OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 JANUARY 2010
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.
Amendments To Planning Permissions
Report outlining changes to dealing with amendments to planning permissions.
Background
Following the grant of planning permission it is not unusual for an applicant/developer
to wish to make amendments to the permission. The way in which such
amendments are dealt with depends on whether or not the amendment(s) are
‘material’. Clearly if significant amendments are proposed, a further formal planning
application is required.
This Council has for many years operated an informal practice of dealing with ‘nonmaterial amendments’. As a typical example a non-material amendment may involve
the repositioning of a window or a very minor revision to the positioning of an external
wall to an approved extension or new building. Such amendments have been
historically dealt with by the submission of amended plans and an exchange of
correspondence. Planning Officers have delegated authority to deal with these
matters.
Members have previously agreed the general criteria to be applied when considering
whether an amendment can be treated as ‘non-material’. These are as follows:
1. The amendment does not alter the development materially from the approved
description of the development or its appearance.
2. No adopted planning policy would be breached by the amendment.
3. The amendment would not conflict significantly with the terms of an objection
lodged in relation to the original permission.
4. The proposed amendment would not move any wall outwards significantly
towards a boundary.
5. The amendment would not significantly increase the height of any roof.
6. The amendment would not introduce any window which could potentially permit
overlooking of other properties.
Exceptions to criteria 4, 5 and 6 may be made in circumstances when no loss of
amenity or injustice to the occupiers of neighbouring properties would be suffered.
New arrangements
The above mentioned practice of this Council has no statutory basis and it is
apparent that other Local Planning Authorities have operated differently. It is known
that some authorities have required new planning applications be submitted for any
form of amendment. In an effort to formalise greater flexibility in the planning system
as well as applying a consistent approach across the country, the Government has
introduced new legislation and provided guidance (‘Greater Flexibility for Planning
Permissions’ – November 2009) which now formalises the process in which
amendments to planning permissions are to be dealt with.
Development Control Committee
1
14 January 2010
Essentially the Government has categorised three types of amendment. Those
which are clearly significant and require submission of a further full planning
application; minor material amendments; and non-material amendments.
The issued guidance defines a ‘minor material amendment’ as being “one whose
scale and nature result in a development which is not substantially different from the
one which has been approved”. Such amendments nevertheless require submission
of a formal planning application. In cases where there is an appropriate condition
imposed on the original planning permission (e.g. one referring to the approved
plans), an application can be submitted pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and
Country Planning Act to vary the condition.
Applications for ‘minor material amendments’ will be subject to the normal publicity
arrangements, and Town and Parish Councils will be consulted. Other consultations
will be undertaken at the Council’s discretion.
‘Non-material amendments’ to planning permissions now have to be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority by means of a standard application form. There is currently
no fee required for this type of application; however a set fee may be introduced
nationally in due course. There is no requirement for the Local Planning Authority to
publicise or consult on amendments which are ‘non-material’. This procedure only
applies to planning permissions and not to listed building or conservation area
consents.
The Government has stated that there is no statutory definition of ‘non-material’. It is
suggested therefore that this Council continues to apply the criteria (referred to
above) in assessing whether an amendment is ‘non-material’, which has operated
successfully for a number of years.
In this context therefore it is recommended that the Committee endorses the revised
practice note on pre and post decision amendments to planning applications which is
attached in Appendix 1 to this agenda.
Source: (John Williams, Extn 6163 - File Reference: PP amds)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
SHERINGHAM – PF/09/0861 – Erection of single-storey dwelling: 18 Hadley
Road for Mr Welch
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the erection of a single-storey
dwelling contrary to the advice of the Highway Authority and Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager.
Background
The Development Control Committee (West) considered the above application at the
last meeting on 10 December 2009 (copy of the report is attached as Appendix 2)
when it was recommended to give delegated authority to approve the application,
subject to the submission of an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method
Statement prior to the determination of the application and the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including the installation of the car turntable prior to the first
occupation of the dwelling.
Development Control Committee
2
14 January 2010
A previous application on this site for the demolition of the existing dwelling and
erection of three dwellings (planning reference 20080836) was refused by the
Combined Committee on 4 December 2008 on the grounds of overdevelopment and
highway safety (copy of decision notice attached in Appendix 2).
An appeal was subsequently lodged by the applicant, and a decision was recently
received dismissing it on highway safety grounds (copy of appeal decision contained
in Appendix 2).
Whilst that application was for the erection of three dwellings, and the proposed
application is for the erection of only one additional dwelling on the site, giving a total
of two dwellings, the Highway Authority is maintaining its objection. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has also raised an objection due to
concerns over the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to trees of significant
amenity value on the southern boundary and the lack of sufficient information in the
application to determine the effect of the development on the trees.
Officers have advised the applicant that an Arboricultural Implications Assessment
and Method Statement would be required prior to the determination of the application
in order to be able to assess the impact the proposal would have upon the trees.
The recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control is one of refusal
on highway safety grounds and impact on trees.
The Development Control Committee (West) considered the proposal for one
additional dwelling on the site to be acceptable when compared with application
20080836 since the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed on the site from
three to two was considered to reduce potential vehicle movements significantly.
Key Issues
The key issue is considered to be compliance with adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy Policies EN 4 (Design) and CT 5 (Transport impact of new development).
Appraisal
The visibility available at the Common Lane junction is approximately 8m in the traffic
direction and negligible in the non-traffic direction due to adjacent
hedging/undergrowth. At The Rise visibility in the traffic direction amounts to
approximately 15m in the traffic direction.
Both Common Lane and The Rise are subject to a 30 mph speed limit, the stopping
sight distance requirement for this speed being 43m (Manual for Streets DfT & C &
LG 2007).
