OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 APRIL 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.
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
Site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
To give the application further consideration following the receipt of amended
details regarding an alternative drainage method instead of soakaways.
Background
The Committee last considered this application at the meeting on 23 September
2010 when it was resolved to give delegated authority to approve subject to no
further grounds of objection being received from the Parish Councils or following
expiry of the re-advertisement of the amended plans and the satisfactory resolution
of the impact of the development on the water table and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Copies of the report to that meeting and the minutes are attached as Appendix 1.
No further objections were received and a condition regarding the submission of a
scheme to be agreed to secure de-watering of the site prior to the commencement of
the development is proposed to be imposed to address the concerns raised
regarding the water table and development of this site.
However, prior to the decision being issued the agent contacted Officers to advise
that there had been further investigations carried out on the drainage, since it had
become apparent that soakaways would not be an acceptable method for the
disposal of surface water due to the height of the water table on the site.
The agents submitted details of an alternative method to the use of soakaways
consisting of what is known as an attenuated surface water system. This is a pipe
laid underground with an outfall to a ditch on the adjoining land to serve roof areas
with permeable paving to areas of hardstanding to take the surface water off the site.
The outfall pipe would be perforated to allow for infiltration to ground prior to outfall
into the ditch. A copy of the agent’s statement is contained in Appendix 1.
Following the receipt of amended plans the application was re-advertised and reconsultations carried out. However, the agent has recently advised that the initial
drawing was incorrect as the drain was shown going into the spring on the adjacent
land rather than the ditch. Therefore, a further amendment has been submitted,
requiring further consultation to be carried out.
Consultations have been carried out with Hempton Parish Council, Pudding Norton
Parish Council, Environmental Health, Environment Agency, Norfolk Wildlife Trust,
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape), Building Control
Manager and Norfolk Landscape Archaeology.
Development Control Committee
1
14 April 2011
At the time of writing this report comments from the consultees in relation to the most
recent amended plans were awaited. The Committee will be updated orally at the
meeting regarding this matter.
Representations received regarding drainage plan
The following comments have been received in relation to the first amended drainage
plan. (Comments regarding the second amended drainage plan are awaited, unless
otherwise stated).
Hempton Parish Council
Object. The Parish Council has considered the amendments and following a site visit
wish to make the following comments. The Parish Council sees no reason to change
its objection previously made to this proposal but wishes to add the following
comments on the amendments:
1. The line of the proposed pipe work runs through an old wall, believed to be part
of the Medieval Abbey site.
2. The Council is concerned that pollutants from the parking area will enter the
soakaway and pass in the spring, which runs directly into the River Wensum. The
amended proposals make no reference to any oil interception devices or any
proposals for maintenance of such devices.
3. The field through which the pipe will run at the spring end is used for grazing of
cattle and therefore will need to be at a suitable depth to prevent the cattle
damaging the pipe and rendering the drainage ineffective.
4. The plans indicate that the pipe work is to be sited in the north east corner but
does not state the depth at which the pipe work will start. They are concerned
that with the fall necessary to ensure the pipe will remain clear of silt etc, the
discharge end of the pipe will be below the level of the spring.
Environment Agency
Paragraph F8 of PPS25 and Part H of the Building Regulations require that infiltration
drainage is used as a priority, and that if infiltration drainage is not appropriate to be
used on the site then surface water should be drained to a watercourse at a
restricted rate. The information submitted has demonstrated that the use of
soakaways is inappropriate and has proposed that the surface water is drained at
greenfield rate to the nearby watercourse. This is therefore an acceptable method of
surface water drainage. Attenuation storage is proposed to be provided for all rainfall
events up to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including 30% climate change. This
proposal should also be suitable in terms of alleviating contaminated land issues.
This meets the requirements of PPPS25. Therefore we have no objections to the
proposed surface water drainage scheme. The Local Planning Authority should
ensure that the design of the system meets these specifications, and may wish to
condition that the scheme is designed as such.
With regard to the proposed permeable pavement, this will allow infiltration into the
subsurface which could mobilise contamination. We therefore recommend that
further soil sampling is performed to determine whether the contamination persists at
depth in the made ground/sediment. If it does remediation will be required prior to
development.
Environmental Health
No objection provided that an assessment has been made that any additional surface
water is not to the detriment of downstream users.
Development Control Committee
2
14 April 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
No objections. The run off will be from roof areas only. Therefore there are unlikely to
be pollution issues entering the ditch system leading to the River Wensum.
Building Control Manager
I have no comment to make on the proposal other than the means of dealing with
surface water would satisfy the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Comments on second amended plan: No further comments to make.
Pudding Norton Parish Council
Awaiting comments
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Awaiting comments
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology
Awaiting comments
In addition to the consultation responses received above an email has been received
on behalf of local residents (via Councillor Lanham) following a meeting which took
place on 1 April 2011 with Hempton Parish Council, Keith Simpson MP and
representatives of the District Council, Flagship Housing Association and Victory
Housing Trust. The email requests that the application be deferred until further
information is available on issues discussed at that meeting in particular highway
safety, since Keith Simpson MP is seeking a meeting with the Highway Authority.
The email suggests that this should happen before a decision is made on this
application.
Key Policy Issues
The key issues are compliance with adopted Core Strategy Policies HO3, EN2, EN4,
EN8, EN13 and CT5 regarding the acceptability of the development, the design of
the proposed dwellings, the acceptability of soakaways in relation to contamination of
the site, highway issues and effects on the amenities of the area.
Appraisal
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy HO3 of the adopted Core Strategy,
and it has been demonstrated that there is a clear proven local housing need in this
location.
It is considered that the issues of design, contamination and water table have now
been addressed, and no objections from consultees have been received on these
matters.
The method of disposal of surface water is a new issue that has arisen as a result of
further investigations being carried out by the applicant’s engineers. With regard to
the concerns of Hempton Parish Council regarding an old wall believed to be part of
the Medieval Abbey site, Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has been consulted and
asked to comment specifically on this matter. At the time of writing this report their
comments were awaited.
Following the receipt of the most recent amended plans in relation to the drainage
the discharge point is now shown to be into a ditch not the spring, which Hempton
Parish Council were concerned about. However, the Environment Agency and
Environmental Health have been re-consulted.
Development Control Committee
3
14 April 2011
The Committee will note the comments of the Environment Agency in relation to
infiltration of the subsurface from the permeable pavement which could cause
contamination. The Environment Agency has requested that further soil sampling be
carried out in relation to this matter, but has confirmed that this can be covered by
condition and is not required prior to the determination of the application.
In view of the comments from Environmental Health the agent has been asked to
demonstrate that an assessment has been made that any additional surface water is
not to the detriment of downstream users. The agent has also been asked to clarify
the depth of the pipe work in the ground. At the time of writing this report this
information was still awaited.
The agents have proposed an alternative drainage solution to soakaways and
subject to no objections from the consultees, no new grounds of objection being
received regarding the re-advertisement of the amended drainage plans and in the
press, and receipt of satisfactory information in relation to the depth of the pipe and
assessment of impact of additional surface water on downstream users it is
considered that the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
The Committee is asked to consider the request made on behalf of local people to
defer consideration of the application pending the holding of a meeting between the
MP and the Highway Authority, but will note that the latter has no objection to the
scheme, subject to the improvements it recommended, and which were incorporated
into the proposal, being carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees, no new grounds of objection being received following the readvertisement of the amended drainage plans, the receipt of satisfactory
information in relation to the depth of the pipe and assessment of impact of
additional surface water on downstream users, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
SHERINGHAM 05/110 - Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road
This report concerns the alterations to ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks
Hill Road, Sheringham and the works that have subsequently been carried out,
following the serving of an enforcement notice.
Background
This enforcement case relates to a site on which two detached single-storey
dwellings have been constructed under planning permission 2005/1110. Those
dwellings have been completed but are currently unoccupied. A complaint was
subsequently received in respect of loss of vegetation, damage to a fence and
changes to ground levels.
Members will recall that the Committee visited the site, and the complainants’
property prior to considering serving an enforcement notice.
Development Control Committee
4
14 April 2011
The situation was last considered on 18 November 2010, (see copy of that
Committee report attached at Appendix 2) when the Committee authorised the Head
of Planning and Building Control to serve an Enforcement Notice under Section 172
of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended).
The Notice was subsequently issued and required the following works to be carried
out;
“1.
Render the block work retaining wall.
2.
Remove the soil resting on the bottom of the north west boundary fence of
plot two and re-profile the adjacent soil levels to 45 degrees to prevent further
slippage of soil onto the fence.
3.
Replace the one metre fence along the north west boundary of plot 1 with 1.8
metre posts and close boarded fence. A 1.8 metre close boarded fence shall
thereafter be retained in this position.
4.
In accordance with the attached landscaping scheme plant a hedge of two
staggered rows of 60cm high yew and holly plants spaced 1 metre apart
along the north west boundary of plot two. On the south west boundary of
plot 1 plant two heavy standard holm oak trees.
Allow the hedge along the north west boundary of plot 2 to grow to a height of
1.8 metres. It shall thereafter be retained at the minimum height of 1.8
metres from ground level.
No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the landscaping scheme
shall be uprooted, felled or in any way destroyed. Should the hedgerow, tree
or shrub die or become seriously damaged or defective within ten years of the
effective date of the notice then another tree, shrub or hedge shall be
planted.”
Appraisal
Since the serving of the Notice, the Enforcement Officer has been in contact with the
developer and the following works have been carried out;
1.
Under part 1 of the Notice, the blockwork wall has now been rendered.
2.
The majority of the soil resting at the bottom of the north-western boundary
fence to plot 2 has now been removed and the adjacent soil level has been
re-profiled. There are however some positions along that boundary where the
soil has not been removed at the base of some existing vegetation and there
is a small gap between the fence and the base of the slope. (Photographs will
be displayed at the meeting to demonstrate the works that have been carried
out.)
3.
The fence along the north-west boundary of plot 1 has been replaced with a
1.8m high close boarded fence, but the original fence posts remain in situ.
(Again, photographs will be displayed at the meeting).
4.
Hedge planting has been carried out using a mixture of yew and holly.
However, the plants are approximately 40cm high rather than 60cm required
in the notice. Two trees have been planted.
Development Control Committee
5
14 April 2011
Although these remedial works have been carried out, the complainants remain
dissatisfied and a further Officer site visit has been undertaken to view the situation
from their property.
The complainants have pointed out orally that the fence posts have not been
replaced; that the planting is not of the height as requested; and that in particular,
they remain concerned that there are places where the soil still rests against the
fence line, it is not far enough back from the fence, and they have queried whether
the new profile of the bank complies with the Notice.
In terms of the works that have now been carried out, Officers consider that the
rendering of the wall, and the erection of the replacement fence is now acceptable
under the provisions of the enforcement notice. Furthermore, whilst the height of the
hedge planting with plants of 40cm rather than 60cm does not comply fully with the
notice, this is also considered to be acceptable.
With regard to the soil removal and the remodelling of the bank, whilst along the
majority of the boundary of plot 2 the requirements of the notice have been
technically complied with, there are one or two places where the soil remains at the
base of the fence (particularly where there is existing vegetation). The profile of the
bank has been checked and found to be less than 45o (and therefore less prone to
slippage) over most of its length.
Whilst these issues remain, it is considered that the notice has now been
substantially complied with and no further action is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee determines that although certain elements of the
enforcement notice have not been fully complied with, the works as carried out
are nevertheless considered to be sufficient to restore neighbouring amenities
to a reasonable extent and that no further action therefore be taken.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager, ext 6158)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BINHAM - PF/11/0108 - Erection of single-storey extension to annexe; Old Barn
Farm Bungalow, Binham Road, Wighton for Mr D Cooke
Target Date: 24 March 2011
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051705 PF - Conversion of and extension of outbuilding to form one unit of
holiday accommodation
Approved 18/07/2006
Development Control Committee
6
14 April 2011
PLA/20061749 PF - Erection of single-storey extension
Refused 13/02/2007
PLA/20070309 PF - Erection of single-storey extension
Refused 01/05/2007
PF/10/1196 PF - Variation of condition 4 of planning ref: 05/1705 to permit holiday
unit to be occupied as residential annexe
Approved 17/12/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a single-storey extension to a barn with permission for use as an
annexe to Old Barn Farm Bungalow. The extension would measure approximately
4m in length by 3.9m wide and 4.1m to the ridge with a hipped roof, and would be
built off an existing brick and flint boundary wall to the east.
The extension would be constructed of brick and flint, clay pantiles and timber joinery
to match existing.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of the
planning history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from the owner of the adjacent barns on the following
grounds:
1. Former outbuilding has had the benefit of two previous extensions in recent years.
2. Committee has previously refused a third extension which was upheld at appeal.
3. The applicant has previously been advised to withdraw an earlier proposal as the
building had reached its capacity of extension.
4. The annexe has recently had the benefit of a retrospective change of use to
residential.
5. The annexe is poorly related to the main dwelling and this further extension could
result in the annexe becoming an independent dwelling.
6. The proposed development will be an incongruous feature and detrimental to the
historic buildings adjacent.
7. The proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
8. The proposed development would be back door development.
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 Control Committee
7
14 April 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where extensions to dwellings
are considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies.
Permission was granted under reference 20051705 to convert this building to a
holiday unit. This included an extension and re-roofing part of the building, increasing
the height to a pitched roof in keeping with the remainder of the building.
Planning permission was then sought under reference 20061749 for a 6.5m singlestorey extension to the same building. That application was refused by the
Committee on the grounds that the proposed development would constitute a
substantial extension when compared to the size of the original building and it would
detract from the simple character of the former agricultural building.
A subsequent planning application 20070309 proposed a reduction in the length of
the proposed extension to 4.6m. The Committee again refused permission for similar
reasons. The applicant's appeal against this refusal was dismissed on the grounds
that approval would set a precedent for similar developments elsewhere in the
countryside, resulting in a gradual erosion of its undeveloped character.
Permission was then granted under reference PF/10/1196 to permit the holiday unit
to be occupied as a residential annexe to Old Barn Farm Bungalow.
Old Barn Farm Bungalow occupies a large plot fronting onto the Binham Road. The
annexe is sited approximately 27m away from the principal dwelling and shares the
same access point. If the extension is approved, the annexe would have a footprint of
approximately 71sqm. In comparison, Old Barn Farm Bungalow has a footprint of
approximately 114sqm. On this basis, it is considered that the annexe would remain
subordinate to the main dwelling.
There is no evidence to suggest that the increase in living accommodation proposed
is intended to create a separate residential dwelling; the agent has confirmed in the
Design and Access Statement that the current accommodation provided is a little
restricted and that additional space is required for the applicant's family. The annexe
shares vehicular access with the main dwelling.
Development Control Committee
8
14 April 2011
The site is well-screened by a group of barns to the west and is not located within a
prominent position within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is not therefore
considered that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the
rural character or appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The group of barns to the west benefit from permission for holiday use. The holiday
unit closest to the annexe would have windows facing into the courtyard. The
proposed extension would extend past a high-level window proposed. Whilst
approval of this extension would result in a relationship that would fall short of the
requirements of the Basic Amenity Criteria and would lead to a loss of light to the
high-level window, the holiday unit room would be served by three rooflights and a
set of doors in addition to the high-level window. Furthermore, the buildings in their
nature are close-knit. There are no windows proposed in the western elevation of the
extension facing the neighbouring barn.
Although the Committee will note that a previous appeal for a similar extension was
upheld, it is considered that the policy context has since changed given that the
proposal is now for an extension to an annexe and not an extension to an agricultural
building converted to a holiday let.
Notwithstanding the objections raised by the adjacent property owner, on balance it
is considered that the proposals would accord with adopted Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
removing permitted development rights for the insertion of any window or
rooflight in the western elevation and roofslopes of the extension.
4.
BODHAM - PF/11/0260 - Conversion of barns to 6 units of holiday
accommodation and erection of swimming pool/wood chip boiler building;
Manor Farm, Lower Bodham for Mr & Mrs P Cubitt
Minor Development
Target Date: 29 April 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090327PF - Conversion of cart shed to one unit of holiday accommodation and
erection of wall
Approved 08/06/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a range of traditional farm buildings of flint and red brick
construction under clay pantile roofs to six units of holiday accommodation
comprising, three 2 bed units, two 3 bed units and one 4 bed unit.
Development Control Committee
9
14 April 2011
In addition, as part of the scheme it is proposed to remove a modern grain store
building to the north of the group and erect a rectangular building clad in timber
boarding under a clay pantile roof. This would be sited adjacent to the western
boundary and would house a small swimming pool, and boiler room/wood chip store
which would be used to heat the whole development.
Access to the site would be from the existing entrance with car parking for the
development contained within the inner courtyard. In addition, a second existing
entrance further to the north would be utilised to provide a service access to the
swimming pool and wood chip boiler, whilst the area currently occupied by the grain
store would be landscaped.
An amended plan has been received proposing relocation of the proposed swimming
pool building closer to the main complex and indicating that the building is to be clad
in natural timber boarding.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes for the following planning reason:
The adequacy of the surrounding road network to serve the development.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from a local resident who whilst raising no objection to the
principle of the development has concerns regarding increased traffic generation
particularly during the construction stage of the development.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
Considers that the proposal for holiday accommodation is acceptable given the
previous traffic generation associated with the agricultural use of the site and the
need to reuse the buildings, as the farming needs change and the buildings are no
longer fit for purpose. In addition, the development would result in a relocation and
rationalisation of the access arrangements, which would be beneficial to all road
users providing a longer visibility splay and therefore a safer means of access.
However to prevent any additional vehicular movements and increased parking
requirements the use of the swimming pool should be restricted to the occupiers of
the holiday accommodation only and not be available to the general public.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Building Control - No objection, but identifies a number of issues which would need to
be addressed at the Building Regulations stage.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objections subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments awaited.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Environment Agency - Original comments - Objection on the grounds that a Package
Treatment Plant is not appropriate for holiday accommodation and suggests that the
applicant considers using a septic tank instead.
Development Control Committee
10
14 April 2011
Further comments - The applicant has advised that the permanently occupied
dwellings, including the main farmhouse, will also connect to the proposed package
treatment plant. It is therefore considered to be an acceptable method of sewage
disposal.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1.
