HEMPTON - PF/11/0939 - Erection of single-storey front/side extension; 24 River
Court for Mr C Francis
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/0887 - Installation of air source heat pump; Community
Centre, The Street for Miss E L Smith
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/11/0980 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear
extensions; 33 The Street for Mr D Walton
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0934 - Erection of storage building; Birds Farm,
Walsingham Road for Mr R Hunt
(Householder application)
HONING - PF/11/0882 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference: 82/1413
to permit occupation without complying with agricultural restriction; Barn Acre,
Station Road for Mr and Mrs Howes
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/0739 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey front extension; 12 Grange Close for Mr & Mrs Eke
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/11/0134 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Junction Farm, Sydney Street for Mr J Deane
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/11/0639 - Erection of barn/garage (incorporating extension,
revised siting and reduced height); The Old Station, Paston Road for Mr & Mrs
Lawrence
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/11/1015 - Installation of French windows and roof lights; Old
Haybarn, Holt Road for Mr M Lynton
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0848 - Erection of single-storey
extension; Bayfield Hall, Bayfield Park, Bayfield for Mr Combe
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/11/0849 - Restoration of entrance
hall, erection of single-storey extension and replacement of door with window;
Bayfield Hall, Bayfield Park, Bayfield for Mr Combe
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/0911 - Erection of single-storey extension
(extension of period of commencement of planning permission reference
PF/08/0768); Foxburrow 13a The Dairy Farm, Melton Park, Hindolveston Road
for Mr R Grenfell
(Householder application)
Development Committee
68
13 October 2011
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0650 - Erection of first floor and single-storey storey side
extensions and single-storey rear extension; 7 Victoria Road, Mundesley for Mr
and Mrs Thiruchelvan
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0827 - Construction of replacement front and rear dormer
windows; 34 Sea View Road for Mr & Mrs E Lettington
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0869 - Change of use of ground floor from residential/A1
(retail)/A3 (cafe) to A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe); Marlborough House, 2-4 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BE for Mrs J Simmonds
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0763 - Construction of vehicular access; 24 Station
Road for Mrs B Morris
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0855 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 2
School Lane for Mr & Mrs B Poole
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/11/0870 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 5 Chapel Road for
Mr & Mrs M Young
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/11/0872 - Conversion of redundant storage building to provide
storage, workshop and office accommodation in association with adjoining
orchard; 512 and 513 West Raynham Park for East of England Apples and
Orchard Project
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0624 - Siting of five additional static caravans; Land at Six
Acres Caravan Park, Norwich Road for Mr N Julian
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0775 - Erection of garage and front covered porch, rear
conservatory and veranda; Hill Farm House, Thorpe Market Road for Ms M
Baldwin
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/0842 - Erection of rear conservatory; 3 Mirabelle Close, Station
Road, West Runton for Knowles & Wright
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0791 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
98/0600 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Ada Lodge, Creake Road
for Banson Decorators Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0847 - Erection of replacement stables and associated
buildings; The Kennels, Lynn Road for Mr W & Mrs M Pawley
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
69
13 October 2011
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0006 - Retention of two-storey extension as constructed;
42 Priory Road for Mr J Neale
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0753 - Erection of A1 (retail) unit, A5 (hot food take-away)
unit, 2 B1 (offices) and 4 residential flats; 10 Station Approach for Mr & Mrs S P
Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0839 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 25
Barford Road for Mr & Mrs K Tuck
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0844 - Variation of Conditions 5 & 6 of permission
reference 04/1009 to permit demolition of bungalow prior to compliance with
highway requirements; Holly End, Holway Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0873 - Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of planning
permission reference 09/0264 to permit revised floor and parking layouts; 3 The
Boulevard for Mrs R Allard
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0915 - Change of use from restaurant/cafe (A3) to mixed
use of restaurant/cafe (A3) and hot food take-away (A5); Browns Restaurant, 27
Station Road for Mr N Jolley