According to TRICS database (Trip Rate Information Computer Services) a
residential dwelling will typically generate an additional 8 – 10 vehicular trips per day,
The Highway Authority has consistently sought to prevent any increased vehicular
use of Hadley Road and adjacent junctions.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to the submission of an Arboricultural
Implications Assessment and Method Statement and the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including installation of car turn table prior to the first
occupation of the dwelling.
Development Control Committee
3
14 January 2010
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL: REFUSE, 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
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the unadopted Hadley Road serving the
site is inadequate to serve any additional development by reason of its substandard
construction, lack of pedestrian facilities and primarily the restricted visibility at
adjacent road junctions with The Rise and Common Lane (U10138 and U10137).
The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to
highway safety, contrary to Development Plan Policy CT 5.
In addition, it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the root system and long term health of trees of significant
amenity value on the southern boundary of the site.
Source: (Jo Medler, Extn 6128 - File Reference: PF090861)
3.
NORTH WALSHAM (EAST WARD) - NNDC (North Walsham) 2009 No. 8
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order to protect a two Beech
trees at the above site.
Background
The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager was consulted on an enquiry
regarding an extension to the property at 100 Cromer Road. The proposal would
involve the removal of two Beech trees in the front garden of the property. The
Landscape Officer made an assessment of the trees using the nationally recognised
Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) concluding that the trees
definitely merit a TPO.
The 2 Beech trees are in the front garden of 100 Cromer Road and can be clearly
seen from the road and side road Suffield Close. The front gardens of properties
along this part of Cromer Road are free from buildings and contain mature trees
providing an “avenue” into the town. The loss of these trees would have a
detrimental impact on amenity as individual trees and as an informal avenue.
The Order was duly served on 6 October 2009.
Representations
Objections to the Order:One letter of objection to the Order has been received from the agent of the owners
of the property.
Development Control Committee
4
14 January 2010
The main objections are:
1. Past management has left the trees in a manipulated and disfigured form.
2. The two trees are not deemed to be in keeping with other natural formed specimen
trees within the locality.
3. The past management of the trees does not conform to BS3998:1989
Recommendations for Tree Works.
4. The future growth potential of the trees is deemed high and will conflict with the
driveway and fabric of the building. Such growth development will need to be
managed on a regular basis.
5. The trees are not currently of a significant size or height, however if left
unmanaged they would certainly raise concerns by the property owner in relation to
increased levels of apprehension. The historical management of the crown may be
deemed unsuitable by the Council.
6. The trees have developed as a group and the removal of two Sorbus trees has left
the crown open on one side.
7. The associated roots of the two trees are deemed to be a contributory factor in the
lifting of the pavement on Suffield Close and the driveway of the property.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
a) The past management of trees is only considered when serving a TPO when it has
resulted in structural damage or may restrict the health of the tree. The agent has
made it clear that the growth rate of the two Beech trees has been deemed high
therefore the past management is not a factor.
b) All the trees in the locality have been managed for amenity at some time and
therefore none of them has a natural form.
c) The TPO will not prevent appropriate management of the two Beech trees.
d) The removal of the Sorbus is not considered to be an issue. The growth potential
of the Beech trees is deemed high and therefore will fill the open crown.
e) The root damage to the pavement and drive is due to poor surfacing. The
driveway will have to be re-laid if the trees are removed so it is considered that a new
root friendly surface would solve the problem.
Norfolk County Council's
Arboricultural Officer has indicated that the trees are important and would arrange for
the roots to be ramped over when maintenance is required.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
5
14 January 2010
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that it therefore has high
amenity value.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 - File Reference: 09/0791)
4.
BODHAM - ENF/06/0020 - Change of Use of Agricultural Land for the Siting of
Caravans for Residential Purposes; Land off Hart Lane, Bodham
Report on current position on an existing enforcement case.
Relevant Planning History
20071223 Change of use of agricultural land to site one static caravan, one touring
caravan and one transit pitch. Received 03 August 2007.
Refused 22 February 2008. Appeal dismissed 14 November 2008
Background
In 2006 a derelict caravan and a small quantity of building materials and associated
equipment were being stored on agricultural land adjacent to Hart Lane, Bodham.
Despite repeated assurances by the then-owner of the land, no action was taken to
remove them and a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 was served on 22 November 2006. The Notice required the removal of two
touring caravans and a quantity of building materials and associated equipment. The
date for compliance with the Notice was 22 January 2007; however the caravans and
materials remained on site. The Council’s Legal Section was instructed to
commence legal proceedings for non-compliance with the Notice on 26 March 2007.
This action was discontinued in May 2007 when further enquires revealed that the
land had been sold.
The current owner of the site was and is a member of the travellers’ community and
commenced residential occupation in late May 2007. In July 2007 one of the touring
caravans was removed and a large mobile home was placed on the site. On 7
August 2007 application 20071223 was received for change of use of agricultural
land to site two static caravans, two touring caravans and provide two transit pitches.
This was amended to one static caravan, one touring caravan and one transit pitch
reflecting the current use of the site at that time.
The application was refused on 22 February 2008 on grounds relating to the harmful
impact on the appearance of this part of the Area of High Landscape Value and the
inadequacy of the local road network to accommodate safely the associated increase
Development Control Committee
6
14 January 2010
in traffic from the site. An Enforcement Notice was served requiring the removal from
the land of all caravans, motor vehicles, scrap metal, metal security fencing, timber,
and the hard standing and other domestic paraphernalia and the land to be returned
to its former agricultural use, within 6 calendar months from the effective date of the
Notice.