Principle of development
2.
Design and impact on listed building
3.
Highway safety
4.
Landscape impact
APPRAISAL
The farm buildings which are grouped around a large enclosed courtyard, which
currently contains a large steel barn, are listed Grade II owing to their association
with the main farmhouse to the south.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy and in an area where Rural Residential Conversion Policy H09 is applicable.
In principle this would allow the group to be converted for permanent residential use.
However in this particular case the applicant is seeking the conversion of the farm
buildings for holiday accommodation only and as such Core Strategy Policies EC2,
EN4 and EN8 are applicable.
Development Control Committee
11
14 April 2011
Policy EC2 states that the re-use of buildings in the Countryside for non-residential
purposes, including holiday accommodation, will be permitted where it can be
demonstrated that the building is soundly built and suitable for the proposed use
without substantial rebuilding or extension and the proposed alterations protect or
enhance the character of the building and its setting. However this approach does
not prevent proper consideration being given to the optimum viable use of listed
buildings, and locally listed buildings, which is compatible with the fabric, interior and
settings of these buildings.
Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development is designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In respect of listed buildings development proposals,
including alterations and extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated asset and their settings through high quality, sensitive
design.
Although the group has undergone some less than sympathetic alteration in the past,
particularly within the inner courtyard, where a modern steel barn has been inserted,
the structural report accompanying the application indicates that the buildings are
capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding. In terms of their optimum viable
use, due to the fact that they do not fit with modern agricultural practices they are
under utilised, being used solely for storage in connection with the main house.
However given their proximity to the farmhouse and the existing cart lodge adjacent
to the western boundary which has already been converted to a unit of holiday
accommodation, a use other than some form of residential could have an adverse
impact on the amenities of these dwellings. It is therefore considered that in principle
converting the group to holiday accommodation would accord with the requirements
of Policy EC2.
In terms of the actual scheme of conversion this would result in minimal intervention,
particularly to the public face of the buildings, where new opening have been kept to
a minimum, the principal works being confined to the inner courtyard where some
reconstruction is required, but even here existing features are to be retained. In
respect of the proposed swimming pool building, the amended plan would move this
closer to the existing buildings, thereby improving the relationship. In addition it is
proposed that it would be finished in natural boarding under a clay pantile roof, which
would make it more recessive in nature, whilst the removal of the modern agricultural
building would only serve to enhance the setting of the group. It is therefore
considered that the physical alterations are acceptable and that the alterations would
not result in the significant loss of historic fabric. Furthermore the scheme of
conversion would ensure the future of what are considered to be an important group
of listed farm buildings.
As far as the access and parking arrangements are concerned, it is intended that the
development would utilise the existing point of access to the site, which is currently
unmade and would involve upgrading the access and driveway to highway standards
whilst there would be parking within the courtyard for eight vehicles. Although based
on the Parking Standards contained in the Core Strategy this would result in an
under provision of 5 spaces it is clear that there is space within the site to provide
additional parking if required without adversely affecting highway safety. Furthermore
the Design and Access Statement accompanying the application suggests that it is
likely that there would only be one car per unit per stay.
Development Control Committee
12
14 April 2011
In terms of the road network adjacent to the site, whilst is accepted that the roads are
fairly narrow there are three different routes to the site and the route when
approaching from the north is less than half a mile from the main A148. The Highway
Authority has indicated, given the previous traffic generation associated with the
agricultural use of the site and the need to reuse the buildings, that the proposal for
holiday accommodation is acceptable. Furthermore the changes to the access would
be beneficial to all road users providing a longer visibility splay and therefore a safer
means of access. However it suggests that in order to prevent any additional
vehicular movements and increased parking requirements the use of the swimming
pool should be restricted to the occupiers of the holiday accommodation.
In terms of the impact of the development on the wider landscape, the principal views
of the complex are from some distance from where the alterations would not be
discernible. From closer views, especially when approaching the site from the north,
the removal of the modern grain store would allow the group of traditional farm
building to be appreciated in their landscape setting. The Protected Species Survey
submitted with the application identifies the existence of very limited bat activity.
However, as part of the mitigation and compensation measures it is suggested that
four bat boxes be installed.
It is therefore considered that the conversion this important group of agricultural
building to holiday accommodation would help to secure their long term future 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.
5.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1468 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land at
Rudham Stile Lane for Fakenham Town Council
Minor Development
Target Date: 01 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/10/1208 PO - Erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of one single-storey dwelling on land at Rudham Stile Land which
is currently used as a public play area and green space.
Approval of means of access, layout and scale are sought at this stage, with
appearance and landscaping being reserved for a further application.
The application has been amended, including removal of an Oak tree from the north
western corner of the site, to be replaced by a new oak tree on the south-eastern
corner of the site.
Development Control Committee
13
14 April 2011
A new footpath would be created along the western boundary of the site to maintain
public access from Rudham Stile Lane through to North Park.
A new vehicular access to the site would be created on to Rudham Stile Lane.
The Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposed dwelling would have
an attached garage and two parking spaces on site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Mears having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on highway safety.
TOWN COUNCIL
Makes the following comments:
The Committee of the Town Council is discussing the application as no Councillors
have a pecuniary or other interest in this application. The Council as a corporate
body wish to obtain outline planning permission on this piece of land to raise funds to
improve services to the community i.e. new play equipment, new machinery, add
facilities to the cemetery chapel. Fakenham Town Council agrees to remove the Oak
tree and plant a new Oak.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from 5 residents on the following grounds:
1. The removal of the tree is unnecessary as is healthy and is a roosting point for
various birds.
2. Highway safety concerns with the new access to the development on this heavily
used road junction at the summit of a hill and on a bend.
3. New footpath alleyway could become area for anti-social behaviour.
4. An application for Village Green status has been made.
5. The area was designated as a children’s playground and green space when North
Park was built.
6. Loss of views across fields from properties to the south.
The applicant has provided details and their reasoning behind the proposed
development in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application.
This is attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) With reference to the consultation received recently to the above development
proposal, this site has been the subject of informal advice and a previous application
10/1208.
The current proposal for a single dwelling proposes that the footpath is continued
along the edge of the proposal site to ensure safe passage for the residents. This
maintains the current situation
Subject to certain criteria I can confirm that I do not wish to raise an objection to this
proposal; therefore should your Authority be minded to approve, I would request that
conditions are appended which include submission of full details to illustrate surface
water drainage, visibility splays, parking provision in accordance with adopted
standard, turning areas and footway construction details. In addition the vehicular
access should be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan, the
construction specification should be in accordance with details to be approved and
arrangement should be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and
Development Control Committee
14
14 April 2011
disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway
carriageway.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Original comments - The proposed new footway will be in direct conflict with the Oak
tree on the site and will need specialised construction so that it does not harm the
tree or the tree does not damage the new path in the future.
The tree is a poor specimen and has a large cavity in the main stem that will increase
the risk of structural failure in the future. The tree is to the west of the dwelling and
therefore will cast shade in the late afternoon reducing the liveability area of the plot.
It is suggested that given the position and quality of the tree that it be felled and a
new standard tree be planted to the eastern edge of the plot.
Comments on amended plans (removal and replacement of tree):
I can confirm that the CD&L section accepts the amended plan in relation to the Oak
tree on the site.
Community Safety Manager - Comments awaited.
Sustainability Co-ordinator In order to comply with Policy EN6 permission should only be approved with a
condition requiring that the dwelling achieves a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
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
Comments are awaited from the Community Safety Manager in respect of concerns
raised regarding potential anti-social behaviour at the new footpath link.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Control Committee
15
14 April 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Highway safety issues.
3. Neighbours’ amenities.
4. Amenities for future occupiers of proposed dwelling.
5. Removal of tree.
6. Community safety issues.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Development Boundary for Fakenham, a Principal
Settlement as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy in an area designated as residential, where, subject to compliance with Core
Strategy Policies EN4, CT5 and CT6, the principle of development is considered to
be acceptable. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
The site at present is used as a small area of public open space. Policy CT1
designates important open land areas within settlement boundaries in order to retain
and protect these open spaces from the pressure of development to protect the
visual and amenity contribution they make. This particular site has not been
designated as an open space area under the Core Strategy and it is not therefore
considered an important land area for its recreation or visual amenity. The site lies
within the designated residential area in which the principle of residential
development is acceptable.
The Committee will note that an objector has confirmed making an application to
Norfolk County Council for the registration of the land as a Village Green. Clearly, if
the Village Green application is granted by County Council this would have
implications on the applicants’ ability to carry out the development. However, this is
a separate matter from the consideration of the planning application.
With regard to the highway impact of the proposal, the Highway Authority has raised
no objection to the proposed development, considering that appropriate visibility
splays, parking and turning provision and surface water drainage can be achieved
and subject to conditions requiring submission of plans and details that satisfactorily
demonstrate these that the proposal would not result in any highway safety issues.
Additional plans are awaited which indicate the required visibility splay in accordance
with highway standards. However subject to an acceptable plan indicating this
visibility splay, the proposal would accord with Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy.
Whilst the application does not indicate how many bedrooms are proposed, Policy
CT 6 requires two parking spaces for a 2/3 bed property, which it is considered, given
the single storey nature of the proposal and proposed footprint, the development
would not exceed. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the design
would include an attached garage, but the internal dimensions of the garage would
not be large enough for the garage to be counted as a parking space. However there
is sufficient space to the front of the site to accommodate parking for two cars and for
turning within the application area. It is therefore considered that a satisfactory
parking and turning layout could be achieved to comply with the parking standards in
accordance with Policy CT 6.
Development Control Committee
16
14 April 2011
In terms of neighbours' amenities, given the single storey nature of the proposed
dwelling, it is considered that a scheme could be delivered at reserved matters stage
which complied with the Council's Basic Amenity Criteria which would protect the
amenities of the adjacent dwellings in terms of privacy and scale.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, a sufficient private garden
area of adequate size and shape to serve its intended purpose is achieved and, in
line with North Norfolk Design guide recommendations, the area of the plot given to
private amenity space is no less than the footprint of the dwelling.
Whilst landscaping has been reserved for consideration at a later stage, it is
considered that a suitable landscaping scheme could be achieved which would
protect the visual amenity of the area and would protect the residential amenities of
adjacent properties. Furthermore, whilst some concern has been expressed by local
residents regarding the removal of the existing Oak tree on the site, the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has advised, given that the tree is a
poor specimen and has a large cavity and its position would cast shade in the late
afternoon reducing the liveability area of the plot, that the tree should be removed
and a new tree planted to the eastern edge of the plot. The applicant therefore
amended the application in line with this recommendation. It is therefore considered
that the removal of the existing tree would not result in any adverse impact on the
visual amenity of the area and the replacement tree at the other end of the site would
be in an appropriate location.
The proposal complies with the housing density requirements in accordance with
Policy HO 7.
In respect of sustainable construction and energy efficiency, suitable conditions are
required to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes requirements are met, in
accordance with Policy EN 6.
Any comments received from the Community Safety Manager concerning crime and
disorder issues will be reported orally.
In summary the proposed dwelling is considered to raise no highway safety
implications subject to a plan satisfactorily indicating the required visibility splay in
accordance with the Highway Authority's specifications. In addition, the scale and
layout would accord with Core Strategy policies, having no adverse impact on the
amenities of nearby properties or on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is
therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan subject to conditions and
the amended plan detailed above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to an amended plan satisfactorily
demonstrating an acceptable visibility splay in line with the Highway
Authority's specifications and no objection from the Community Safety
Manager in respect of Crime and Disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
17
14 April 2011
6.
LUDHAM - PF/11/0113 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 97/0999 to
permit full residential occupancy; Quince Cottage, 5 The Barns, Fritton Road
for Mr A Ehren
Target Date: 25 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970999 PF - Conversion of barns to form ten holiday units with associated
car parking and play space
Approved 18/09/1997
PLA/19991187
PF - Conversion of part of barn to holiday unit and external
alterations; extension to provide enlarged holiday unit (unit 4); removal of condition 9
of planning permission ref: 970999 to permit roadside elevation windows to open
outwards
Approved 07/12/1999
PLA/20020194 EF - Certificate of lawfulness for proposed use of units as holiday
homes/second homes
Approved 20/03/2003
PLA/20031695
PF - Retention of alteration and extension of unit 4 to provide
additional holiday unit and erection of boundary wall
Approved 02/03/2004
THE APPLICATION
Variation of condition 3 of the original planning permission, which restricted the
development occupancy to holiday use only, to allow this property to be occupied as
a permanent dwelling.
An application for the neighbouring Plum Cottage (PF/11/0138) is also reported for
determination on this agenda (see below).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning policy
issues involved.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter and one petition signed by the occupants of all seven properties along
Fritton Road have been received objecting to the proposal on grounds of
1. The development lies outside of the Policy HO 9 zones and is therefore contrary
to policy.
2. The proposal would double or treble the permanent population of Fritton Road
leading to increased traffic, noise and pressure on drainage systems.
3. Concerns that increased demand on the foul drainage system would lead to soil
and groundwater contamination.
4. The applicants would gain financially without suffering the effects of the change in
use.
Development Control Committee
18
14 April 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Planning Policy Manager These applications represent a departure from emerging Policy HO 9 and planning
permission should not be approved unless there are other material considerations of
sufficient weight to justify a departure from adopted policy in this instance. Having
considered this group of buildings and the representations submitted by the
applicants in support of the their application, I would make the following comments
that I consider are directly relevant to the consideration of material considerations;
1) The buildings lie in a 250m gap between two conversion zones
2) The group of barns lie with 30m of the outer boundary of the conversion zone
identified for Ludham, with garden of one of the units directly abutting the boundary.
3) Ludham is identified as a Service Village in the Core Strategy and has a good
level of service provision relative to its size, including convenience store, post office,
a local butchers, primary school, doctors surgery, public house and local garage.
4) Ludham is served by a regular bus service providing access to higher order
facilities in Hoveton. The information submitted by the applicant indicates that a local
bus service can also be accessed in close proximity to the site.
Given all four of these considerations the location of this building group is considered
to be sufficiently sustainable to support a modest amount of permanent residential
use and permission in this instance would not undermine the objectives of Policy HO
9 and the evidence/justification supporting it.
The group of former traditional agricultural buildings has been converted in a broadly
sympathetic manner and worthy of retention due to its historic, architectural or
landscape value.
Highway Authority - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO 9) (The site lies close to an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Application of the rural residential conversion policy HO9.
APPRAISAL
The application site is part of a group of holiday units in a group of converted farm
buildings, converted approximately 10 - 11 years ago, which lie within the
Countryside policy area just outside the zones around Ludham and Potter Heigham
where the recently adopted policy HO 9 applies. This group of converted buildings
falls within a narrow gap, approximately 250 wide, between the zone around Ludham
and that around Potter Heigham.
Development Control Committee
19
14 April 2011
The property the subject of this application is close to the edge of the Policy HO9
zone (the neighbour’s garden, Plum Cottage, abuts the boundary) and is therefore
marginally closer to Ludham, which in the Core Strategy is defined as a service
village because of its range of local shopping and social facilities.
The barn has adequate parking and amenity space to serve a permanent dwelling.
The concerns expressed by the local residents are worries that the more intensive
use will lead to problems with more traffic and poor effluent drainage. Despite their
concerns, the holiday units under the current planning permission could be occupied
for 365 days a year for holiday purposes, potentially generating similar levels of
activity as a dwelling. As the Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal
and the drainage installation under Building Regulations would need to have been
adequate to serve permanent dwellings these matters would not be sound reasons
for which to refuse the application.
In conclusion, given the proximity to and position between two Policy HO 9 zones,
with good access to local services and public transport, these are considered to be
material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
7.
LUDHAM - PF/11/0138 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 97/0999 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Plum Cottage, 6 Fritton Road for Ms
L Barnard
Minor Development
Target Date: 29 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970999 PF - Conversion of barns to form ten holiday units with associated
car parking and play space
Approved 18/09/1997
PLA/19991187
PF - Conversion of part of barn to holiday unit and external
alterations; extension to provide enlarged holiday unit (unit 4); removal of condition 9
of planning permission ref: 970999 to permit roadside elevation windows to open
outwards
Approved 07/12/1999
PLA/20020194 EF - Certificate of lawfulness for proposed use of units as holiday
homes/second homes
Approved 20/03/2003
PLA/20031695
PF - Retention of alteration and extension of unit 4 to provide
additional holiday unit and erection of boundary wall
Approved 02/03/2004
Development Control Committee
20
14 April 2011
THE APPLICATION
Variation of condition 3 of the original planning permission, which restricted the
development occupancy to holiday use only, to allow this property to be occupied as
a permanent dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning policy
issues involved.
An application for the neighbouring Quince Cottage (PF/11/0113) is also reported for
determination on this agenda (see above).
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter and one petition signed by the occupants of all seven properties along
Fritton Road have been received objecting to the proposal on grounds of
1. The development lies outside of the Policy HO 9 zones and is therefore contrary
to policy.
2. The proposal would double or treble the permanent population of Fritton Road
leading to increased traffic, noise and pressure on drainage systems.
3. Concerns that increased demand on the foul drainage system would lead to soil
and groundwater contamination.
4. The applicants would gain financially without suffering the effects of the change in
use.
CONSULTATIONS
Planning Policy Manager These applications represent a departure from emerging Policy HO 9 and planning
permission should not be approved unless there are other material considerations of
sufficient weight to justify a departure from adopted policy in this instance. Having
considered this group of buildings and the representations submitted by the
applicants in support of the their application, I would make the following comments
that I consider are directly relevant to the consideration of material considerations;
1) The buildings lie in a 250m gap between two conversion zones
2) The group of barns lie with 30m of the outer boundary of the conversion zone
identified for Ludham, with garden of one of the units directly abutting the boundary.
3) Ludham is identified as a Service Village in the Core Strategy and has a good
level of service provision relative to its size, including convenience store, post office,
a local butchers, primary school, doctors surgery, public house and local garage.
4) Ludham is served by a regular bus service providing access to higher order
facilities in Hoveton. The information submitted by the applicant indicates that a local
bus service can also be accessed in close proximity to the site.