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - LE/11/0924 - Demolition of storage building; 47 Station Road for
Mrs A Pope
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0999 - Alterations to garage to facilitate conversion of
garage to habitable accommodation and installation of roof window; The
Brambles, 8A The Rise for Mr K McVeigh
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1002 - Installation of replacement bay windows and
canopy and rendering of front elevation; 13 Beach Road for Mr M Abbs
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/11/0760 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Meadow View,
Tuttington Road for Miss Hinchley
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0488 - Conversion of part of first floor to a holiday flat,
erection of single-storey extension and two holiday dwellings; The Vernon
Arms, 2 Church Street for Mr & Mrs P Briggs
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0829 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
replacement garage for St. Justins; St Justines, Thorpe Road for Southrepps
Development Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
70
13 October 2011
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0953 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 12 Chapel
Street for Mr & Mrs Mawdesley
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/0758 - Erection of first floor side extension; Newlands,
Camping Field Lane for Mr C Thwaites
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/0951 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Mile Stone,
Ingham Road for Mr Allanson
(Householder application)
STODY - NP/11/1040 - Prior notification of intention to erect pumphouse and
sub-station; Land at Breck Farm for Stody Estate Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
THORNAGE - PF/11/0903 - Conversion of garage and outbuilding to residential
annexe (revised scheme); Whitehouse, Stody Road for Mr & Mrs Andrew
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - LA/11/0904 - Alterations to outbuilding/garages to facilitate
conversion to residential annexe; Whitehouse, Stody Road for Mr & Mrs Andrew
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/11/0891 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, singlestorey side extension, replacement roof and front porch; Church Farm, Church
Road for Mr B A Laws
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/11/0941 - Erection of ground mounted solar panels; Mulberry
Cottage, Green Farm Lane for Mr P Markwell
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/11/0545 - Removal of Condition 5 of permission reference: 02/1708
to permit permanent residential occupancy; The Old Barn, Brick Kiln Lane for
Mr M Pardon
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0616 - Variation of condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; 7 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/11/0806 - Erection of first floor side extension and conservatory;
Hayfield Cottage, Walcott Green for Mr & Mrs Williams
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/1020 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference PF/07/0970 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Rose
Cottage, 2 The Old Vicarage, Scarborough Road for Mr J Barns
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - NMA1/10/0524 - Request for non-material amendment to move
postion of shed , enlarge dimensions and insert additional window to western
elevation; Windmill Hill, 18 Hindringham Road for Mr Napier
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
71
13 October 2011
WARHAM - NP/11/0981 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Northgate Hall, The Street for Mr Vaughan Jones
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0778 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission
reference: 09/1107 to permit installation of additional roof lights, photo-voltaic
panels and additional ground floor window; East End Boatyard, Jolly Sailor
Yard for Mr and Mrs Needham
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0898 - External and internal alterations to
outbuilding to provide habitable accommodation and demolition of shed;
Westward House, Mill Road for Mr & Mrs R Hiskey
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0938 - Installation of replacement windows;
Seafarers Cottage, 66 Freeman Street for Ms K Chandler
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/11/0340 - Non-material request to permit infill
below the window of the extension to be flint; Wengen, East End for Mr & Mrs
Perowne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WIGHTON - PF/11/0780 - Erection of dwelling (revised design); Plot 2, Wells
Road for Bunting & Son Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/0815 - Installation of stand alone photovoltaic array;
Sun Cottage, Church Road for Mr D Nudd
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0892 - Variation of condition 3 of permission reference
10/0639 to permit extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on Fridays &
Saturdays (excluding religious holidays); Zahras, 8A Station Approach for Mr
M Miah
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs
Baker
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing singlestorey wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells
Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
72
13 October 2011
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
SITE VISIT:- 27 September 2011
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0515 - Retention of balcony; 31 Beeston Road for Mr H
Ahrens
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
73
13 October 2011