Appeals were lodged against both the refusal to grant planning permission and the
Enforcement Notice. On 14 November 2008 both appeals were dismissed and the
Enforcement Notice upheld with the variation that the land should be returned to its
previous condition prior to the breach of planning control. The period for compliance
was extended to within 12 months of the effective date of the Notice as upheld on
appeal (14 November 2009). A copy of the appeal decision is attached (Appendix
3).
At the date of the appeal decision the North Norfolk Core Strategy had been adopted
and the North Norfolk Local Plan cited in the Enforcement Notice and the reasons for
refusal no longer applied for development control purposes.
The Inspector
considered that the key policy was The North Norfolk Core Strategy, Policy HO 4:
Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and for Travelling Show People. This policy is
permissive towards sites for gypsies and travellers provided such sites are of an
appropriate scale and nature and meet a number of criteria regarding matters such
as the impact on the surrounding landscape, vehicle and access provision and
proximity to local services.
The Inspector determined the appeal on the basis that the applicant wished to have
the site for his own home and that the transit site no longer formed part of the
proposed development. The Inspector concluded that the development met all the
criteria in Policy HO 4 except in relation to the site access. The appeal was
dismissed solely on the ground of substandard visibility at the access. The Inspector
acknowledged in the decision that the applicant is a member of the traveller
community and that planning policies for gypsy and traveller sites are applicable in
this case (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the appeal decision).
Current Position
The owner was visited by the Enforcement Officer on 7 October 2009 and reminded
that the deadline for compliance with the Enforcement Notice was 14 November. He
stated that he would not be moving from the site in compliance with the Notice as he
has nowhere to move onto. However the owner stated his intention to remove the
sheds, container and touring caravan from the site by the end of January 2010 and
also to move the mobile home to a less obtrusive position. Discussions have been
held with the Highway Authority and there may be scope to improve the access to an
acceptable standard. The owner has also stated that a planning application is to be
submitted for a static caravan and one shed on the site accompanied by proposals to
improve the access visibility through the removal of the hedge and the
implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme. This would potentially
ameliorate the loss of the hedge and provide screening for the site.
Notwithstanding the possibility of the submission of a planning application, the
continued residential use of the site is in breach of the Enforcement Notice which
required compliance by 14 November 2009 and the owner is liable to prosecution for
an offence under Section 179(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act as
amended. Such prosecution may lead on conviction to a substantial fine, but it will
not necessarily enforce the removal of the mobile home from the site. In this
instance it may also be necessary to apply to the Court for an injunction under
Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended to require the
removal of the mobile home.
Development Control Committee
7
14 January 2010
The Committee should be aware that in this case in the light of gypsy and traveller
case law it is not a foregone conclusion that the Court will grant an injunction. In the
event that a further application for planning permission is received, the Committee
should be aware that any prosecution may be deferred by the Court pending
determination of the application. Nonetheless, given that there is a current breach of
planning control and that the Notice upheld on appeal has not been complied with,
the Committee is recommended to authorise criminal proceedings as set out in the
formal recommendation below.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the commencement of criminal proceedings in this case for noncompliance with the Enforcement Notice as upheld on appeal may raise issues
relevant to the landowner's rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and
family life) and article 1 of the First Protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions). However, having considered the likely impact on an individual's
Human Rights, and the general interest of the public, the commencement of such
proceedings as recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to authorise criminal proceedings pursuant to
Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended for noncompliance with the Enforcement Notice and also to authorise an application
for an injunction under Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended in the event that:
1) A planning application for the retention of the mobile home is not received
within 28 days from the owner being notified of the resolution of this
Committee.
2) In the event that any such application is refused the mobile home is not
removed within three months of the date of refusal or the date of dismissal of
any subsequent appeal.
Source: (Kate Steventon, Extn 6247 - File Reference: 06/0020)
5.
BODHAM - ENF/05/0036 - Stationing of caravans, a boat and depositing other
materials on agricultural land; Windrush Farm, Hart Lane, Bodham
A report on current position on an existing enforcement case.
Relevant Planning History
20070522 Erection of three agricultural buildings and retention of 2 metre high gate.
Received 26 March 2007
Refused 10 July 2007
Enforcement History
An Enforcement Notice was served on 8 February 2008 requiring removal of
caravans, boat, horsebox, motor vehicles, timber, scrap metals and domestic
paraphernalia. The date for compliance with that Notice was 14 June 2008.
A Stop Notice was also served on 27 February 2008 requiring cessation of the
engineering operations to alter ground levels by depositing on the land soil, brick and
concrete rubble, laying of water pipes and stationing of caravans on the land for
residential purposes and the creation of buildings and other structures to facilitate
residential occupation of the land.
Development Control Committee
8
14 January 2010
A further Enforcement Notice was served on 29 February 2008 requiring the storage
building erected on site to be demolished and the resulting materials to be removed
from the land and also that the brick and concrete rubble be removed. This required
compliance by 31 May 2008.
Background
During 2007 the Council received complaints concerning the storage of touring
caravans and other materials on agricultural land at Windrush Farm, Hart Lane,
Bodham. Despite requests to remove the caravans and the other items on the land
the owner failed to remove them. In February 2008 further materials, including a
boat, a quantity of timber, a horsebox and vehicles were placed on the land. An
Enforcement Notice was served on 8 February 2008 requiring the removal of the
caravans, boat, horsebox, motor vehicles, timber, scrap metal, and domestic
paraphernalia from the land. The Notice took effect on 14 March 2008 and required
compliance by 14 June 2008. On 26 February a mobile home was placed on the site
and concrete and rubble and water pipes were brought onto the site. A Stop Notice
was served to prevent further unauthorised development and a further Enforcement
Notice was served on 29 February 2008 requiring the storage building erected on site
to be removed.
None of these Notices were the subject of appeals to the Secretary of State.