Given all four of these considerations the location of this building group is considered
to be sufficiently sustainable to support a modest amount of permanent residential
use and permission in this instance would not undermine the objectives of Policy HO
9 and the evidence/justification supporting it.
The group of former traditional agricultural buildings has been converted in a broadly
sympathetic manner and worthy of retention due to its historic, architectural or
landscape value.
Development Control Committee
21
14 April 2011
Highway Authority - no objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO 9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Application of rural residential conversion policy HO9.
APPRAISAL
The application site is one of a group of holiday units in a group of converted farm
buildings, converted approximately 10 - 11 years ago, which lies within the
Countryside policy area just outside the zones around Ludham and Potter Heigham
where the recently adopted policy HO 9 applies. This group of converted buildings
falls within a narrow gap, approximately 250 wide, between the zone around Ludham
and that around Potter Heigham.
The curtilage of the property subject to this application abuts the edge of the Policy
HO 9 zone, and is therefore marginally closer to Ludham which in the Core Strategy
is defined as a service village because of its range of local shopping and social
facilities.
The barn has adequate parking and amenity space to serve a permanent dwelling
The concerns expressed by the local residents are worries that the more intensive
use will lead to problems with more traffic and poor effluent drainage. Despite their
concerns, the holiday units under the current planning permission could be occupied
for 365 days a year for holiday purposes and potentially generating similar levels of
activity as a dwelling. As the Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal,
and the drainage installation under Building Regulations would need to have been
adequate to serve permanent dwellings, these matters would not be sound reasons
for which to refuse the application.
In conclusion, given the proximity to and position between two Policy HO 9 zones,
with good access to local services and public transport, these are considered to be
material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Development Control Committee
22
14 April 2011
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0085 - Change of use of existing butchers shop (A1)
to a day centre (D1); 3 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Elizabeth Fitzroy
Support
Minor Development
Target Date: 22 March 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031287 PF - Partial change of use from shop (A1) to chiropody practice (D1)
Withdrawn 04/09/2003
PLA/20031767 PF
Partial change of use from retail (A1) to chiropody practice (D1)
Approved 12/12/2003
PLA/19880687 PF - Conversion of storage area above shop into flat
Approved 12/04/1988
DE21/10/0510 ENQ - Change of Use to Day Centre
13/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Change of use of an existing A1 unit to D1 use. Proposed initial D1 use would be for
the Elizabeth Fitzroy Support group as a Day Care Centre.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application; it raises concerns of the loss of a retail unit, however it was
felt that the proposal could engender more footfall in St Nicholas Court and
encourage more retail business. Concerns were also raised regarding parking and
wheelchair access.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters received, one commenting that there is now only one full time trader in
the precinct; the application is welcome it as better than nothing; the picture window
should remain; it should be open to the public for a minimum of 36.5 hours per week
between 09:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday; any lease agreed for a period of less
than 24 months should contain a clause to return the property to full retail use; and
should not be allowed if the funding is only for a short term premise.
A letter of objection has been received from North Walsham Chamber of Trade,
raising concern over losing a retail unit within what is essentially a shopping precinct,
and that a change of use should only be a last resort.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) Previous commercial use was as a butchers shop, the proposed use has the
potential to engender a reduction in vehicular movements to and from the site. There
are extensive public, and limited private, car parking facilities in the vicinity. In
addition there are extensive public transport links. The premises are situated within
the designated Town Centre where requirements of PPG 13 and PPS 3 apply.
Development Control Committee
23
14 April 2011
The Highway Authority, following advice from PPS 3 and PPG 13, does not offer an
objection.
Community Safety Manager - comments awaited.
Environmental Health - no objection offered. Would request both conditions added to
request further details of any ventilation/extraction unit and method of waste disposal.
Building Control Manager - 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
At the time of writing this report the comments of the Community Safety Manager
were awaited.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Change of Use from A1 to D1 in this location.
2. Impact on Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
St Nicholas Court lies adjacent to St Nicholas Church in the centre of North Walsham
and is used to gain access between the Market Place and Vicarage Street. It
contains several units of which have multiple/alternative uses. The application is for a
change of use of 3 St Nicholas Court to D1 (non-residential institutions), from the
existing A1 (retail) use.
In 2003 planning permission was granted to allow a change of use of unit 3 from A1
to D1 (PF/03/1767), this appears never to have been implemented and has now
expired.
As a corner property the site only has one neighbour, which is currently used as a
bike shop. Nearby is a Norfolk County Council Office used as a Career centre, whilst
several other units are unoccupied.
The site falls within a designated Primary Shopping Area within the Town Centre.
Policy SS 5 covers both Primary Shopping Areas and Town Centres. North Walsham
is described as a Large Town Centre, within which a broad range of shopping,
Development Control Committee
24
14 April 2011
commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported. Whilst the proposed use as a
Day Centre (D1) falls outside the definition of main town centre uses within the Core
Strategy and it could be argued that it is therefore inappropriate, it is considered that
the proposal would bring additional activity and investment to this area and should
therefore be treated as an acceptable exception to policy, having regard to the
current economic climate.
Falling within a Conservation Area any proposal should comply with Policy EN 8, and
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The
physical alterations proposed for the unit are minor; the picture windows would
remain, and an opaque film would be applied to the high level windows to replace the
Butchers' signs, and new doors inserted. The doors would be timber, painted cream.
North Walsham's Conservation Area appraisal describes St Nicholas Court as having
'undistinguished architecture' and being a 'poor interruption to the historic core'. The
minor physical alterations proposed would preserve the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and comply with Policy EN 4.
On balance it is considered that the proposal should be treated as an exception to
Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area policy since it would bring welcome
investment and activity to the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to no objections from outstanding consultees and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include further details of
any ventilation/extraction unit to be installed and how any waste will be
disposed of.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0144 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling with
habitable accommodation in roofspace; 24 Happisburgh Road for Gaviant
Developments Limited
Minor Development
Target Date: 30 March 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a three bedroom, two storey dwelling with accommodation in
the roofspace, within what is part of the current garden area of No.24 Happisburgh
Road. The dwelling would be attached to No.24, (forming a terrace of three
dwellings) would have a floor area of just over 100 square metres and would be
vernacular in style, matching the adjoining properties both in terms of its detailing and
materials which would of red brick under a clay pantile roof.
Access to the site would be via the existing vehicular entrance to No.24 Happisburgh
Road which adjoins the boundary with No.22 Happisburgh Road and would provide
parking and manoeuvring area for four vehicles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee
25
14 April 2011
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds of over development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection, together with a petition signed by fifteen local residents,
(which includes five signatories of the letters of objection), which raise the following
concerns (summarised):
1. Adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.
2. Loss of privacy.
3. Detrimental effect on property values.
4. Roof lights would look unsightly.
5. No other properties in the vicinity have roof lights.
6. Narrow access will inevitably result in on road car parking, affecting the flow of
traffic.
7. Issues of highway safety.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions
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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting in order to allow
Members to visit the site and for Officers to seek possible changes in the location of
the parking area within the site.
Development Control Committee
26
14 April 2011
The site is located within the Development Boundary for North Walsham, a Principal
Settlement as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy in an area zoned as residential, where, subject to compliance with Core
Strategy Policies EN4, CT5 and CT6, the principle of development is considered to
be acceptable. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
At the present time the semi-detached pair of dwellings, to which the proposed
property would be attached, have retained their original form but have been altered
with the original Victorian sash windows having been replaced with top hung PVC U
windows. The dwelling as proposed would replicate the original dwellings, having a
splay bay at ground floor with a hipped end to the roof whilst to the rear a small
single storey rear extension would provide a utility room and W.C. Therefore based
on the use of appropriate materials, including matching red brick and clay pantiles, it
is considered that the proposed dwelling would compliment the existing properties
and would be visually acceptable in the street scene.
As far as the relationship to neighbouring properties is concerned, with the exception
of Nos. 26 and 24 Happisburgh Road to which the property would be attached, the
nearest dwelling would be No.22 Happisburgh Road which is a single storey
bungalow to the north west. This property which has secondary and tertiary windows
facing the site is separated from the site by the driveway to that property and a
boundary hedgerow some 1.3 metres in height. Given the fact that the separation
distance between this property and the blank wall of the proposed dwelling, which is
set closer to Happisburgh Road than the existing bungalow, is some 9 metres it is not
considered that it would result in any significant loss of light to that property and the
separation distance would comply with the requirements of the amenity criteria in the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
In respect of other surrounding properties, whilst it is proposed that there would be
two south-west facing roof lights serving bedroom three, it is considered that the
separation distance between these windows and neighbouring properties to the
south west, the nearest boundary to which would be some 40 metres away, would
not result in any significant loss of privacy. However if required the roof lights could
be obscure glazed. The layout as proposed would provide adequate private amenity
space for both dwellings.
In respect of the access and parking arrangement the development would utilise the
existing access and gravel driveway to No.24 and would provide parking for four
vehicles, two for each property, together with adequate manoeuvring and turning
area, thus complying with adopted standards. The Highway Authority has indicated
that it does not wish to object to the proposal which would therefore accord with
Policies CT5 and CT 6 of the Core Strategy. However, in view of the fact that the
driveway would run close to the boundary with the adjoining property No.22
Happisburgh Road, it is suggested that in order to reduce potential noise and
disturbance the driveway should be of a porous hard surface rather than gravel.
The Committee will be updated in respect of discussions with the applicants
concerning the location of the parking area.
Development Control Committee
27
14 April 2011
In summary therefore it is considered that overall the development would integrate
successfully in the street scene and would not result in any significantly overlooking
or loss of light to neighbouring properties and would accord with the Development
plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 - Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway Triangle
Site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
Major Development
Target Date: 11 April 2011
Case Officer: Mrs P Wake
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Allocation
THE APPLICATION
Erection of 50 dwellings comprising 44 houses (mix of 2, 3 & 4 bed units) and 6 flats
(1 & 2 bed units).
18 of the units comprise proposed affordable housing, 12 houses and 6 flats (13
rented and 5 shared ownership/intermediate rent).
The majority of dwellings are to be two storey, the exception being 6 units
incorporating third floor accommodation in the roofspace and one single storey unit.
The proposal also includes provision of a revised junction between The Avenue and
Norwich Road together with off-site highway improvements including extension of the
30mph zone along Norwich Road and the widening of a 155m length of a footway
north of the site adjacent to Norwich Road.
Two areas of open space are proposed, one adjacent to the new road junction with
Norwich Road and the other located centrally within the site. In addition the
applicants are proposing to offer £25,000 towards the enhancement of play facilities
at Suffield Park.
The application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including the
following:
Design & Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Transport Statement
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Noise Assessment
Archaeology Evaluation
Statement of Community Involvement
Report on Development Viability (confidential)
Amended plans have been submitted which revise certain of the house designs,
incorporate minor changes to the layout and highway design, and include additional
areas of indicative boundary landscaping.
Development Control Committee
28
14 April 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Fitch-Tillett having regard to the following planning issues:
Access arrangements and the impact of development on adjoining dwellings
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. Plots 2, 3 and 4 dominate the properties on The Avenue
and plots 47, 48 and 49 are objected to by residents of Stevens Road. Site density is
too high and results in an abrupt transition from urban to rural landscape. More
planting required along Norwich Road.
Access and egress at The Avenue and Stevens Road is already difficult due to the
railway bridge. Extra traffic will worsen this situation. The Avenue is already used
as a rat-run when Norwich Road is congested. Site access via The Avenue will
increase this rat-running. Adequate arrangements must be made for foul and surface
water drainage.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
14 letters of objection received from nearby residents raising the following concerns:
1. The proposed access onto Norwich Road is unacceptable and very different from
that outlined in the Site Allocations DPD (which suggests that it may be accessed
through site C07/08).
2. Concerns that site access is directly opposite properties on The Avenue and will
affect safety of children who cycle on The Avenue.
3. The development will increase traffic in the area, where it is already difficult and
dangerous to exit onto Norwich Road.
4. Plots 2-4 are three storey buildings which overlook the rear aspect of properties
on the Avenue and will compromise privacy and block sunlight. The proposed
dwellings are over 11 metres tall and as properties on The Avenue are 2 metres
lower than the site level, residents are concerned about the impact.
A letter has been received from the applicants' agents clarifying their position in
relation to a number of issues; a copy of this is attached at Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Cromer Town Council - No objection. Request that the proposed open space on site
be protected.
Anglian Water - Advises that the site falls within the catchment area of Cromer
sewage treatment works which presently has available capacity to cater for the
proposed development. However recommends a condition requiring approval of a
foul water strategy to avoid the risk of downstream flooding.
Also recommends submission and approval of a surface water strategy/flood risk
assessment.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition requiring submission of a
detailed surface water drainage scheme.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Has provided a brief for archaeological evaluation
by trial trenching which is recommended should be undertaken prior to the
application being determined (in accordance with PPS 5 - Planning for the Historic
Environment). The trial trenching will inform whether further investigations
(excavation) are required.
Development Control Committee
29
14 April 2011
Network Rail - Requests informative note requiring the developers to inform Network
Rail of their intention to start works 6 weeks prior to proposed commencement.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Letter received indicating no objection in
principle subject to a number of relatively minor revisions.
Further comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
Norfolk County Council (Planning obligation requirements) - Advises that there is
currently sufficient capacity at local nursery, primary and high schools to
accommodate extra children arising from the development, and so no financial
contribution is required for education. Contributions are required for the fire service (1
hydrant at a cost of £766) and library provision (£3,000). Additional contribution
(commuted sum) may also be required for future maintenance of landscaped areas
within the adopted highway land.
Norfolk Constabulary - Provides a number of detailed 'designing out crime'
comments. No overall concerns regarding the proposed layout.
Building Control - Submitted soil investigation appears to conclude that there are no
contaminants or landfill gas issues.
Environmental Health - Advises that no further works are required in respect to
ground contamination. The site is deemed suitable for residential use with gardens.
Refers to previous complaints (dating back to 2000) regarding noise from nearby gokart track, but no complaints have been received for several years.
Strategic Housing - Has provided detailed comments in relation to the affordable
housing proposed and raised a number of issues relating to the Report on
Development Viability.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Design) - Considers that the scheme
has a number of positive aspects but ultimately it disappoints in a number of key
areas.
The positives being the location and distribution of open space and the informal
layout on part of the site.
However there are the following genuine concerns regarding the scheme design:
- the 'sterile street scene' created by the predominantly straight run of the main estate
road, reminiscent of regimented estate developments of the 1970's and 1980's
- 'liveability' issues associated with rear gardens to properties along the eastern side
of the site backing onto the adjacent woodland, which could be oppressively dark and
dingy.
- a number of specific issues relating to dwelling design and the visual relationship
between different dwelling types.
- the three storey terrace (plots 2-4) which occupies the highest part of the site would
not sit comfortably alongside nearby existing properties.
- the choice of house type designs (which include a mix of pseudo Georgian and
vaguely Arts & Crafts detailing) will be polite and mild mannered but ultimately rather
formulaic and lacking in individuality.
In summary, remains to be convinced whether the proposed scheme moves forward
in terms of providing a 21st century built environment to be proud of.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Development Control Committee
30
14 April 2011
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Considers that the
scheme falls short of the requirements of Core Strategy Policies EN4 and EN9 in the
following respects:
- does not maximise the ecological or amenity potential of the adjacent woodland.
- the woodland will appear as a hard edge and contribute towards the
overshadowing of adjacent gardens.
- lack of hedgerow planting around site perimeters.
- suggests that the first two points could be addressed by a re-arranged layout
locating the open space next to the woodland.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Countryside & Parks Manager - Comments that the site as a whole does not provide
the amount of open space that would be required under the Council's standards
referred to in the Core Strategy, but appreciates the difficulty in providing more within
the development. Suggests that the natural green space at the entrance to the site
should be slightly decreased as it has little recreational value and the formal open
space within the centre of the site increased by a similar extent. Suggests also that
the formal open space is slightly mounded to deter ball games in favour of more
passive pursuits.
Supports the proposed payment of £25,000 towards improving play facilities at
Suffield Park rather than on this site.
Sustainability Officer - Initially concerned that no information had been submitted in
relation to the means by which 10% of the energy requirements of the development
will be supplied by renewable or low carbon technologies; making the point that some
technologies will only be effective or feasible if considered at an early stage, for
instance to ensure provision of south facing roofs for solar panels, adequate space
for a wind turbine or sufficient area for laying of Ground Source Heat Pump coils. As
well as potentially reducing the effectiveness of the technologies it could also be
more expensive if renewables are 'tacked-on' to the scheme at a later stage.
Commented that there needs to be proper consideration and integration of the most
appropriate renewable solutions for the site before the layout is agreed.
Has subsequently raised strong concerns at the suggestion made in the applicant's
viability report that Policy EN 6 requirements should be relaxed.
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.
Further consideration to this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues (refer to comments
from Norfolk Constabulary above).
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February
2011):
Policy C17: Railway Triangle, Norwich Road (land allocated for approximately 50
dwellings subject to safe access, off-site highway improvements, retention of
hedgerows and suitable boundary landscaping, adequate sewerage capacity and
mitigation against visitor pressures on the Norfolk Coast).
Development Control Committee
31
14 April 2011
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 HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (all developments should incorporate beneficial
biodiversity conservation features where appropriate).
Policy En 10: Development and Flood Risk (appropriate surface water drainage
arrangements required to cater for surface water run-off from new developments).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (new development should be supported by,
and have good access to, infrastructure, open space, public services and utilities).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
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).
North Norfolk Design Guide - Supplementary Planning Document. December 2008.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Site layout
3. Design
4. Housing mix
5. Affordable housing
6. Landscaping and Open Space
APPRAISAL
The site is located immediately adjacent to the southern built-up boundary of Cromer,
bordering Norwich Road (A149) along its western boundary, The Avenue (a narrow
lane) to the north, the Norwich to Sheringham railway line cutting along its southwestern boundary, and an abandoned former railway cutting (now a well established
woodland) to the east. As its title implies, the site (1.7 ha.) is triangular in shape
narrowing to a point at its south-eastern corner. It currently comprises arable
farmland and lies within the designated Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
Development Control Committee
32
14 April 2011
The site is allocated for the development of 'approximately 50 dwellings' in the now
adopted North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) - Policy
C17. Accordingly the principle of residential development on this site and the amount
proposed is acceptable. (50 dwellings on this site represents a density of 30
dwellings per hectare). Consideration of the application therefore needs to be
confined to the details of the proposal and whether or not these satisfactorily comply
with the policy relating to the allocation and with those relevant policies of the Core
Strategy.