Following the serving of the Notices a further mobile home was placed on site,
fencing erected and structures and buildings were constructed ostensibly for the
enclosure and housing of chickens, geese and pigs. Negotiations to clear the site
failed and a prosecution for non-compliance with the Notices was commenced. On
12 May 2009 a fine and costs totalling £1265 were imposed for contravention of the
Stop Notice. The prosecution for non-compliance with the Enforcement Notices were
withdrawn. It remains open to the Local Planning Authority to prosecute for
continuing non-compliance with the Enforcement Notices
Current Position
The site is currently being used for agricultural purposes, comprising the keeping of
Gloucester Old Spot pigs, chickens, ducks and geese. An undertaking has been
given by the developer to remove all the timber buildings, touring caravan, scrap
vehicles and general scrap and rubbish from the site by the end of January 2010. It
is proposed to keep a wooden clad building on wheels as a temporary shelter for the
animals on site and re-locate the mobile home to a less intrusive position on the site
as it is temporarily required for the keeping of feed and straw for the animals on site.
There is no residential use taking place on the site. The Committee should be aware
that the mobile home being sited on the land and used for a purpose that is
necessary for the agricultural use of the land does not represent a breach of planning
control. The occupier has also stated his intention to submit a planning application
for an open sided hay barn which if approved would replace the mobile home.
Whilst the occupier's intentions are noted, it is the case that there is a continuing
breach of the Enforcement Notices and further legal action is therefore considered
necessary in this case.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the commencement of criminal proceedings in this case for noncompliance with the Enforcement Notices may raise issues relevant to the
landowner's rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and
article 1 of the First Protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). However,
Development Control Committee
9
14 January 2010
having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, the commencement of such proceedings as recommended is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to authorise criminal proceedings pursuant to
Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended for noncompliance with the Enforcement Notices and also to authorise an application
for an injunction under Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended in the event that:
1) The site is not cleared of all materials and vehicles not necessary for the
agricultural use of the land by 31 January 2010.
2) The mobile home and chicken shed continue to be stored on the land when
no longer required for the agricultural use of the land.
Source: (Kate Steventon, Ext 6247 - File Reference: 05/0036)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
6.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/09/1022 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling with Cellar
Beneath; Land adjacent Heath Barn, Britons Lane, Beeston Regis for Mr T Field
Minor Development - Target Date: 11 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside Policy Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19970752 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and
alterations to form managers dwelling and two holiday units
Refused, 25 July 1997
19971198 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and
alterations to form manager's dwelling and two holiday units to replace mobile home
and two existing units
Refused, 15 Jan 1998
19980474 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and alterations to pair
of cottages
Approved, 29 May 1998
19991214 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for an existing
residential caravan
Refused, 10 May 2000
20011424 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
land for standing holiday caravan
Approved, 12 Dec 2001
Development Control Committee
10
14 January 2010
20020592 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension of period during which existing
holiday caravan may be occupied
Approved, 08 July 2002
20031669 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of
two-storey dwelling
Refused, 05 Dec 2003
20032117 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of
one single-storey dwelling
Approved, 17 Feb 2004
20041208 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of single-storey
dwelling
Refused, 27 Aug 2004
20050720 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved, 13 June 2005
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey dwelling with cellar beneath. Works have already
commenced on the site and the cellar has been constructed.
The dwelling is being constructed in Styro blocks, the base of which would be
rendered and painted in a dark brown or similar. The remainder of the walls would be
clad in a multi red brick detail to the corners and reveals and horizontal natural ship
lap timber. The joinery would have a green/grey finish and the roof would be covered
in granular stone chips with cactus planting to a flat roof concealed behind a parapet
wall.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for a
site visit to be carried out.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
Strongly objects to this application because of the impact on the landscape.
Has concerns that this application is (a) retrospective and (b) a repeat of the 2003
application.
REPRESENTATIONS
A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicant's agent is
contained in Appendix 4. It explains why the cellar has been constructed.
A letter has also been received from the applicant regarding comments on the
current application and what works have already been carried out and comments on
conditions on the planning permission 20050720. A copy of the letter is contained in
Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – No objection. Standard note required regarding previous use
of land.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – The position of the
site is just within the boundary of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, located in a prominent location readily visible within the surrounding
landscape. It is for this reason that any new dwelling on the site should be sensitive
to its environment. As the building has already been partly constructed, it is easy to
see the impact it creates within the landscape. The proposal for a flat roof dwelling
Development Control Committee
11
14 January 2010
with limited inspiring design and fenestration does not offer any enhancement to the
location or lessen the impact on the countryside.
The exceptional setting of the site requires a proposal with careful design and use of
materials, with some possible additional landscaping to mitigate the impacts of such
a proposal. In its current form, the Landscape Section feels that the proposed
dwelling detracts from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and as such is contrary to Policy EN 1 of the Core strategy, therefore
the application is not supported.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Having
acquainted myself with the extensive planning history of this site the following design
comments can be offered on this scheme:
By virtue of its flat roof form, uninspiring design detailing, standard fenestration and
lack of real elevational relief, there is no suggestion that the proposed dwelling would
offer any substantive design quality, visual interest or local distinctiveness. In the
absence of any confidence in these three areas, it is difficult to see how Conservation
and Design could reasonably be expected to support this scheme. Hence our
recommendation can only be one of refusal.
In offering these comments, it is worth saying that there could be no objection in
principle to a piece of carefully designed contemporary architecture which offers
genuine innovation and which responds well to its landscape setting.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Development Control Committee
12
14 January 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and landscape character.
3. Design.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
Outline planning permission for a single-storey dwelling was granted under reference
20032117. That application was determined under the policies contained in the North
Norfolk Local Plan, which has now been superseded.