Highway Safety
DPD Policy C17 requires the provision of safe access to Norwich Road. Pedestrian
and vehicular access to the site would be from a revised junction arrangement
between The Avenue and Norwich Road. The primary road leading from the rearranged junction would be the spine road serving the development with the partially
re-aligned route of The Avenue served off it. The Avenue would be widened and
provided with a footpath along its length adjacent to the site. Combined with these
junction arrangements it is proposed to extend the existing 30 mph speed limit on
Norwich Road to beyond the road frontage of the site to the far (southern) side of the
railway bridge, and to widen a section of the public footpath on Norwich Road (for a
length of 155m towards Cromer). The Highway Authority has confirmed that, subject
to certain minor revisions to the submitted plans, there is no objection to the
proposed access arrangements to serve the development.
Housing Mix and Affordability
Core Strategy Policy HO 1 requires at least 40% of dwellings to comprise not more
than 70sqm internal floorspace and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The intention
of this policy is to ensure that new residential developments help to reduce an
identified imbalance of larger house types in the District. As proposed 34% of the
dwellings would meet this criteria, but four of the three bedroom dwellings proposed
would only have 73sqm floorspace, which if included in the calculation would equate
to 42%. In the circumstances the mix of dwellings proposed is considered reasonable
in the context of this policy objective.
Policy HO 2 requires developments of this size, where it is viable to do so, to provide
45% of the dwellings as affordable housing. The submitted Report on Development
Viability provides a confidential assessment of the actual and predicted costs
associated with the development. The report includes reference to a number of what
are referred to as 'exceptional' costs over and above the more standard costs
associated with a development of this type. These include compliance with the Code
for Sustainable Homes, foul drainage works, highway works, public open space
provision (including financing off-site improvements) and library contributions.
The report concludes that to provide 45% affordable housing would produce a
developer profit of only 4.1% which would not justify the development from
progressing. Similarly it concludes that to provide 36% affordable housing would still
only produce a profit of 6.5%, again insufficient to justify it going ahead. The report
goes on to propose that the 36% provision could be achieved if a relaxation is made
to compliance with Core Strategy Policy EN 6 (Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3
and 10% renewable energy provision). This would achieve a profit of 10.6% which,
although the report states would be still significantly below the industry standard of
between 15-20%, is acceptable to the applicants for reasons associated with their
company maintaining an active financial turnover, retaining their workforce and
helping to meet the delivery of housing in the area.
Development Control Committee
33
14 April 2011
The viability report has been assessed in considerable detail and as a result certain
revisions to the data have been requested. Members will be updated at the meeting
as to whether Officers are in agreement with the conclusions of the report. The report
does however raise the issue as to whether or not it would be appropriate for the
Council to relax adopted policy requirements in terms of sustainability in order to
maximise the amount of affordable housing.
Layout and Design
In terms of the layout design of the development, this is to a significant degree
dictated by the triangular shape of the site and the position of the reconfigured road
junction onto Norwich Road. The principal elements of the layout as proposed
comprise a predominantly straight spine road running north-south through the site; a
linear arrangement of dwellings along the eastern side of the spine road backing
onto the boundary with the adjacent woodland; a more informal arrangement of
dwellings on the larger portion of the site to the west of the spine road; and the two
areas of open space, one more formal within the centre of the development and the
other, a natural green space immediately south of the road junction, having the
effect of setting dwellings back from the frontage with Norwich Road. Whilst there are
certain positives to this layout
the Committee's attention is drawn to the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's concerns that the predominantly
straight alignment of the main spine road would result in a 'sterile street scene
...reminiscent of regimented estate developments of the 1970's and 1980's'. There
are also certain specific points of concern which have been raised with the
applicants, namely the close and overbearing position of a three storey terrace of
three dwellings to existing properties adjacent to The Avenue and, the direct access
of two dwellings onto The Avenue which it is considered would have an
unnecessarily adverse impact upon the character of what is, and should ideally
remain a quiet country lane.
The amended plans submitted (which are subject to re-consultation) have made a
limited number of revisions to the site layout and design of certain dwellings. The
most notable of these amendments relates to the three storey terrace which has
been reduced in size so that the end unit, closest to The Avenue, would now be two
storey and the whole terrace would be re-positioned 1.2m further into the site. The
issue is not one of overlooking into nearby existing properties as they would face
towards a predominantly blank gable wall, but more to do with the overbearing
impact of this building on the outlook of these neighbouring properties. The North
Norfolk Design Guide stipulates minimum standards in terms of distances between
dwellings relating to specific types of elevations (i.e. primary elevations containing
main living room windows, secondary and blank elevations). In this case the distance
between the gable of the proposed terrace and neighbouring properties on the
opposite side of The Avenue comfortably complies with these standards and as such
is considered acceptable. Notwithstanding this, it seems unfortunate that the largest
building on the site would be sited in the closest position to existing properties.
No amendments have been made to the direct access of two dwellings onto The
Avenue.
Further comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager regarding
the scheme as a whole and the amendments submitted will be reported at the
meeting.
Landscaping
Policy C17 requires the 'retention of mature hedgerows and provision of suitable
boundary landscaping and areas of open space to retain a 'green' approach to
Cromer'. Certain of the existing hedgerows will be lost as a result of the new road
Development Control Committee
34
14 April 2011
junction arrangements, but this would be compensated by the area of natural green
open space at the site entrance together with new hedgerow planting along the
boundary of Norwich Road (now indicated on the amended plans). Members will note
the initial concerns expressed by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Landscape), and further comments on the amended plans will be reported at the
meeting.
Other Matters
Policy C17 requires demonstration that there is sufficient local sewage treatment
capacity to cater for the development. Anglian Water has confirmed that this is the
case subject to an agreed strategy which is likely to involve certain improvements to
the drainage network in the vicinity of the site.
Policy C17 also requires the prior approval of a scheme to monitor and, if necessary,
mitigate possible impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA and Ramsar site as a
result of increased visitor pressure. This arose as an issue during the preparation of
the Site Allocations DPD following representations by Natural England and the
RSPB. A number of other housing allocations are subject to this requirement. The
principle of requiring developers to mitigate against harmful effects upon these
environmentally sensitive sites is therefore established. However further work is still
required to determine how this should be implemented and exactly what the level of
contributions should be. Joint working is being carried out on this issue with
neighbouring authorities. Given this current situation it is considered premature to
impose such a requirement at this time and in relation to this application.
Core Strategy Policy EN 6 requires all new dwellings to achieve a code level 3 rating
under the Code for Sustainable Homes and for developments of 10 dwellings or
more 10% of the predicted energy usage should be sourced from on-site renewable
energy technology. It is standard practice to impose a condition on the grant of
planning permission to secure code level 3. In terms of meeting the 10% renewable
energy requirement little detail was initially submitted with the application. The agent
subsequently advised that this would be met by the installation of solar panels. As
referred to above however, the applicants are now proposing that in order to deliver
36% affordable housing and for the development to be viable, there would need to be
a 'relaxation' on the requirements of Policy EN 6.
Conclusions
At the time of preparing this report there still remain a number of issues to be
resolved. These principally include clarification from the applicants regarding certain
matters contained in the submitted Viability Report (linked to the proposed provision
of affordable housing) and the acceptability of the revisions made to the site layout
and house designs. These revised plans have been re-advertised and consulted
upon.
In the event of planning permission being granted this would need to be the subject
of a Section 106 Obligation to secure the eventually agreed amount of affordable
housing and financial contributions towards open space, library provision and off-site
highway works.
Recommendation
Members will be updated on the progress of this application at the meeting.
Development Control Committee
35
14 April 2011
11.
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/0196 - Removal of part of boundary wall to create
vehicular access; 24 The Londs for Mrs S Berry
Minor Development
Target Date: 25 March 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
See LE/11/0119 below
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20000305 PF - Erection of new cottage style dwelling to replace existing fire
damaged bungalow
Refused 14/04/2000
PLA/20001127 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Approved 03/10/2000
THE APPLICATION
To remove a 3.6m long section of boundary flint wall in order to create vehicular
access into the curtilage of an existing dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Fitch-Tillett due to the following planning issue:
Impact on the Conservation Area, specifically the flint walls along The Londs.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, raising the following issues;
1. The walls along The Londs serve as a conservation feature within the centre of
Overstrand and have been documented in various ways over the years
2. Contrary to Policies, including NNDC Core Strategy
3. Potentially dangerous to pedestrians, particularly in the holiday season
4. Section of the road restricted in width, lack of separate footpath and poorly
configured road junctions
5. Any vehicle would be required to reverse blind into the road
REPRESENTATIONS
31 letters of objection received, raising the following points;
1. Safety of the public will be put at risk, the entrance will be 'hidden'
2. Vehicle would need to back out into the road, with very poor visibility
3. Road used mainly for pedestrians, including children and holiday makers. Also
used by those in mobility scooters.
4. Parking available in adjacent roads
5. Application will damage some of the fabric of the village
6. Contrary to Policy EN 8
7. Not a one way street; vehicles are allowed to enter and exit from the south end,
but not enter from the north.
8. Contrary to previous planning decisions made by NNDC
9. Width of the road at this point is 3.27m
10. Potential damage to other properties when any car using the access reverses
11. Could encourage others to apply for similar vehicular accesses
12. Would change the condition from PF/00/1127
13. Concern regarding the impact of attaching the gate pier to the neighbour's
property (22) and the impact of any works to the integrity of the dwelling
Development Control Committee
36
14 April 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) The Londs is restricted in width with no formal passing provision. Servicing of the
property would result in vehicles blocking the public highway and inconvenience to
other road users. The configuration of the public highway at this location results in
low vehicle speeds and restricted number of vehicular movements. The Londs is an
unclassified road under the Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy.
In conclusion no objection is offered, given the above and that no formal planning
consent is generally required for vehicular access onto unclassified roads.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) The Londs is a hugely characterful lane which lies at the heart of Overstrand
Conservation Area. The flint boundary walls provide much of the enclosure that
characterises this area, together with the close relationships between its buildings.
The proposal involves punching a 3.6m hole through the wall and substituting this
with an electrically operated timber gate. Although the gate will provide some level of
enclosure when closed it is no substitute for the continuity of the existing flint work.
The section of wall under consideration is an inferior section of flint work; randomly
laid featuring a high proportion of brown field flint which has also been overpointed in
cement. This is contrast to the much of The Londs flint walls which are constructed
using graded and coursed grey beach cobbles laid with lime mortar. As the section of
wall is backed up against number 22, which sits hard up against the road, the loss of
enclosure is perhaps less crucial than if the access were at he northern end of the
Londs (where the walls are more continuous and the buildings do not provide such
strong support for the street scene).
The counter arguments aside, the proposal undoubtedly would not enhance the
significance of the designated Conservation Area, therefore it would be
understandable if the decision is ultimately to refuse the application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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 CT5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact upon The Londs as part of a Conservation Area
2. Highway safety
Development Control Committee
37
14 April 2011
APPRAISAL
The property under consideration was built following the approval of application
20001127 for a replacement building on the site. The west side of the curtilage
borders onto The Londs and is marked with a flint wall. The proposal is to demolish a
3.6m section of this wall to create a vehicular access onto The Londs. Vehicular
access is not possible from nearby Cliff Road at this site as the curtilage does not
extend that far.
The following condition was imposed on permission PF/00/1127.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class B, Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order
revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no additional pedestrian or vehicular
access shall be formed to the property unless planning permission has first been
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the front boundary wall to the property is maintained in order to
protect the character and appearance of Overstrand Conservation Area.
As The Londs is an unclassified road planning permission would not normally be
required for creating vehicular access. However as the above condition was included
on the planning permission for the dwelling then a planning application was required.
The Highway Authority has no objection to the application on highway safety grounds
and compliance with Policy CT5 is therefore achieved.
The Londs is a characterful and historical lane, with one of the defining
characteristics the sense of enclosure apparent along its length. At the northern end
the walls are more continuous and provide much of the sense of enclosure. However
for the rest of the road many buildings are sat hard up against the road, with the walls
being less continuous. As such although the same sense of enclosure is felt all along
the road it is achieved in different ways.
The neighbouring dwelling to the south of the site sits hard up against the road and
consists of a 2 storey dwelling, with its gable end onto the road. The section of wall
proposed to be removed is attached to this dwelling.
In place of the wall an electronically operated wooden gate is proposed. This would
increase the ease of use for the owner and still provide a physical element of
enclosure. The gate would be natural timber, with no stain. A brick pillar would be
constructed attached to the neighbour’s house, of 0.225m wide, together with a brick
pillar on the end of the remaining wall to make good. Bricks would match the existing
bricks within the wall.
The section of wall proposed to be removed is an inferior section of flint work, that
has been randomly laid and features a high proportion of brown field flint. This has
then been overpointed in cement. In contrast, much of The Londs flint walls are
constructed using graded and coursed grey beach cobbles laid with lime mortar.
Indeed the remainder of the applicant’s wall is of this latter style.
The replacement of this relatively poor quality section of wall by a gate is, on
balance, considered to comply with Policy EN 8. The removal of this 3.6m section of
wall within Overstrand's Conservation Area is not considered to alter the character or
appearance of this section of The Londs.
Development Control Committee
38
14 April 2011
Policy EN 4 is also considered to be complied with since the creation of a drive
immediately adjacent to a neighbour's property is common and is not considered to
result in a significant detrimental effect on either neighbour's residential amenity.
This is considered to be a very finely balanced application, but on the basis set out
above is considered to accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to a condition requesting samples of the brick to be used
prior to development commencing.
12.
OVERSTRAND - LE/11/0119 - Removal of part of boundary wall to create
vehicular access; 24 The Londs for Mrs S Berry
Target Date: 25 March 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Conservation Area Demolition
See also PF/11/0196 above
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
To remove a 3.6m long section of boundary flint wall in order to create vehicular
access into the curtilage of an existing dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Fitch-Tillett due to following planning issue:
Impact on the Conservation Area, specifically the flint walls along The Londs.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object raising the following issues;
1. The walls along The Londs serve as a conservation feature within the centre of
Overstrand and have been documented in various ways over the years
2. Contrary to Policies, including NNDC Core Strategy
3. Potentially dangerous to pedestrians, particularly in the holiday season
4. Section of the road restricted in width, lack of separate footpath and poorly
configured road junctions
5. Any vehicle would be required to reverse blind into the road
REPRESENTATIONS
29 letters of objection, raising the following issues (summarised);
1. The wall is historic and part of the tranquillity that is part of The Londs,
infrequently used by cars.
2. The proposal would impact negatively upon a picturesque and historic lane, with
associations to the Churchill family.
3. Road is used by many hundreds of visitors and holiday makers throughout the
year, including children, often as a route to the beach from the village.
4. Entrance to parking space would not allow the driver a clear view of the road
when exiting.
5. Parking is available elsewhere within the village, e.g. Harbord Road and Cliff
Road.
Development Control Committee
39
14 April 2011
6. Proposed parking space is currently at a higher level than the road, ensuring that
a ramp would be required.
7. Other vehicular accesses along The Londs enjoy better visibility than the
proposed access
8. Single directional road, 30mph speed limit.
9. Proposal is contrary to NNDC's policies.
10. Could encourage others to submit similar applications, possibly opening the 'flood
gates'.
11. Contrary to initial planning permission granted for the house (PF/00/1127).
12. Existing wall is attached to a neighbour's property: 22 The Londs. Concern
regarding the impact the proposal may have upon the integrity of the house.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) The Londs is a hugely characterful lane which lies at the heart of Overstrand
Conservation Area. The flint boundary walls provide much of the enclosure that
characterises this area, together with the close relationships between its buildings.
The proposal involves punching a 3.6m hole through the wall and substituting this
with an electrically operated timber gate. Although the gate will provide some level of
enclosure when closed it is no substitute for the continuity of the existing flint work.
The section of wall under consideration is an inferior section of flint work; randomly
laid featuring a high proportion of brown field flint which has also been overpointed in
cement. This is contrast to the much of The Londs flint walls which are constructed
using graded and coursed grey beach cobbles laid with lime mortar. As the section of
wall is backed up against number 22, which sits hard up against the road, the loss of
enclosure is perhaps less crucial than if the access were at the northern end of the
Londs (where the walls are more continuous and the buildings do not provide such
strong support for the street scene).
The counter arguments aside, the proposal undoubtedly would not enhance the
significance of the designated Conservation Area, therefore it would be
understandable if the decision is ultimately to refuse the application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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
Impact upon The Londs as part of a Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The proposal is to demolish a 3.6m section to enable vehicular access to be provided
for the curtilage. The wall in question fronting The Londs is of varying quality.
Development Control Committee
40
14 April 2011
The Londs is a characterful and historical lane, with one of the defining
characteristics the sense of enclosure apparent along its length. At the northern end
(further north than the applicant's property) the walls are more continuous and
provide much of the sense of enclosure. However for the rest of the road many
buildings are sat hard up against the road, with the walls being less continuous. As
such although the same sense of enclosure is felt all along the road it is achieved in
different ways.
The neighbouring dwelling to the south of the site sits hard up against the road and
consists of a 2 storey dwelling, with its gable end onto the road. The section of wall
proposed to be removed is attached to this dwelling.
In place of the wall an electronically operated wooden gate is proposed. This would
increase the ease of use for the owner and still provide a physical element of
enclosure. The gate would be natural timber, with no stain. A brick pillar would be
constructed attached to the neighbour’s house, of 0.225m wide, together with a brick
pillar on the end of the remaining wall to make good. Bricks would match the existing
bricks within the wall.
The section of wall proposed to be removed is an inferior section of flint work, that
has been randomly laid and features a high proportion of brown field flint. This has
then been overpointed in cement. In contrast, much of The Londs flint walls are
constructed using graded and coursed grey beach cobbles laid with lime mortar.
Indeed the remainder of the applicant's wall is of this latter style.