The planning history regarding this site is considered to be a material consideration
in the determination of the current application.
Prior to the Committee's consideration of application reference 20032117, the
Committee considered application reference 20031669 for the ‘Demolition of
outbuilding and erection of two-storey dwelling'. Only siting and access were being
considered.
Under the North Norfolk Local Plan the site was located within an area designated as
Countryside, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast; this is still
the case under the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. The principal objectives of
these policies have not significantly changed.
The proposal for a new residential dwelling in the Countryside policy area was
contrary to policy. In addition the proposal did not fully comply with the policy
regarding Undeveloped Coast as it had not been demonstrated that a coastal
location was required for the proposed dwelling.
However, the site contained two cottages (semi-detached), a holiday caravan, a
number of sheds and caravan used for domestic storage. There were also two
vehicular accesses, one of which is in a particularly dangerous position on the brow
of a hill. The applicant therefore offered to combine the two cottages into one to
ensure that the total number of dwellings on the site would not increase, remove the
caravans and unsightly sheds in order to improve the appearance of the site within
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which could be considered as a significant
gain. A further gain would be the closure of the dangerous access.
It was considered that the suggested exchange of residential uses together with the
associated site and access improvements might offset the breach of policy involved
in the application by constructing a dwelling in the countryside. However, it was not
considered that a two-storey dwelling would be appropriate because of the prominent
nature of the site.
The Committee therefore refused application 20031669 for a two-storey dwelling on
the following grounds:
By virtue of the site's prominent location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
the Undeveloped Coast and within the designated Countryside Policy Area, it is
considered that the erection of a two-storey dwelling as proposed would have a
detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area. The
proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted policies of the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee
13
14 January 2010
The Committee did, however, invite without prejudice an alternative proposal for a
single-storey dwelling. This was on the basis that the applicant was still offering to
tidy up the site, improve the access and convert the two existing cottages into a
single dwelling in order to improve the appearance of the site and consequently this
part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Following this the applicant submitted outline application 20032117 for a singlestorey dwelling. The Committee approved that application as it was considered to
offer genuine improvements of the visual appearance of the site and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and improvements to highway safety. Condition 10
stated that ‘The dwelling hereby permitted shall be of a single storey construction
only, in the interests of the visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and Undeveloped Coast'.
A reserved matters application was submitted under reference 20041208 for a singlestorey dwelling. However, this was refused as the overall scale and bulk of the
dwelling proposed was considered to be unduly prominent in the landscape and
would require the loss of a number of trees which were considered to be of significant
amenity value. It was considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact
on the visual amenities and rural character of the area and the wider landscape of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A further application was submitted under reference 20050720 for a single-storey
dwelling, which was considered to be acceptable and approved.
However, since that approval and works commencing on site it has become apparent
that the applicant is not constructing the development in accordance with the
approved plans under permission 20050720. That application will expire by 21 April
2010, so unless the applicant implements that permission in full accordance with the
approved plans or obtains planning permission for an alternative scheme there will
not be an extant permission in place after that date. The current application has
therefore been submitted in order to attempt to regularise the work that has already
been carried out.
Whilst there are some minor changes to the positioning of windows and internal
layout of the proposed dwelling from that previously approved (20050720), the
overall footprint of the main living accommodation of the proposed dwelling remains
the same. However, a cellar below the whole of the proposed dwelling is now
intended and has been constructed on site, which would double the floor area of the
proposed dwelling.
The applicant is proposing to block up the openings made in the cellar and back fill
around the proposed dwelling with soil to return the ground levels to what the
applicant believes to be the original levels before work commenced.
However, there is disagreement regarding this matter in the light of photographs
taken before any works commenced on the site. It is accepted since this is a sloping
site, with the land to east at a higher level than that to the west, that clearly some
excavation of soil was required to the east of the site in order for a flat and suitable
foundation to be constructed, but it is not considered that this would have been so
great to permit a cellar to be added to the scheme. It is considered that the dwelling
as approved under 20050720 should have been built where the current cellar has
been constructed. The applicant does not agree with this. However, despite this the
cellar itself requires planning permission.
Development Control Committee
14
14 January 2010
The principal issues for consideration are whether this new scheme would have a
significant detrimental impact on the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and its setting, whether it would have a significant detrimental impact
to the open coastal character, and whether the design is of high quality, having
regard to local context and whether it preserves or enhances the character and
quality of the area.
The previously approved dwelling was a fairly conventional bungalow with a hipped
roof, constructed in brick with clay pantiles. The height of that dwelling from the
ground levels shown on the approved plan to the ridge was approximately 6.3m on
the western elevation and some 3.5m to the eaves at its highest point. Ridge height
was approximately 5.3m on the eastern elevation and eaves height some 2.5m. The
difference of 1m was due to the sloping ground levels across the site east to west.
However, this design was for a single-storey dwelling.
In accordance with the plans submitted under the current application the height of the
building, after there have been some backfilling of soil, is shown on the plans to be
approximately 5.3m to the west and 3.5m to the east (Britons Lane). If the back filling
is not taken into consideration on the west elevation it would appear from the plans
that the overall height would be approximately 6.3m. Whilst the overall height of the
proposed dwelling may be no greater than that previously approved it is considered
that the overall scale and bulk in this prominent elevated location would have a
significant detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area.
In addition, it is considered that, despite the applicant's proposal to back fill some of
the soil around the proposed dwelling by approximately 1m in depth, the inclusion of
the proposed 'cellar' would be tantamount to creating a two-storey dwelling to which
the Committee has previously objected and refused permission under 20031669.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who is objecting to the application on the grounds that the proposal will
detract from the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The proposal is not therefore considered to be acceptable or in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the following grounds:
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast
Policy EN 4: Design
It is considered that the overall scale, bulk and design of the proposal would result in
the construction of a dwelling that would be unsympathetic, lacking quality, visual
interest and local distinctiveness, and unduly prominent in the landscape, which
would have a significantly detrimental impact on the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and the open coastal character of the Undeveloped
Coast.