The replacement of this relatively poor quality section of wall by a gate is, on
balance, considered to comply with Policy EN 8, since it is not considered to alter
significantly the character or appearance of this section of The Londs.
This is considered to be a very finely balanced application, but on the basis set out
above is considered to accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to conditions requesting samples of the brick to be used
before development begins and preventing the demolition from taking place
until a contract for construction of the replacement gate has been entered into.
13.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1478 - Demolition of church and erection of seven
residential units; Baptist Church, Holway Road for Sheringham Baptist Church
Minor Development
Target Date: 17 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Archaeological Site
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of the church building and the erection of seven flats, consisting
of 4no 2 bedroom and 3no 1 bedroom flats. The proposed building would be 3
storeys and there would be a building to the rear containing car parking, bin and
cycle storage with a flat above.
Development Control Committee
41
14 April 2011
There are 11 car parking spaces proposed.
The materials proposed are red brick work and tiles and clay pantiles.
An amended plan has been received showing an increase in the ridge height of the
central section of the development, removal of a bedroom, change in roof from a
gable to a hip, reduction in length of car port building and re-positioning of bin and
cycle storage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issue:
Highway safety
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from local residents, two of which are
regarding the amended plans and are from two of the previous objectors. The
objections to the original plans are as follows:
1. Gross overdevelopment
2. Overshadowing
3. Out of keeping with other properties
4. Loss of views
5. Development projects in front of established building line
6. Car parking problems
7. Roof heights higher than current houses and significantly higher than number 27
8. An alternative cottage design is suggested
9. Increase in traffic
10. Loss of light
Further objection received in respect of the amended plans the same as above and
in addition include:
1. Objections not taken into consideration
2. One roofline slightly tweaked
3. No intention to lessen the number of dwellings
4. Roof heights still higher than neighbouring properties
The applicants have submitted a Design and Access Statement which explains that
the existing church building has many structural faults that are becoming costly to
repair and maintain. This along with the need for a larger church building for the
growing congregation means that the applicants have decided to redevelop this site
and look for an alternative location within the town to construct a new purpose built
church to meet their needs. A copy of this is contained in Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - This site was the subject of informal discussion, and this
application proposes a slightly altered access arrangement and 11 parking spaces
for the 7 residential units. Although the usual requirements would be 2 spaces per 2
bed unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 bed unit equating to 12 spaces overall with
consideration of the sites existing use, which would have generated a significant
parking requirement at times, the substantial cycle parking provision and the sites
proximity to the town centre and the availability of public transport I feel that an
objection would not be sustainable. I do, however, have some concerns regarding
Development Control Committee
42
14 April 2011
the frontage wall and railing arrangements which as proposed would be obstructive
to visibility from the site access. I would require the wall to be set back at least 2m
from the carriageway edge (kerb line) or tapered towards to the access to ensure
adequate levels of visibility.
Subject to the receipt of amended plans showing acceptable visibility conditions
would be required regarding construction of the vehicular access and on-site car and
cycle parking.
Environmental Health - A condition is required regarding an agreement of the method
of demolition of the existing buildings on the site.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order for the proposal to comply with Policy EN6 a
condition is required that the dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above.
Norfolk Constabulary Architectural Liaison/Crime Prevention Officer - Provided
advice on crime prevention measures regarding layout, lighting, landscaping, doors
and windows and achieving the Secure by Design award.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy 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 HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Dwelling mix and type
4. Density
Development Control Committee
43
14 April 2011
5. Impact upon neighbouring properties
6. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area of Sheringham, where
residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle. The site is
surrounded by residential properties which are primarily terraced dwellings of
between two and three storeys with rooms in the roof space, and some semidetached dwellings.
Holway Road is located on a hill, with the land rising to the south. The lowest point is
to the north where Holway Road joins the roundabout junction with Station Road and
the Cromer Road. Given these changes in levels, the dwellings, whilst descending in
height, still vary in terms of their overall ridge height.
The footprint of the existing church building on the site is that of an 'L' shape,
constructed approximately 1m off the northern and eastern boundaries, running
almost the entire length of both these boundaries at some 25m long. The existing
part of the building adjacent to the northern boundary has a pitched roof measuring
approximately 6.5m in height to the ridge and 3.5m to the eaves. The existing part of
the building adjacent to the eastern boundary is of a flat roof construction and
measures between 3m and 4m in height.
The main building proposed containing 6 of the 7 flats would be located towards the
front of the site approximately in line with the frontage and northern elevation of the
existing church building. Similarly, the building containing the car ports and unit 7 to
the rear of the site (eastern boundary) would also be no closer to the boundary than
the existing church building.
Where there is now a continuous 3.5m high wall and ridge height of 6.5m for 25m
along the northern elevation of the church building, this would be replaced under the
proposed development by a building with a gable width of approximately 7m. This
would be a significant reduction in the amount of building and mass located
alongside this northern boundary.
Following an objection from one of the neighbours adjacent to the site and a
subsequent site visit by the Case Officer to that property it was considered that the
gable ended design of this part of the scheme was not acceptable. The application
site is located at a higher ground level than the dwellings to the north by
approximately 500mm, and the gable end to the north was shown to be some 8.5m in
height to the ridge. This matter was raised with the agent and a reduction in the scale
and massing of this part of the scheme was suggested by removing the bedroom in
the roofspace of unit 6 and re-designing the layout, and replacing the gable end with
a hip. In addition to this a number of other amendments were suggested in order to
improve the appearance of the development and relationship with neighbouring
dwellings by increasing the ridge height of the central section of the of the scheme so
that there was not such a significant change in ridge heights across the development,
moving the bin storage area from the eastern boundary of the site to an enclosed
covered area to the north east corner of the site, reducing the length of the car port
building and unit 7 in order to incorporate a cycle storage area. It was not considered
that the positioning of the bin store adjacent to the eastern boundary would be very
neighbourly given the relationship to the rear gardens of the dwellings to the east and
that unit 7 has a number of roof lights facing that area. It is considered that this had
the potential to cause issues of disturbance and odour to neighbours.
Development Control Committee
44
14 April 2011
The amended plans incorporating the above changes are considered to have
reduced the overall scale and massing of the development and improved the
relationship with the dwellings to the north.
The form and design of the proposed development is considered to be in keeping
with the existing two and three storey terraces of dwellings along Holway Road. The
ridge line of the proposed development would be varied as are the ridge lines of the
existing dwellings along this road. The ridge height of the proposed development
would vary, levels across the site measuring between 9.5m and 10m. The proposed
development would be approximately 400mm higher than the dwellings to the south
which themselves stand at just over 9m in height. The amended plans now show the
hipped roof to the very northern part of the development which reduces the height of
the proposal bringing it more in line with the height of the neighbouring dwelling to
the north which is shown to be just over 7m in height. Subject to the use of
appropriate materials it is considered that the proposed development would not have
a significant detrimental impact on the character or quality of the area, and that the
proposal would be an improvement in the street scene by linking up the existing
residential developments to the north and south.
The proposed development complies with Policy H01: Dwelling Mix and Type as all
of the 7 units proposed would have no more than 70sqm internal floor space and two
bedrooms or fewer; the policy requires 40% to comply, and at least 20% would be
suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled as they
are both on the ground floor.
In terms of density, Policy H07 requires the density of development in this location to
be no less than 40 dwellings per hectare. Whilst 7 units are proposed on this site only
3 would be required in order to comply with a requirement of at least 40 dwellings per
hectare. It does not specify a maximum providing the development optimises the
density of the site in a manner that protects or enhances the character of the area.
Given that the proposed development is for 7 flats that have the appearance of a
terrace of three storey town houses it is considered that this would be in keeping with
the character and appearance of the area and would enhance the character
compared to the architecture of the existing church building.
There would be a shortfall in the distances provided as guidance in the Amenity
Criteria, but the scheme has been amended to reduce the impact of the proposal on
the dwelling to the north by changing a gable to a hip. There would be no windows
facing north and the building would be no closer to the northern boundary than the
existing church building. The building comprising the car port and unit 7 to the rear of
the site would be approximately 4m in height to the eaves which is the same height
as the existing flat roof church building in this location. Again the proposed building
would be no closer to the boundary than the existing building. The only difference is
that the proposed building would not have a flat roof, but a pitched roof with a ridge
height of approximately 7m. However, the roof would be sloping away from the
dwellings to the east. With regard to the relationship to the dwelling to the south the
development would be approximately 2.5m away. There would be a ground floor
entrance to a flat and a kitchen window at first floor. There would be a small bedroom
window in the first floor of dwelling to the south facing the site. However, this would
be on the northern elevation of the existing dwelling and due to its orientation would
be in shadow. It is not therefore considered that this would result in a significant loss
of light. Given that the proposed development would reduce the overall built form to
the northern boundary this would create a certain element of openness and would
not feel so enclosed. The proposed development is therefore considered to have an
acceptable relationship to the neighbouring dwellings and one which would not have
a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers.
Development Control Committee
45
14 April 2011
The Highway Authority has requested an amended plan to show improvements to the
access to improve the visibility. At the time of writing this report this information was
still awaited. Subject to the receipt of this plan that there would be no objection from
the Highway Authority.
It is therefore considered, subject to no objections from the Highway Authority on
receipt of amended plan improving visibility, that the proposal would be acceptable
and in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Highway
Authority on the receipt of an amended plan regarding visibility and imposition
of appropriate conditions.
14.
SHERINGHAM - PM/11/0061 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 1A Havelock
Road for Mr R Carter
Minor Development
Target Date: 15 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Reserved Matters
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071907 PO - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Approved 21/12/2009
PLA/20080727 EF - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of garden for parking
of vehicles used in connection with contracting business
Approved 25/08/2009
PM/10/1200 PM - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn 13/12/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is a reserved matters application for a two storey dwelling with a room in the roof
space. The matters for consideration under this application are appearance, layout,
landscaping and scale, access having been agreed under outline permission
20071907.
The plot measures approximately 10m wide and 35m in length. The proposed
dwelling would measure approximately 8.3m in height to the ridge at its highest point
and approximately 7.2m at its lowest to the rear. The total length of the proposed
dwelling would be approximately 14m, but the ridge line would be split into two parts
measuring approximately 10m in length to the front and 4m in length to the rear
section. The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 7.8m at its widest
point and 6m at its narrowest, at the front projecting gable.
The materials proposed are painted render, timber cladding and pantiles.
An amended plan has been received showing a slight reduction in the overall ridge
height by approximately 200mm, narrowing of chimney to front of proposed dwelling,
and a street scene elevation showing relationship to the neighbouring dwellings.
Development Control Committee
46
14 April 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Bevan Jones having regard to the following planning
issues:
1. Overdevelopment
2. Impact on neighbours
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from the same objector. One letter in
relation to the original plans and one in relation to the amended plans raising the
following points:
Comments on original plans:
1. Overdevelopment of site
2. Loss of light
3. Unsympathetic design
4. Loss of privacy
5. Overlooking
6. Proposal will add to access and parking problems along Havelock Road
7. Concerns over ridge height levels as cannot ascertain levels from plans
Comments on amended plans:
1. Plans show proposed dwelling to be infinitely higher than 3 Havelock Road
2. The footings are less than 2m from boundary with 3 Havelock Road, excavating
could cause damage to existing garage
3. There are still 9 windows, glazed door and large ground to eave glazed area facing
3 Havelock Road.
4. Height and length of property would overshadow 3 Havelock Road
5. Proposed dwelling would be 3 storeys not 2 storey
6. Not in keeping
7. Parking provision insufficient
A representation has also been received from a neighbour who has advised that they
would object if the proposed dwelling were taller than their own at 1 Havelock Road.
However, if the ridge height was the same as that of 1 Havelock Road they would
have no objection to the application.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Following informal discussions and advice
regarding the parking arrangements, which have been implemented, I would now find
an objection to the proposal difficult to substantiate. A condition regarding on site car
parking as shown on the submitted plan 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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
47
14 April 2011
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
4. Highway safety and parking
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this site following a recent site visit. The site is
located within the residential policy area of Sheringham where residential
development is considered to be acceptable in principle. Outline planning permission
was granted on this site under application reference 20071907 for the erection of a
two storey dwelling. The access was agreed under the outline planning application
and is not for consideration under this reserved matters application. The principle of a
two storey dwelling on this site has therefore already been established. This reserved
matters application is for the consideration of appearance, layout, scale and
landscaping.
Following lengthy discussions regarding the design of the proposed dwelling and its
relationship to the surrounding neighbouring properties, a previous reserved matters
application under reference 10/1200 was withdrawn by the applicant in the light of
concerns over the siting, scale, mass and relationship to neighbouring dwellings. In
order to attempt to address those concerns the applicant and agent have altered the
siting by proposing to move the dwelling forward on the site by approximately 2.5m,
reducing the scale and height of the rear of the proposed dwelling by creating a
smaller rear gable, dropping the ridge height by 1.3m for a length of 4m, and
reducing the width by 500mm, removing and altering the fenestration on the western,
southern and eastern elevations to prevent overlooking. The current application was
submitted on this basis.
Whilst the amendments have reduced the overall scale and massing of the proposed
dwelling and improved the relationship to both neighbouring dwellings, concerns
remain regarding the overall height of the proposed dwelling and the bulky
appearance of the chimney on the front gable.
However, following the most recent amendments on the current application of a slight
reduction in the overall ridge height by approximately 200mm, narrowing of the
chimney to front of proposed dwelling, and the submission of a street scene elevation
showing relationship to the neighbouring dwellings it is considered that these
concerns have been addressed.
Development Control Committee
48
14 April 2011
Along with the reduction in the ridge height the proposed dwelling would also be 'dug
in' in to the site, given its differing levels due to its sloping nature. The street scene
shows the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling and the ground levels. The
proposed dwelling would be 'dug in' to the site by approximately 500mm. The ridge
height of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 100mm lower than that of 1
Havelock Road to the west and approximately 1.5m higher than that of 3 Havelock
Road to the east. It is inevitable that the ridge height of any two storey dwelling on
this site would be higher than that of 3 Havelock Road given the sloping nature of the
site. The street scene shows the eaves height of the proposed dwelling to be
approximately 800mm lower than the eaves to 1 Havelock Road and approximately
in line with the eaves at 3 Havelock Road. The street scene demonstrates that the
overall height of the dwelling would not be significantly out of keeping with that of the
neighbouring properties on either side.
The front elevation of the proposed dwelling as shown on the proposed plans would
have a slightly 'squat' appearance. However, it is not considered that the proposed
dwelling would be viewed in such a way once constructed. The reason for this is that
whilst a gable width of some 7.8m is considered to be quite wide this is the width of
the proposed dwelling at its widest point which is set well back into the site by
approximately 11m; this would not be prominent in the street scene. The most visible
part of the proposed dwelling would be the front projecting gable whose width would
be approximately 6m. Proportionally this is considered to be acceptable and in
keeping with the scale and appearance of the surrounding properties.
There is a mix of types and styles of dwellings along Havelock Road, with no single
overriding distinctive design and character to the dwellings. The gable ended design
of the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the design and appearance of
other dwellings in the area, including 1 and 3 Havelock Road. The materials
proposed are a mix of painted render and timber cladding, and the majority of
dwellings along Havelock Road are also rendered and painted. The timber cladding
proposed would complement the render finish. The proposed materials would not be
out of keeping with those of neighbouring dwellings. Overall scale and massing of the
proposed dwelling has been significantly reduced by the drop in ridge height to the
rear portion of the proposed dwelling and the creation of an asymmetrical rear gable.
Consequently it is considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed
dwelling would not have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance or
character of the area or the street scene.
One of the objections received from a local resident is that the proposed dwelling is
not a conventional two storey dwelling as approved under the outline application.
However, the outline application was to establish the principle of a two storey
dwelling on this site and the only matter for consideration at that time was the
access. Therefore, the appearance could not be established at that time with any
certainty.
The proposed dwelling would not comply with the Amenity Criteria guidance in the
North Norfolk Design Guide. However, it is considered that any dwelling proposed on
this site would not be able to comply given the 10m width of the site and the site's
relationship with the neighbouring dwellings on either side. No. 1 Havelock Road to
the west is just over 2m away from the western elevation of the proposed dwelling
and has two high level windows in the ground floor facing the site and a conservatory
to the rear. No. 3 Havelock Road has a kitchen window and a bedroom window
facing the site and would be approximately 3.5m from the eastern elevation of the
proposed dwelling. The windows and doors in the side elevations of the proposed
dwelling are carefully positioned and where required would be high level or obscure
Development Control Committee
49
14 April 2011
glazed. A secondary lounge window and ground to eaves height glazing to the
entrance would face east towards the front garden of 3 Havelock Road and its
driveway. This area is visible from Havelock Road and is not regarded as private
space. Given the limited windows in the side elevations of the neighbouring dwellings
and the careful positioning of the windows in the proposed dwelling, it is considered
that the relationship with the neighbouring dwellings would be acceptable and the
proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.
Parking would be provided on site for three vehicles in accordance with the District
Council's car parking standards for a four bedroom property. The Highway Authority
has raised no objection.
It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling is acceptable and in accordance
with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
materials, car parking, ground levels, obscure glazing and removal of
permitted development rights.
15.
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1439 - Erection of two detached one and a half
storey dwellings; Land to the rear Green Farm Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Perry
Minor Development
Target Date: 09 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Listed Building Grade II
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080532 PF - Conversion of hotel and outbuildings to nine dwellings, erection
of two semi-detached dwellings
Refused 20/06/2008
PLA/20080971
PF - Alterations to hotel to provide guest house with owner's
accommodation, conversion of outbuildings to two dwellings and three holiday units
and erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings
Approved 18/08/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is to erect two one and a half storey dwellings in place of the two single storey
dwellings permitted under application 20080971.
Amended plans have been received revising the layout to incorporate a fire engine
turning head and additional car parking.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee
50
14 April 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
Further comments received covering a number of concerns.
Appendix 6.
Copy attached at
REPRESENTATIONS
A petition has been received from local residents objecting on the following grounds:
The site of Green Farm has already been subdivided and the subdivision not carried
out in accordance with the approved plans likely to result in increased parking
demand outside the site if the hotel use is continued or the Bed and Breakfast use
implemented.
Proposal is detrimental to the listed building in the design of the new dwellings.
Increased vehicle traffic.
Two individual letters of objection have also been received from local residents
objecting to the fences that have been erected without complying with a condition of
the extant permission for approval prior to erection. The fences not in keeping with
the boundaries of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
A further letter of objection has been received from a local resident citing the grounds
of backland development, in appropriate to setting of listed building, inappropriate
design of the development in relation to prevailing character, loss of amenities for
hotel and its future re-use compromised.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - Concerned about the apparent shortfall in parking spaces.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) When originally approved back in 2008, it was considered that the two dwellings on
this site should take the form of a low key outbuilding in order to preserve the
hierarchy of the site. Whilst it is easy to look back critically at the approved design,
the basic principle of the new build being subordinate to the Grade II listed hotel, and
being compatible with the existing accessory buildings, still applies.
The basic approach is still one of having two detached buildings which are very
similar in appearance – in this case a pair of conventional single-storey properties
from the front and a pair of chalet bungalows from the rear. The resultant stand-alone
units would have a rather regimented and suburban feel which would prevent them
from successfully integrating with the rest of the site.
Elevationally, the buildings on their more ‘public’ side are fairly mild mannered but
ultimately offer little in the way of visual interest or innovation. Elsewhere, the box
dormers and flat roof additions are routed firmly in the mid-late 20th century and
would hardly enhance the designs. Therefore, despite the good quality materials
proposed, there is nothing within the submission to suggest that the new build would
make a positive contribution to the built environment as required by PPS1.
Because the proposals would harm the significance of the existing heritage assets,
refusal has to be the Conservation & Design recommendation.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a code level 3 condition
Development Control Committee
51
14 April 2011
Building Control - No fire engine turning provision and if the dwelling within 1m of the
boundary all doors and windows in the side elevation should not exceed 1 sq. m in
total.
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 and an individual who has objected.
However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public,
refusal of the application is considered to be justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Car Parking
2. Design
3. Impact on the setting of the listed building.
4. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable the Committee to
visit the site.
The site is located within the village of Thorpe Market which formerly had a
development boundary under the Local Plan but within the Core Strategy is
designated as Countryside. Thorpe Market lies on the A149 on the edge of Gunton
Park. The site also lies within the Thorpe Market and the Gunton Park Conservation
Areas and most importantly within the curtilage of a Grade II listed building.
The site has permission for the development of two single-storey semi-detached
dwellings which formed part of a comprehensive scheme involving the
redevelopment of Green Farm whose last use was as a hotel. This site is formed
from the subdivision of a large portion of the former car park. As currently proposed,
this subdivision would result in some loss of parking allocated for the Guest House
Development Control Committee
52
14 April 2011
use, granted under the same permission, and has arisen because the site plan on
the earlier permission was inaccurate. As it stands therefore the scheme would lead
to a shortfall in car parking for the neighbouring development, with adverse
consequential impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area from displaced
vehicles.
It is a fundamental requirement of Policy EN 4 that design should have regard to the
local context as well as preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area,
which this proposal fails to do. The design, apart from some token flint on the front
elevation, is more akin to that which can be found on a suburban residential estate in
a town. While quality materials may be proposed for the walls, roof and joinery this
cannot lift the basic design above the mundane. This scheme appears to have
scant respect for its setting within the Conservation Area and within the former
curtilage of a listed building. The proposed dwellings are considered to be 1¹/2 storey
dwellings, and had they not the accommodation in the roof space the roofs could be
lower and better proportioned.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has assessed the detrimental
impact that this proposal would have on the setting of the listed building and the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In conclusion, whilst the plots would be located behind Green Farm, development on
this site would be visible from A149 and other public vantage points from other
dwellings and along footpaths and from Southrepps. The proposed development
would not only fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area, but it would also be detrimental to the setting of a Grade II listed
building.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development
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 of new development (requires compliance with the
Council’s car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would result
in a development that by virtue of its form, layout, height, position and suburban
appearance would introduce a style of building incompatible with the existing
converted outbuildings formed around the original curtilage of the listed building to
the detriment of the setting of that listed building. As a consequence the proposal
would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas.
In addition, the proposal would prejudice the proper development of the adjoining site
and the implementation of an existing planning permission through the loss of
parking spaces allocated to that site, to the detriment of the appearance of the
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
53
14 April 2011
16.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0484 - Formation of public vehicle park with
associated pedestrian and vehicular accesses and landscaping; Land to North
of Freeman Street for Holkham Estate
Major Development
Target Date: 01 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
National Nature Reserve
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070482 PF - Change of use of recreation field to temporary car park for
forty-eight days per annum
Temporary Approval 12/06/2007
PLA/20080230 PF - Continued use of recreation field as temporary car park for
forty-eight days per annum
Temporary Approval 08/04/2008
PLA/20081741 PF - Continued use of land as temporary car park for 65 days per
annum
Approved 16/02/2009
PLA/19920478 PF - Construction of new inlet works, treatment works and utilities
building
Approved 03/08/1992
PF/10/0484 PF - Formation of public vehicle park with associated pedestrian and
vehicular accesses and landscaping
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the formation of a public vehicle park with associated pedestrian and vehicular
accesses and landscaping. The area of the proposed car park is approx 2 hectares
on Holkham Estate land. The land is currently laid to grass and is used for the
grazing of horses. Access to the site would be via a new gated access road from
Freeman Street, approximately 100 metres west of the built edge of the town. The
proposed access road would bisect an existing access road serving the sewage
works and the existing road would have restricted/controlled access. The vehicle
park would accommodate approximately 291 cars (including 33 disabled spaces), 5
coaches and 20 cycles.
The proposed access, manoeuvring areas and coach parking spaces would be
surfaced with bitumen with sprayed gravel. The parking spaces and some of the
lower trafficked access roads would be surfaced with sustainable urban drainage
matrix containing a mixture of golden gravel and grass infill. An attenuation pool is
proposed along the southern edge of the site, primarily to accommodate storm water.
Pedestrian access from the car park to the town centre would be via a gravelled
access road with a timber boardwalk section over an existing drainage ditch. The
pedestrian access would terminate at Beach Road football ground where it would link
into existing pedestrian access routes into the town. No external lighting is proposed
Amended plans have been submitted.
Development Control Committee
54
14 April 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Wishes to place on record its whole-hearted support for this project - additional offstreet parking is badly needed in this town. NB The Design and Access statement
states that we previously expressed concern at the loss of revenue from existing car
parks - this is not the case. However, we did previously express concerns that this
proposal was not large enough to take up all of the capacity currently being used at
the Recreation (Football) Field.
REPRESENTATIONS
22 letters have been received to date, 20 objecting, 1 in support and 1 commenting.
Summary of objections:
1. The proposal would encroach into the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB);
2. The proposal is to solve a six week seasonal problem involving permanent
destruction of this area;
3. The proposal clearly allows for future expansion;
4. This is the thin end of the wedge;
5. There will be noise, dust and litter in this part of Wells as a result;
6. The location is poor - too far from the town, too far from the beach and too far
from the shops;
7. Concerned about potential impact of light pollution;
8. The proposal will exacerbate flooding in the area hence the need for the pond;
9. The proposal is too close to residential properties on Freeman Street;
10. The proposal would need to be appropriately screened;
11. The ramped walkway will have a significant visual impact;
12. Question whether the leftover grassland will be managed for wildlife value;
13. The proposal, as a whole, would have a significant impact on the AONB;
14. Question the need for this facility for the most part of the year;
15. It is a pity that a more environmentally friendly site could not have been found to
the south of Wells;
16. The proposed car park should be locked at night and not lit;
17. Appropriate signage would need to be erected to direct drivers to the site;
18. The impact on residents at Mainsail Yard will be significant;
19. The proposal would be visually and audibly overbearing;
20. The proposal would destroy natural assets and harm the very reason that attracts
tourists to the town;
21. There would be a significant impact on wildlife (including Barn Owls);
22. What guarantees are there that proposed landscaping would remain;
23. The proposal would significantly increase traffic along Freeman Street, to the
detriment of highway safety;
24. The site has a known history of flooding and is a flood plain;
25. Pollution from cars and vehicles could have a significant impact on wildlife if it
gets into the natural drains;
26. The existing flood defences must not be structurally compromised by this
proposal;
27. The proposal may increase security concerns for residents backing onto the site;
28. The existing temporary car park arrangements at the football ground are
acceptable and should continue instead of this new car park;
29. People will not pay for parking and will continue to clog up the streets;
30. Traffic fumes would be unacceptable for nearby residents;
31. Wells does not need to increase seasonal parking provision;
32. This area of AONB will be lost forever;
Development Control Committee
55
14 April 2011
33. The proposed pond should not be allowed to become a tourist destination as that
would adversely affect amenity of adjacent residents;
34. The car park should be time limited (9am to 6pm) and seasonal;
35. There should be no trailers, caravans or camping on site;
36. No concessions, sales, markets or boot fairs or similar on site;
37. Sewage pipes cross the field to the sewage works;
38. The car park needs to have appropriate barriers to prevent racing in the car park
at night;
39. The car park may be too small to meet the seasonal demand;
40. Impact on flora and fauna would be significant;
41. The proposal would be visually unattractive from prominent public vantage points
(sea wall and higher ground);
42. No provision is made for electric vehicle charging points;
43. The Inspector considering the SSP allocation for this site has identified the
potential impact of this proposal on the area;
44. The current layout and design needs to be altered to improve its relationship with
its surroundings;
45. Better landscape mitigation is required to screen views from properties and to
enhance the area;
46. The character of the open landscape will not be retained;
47. The applicant should amend the proposal.
Summary of comments:
1. The choice of surface materials is perhaps a little inappropriate
2. The proposed pedestrian route will reduce the distance between geese and dogs
(with their owners) and this could scare the geese away;
3. It would be better to route pedestrians down Freeman Street;
Summary of letter in support:
1. The proposal will increase parking in the area;
2. Will be an asset for the town;
3. The Quay will become a much more pleasant, safe and pedestrian friendly area;
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Original comments - requested further information/
clarification regarding hours of use of the car park and lighting details together with
clarification regarding the flood risk assessment.
Updated Comments - Following receipt of the additional information, I am happy with
the proposals and agree with the Environment Agency’s comments in relation to the
FRA. In terms of the additional information on the lights and hours of use. I am happy
with this.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Comments - The proposed site is outside the North
Norfolk Heritage Coast, the most sensitive undeveloped area of the North Norfolk
Coast. However, I have previously expressed concern about development north and
west of the town, into the largely undeveloped coastal landscape north of the A149
coast road. Avoidance of this remains a principle of the Norfolk Coast Transport
Strategy.
It is surprising that the Design and Access Statement does not recognise the context
of the proposed car park within the Norfolk Coast AONB, although the visual impact
assessment in the Environmental Statement does so, and the design appears to
have been developed with this in mind, to minimise visual impacts on the open
coastal landscape. It is apparent that real efforts have been made to address
landscape and other concerns in developing the detailed design, and it could provide
improvements to the current situation.
Development Control Committee
56
14 April 2011
I recognise that there is not sufficient parking in Wells to meet demand at peak times,
but it is questionable for how long during the year the demand is at a level to require
a new car park of this size to operate. If other car parks within the town are to be
redeveloped (which could have impacts on income to the District Council), this could
justify all year use, otherwise seasonal use might be more appropriate.
A new car park should be substitute, not an addition, to the temporary car park on the
football field at peak times. This may have some impact on the current income to
Wells Town Council, but the permission is not permanent. It would negate many of
the potential benefits of the proposed scheme if the temporary parking also continued
to operate on an occasional basis outside planning control. I would welcome the
intention to share a proportion of the income from the car park with the Town Council
but suggest that as part of this arrangement the Town Council agrees not to use
other areas on an occasional basis.
It appears to be proposed that the area would remain publicly accessible at all times,
but unclear whether this means it would be open to vehicles at all times. I suggest
that a condition closing the car park to vehicles be considered.
Although a constraint on lighting was included in the proposal within the Site Specific
proposal in the LDF, there appears to be no mention of lighting in the application,
D&A Statement or ES, so I assume this is deemed not to be required. I welcome this
if that is the case, but if any lighting is required it should be included within the main
application rather than as an afterthought.
The most visually noticeable vehicles would be likely to be coaches. Since these
seem to be satisfactorily accommodated at present on the site on Polka Road, it may
not be necessary to provide spaces in a new car park.
As a final point, the area proposed for cycle parking should be nearer to the town
centre, in order to encourage and provide for this popular and sustainable way of
travelling around and seeing the area. Perhaps an agreement could be made with
the Harbour Commissioners to provide space on the Quay, or alternatively it could be
provided in one of the town car parks.
County Council (Highways) - Original comments - The Highway Authority
recommends refusal for the following reasons:
The proposed development does not adequately provide for pedestrians/cyclists,
contrary to Policy CT5.
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
Highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
public highway, contrary to Policy CT 5.
The proposal, as submitted, does not incorporate adequate facilities to enable
coaches to turn on the site, which is considered essential in the interests of safety,
contrary to Policy CT 5.
The application is not supported by sufficient highways and transport information to
demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the satisfactory
functioning of the highway and highway safety, contrary to Policy CT 5.
I shall be pleased to withdraw the highway objection upon receipt of a revised
submission addressing my requirements.
Updated comments - On the basis of the amended plans and subject to the
imposition of conditions, the Highway Authority would have no objections to the
proposal.
Environment Agency - Original comments - In the absence of an acceptable Flood
Risk Assessment, we object to the proposed development.
Updated comments - Following receipt of an updated/amended Flood Risk
Assessment, we have no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of
conditions.
Development Control Committee
57
14 April 2011
Natural England - Based on the information provided we have no objection to the
proposed development subject to the imposition of our recommended conditions.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No objection subject to conditions. The
application includes proposals which would increase the disturbance levels to areas
used by brent geese, a feature of the adjacent North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area (SPA). It is important that the proposals do not result in an elevated
level of disturbance that might affect the viability of this species feature of the SPA.
We note and support the mitigation proposal set out in the ecological assessment
report which consists of fencing, signage and hedge planting to minimise the
disturbance levels from the proposed new footpath. In addition, we support the
proposals to restrict disturbance to adjacent areas and to time construction works
sensitively. We expect that these recommendations would be made conditions of any
planning permission, should it be granted.
It is recommended that any hedgerow planting includes a fair proportion of evergreen
or semi-evergreen species in order to maximise the visual screening capability during
the winter months. We support the recommendations made in the landscaping
proposals to use indigenous material as this will maximise its potential to support
other local biodiversity and will be more suited to the local climate. We also support
the other proposals for enhancing local biodiversity.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No objection subject to conditions. We have previously
expressed concern regarding potential impacts on wintering brent geese that use the
adjacent areas such as the football field for roosting and feeding. We note that this
issue has been addressed in the Ecological Assessment that accompanies the
application and proposals for mitigation are included in the assessment. We support
the proposals that recommend that the access footpath should run to the south of the
bank adjacent to the playground and that there should be fencing and signage in
relation to control of dogs in this area. We also support the recommendation
regarding fencing and signage in relation to control of dogs in relation to the field to
the north of the access road, which is also occasionally used by geese. We support
the proposals in the ecological assessment relating to Ecological Enhancement.
In our view, if the application is approved this should be on condition that mitigation
and enhancement measures are included as outlined above and in detail in the
Ecological Assessment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions - The site in question occupies a location on the
northern edge of the town. Although it does not lie within the Wells Conservation
Area, it nonetheless helps mark the transition from the built into the natural
environment. It therefore makes a significant contribution to the definition and setting
of the designated area. Consequently, the prospect of a large car park is not
something that instantly sits comfortably in C&D terms.
In terms of assessing actual impact, however, the car park would be sited in a manmade landscaped bowl behind the old sea wall. With screening also present on the
west and north boundaries, the available external views of the laid out parking area
would be largely confined to the rear elevations of the properties on Freeman Street.
Whilst accepting that there would also be a channelled view through the point of
access, and that obviously large volumes of people would be routed through the site
itself, the real impact upon the built environment would not be as significant as first
imagined. This view is reinforced by the vehicle park being free from lampposts and
other built impedimenta.
As regards the layout itself, the gentle curve of the parking bays would steer visitors
towards the pedestrian exit. In conjunction with the low key surfacing, it would also
Development Control Committee
58
14 April 2011
give the layout a relatively un-engineered appearance. With the associated meadow
and wet land areas framing the site, the end result would be about as natural as any
vehicle park could be. Obviously, the introduction of the vehicles themselves would
affect this but they are of course an unavoidable part of considering such land uses.
Turning to the access point, this again is unlikely to enhance the perimeter of the
settlement. Not only would it necessitate breaching through the roadside hedge, but it
would also result in a new entrance road across the existing grass paddock. This
said, by virtue of the gravel topped surfacing, the additional hedging, and the
traditional five bar entrance gate, it is not considered that this element of the scheme
would result in real harm to the setting/significance of the conservation area. The
absence of any permanent structures in this area should also help in this respect by
preserving the openness of the paddock area.
Therefore, whilst not being able to exactly welcome this particular application, it is
considered that C&D do not have sufficient grounds to sustain any objections. With
suitable conditions covering the prior agreement of the timber boardwalk and the
signage (the latter to be possibly dealt with by way of a separate application for
Advertisement Consent?), the scheme should strike a reasonable balance between
maintaining the vitality of Wells and preserving the setting of its heritage assets.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Conservation, Design
and Landscape do not object to the above application subject to the provision of
suitable conditions to safeguard and enhance the sensitive landscape character and
natural environment of the surrounding area.
As part of the application an Ecological Assessment has been provided, prepared by
Philip Parker Associates dated 27 April 2010; as well as a Visual Impact
Assessment, submitted as part of an Environmental Statement, prepared by Richard
Morrish Associates Ltd. dated March 2010. These documents appear to have been
prepared in accordance with industry best practice guidelines with appropriate
analysis and generally sound conclusions. The impact of the development on
designated sites of nature conservation and protected species has been evaluated in
accordance with the Council’s statutory obligations under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010, utilising guidance set out in Circular 06/2005 and PPS9. Natural
England has concluded that an Appropriate Assessment as specified in Regulation
61(1) of the habitats regulations (2010) is not required (see letter dated 06/08/10).