Development Control Committee
15
14 January 2010
Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 and would not preserve or enhance the character and
quality of the area.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to adopted Development Plan
policies.
7.
BLAKENEY - PM/09/1180 - Erection of four dwellings; Land at 59 New Road
Blakeney for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 18 January 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Reserved Matters
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080839 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of four detached dwellings
Approved, 18 Sep 2008.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of one-single storey dwelling and three one-and-a half-storey
dwellings.
Appearance, scale and landscaping are under consideration at this
stage.
As far as the dwelling to plot one is concerned, which is situated immediately to the
north of No.59 New Road, this would consist of a three bedroom, single-storey
property, with a ridge height of 5.6m, which would be constructed of a mix of red
brick and vertical timber boarding under a clay pantile roof.
The dwellings to the other three plots would each have four bedrooms over two
floors, with an overall ridge height of 7.4m. The materials would be similar to plot
one. The dwellings to plots one and two would each have a single garage with
parking to their frontage whilst the other two plots would have a double garage with
parking and manoeuvring area. Access to the site would be via an existing driveway
which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the site and immediately to the east of
No.59 New Road.
An amended plan has been received in respect of plot three which shows the
removal of the gable to the northern elevation and a simplification of the fenestration
to this elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Impact on appearance of area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee
16
14 January 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the neighbour to the north which raises the following
concerns (summarised):
1. The windows to the rear elevation of the dwelling to plot three would look directly
onto our property particularly into the bedroom and over the garden, resulting in a
loss of privacy and light.
2. The position of the garage close to the boundary could result in a loss of light.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objection.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Requests further
information regarding the landscaping and the trees to be retained
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 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 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. Scale and design of dwellings.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on trees.
Development Control Committee
17
14 January 2010
APPRAISAL
The principle of development was established with the granting of planning
permission 20080839 when the access and layout of the development were
approved. In addition it was also a condition of the approval that the dwelling to plot
one should be single-storey and for the other three plots to be one-and-a-half-storey
dwellings. In order to preserve the privacy of The Bungalow to the east, it was also
agreed that there should be no first floor windows to the north eastern roof slope of
plot 2.
As far as the scale and form of the dwellings is concerned, given that the principle of
both single and one-and-a-half storey properties has previously been established it is
considered that the dwellings as proposed would accord with these requirements and
would be in keeping with the surrounding area. In terms of their overall design and
elevational treatment although they would adopt a fairly modern style with the use of
timber cladding and simple casement windows this is considered to be acceptable in
this location, which has been confirmed by the Council's Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager.
This is a backland site which until recently was used as a touring caravan site and
which is surrounded by residential properties. In terms of the relationship with
neighbouring properties, there is potential for overlooking and loss of light to those
properties. However given the orientation of the dwellings, distance from boundaries
and conditions imposed at the outline application stage it is not considered that there
are any privacy issues in respect of plots 1, 2 or 4 and the scheme would comply with
the basic amenity criteria contained in the North Norfolk Design Guide.
In respect of plot 3, the amended elevations have resulted in the deletion of the gable
to the northern elevation which has reduced the potential impact on the neighbouring
property. Therefore, although this dwelling would only be some 10m from the
northern boundary of the site with Byways and there could be some overshadowing
of part of the garden area of this property, it is considered that, given the separation
distance and the fact that the ridge height of the dwelling would only be 7.4m, this
relationship on balance is acceptable. In respect of the first floor windows to plot 3,
these would comply with the basic amenity criteria. In addition although the window
to the western end of the roof slope would be directly opposite the bedroom window
of the neighbouring property this would be a bathroom window which would be
obscure glazed. To the eastern end of the roof the first floor window serving a
bedroom would overlook the blank single-storey gable of Byways. As a result any
views over the garden area and towards windows of the neighbouring property would
be oblique; on balance this is considered to be acceptable.
As far as the impact on the trees on the site is concerned the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager has indicated that in order to assess the scheme further
details are required at this stage regarding the existing trees and shrubs on the site
together with those to be removed and also a replanting plan.
In terms of car parking and manoeuvring area this would comply with the parking
standards contained in the Core Strategy.
In conclusion it is considered that the scheme as amended would accord with the
basic amenity criteria contained in the North Norfolk Design Guide. Although the
dwelling to plot 3 would have some impact on the neighbouring property to the north,
in terms of overshadowing and the perception of being overlooked, given that the
scheme as proposed accords with the outline permission in terms of the layout and
scale of the development it is not considered that there would be sufficient
justification to refuse the application.
Development Control Committee
18
14 January 2010
It is therefore considered that the development would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the submission of satisfactory
landscape details and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
EDGEFIELD - PF/09/0926 - Continued Use of Former Agricultural Buildings for
Storage of Vehicles and Vehicle Parts; Street Farm, Ramsgate Street, Edgefield
for Mr T Travers
Minor Development - Target Date: 07 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological site
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to continue the use of three former agricultural buildings for the storage of
vehicles and vehicle parts.
Some of the stored cars are available to be used by a firm based at Cromer Road,
Overstrand for self drive or wedding car hire.
The buildings are located in a farmyard which has an access directly on to Ramsgate
Street.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Impact on neighbouring amenity.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Cars are not just being stored at the site they are being repaired.
2. Customers are collecting vehicles for hire from the site rather than from the
Overstrand garage causing issues with parking on the shared access drive.
3. Increased noise levels from cars continually being moved in and out of the barn as
they are hired out and serviced etc.
The applicant has advised in his design and access statement that the cars are not
repaired or maintained at the site, only stored and cleaned and that the vehicles are
delivered to the garage in Overstrand for collection by their customers for rental.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways – Although the access to this site is far from ideal with
restricted visibility from the access onto Ramsgate Street, with consideration of the
previous agricultural use of the buildings I would be unable to raise a sustainable
highways objection. Therefore in relation to highways issues only, notice is hereby
given that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.
Development Control Committee
19
14 January 2010
Environmental Health – No adverse comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the use in this location.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the village of Edgefield which is designated as Countryside
where the proposed use of former agricultural buildings for the storage of vehicles is
acceptable in principle under Policy EC 2 of the Core Strategy.
Given the close proximity to adjacent residential dwellings and the shared access
arrangements, the use of the building for the repair or maintenance of the vehicles or
of the collection of these vehicles from the premises would not be suitable as it would
create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the occupiers
of the adjacent holiday accommodation. The application however only seeks the
storage of the vehicles and vehicle parts. Subject therefore to the imposition of
conditions restricting the use to the storage of the vehicles and parts only with no
repair or maintenance or collection of the vehicles for hire from the site by customers,
the proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the amenities of nearby
occupiers and would therefore comply with Policy EN 4.
With regard to highway safety, the Highway Authority has advised that whilst the
access to this site from the County highway is far from ideal and has restricted
visibility from the access onto Ramsgate Street, having regard to the previous
agricultural use of the buildings, there could be no sustainable objection. The
proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy CT 5.
In summary therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the
proposal is considered to have no detrimental impact on the amenities of
neighbouring dwellings nor on highway safety and is therefore considered to comply
with Development Plan policies.
Development Control Committee
20
14 January 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
preventing repair or maintenance of vehicles and collection of vehicles for hire
direct from the site.
9.
HEMPSTEAD - PF/09/1021 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension and
Detached Garage with Accommodation In Roof Space; 5 Marlpit Cottages,
Marlpit Lane, Hempstead for Mr B Hannah
Target Date: 11 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071194 – Erection of two-storey rear extension
Approved 16 September
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a single-storey extension to the northern side of the dwelling and a
detached garage to the north of the site with accommodation in the roof space to
form an annexe.
The garage would be 7.2m wide, 5.85m deep and would have a height to the ridge of
5.4m. A lobby and WC are proposed on the ground floor of the garage and a
bedroom in the roofspace above.
The single-storey extension would be of a lean-to construction sited on the northern
end of the dwelling and would accommodate an additional bedroom for the dwelling.
It measures 3.9m x 5.4m with a ridge height of 4m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Scale of the proposed garage in relation to the existing cottages.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection to the application but express concerns over the size of the annexe
bearing in mind the size of the cottage and the fact that it is in a Conservation Area
and fully visible from Marlpit Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received on the following grounds
(summarised):
1. Proposed garage is out of scale with the existing cottages.
2. The siting of the garage at right angles to the cottages and the proposed materials
accentuates its domineering appearance.
3. Garage would cause loss of sun from garden to east.
Development Control Committee
21
14 January 2010
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
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Scale.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Design.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy designation in the village of
Hempstead where the principle of erecting an extension and ancillary garage and
annexe are considered to be acceptable subject to compliance with other detailed
policy criteria.
The dwelling is an end of terrace one-and-a-half-storey property. The four other
terraced dwellings gain access to their properties on the eastern side of the row and
have gardens that are detached from the dwellings to the north and east of the row of
cottages.
The garden to the immediate east of the site (serving No.4) has screening to the
boundary consisting of a hedge and planting of varied height and density.
There is a horse paddock to the west in the ownership of the applicant and one to the
north. Field boundaries surrounding the site consist of a mix of native trees and
planting which provide a good level of screening.
The dwelling has had a two-storey extension. This application proposes a further
small single-storey extension on the northern side. The proposed extension is
subordinate visually, being sited to the north elevation where it would not be highly
visible to the wider area. In addition, the proposed extension and previous twostorey extension are subordinate in floor area to the original dwelling. Overall
therefore the proposed extension is not considered to increase materially the impact
of the dwelling on the wider countryside and therefore complies with Policy HO 8 and
EN 8 of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
22
14 January 2010
With regard to design, the single-storey extension would be limited in height and
scale and as it is sited on the northern end elevation of the dwelling. It is therefore
considered that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact on the
privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings to the south. In
addition the materials proposed are considered appropriate. The proposed singlestorey extension is therefore considered acceptable in terms of design, in compliance
with Policy EN 4.
With regard to the proposed detached garage, whilst it is fairly large in scale
compared with that of the existing cottages, it would be set some 6m north of the
proposed side extension and at the same ridge height as that of the previous oneand-a-half-storey rear extension; this is approximately 1m lower than the ridge height
of the main row of cottages. Given its separation from the dwellings and its lower
ridge height than the cottages, it is considered that the proposal would have no
adverse impact on the character of the existing cottages. In addition, whilst it would
be visible from the street, it is screened from the wider landscape by the mature
planting to the field boundaries surrounding the site and it would be partially
obscured from the road to the south by the existing cottages. It would be read from a
wider perspective as an addition to the existing cluster of buildings. As such the
proposal is considered to have no adverse visual impact on the wider countryside,
and it is considered to preserve to the appearance and character of the Conservation
Area.
In terms of the accommodation in the roof space above the garage, whilst this has no
physical link to the main dwelling, given the limited scale of accommodation provided,
its close proximity to the dwelling and its ancillary use to the dwelling, it is considered
to be acceptable subject to conditions ensuring the use remains ancillary.