The application site is located on the edge of the North Norfolk Coast SPA, SAC and
SSSI, and is adjacent to Holkham National Nature Reserve. The interconnectivity of
the drainage ditches surrounding the application site to the adjoining nature reserves
could potentially impact on the special features of the designated sites should car
and coach pollution events occur. Further concerns arise over the potential impact to
over-wintering brent geese Branta bernicla that are known to roost and feed on
adjacent fields, the football pitch and golf course. Brent geese are one of the
qualifying features of the North Norfolk SPA and are therefore afforded protection
under the Birds Directive.
The site is also located within the North Norfolk Coast AONB. Norfolk County
Council previously raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposed
development. These concerns were regarded as sufficiently substantial to warrant
classification as EIA development and result in the preparation of a Visual Impact
Assessment as part of an Environmental Statement. In addition, the Inspector of the
Site Specific Proposals Document, of which the site had been identified as a potential
car park, raised further concerns regarding the visual impact. He concluded that the
proposed car park would have a significant landscape impact that would harm the
setting, for which landscaping could help mitigate but not overly eliminate the impact.
Thorough survey and analysis of the impacts of the development on biodiversity have
been provided in the Ecological Assessment. This included site specific surveys of
Development Control Committee
59
14 April 2011
badger, water vole, bats, amphibians, breeding birds and in particular Brent geese.
The report concludes that with appropriate mitigation there will be no significant
adverse impact on ecology or the designated sites of nature conservation. I concur
with the conclusions of the report and recommend that the proposed mitigation
measures be included as a condition of any planning permission given. Providing the
mitigation proposals are completed in full the development will be in accordance with
Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and will result in an overall net gain for biodiversity.
A pre-development survey for water voles of the ditches surrounding the site will be
required as part of the mitigation, this is due to the suitability of the existing habitat
and the potential that the known water vole population has extended into the semidry ditches following the survey in 2010. In order to consolidate the mitigation
proposals I would suggest that a condition is imposed which requires the submission
of an Environmental Mitigation and Implementation Plan prior to commencement of
development which specifies what mitigation is being carried out and when this could
include monitoring requirements as required by Natural England. Timing and coordination of the mitigation is critical to ensure that habitats and species are
protected.
The Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by Plandescil Ltd. and dated September
2009, indicates that the site is not compatible with SUDS due to the poor infiltration
capacity of soils. In order to manage the surface water runoff and pollution concerns,
it is proposed that the access road and all areas constructed using porous
construction will be attenuated within the sub-base of the construction (with a small
amount of infiltration) before draining into a perforated pipe which will discharge into
the reed bed via an interceptor. The reed bed will discharge into the existing
drainage ditches, which will be restricted to the existing ‘Greenfield’ runoff rate. This
proposed drainage scheme is illustrated on drawing no. 15153/803 Rev. B. There
remains a small threat that pollutants may enter the groundwater and adjacent
ecosystems if the site floods (which is possible as it is in Flood Zone 3), via
percolation through the permeable parking bays, and if the drainage system is not
maintained (which will be the responsibility of the car park owner). The FRA
recommends that the detailed design of the drainage system be added as a condition
of planning, to be approved in consultation with the Environment Agency. An update
to the Flood Risk Assessment was submitted to the Environment Agency (dated 18
August 2010) which alleviated some of their previous concerns.
The study area of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) was limited to 800m (half a
mile). The report indicates that this was established via fieldwork and it is suggested
that the proposed development would be unlikely to be visually prominent beyond
800m. Whilst this may be correct in terms of the actual visual appearance of the car
park construction and materials, I would suggest that the glare from windscreens and
car paintwork on a sunny summer day will increase the visual impact of the cars and
coaches using the car park resulting in them being visible from a greater distance.
The majority of views of the proposed development will be from the south and the
east from the top of the ‘new’ sea wall. A number of dwellings along Freeman Street
will have direct views of the development, with some partial views for dwellings on
rising ground south of the Freeman Street area. However, the properties along
Freeman Street help screen the proposed development from Wells in general. The
views of the site from the north and west are limited due to the lack of public access
across most of the marshes and from the vegetative screening around the sewage
treatment works.
It is considered that the Magnitude and Significance of Visual Impacts of the
development have been underestimated in the VIA (Section 8). The report assesses
the magnitude of impact for visual receptors as being from low to medium, with the
significance of changes in views from being negligible to moderate. I believe that the
significance of the existing landscape for the visual receptors has been undervalued
and the impacts of the development underplayed (particularly during peak periods
Development Control Committee
60
14 April 2011
and in summer months), resulting therefore in a greater magnitude of impact and
significance of change for visual receptors (particularly for residents along Freeman
Street). Furthermore, the value of the existing landscape as an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty has also been overlooked.
Notwithstanding the above comments, some existing landscape features do detract
from the overall landscape character, for example the sewage works, the football
field and floodlighting. Given the limited land availability for siting a car park in Wells
a balance has to be struck between the provision of adequate visitor facilities and the
retention of the unique landscape. Arguably, the proposed siting of the development
is one of the more appropriate locations for the required car parking facilities in Wells
and mitigation has been proposed to help alleviate some of the greater impacts of the
development.
Some elements of the proposed development still need to be clarified, however the
majority of these can be dealt with through conditions attached to any planning
permission given (the detail of which will not change the overall opinion of the
proposed development to the landscape section). This includes any lighting
associated with the development, hours of use, designs for the ramped access over
the sea wall, the SUDS scheme and the hard and soft landscaping details.
It is stated in the application that there will be no lighting associated with the
development, a condition requiring prior approval for any potential lighting will be
required. The final designs for the ramped access over sea wall will need prior
approval, to ensure that they are appropriate and in-keeping with the setting. The
hours of use of the car park will need to be regulated and restricted to daylight hours.
The impact of using the car park after night fall has not been assessed, the impact of
car headlights and access lights on both the landscape and visual receptors could be
significant.
The landscaping requirements need to be finalised, therefore condition L02 will need
to be attached to any planning permission. In particular the specific requirements of
the fencing and hedging specification for the footpath adjacent to the football pitch is
critical to ensure that the Brent geese are not disturbed.
Monitoring of the proposed mitigation measures for the landscape and visual impacts
and the ecological impacts will be required to ensure that they are adequate and that
the mitigation measures in turn do not create additional ecological impacts. This
should be conditioned.
To conclude, whilst it is recognised that there will be an element of visual degradation
and disturbance in the immediate area surrounding the proposed car park, the limited
ecological impacts and proposed enhancements together with the apparent need for
this type of facility in Wells justify the proposed development under Policies EN2 and
EN9 of the Core Strategy
Anglian Water - No response received.
Planning Policy Manager - Subject to satisfactory resolution of issues relating to
visual impacts, traffic impact, amenity, wildlife, flood risk and drainage, there is no
planning policy objection to the proposal.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No comment regarding the proposed Sustainable Urban
Drainage scheme
Community Safety Manager - Considers that the application could create significant
crime and disorder issues if not appropriately managed.
It is indicated that the proposed vehicle park will be used during daylight hours only
and is not intended to have lighting installed due to the sensitive landscape location.
The Local Planning Authority has a duty to consider whether this application, if
granted, would impact on local crime and disorder issues and therefore, I offer the
Development Control Committee
61
14 April 2011
following comments:
It is a known fact that many car parks across the District attract unauthorised use
during the evenings and night time. In the main, this is younger people who use car
parks as a place to park up to meet, play loud music and use the space to
demonstrate their driving skills. This can cause noise nuisance in the area and is
intimidating to those who use the car parks as pedestrian access elsewhere;
• Lack of lighting in car parks also provides a dark open space for (in the main)
young people to congregate often into the early hours of the morning causing noise
nuisance to those who live in close proximity of the area;
• Recently, some of the District's car parks have been used by riders of mopeds
and motorcycles causing noise disturbance to nearby properties.
Therefore it must be recognised that this planning application, if granted, will most
probably contribute to an increase in anti-social behaviour involving vehicles and
disturbance to local residents. In order to negate this potential problem the car park
would need to be provided with the means to prevent any access (vehicular or
pedestrian) out of the normal operating hours - this will mean a barrier/gate at the
vehicular entrances and fencing around the perimeter of the site so that the car park
is completely closed to the public.
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
See comments from Community Safety Manager - above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February
2011):
Policy CP2: Land North of Freeman Street (Land allocated for Car Parking in the Site
Specific Allocations Development Plan document adopted by the Council in February
2011).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Development Control Committee
62
14 April 2011
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy 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 this location
2. Impact on landscape character
3. Impact on local fauna and flora
4. Flood risk and pollution
5. Impact of amenity of nearby residents
6. Crime and disorder
7. Highway safety
8. Economic development considerations
9. Phasing of proposal
APPRAISAL
Members of Committee recently visited the site to assess the site and its
surroundings.
Principle of Development
In respect of the principle of development, the determination of this application has
been deferred pending the outcome of the Inspector's Report in relation to the Site
Specific Proposals Development Plan Document which included proposals for a car
park in this location. Following receipt of the Inspector's report and adoption of the
Site Specific Proposals Document, the principle of a car park in this location has now
been formally accepted. A copy of the Inspector's comments in relation to this site is
attached at Appendix 7 together with an extract from “North Norfolk District Council’s
Response to Inspector’s Matters and Issues: Questions (ix) - (xvii) in relation to
Wells-next-the-Sea” at Appendix 7.
The Inspector, in confirming the car park allocation, had considered the issue of
need, visual impact, impact on residential amenity as well as accessibility and whilst
acknowledging that the proposal would have a significant and potentially substantial
landscape impact which would harm its setting and that of Wells itself in some views,
he nonetheless concluded that the benefits of the proposed car park for Wells
outweigh its disadvantages. The key issue therefore is to ensure that the proposed
car park development represents the least harmful option, whilst taking account of
the Inspector's comments.
Many representations have questioned the need for the car park other than for a
short-period of time throughout the peak summer season, but it is acknowledged by
the applicant that the demand for the car park is likely to be seasonal, given that the
SSP document has now been formally adopted the Committee is advised that the
issue of need for the car park is now settled.
Impact on Landscape Character
In landscape terms, it is considered that a vehicle park would appear as an alien and
incongruous feature in the landscape, particularly when fully occupied and with the
inclusion of coaches. There is also the potential for glare from sunlight reflecting off
parked vehicles. Given that the site is located within the North Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) an Environmental Impact Assessment was
required to consider the visual impact of the proposal on the wider designated
landscape.
Development Control Committee
63
14 April 2011
The applicant has undertaken a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) which concluded, in
general terms, that the visual impact was limited to 800m (half a mile). The report
indicates that this was established via fieldwork and it is suggested that the proposed
development would be unlikely to be visually prominent beyond 800m. Whilst this
may be correct in terms of the actual visual appearance of the car park construction
and materials, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the
glare from windscreens and car paintwork on a sunny summer day would increase
the visual impact of the cars and coaches using the car park resulting in them being
visible from a greater distance.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the magnitude
and significance of visual impacts of the development have been underestimated and
that the significance of the existing landscape for the visual receptors has been
undervalued and the impacts of the development underplayed (particularly during
peak periods and in summer months) resulting in a greater magnitude of impact and
significance of change for visual receptors (particularly for residents along Freeman
Street). Furthermore, the value of the existing landscape as an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty has also been overlooked.
Notwithstanding the above comments, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager considers that some existing landscape features do detract from the overall
landscape character, for example the sewage works, the football field and
floodlighting. Given the limited land available for siting a car park in Wells, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that a balance has to be
struck between the provision of adequate visitor facilities and the retention of the
unique landscape. Arguably, the proposed siting of the development is one of the
more appropriate locations for the required car parking facilities in Wells and
mitigation has been proposed to help alleviate some of the greater impacts of the
development.
Therefore, whilst there would undoubtedly be significant impact on the landscape
associated with the proposal, the applicant has proposed mitigation measures
designed to lessen the potential impacts. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager on balance considers the proposals to be acceptable.
Impact on Local Fauna and Flora
The application site is located on the edge of the North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI), and is adjacent to Holkham National Nature Reserve.
Consultees have made clear the sensitivity of nearby land from human activity and
disturbance and there are certain species such as brent geese, which are one of the
qualifying features of the North Norfolk SPA and are therefore afforded protection
under the Birds Directive.
There are certain activities associated with the development which could have
adverse impacts and scare wildlife in and around the site. These activities include the
movement and noise associated with the coming and going of vehicles and the
movement of people (and pets) to and from the car park along the proposed
pedestrian footpath into the town. The applicant has put forward a number of
proposals to mitigate impacts and consultees have also suggested mitigation
measures. Subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the impact of
the proposed development on wildlife in and around the area could be appropriately
mitigated.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that on the basis that
Development Control Committee
64
14 April 2011
the mitigation proposals are completed in full the development would be in
accordance with Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and would result in an overall net
gain for biodiversity
Flood Risk and Pollution
Given the hydrological connectivity with surrounding land and the sensitivity of the
receiving environment, it is imperative to ensure that the proposed use of the land
does not have detrimental or irreparable impacts. With the bringing of vehicles onto
the land, as part of this proposal, the risk factors of a pollution incident significantly
increase. Whilst the likelihood of significant or catastrophic incidents involving
contaminants is undoubtedly small, it is the cumulative build-up of contaminants over
time that poses a more subtle risk to the receiving environment. Whilst the use of a
Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) to treat and capture likely
contaminants is proposed, the low lying nature of the site offers significant
constraints regarding the number of management trains that can be put in place; the
site's location within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 3 also adds an additional
design consideration. Nonetheless the applicant, working with the Environment
Agency, has proposed an amended surface water drainage scheme which, in simple
terms, involves the use of permeable surfacing and perforated piping to transfer
water to a reed bed attenuation basin which is designed to restrict the rate of run-off
of water into the surrounding ditch network. The proposed scheme is considered to
be acceptable to both the Environment Agency and the Council's Environmental
Protection Team, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Impact on Amenity of Nearby Residents
Having visited the site, Committee will have noted that those occupying dwellings on
the northern side of Freeman Street would be the most affected by the proposal and,
to a lesser extent, those south of Freeman Street. Whilst Freeman Street/Holkham
Road can be busy at peak times it is possible that noise associated with vehicle
movements on the highway network could increase depending on the routing of
vehicles to and from the site (See Highway Safety considerations).
In terms of visual impact on nearby residents, this has been considered above as
part of the Landscape Impacts. Committee will be aware that there is no right to a
view and, whilst the proposal would affect the outlook of some of those properties
backing onto the site, it is considered that this in itself would not constitute
substantive grounds for refusal.
In respect of potential for noise and disturbance from activities associated with the
proposed development, these would include the movement and noise associated
with the coming and going of vehicles and the movement of people and pets to and
from the car park along the proposed pedestrian footpath into the town. In discussing
the design of the car park with the applicant, the Council has sought to discourage
provision of facilities and/or activities taking place on the car park which would
lengthen the time to get from the car park into the town and vice versa. Such
activities could have increased the potential for greater noise disturbance, both for
nearby residents as well as the potential to increase disturbance to wildlife. Whilst it
would clearly not be possible for the Council to require people to arrive at the site and
travel to and from the car park into the town as quietly as possible, on balance, given
the minimum separation distance between parked/moving cars and residential
properties of 25-30m and with the introduction of additional landscaping and use of
appropriate surface dressings, it is considered that the impact of noise would not be
so significant as to justify refusal of the proposal in its own right.
Crime and Disorder
The Community Safety Manager has raised concerns about the potential for antiDevelopment Control Committee
65
14 April 2011
social behaviour to take place on the car park site when it is closed if appropriate
safeguards are not put in place. Whilst the applicant proposes to erect appropriate
vehicle barriers/gates to prevent vehicular access out of hours, there are currently no
proposals to erect gates or barriers to prevent pedestrian access to the site out of
hours.
The applicant has explained that the car park would only be operated during daylight
hours and therefore no lighting is proposed. It is intended that notices would be
erected advising users when the car park will close each day and who to contact in
the event that they are locked in when the vehicle barriers are closed. Therefore the
applicant does not consider that preventing pedestrian access would be appropriate
or indeed possible.
Clearly a balance has to be struck between allowing reasonable access for intended
users of the car park and the prevention of access to people intent on causing antisocial behaviour and the potential adverse impacts this could have.
Whilst it may not be possible to completely prevent pedestrian access when the car
park is closed, it may be possible to prevent vehicular access (including mopeds and
motorbikes) when the car park is closed. As such it is considered that the exact
method of preventing access to the car park outside of normal operating hours could
be resolved through the imposition of appropriate conditions and would satisfactorily
address the Local Planning Authorities requirements under Section 17 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998.
Highway Safety
The proposal involves the provision of a new access off Freeman Street into the site
with vehicle parking and turning in respect of which the Highway Authority had
originally raised some concern regarding provision for pedestrians/cyclists, the
adequacy of visibility splays onto Freeman Street and limitations in relation to
facilities to enable coaches to turn on the site.
The applicant has submitted amended plans and the Highway Authority now has no
objections subject to conditions. Hence the proposal would accord with Development
Plan policy in this respect.
As part of the proposal the applicant has also considered the need for a signage
strategy within the Transport Assessment which would need to direct tourists and
visitors to enter the town in the most effective and efficient way to reach public car
parking spaces. It is suggested that such a signage strategy be required to be
submitted, approved and implemented, in consultation with the Highway Authority,
prior to the car park being first used.
Economic Development considerations
Wells is a popular visitor destination and, at certain times of the year, the number of
tourists wishing to the visit the town by car exceeds the available car parking capacity
and this can often have undesirable consequences including traffic jams,
inappropriate (and sometimes illegal) parking and on many occasions it is
understood to have resulted in tourists abandoning their visit to the Wells and visiting
other areas instead. There are clear economic benefits to the town in ensuring that
basic facilities are provided which allow visitors to arrive in the town in a positive
frame of mind ready to enjoy their visitor experience and support the local economy.
In the wider context of Wells, the car park project is considered to be a key scheme
which will help unlock many other projects identified within the jointly commissioned
Wells for the Future report. Whilst temporary additional parking capacity of 300+
Development Control Committee
66
14 April 2011
spaces is currently in place on the football ground off Beach Road during the peak
summer period, this permission expires on 4 September 2011 and was only ever
considered to be a temporary arrangement until such time as a permanent solution
was found. In purely economic development terms, approval of this scheme is likely
to have significant economic benefits for the town and provide visitors with greater
certainty that parking will be available when they arrive.
Phasing of Construction
If planning permission is granted, the applicant has indicated the likelihood that
construction of the car park would be phased. This is primarily to spread the
significant cost of the works and to also provide facilities for visitors as soon as
possible and associated income. The car park is designed such that a number of
more frequently used spaces would be constructed with a reinforced mesh and
gravel finish (105 spaces) and the remainder (less frequently used spaces) to be
constructed with a reinforced mesh and grass finish and it is likely that the first phase
would involve the construction of the more frequently used spaces. In any event,
whilst phasing would not in itself represent a significant planning issue, certain
aspects of the proposal would need to be completed before the car park can be first
opened, particularly those matters relating to landscape, wildlife, drainage and
highway safety and appropriate conditions would need to be imposed to ensure that
no adverse impacts were to arise.
Summary
In considering the proposal, the Committee will have to balance many diverse and
often competing issues. Wells is a popular destination and it is evident that at certain
times the available facilities are not able to cope with demand. However, a balance
has to be struck between providing the necessary infrastructure/facilities and
protecting and maintaining the important elements and character of the town which
attracts tourists and visitors alike. In this case, whilst the proposal would undoubtedly
have some wider landscape impacts and could have some impacts on the amenity of
residents along Freeman Street, it is considered that the proposal would be
compliant with Development Plan policies and that the benefits of the proposed car
park for Wells would outweigh its disadvantages such that approval of this proposal
is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
17.
WICKMERE - PF/11/0227 - Erection of replacement garage; Meadow Cottage,
Goose Green for Mr & Mrs A Harmer
Target Date: 13 April 2011
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Development Control Committee
67
14 April 2011
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a replacement garage. The proposed garage is a cart shed style
consisting of 3 bays, two of which would be open and one enclosed. The garage
would be oak framed with timber cladding (dark oak stain) on a brick plinth and
concrete base. The roof covering would be reclaimed pantiles. The proposed garage
is 6m deep x 9m wide, height to ridge is 3.9m. The proposed garage would have
gable ends facing north/south. Access is by the existing shingle drive extended to
give a hardcore and shingle hardstanding.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Council employee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation & Design - No objection. Works represent a significant opportunity for
enhancement replacing what is a dilapidated outbuilding with new more in-keeping
traditional cart shed style garage. The proposal will not impact upon the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area.
Landscape - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
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
Impact on Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside area and within the Mannington and
Wolterton Conservation Area. This type of proposal is acceptable in principle in these
policy areas subject to compliance with the detailed criteria of the relevant Core
Strategy policies.
Development Control Committee
68
14 April 2011
The proposal seeks to erect a replacement garage in cart shed style consisting of 3
bays, two of which would be open and one enclosed. The garage would be oak
framed with timber cladding (dark oak stain) on a brick plinth. The roof covering
would be reclaimed pantiles. The proposed garage is 6m deep x 9m wide, height to
ridge is 3.9m, the gable ends facing north/south. Access is by the existing shingle
drive extended to give a hardcore and shingle hardstanding. The proposal would be
set back approximately 20m from the highway and 3m from the western boundary.
Mature trees and hedging to these boundaries would provide screening of the
proposal from the wider landscape. An existing garage would be removed.
Planning permission is required for this outbuilding as it would be positioned partially
forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling. It is considered that the proposal
offers a significant opportunity for enhancement, replacing what is a dilapidated
outbuilding with a traditional cart shed style garage. In accordance with policy EN8
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved and
possibly enhanced by this proposal.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
18.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - NMA1/10/0816 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window materials and wall finish; Nidlings, Hall Road for Mr B Carman
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACTON - PF/10/1423 - Temporary use of land for vehicle checking and
construction laydown area in connection with developments at the Bacton
Terminal Complex, including security office, project offices, warehouse
buildings, staff welfare facilities, construction compounds, fencing and lighting,
formation of accesses, minor modifications to the gas terminal's access road
and entrances to the Perenco Terminal and associated works; Land at Paston
Road for Bacton Storage Company Ltd and Eni Hewett Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/11/0167 - Erection of single-storey and first floor extensions;
The Gatehouse, Fakenham Road, East Barsham for Mrs Williamson
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/0127 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Wayside,
Staithe Road for Mr & Mrs Tivey
(Householder application)
BINHAM - NMA1/10/1173 - Non-material amendment request for revised position
of boundary wall; 12 Front Street for Messrs N MacArthur & M Murphy
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0081 - Erection of replacement two-storey rear extension
with balcony; 8 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs Page
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
69
14 April 2011
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0152 - Installation of front and rear replacement windows
and satellite dish; 1 The Granary, High Street for Mr Dazeley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRININGHAM - PF/11/0068 - Erection of single-storey side extension, alterations
to porch and bay window; Well House, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road for Mr D
Loombe
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/11/0126 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and detached
garage; Line Side, Macks Loke for Mr Babbage
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - NMA1/09/1201 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration; Gladen, Ludham Road for Mr R Skipper
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0116 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Little Acorns,
5 The Cedars for Mrs J Sutherland
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/1422 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning ref:
02/1503 to permit full residential occupancy; Fagans Cottage, Holt Road for Mrs
F Franklin
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/07/1331 - Non-material amendment request for additional
roller shuttering to bays 1-8; Land at Overstrand Road for Mr R HarbordHammond
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/10/1480 - Conversion of shop and flat to shop and 5 flats; 12
Hamilton Road for Halecrest Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0067 - Re-profiling of roof, installation of rooflights and
erection of one and a half storey side extension with front balcony; 29 Howards
Hill for Mr R Nash
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0104 - Conversion of garage/store to dwelling (extension of
period for commencement of planning ref: 08/0489); 7 Colne Cottages for Mr A
Raby
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0105 - Erection of rear conservatory; Holmoak, 13 The Croft for
Mr & Mrs Fridman
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0114 - Erection of first
accommodation; 9 New Street for Mrs S Liddell
(Householder application)
floor
extension
to
living
CROMER - LA/11/0115 - Internal alterations and erection of first floor extension
to living accommodation; 9 New Street for Mrs S Liddell
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
70
14 April 2011
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/1192 - Erection of 6 dwellings; 17 The Furze for Victory
Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0084 - Installation of solar photovoltaic panels on garage
roof; 4 Holt Road for Mr P Borley
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NMA2/09/0811 - Request for non material amendment to change
single door on south elevation to window and block up high level window on
north elevation; Mount Farm, Church Lane for Dr & Mrs Chase
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0385 - Change of Use of Annexe and Garage/Workshop to
Separate Residential Dwelling with Annexe; Annexe At, 41 Hayes Lane for Mr J
Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1413 - Erection of rear conservatory and installation of
window in side elevation; 58 Lee Warner Avenue for Mr Fisher
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0083 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 53 North
Park for Mr & Mrs Dacre
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0123 - Formation of vehicular access; 4 Lancaster Avenue
for Mr A Robinson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0156 - Change of use from veterinary surgery to A1/D1
(hairdressers and beauty salon); Gillham House, 12 Wells Road for Mrs Palmer
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/10/1410 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and singlestorey extension; The Old Vicarage, 30 Langham Road for Mr Mealing
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/11/0183 - Demolition of porch and insertion of new doors,
replacement sash windows, incorporating secondary double glazing and
erection of front railings and gate; Old Hall Cottage, 56 The Street, Barney for Mr
Edwards
(Listed Building Alterations)
GREAT SNORING - PF/11/0042 - Erection of single-storey extension; 6 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr M Hallum
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/11/0043 - Alterations to facilitate erection of extension; 6
The Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr M Hallum
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
71
14 April 2011
HANWORTH - LA/11/0018 - Installation of 2 rooflights and internal alterations
(retrospective) and alterations to provide 2 bedrooms above garages; 1 Stable
Yard, Gunton Hall, White Post Road for Mr & Mrs E Toynton
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0030 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning ref: 07/1454 to
permit permanent use of barn for caravan storage; Glebe Farm, White Post
Road for Deer's Glade
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - LA/11/0035 - Re-positioning of jib door; The East Wing, Gunton
Hall, White Post Road for Young
(Listed Building Alterations)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/11/0172 - Erection of two-storey agricultural workers
dwelling (revised design); Paxfield Farm, Paxfield Road for Mr J S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/11/0008 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
conservatory; Oak Fen, Stubb Road for Mr & Mrs Perry
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/0145 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning ref: 08/0576 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Plummers Farm Barn, Pockthorpe
Loke, Stubb Road for G A Tallowin & Co
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - LA/11/0120 - Internal and external alterations to ground floor;
Field House, Blakeney Road for Mr & Mrs Hunt
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/11/0075 - Erection of two-storey side extension with rear
conservatory; 46 Peacock Lane for Mr N Brough
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/11/0122 - Re-location of internal door; Caxton House, Market Place
for Oasis Healthcare Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/11/0139 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 2 Fairview, The
Street for Mrs D Chowns
(Householder application)
HONING - PF/11/0194 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Wildwoods,
Lock Road for Mr and Mrs Hipsey
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/1398 - Change of use of land from agricultural to D2 (leisure)
and erection of animal shelters and plant sale building; Wroxham Barns Ltd,
Tunstead Road for Wroxham Barns Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/0058 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 59 The
Street for Mr O'Donnell
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
72
14 April 2011
LANGHAM - PF/11/0091 - Installation of roof lights and alterations to existing
door and window openings; Courtyard Barn, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs Freeth
(Householder application)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/11/0044 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension; Tyto Alba, The Street for Mr R Love
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/11/0146 - Erection of detached double garage; 2 The Street for
Mr and Mrs Tibbetts
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0103 - Use of land for siting of seafood trailer during
summer season; Land at Public Car Park, Beach Road for Mr R Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0132 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 20 Warren
Drive for Mr & Mrs Footitt
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/11/0066 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Cherry
Tree Cottage, King Street for Mr D Haggith
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0033 - Construction of rear dormer window with
balcony to facilitate conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation; 2
Headley Drive for Mr & Mrs M Colman
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0045 - Extension to existing toilet block; Two Mills
Touring Park, Yarmouth Road for Misty Bay Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0062 - Continued use of land for siting of storage
container; 13A Mundesley Road for Mr Choudhury
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0073 - Erection of 2 residential units; Worstead
Lodge, Cromer Road for Independence with Care
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/0095 - Internal alterations and installation of
signage; 22 Market Place for HSBC Corporate Real Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0130 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Mellers,
Norwich Road for Mr Leaf
(Householder application)
PLUMSTEAD - LA/11/0185 - Conversion of outbuildings to habitable
accommodation; Walnut Farm, Church Street for Mr and Mrs D Ramsbotham
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
73
14 April 2011
RAYNHAM - PF/11/0159 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Rectory
Cottage, South Raynham Road, West Raynham for Mr & Mrs Hickman
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/11/0100 - Construction of pitched roof to flat roofed extension
and erection of one and a half storey rear extension; Melody House, 29 Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Buxton
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - LA/11/0101 - Construction of pitched roof to flat roofed extension
and erection of one and a half storey extension; Melody House, 29 Station Road,
Great Ryburgh for Mr Buxton
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCULTHORPE - PO/10/1212 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Cambria, 53 Sandy Lane for Mr Nicolle
(Outline Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0050 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 03/0481 to
permit full residential occupancy; 8 Grove Farm Barns, Creake Road for Miss L
Bowler
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0133 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 03/0481 to
permit full residential occupancy; 3 Grove Farm Barns, Creake Road for Mr N
Fuller
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0179 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (revised design
including accommodation in roof space); The Mobile Home, Fakenham Driving
Range And Golf Centre, Burnham Market Road for Miss Coad
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0919 - Change of use of public conveniences to one unit
of holiday accommodation; Public Conveniences East Promenade, The
Promenade for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0055 - Formation of car park in connection with Salvation
Army Hall; 27-31 Co-operative Street for Salvation Army, Sheringham Corps
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - LE/11/0057 - Demolition of outbuildings; 27-31 Co-operative
Street for Salvation Army, Sheringham Corps
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0070 - Installation of replacement shop front; 6 Church
Street for Gazelle
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/11/0071 - Display of non-illuminated fascia and projecting
sign; 6 Church Street for Gazelle
(Advertisement Illuminated)
Development Control Committee
74
14 April 2011
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0124 - Installation of replacement shop front; 3 Station
Road for Mrs Barney
(Full Planning Permission)
SIDESTRAND - LA/11/0053 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of enlarged window in front elevation; Cattle Creep Cottage, Main
Road for Dr Miszkiel
(Listed Building Alterations)
SIDESTRAND - PF/11/0076 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Cattle
Creep Cottage, Main Road for Dr Miszkiel
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/11/0102 - Erection of single-storey extension; The Stables,
Church Road for Whitwell Hall Farms Ltd
(Householder application)
SLOLEY - PF/11/0112 - Erection of replacement stables and hay store; Land
opposite The Croft, Frankfort for Miss A Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/11/0165 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Old
Tavern, Union Road for Mr & Mrs A Furber
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/0034 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 03/2011 to
permit full residential occupancy; Olus Barn 16 West End Farm, Chapel Field,
Chapel Field Road for Mr J F Grint
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/0036 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 03/2011 to
permit full residential occupancy; Barn 9 West End Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel
Field Road for Mr F Edwards
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/0147 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 03/2011 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 15 West End Farm, Chapel Field,
Chapel Field Road for Miss J Gaymer
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/10/1316 - Erection of two-storey side extension and single-storey
rear extension; 19 Ingham Road for Ms J Tracy
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/11/0140 - Erection of rear conservatory; 131 Neville Road for Mrs
Watts
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0005 - Extension and conversion of garage
accommodation; The Barn, The Street for Mrs Plumridge
(Householder application)
to habitable
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0056 - Erection of single-storey and first floor rear
extensions and first floor side extension; Willow Cottage, Hall Road, Bradfield
for Mr & Mrs Millward
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
75
14 April 2011
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0117 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Barn at Beeches Farm, Knapton Road for Messrs R C & L V
Catling
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - LA/11/0118 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to holiday
accommodation; Barn at, Beeches Farm, Knapton Road for Messrs R C & L V
Catling
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/11/0007 - Change of use of agricultural building to B2
(meat processing smokehouse); Hall Farm, Blackhorse Road for Mr R Morton
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/11/0184 - Erection of replacement garage and
games/pool room; The Old Rectory, St Giles Road for Mr & Mrs S Doncaster
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/11/0135 - Variation of Condition 4 of 10/0356 to permit
extended opening hours of cafe; Barn at Breck Farm, Fakenham Road for
Delavel Hastings
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/11/0082 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 3
Station Road for Mr & Mrs M English
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0065 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit full residential occupancy; 10 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for Mr J
Slater
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0069 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit full residential occupancy; 5 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for Mr B
Johnson
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0129 - Variation of Condition 8 of 06/1381 to permit full
residential occupancy; 4 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for Mr C Bulleyment
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0150 - Variation of condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; 14 Laurel Farm Barns for Mr C
Jackson
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0964 - Erection of annexe; 26 Church Lane for
Mrs Holman
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/11/0051 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear
extensions; 1 & 2 Loves Cottages, Ostend Road for T W Love & Partners
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
76
14 April 2011
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0023 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
detached garage; Long View, 22 Westgate for Mr Tutte
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0099 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning ref: 07/0970 to
permit full residential occupancy; The Old Vicarage, Scarborough Road for Mr &
Mrs J Tibbitts
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0109 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning ref: 07/0970 to
permit full residential occupancy; 1 The Old Chapel, Scarborough Road for Mr &
Mrs R Klein
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/0121 - Installation of satellite dish (retrospective); Angel
Cottage, Hindringham Road for Mr and Mrs M Napier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0027 - Removal of south gable parapet and lime
rendering of entrance wall; Glebe House, 1 Glebe Road for Mr B Granville
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0087 - Conversion of sub-station to A1 (retail
shop) and construction of replacement sub-station; 71-73 Staithe Street for
Indigo Design Associates
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0107 - Internal and external alterations and
installation of window; Sea View, The Quay for Mr C Lyle
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0137 - Installation of replacement render to front
elevation; 12 - 14 High Street for Mr S Wainwright
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0142 - Installation of two oriel windows and two
replacement sash windows, and widening of entrance door opening; 14A
Freeman Street for Mr J Christmas
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0148 - Change of use from residential to a mixed
use of residential and A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe); Catesby Court, The Quay for Mr
N Honor
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0182 - Installation of second floor side window;
Sea View, The Quay for Mr C Lyle
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/0060 - Erection of first floor side extension and change
flat roof to pitched; Millstream House, Beach Lane for Mr Grey
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/10/1289 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of double gates; 2 Church Farm Barns, Church Street for Mr & Mrs J Bradley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Control Committee
77
14 April 2011
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/0021 - Erection of single-storey extension; Sun
Cottage, Church Road for Mr D Nudd
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - LA/11/0022 - Internal alterations, installation of rear dormer
windows and rooflights, removal of conservatory and erection of single-storey
extension and renovation of garage and workshop; Sun Cottage, Church Road,
for Mr D Nudd
(Listed Building Alterations)
19.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FULMODESTON - PF/11/0072 - Installation of two 15m wind generators; Wood
Farm Cottages, The Street for Lord Hastings
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
20.
NEW APPEALS
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
21.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items.
22.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for Saw-Milling
and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0786 - Variation of Condition 2 of 08/1690 to increase
opening hours to 8.00 am to 1.00 am each day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Use of site for HGV Operating Centre and
storage of Portaloos; The Old Works, Marshgate
Development Control Committee
78
14 April 2011
23.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0936 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1
(retail)/residential to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence
Place, The Street for Mr A Cannon
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
APPEAL DECISION:- MIXED
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0746 - Erection of first floor extension; 4
California Terrace, Warham Road for Mr & Mrs A Dessent
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
79
14 April 2011
Development Control Committee
80
14 April 2011