In terms of the potential impact of the garage on neighbouring amenity, whilst the
roof space would be used as an ancillary bedroom, no windows or roof lights are
proposed in the southern or eastern elevations and as such no overlooking would
result. Windows would be limited to the northern and western elevations which face
open fields. With regard to loss of light, the dwellings to the south are of sufficient
distance away to ensure no loss of light. The garden of No.4 Marlpit Cottages is
sited to the west of the garden area of the application site. At 5.4m to the ridge,
some loss of late afternoon sunlight to the garden to No.4 would result, but given the
2.5m between the proposed garage and the site boundary and the screening the
existing boundary hedge will afford, it is not considered that the garage would result
in a significant adverse impact on the amenities of the occupier. The proposed
garage is therefore considered to comply with Policy EN 4.
Overall, the proposed extension and detached garage are considered to comply with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
23
14 January 2010
10.
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1105 - Erection of Single-storey Dwelling with
Accommodation in Roofspace; Land at 7 Norfolk Road Sheringham for F W
Smith (Builders) Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 01 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19821270 – Erection of detached bungalow
Refused, 08 Nov 1982
20081283 – Erection of single-storey dwelling with accommodation in roofspace
Refused, 12 Mar 2009
20090658 – Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused, 1 Oct 2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two/three-bed detached dwelling with rooms in the roof on land to
the rear of No.7 Norfolk Road. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately
120sq.m and would include an integral garage.
The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 2.5m and a height to ridge of 6.7m.
Access would be gained from Norfolk Road via the existing private driveway which
runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site. The access would be widened to
4.5m over what is currently part of the garden of 7 Norfolk Road.
The new dwelling would have a garden depth of approximately 10m and a width of
approximately 14m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issue:
Adequately of vehicular access.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Would be detrimental to the character of the area.
2. The site is a haven for wildlife.
3. Widening of the access opens up the area, undermining the security and privacy of
the dwelling accessed off The Loke.
4. Would result in overdevelopment of the site.
5. Would result in overlooking of adjacent properties.
6. The use of the access road for turning vehicles would cause detriment to the
existing vehicles and pedestrians using the road.
7. Would exacerbate current surface water issues experienced by No.5 Norfolk
Road.
8. Previous proposal refused on this site.
9. Insufficient space for parking on site would lead to parking on the private access
road and Norfolk Road.
10. Loss of view.
Development Control Committee
24
14 January 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Coordinator – No objection subject to conditions ensuring compliance
with the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Council Highways – The improvements to access width and parking/turning
areas overcome my concerns of application 2009/0658, therefore I can confirm there
are no highway objections to this proposal 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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
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 CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Impact on the form and character of the area.
4. Design.
5. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
This is a resubmission of a previous application, refused on highway grounds,
specifically the inadequate width of the access and the failure of the applicant to
demonstrate that sufficient on site parking and turning for a vehicle could be
achieved.
The site is located within the residential area of Sheringham within which the
principle of erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable.
Whilst the site is located to the rear of 7 Norfolk Road it is considered that, subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, the dwelling would not have a significantly
adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining properties.
Development Control Committee
25
14 January 2010
In respect of amenity space requirements, whilst the dwelling is fairly tight on the plot,
sufficient private garden areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended
purpose are achieved and, in line with North Norfolk Design Guide
recommendations, the area of the plot given to private amenity space would be no
less than the footprint of the dwelling.
The proposal complies with the housing density requirements in accordance with
Policy HO 7.
The design of the dwelling reflects the simplicity of the design of the adjacent
properties to the north. In respect of external materials, it is considered that the
proposal would preserve the architectural character of the area, in compliance with
Policy EN 4.
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.
Policy CT 6 requires two parking spaces for a 2/3 bed property. A car port is
proposed and there is sufficient space in front of the dwelling for a further car. In
addition sufficient space for turning within the application area is achieved. The
proposal therefore complies with the parking standards in accordance with Policy CT
5.
With regard to the access to the site, this is intended via the un-adopted access road
leading from the site to the public highway, which currently serves three dwellings
with a constricted width for its entire length. This revised application proposes
increasing the width of the access for approximately the first 30m from the highway to
4.5m. The Highway Authority has advised that the improvements to the access width
and parking/turning areas overcome previous concerns, and therefore confirms there
are no highway objections to this proposal subject to the imposition of conditions.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy CT 5.
In summary the revised proposal proposed widening the vehicular access to the
satisfaction of the Highway Authority. No detrimental adverse impact is considered
on the amenities of the adjacent occupiers and the design is considered appropriate.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those requested by
Highway Authority, the Sustainability Co-ordinator and the removal of
permitted development rights.
11.
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1140 - Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling; 22, Station Road, Sheringham for Museum Cottages
Target Date: 07 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Rural Buildings
Town Centre
Development Control Committee
26
14 January 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070155 – (Full Planning Permission) – Conversion of museum into six residential
dwellings
Approved, 03 Apr 2007
20070989 – (Full Planning Permission) – Alterations to building to provide bin store
Approved, 20 Jul 2007
20091228 – (Full Planning Permission) – Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two storey
dwelling and re-location of bin store
Refused, 21 Sep 2009
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks to convert a building, formerly in A1 retail use, into a one-bed
dwelling. The works would involve substantial alteration, including raising the eaves
height by approximately 0.5m and amending the pitch to provide a room in the roof.
The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 31sq.m.
Roof lights are proposed on the southern roof slope in lieu of a dormer proposed
previously.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Penny Bevan Jones having regard to the impact of the
development on the surrounding area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of over development and the proposed building area is the
designated bin store to the Museum Cottages, a condition which was placed in the
original planning permission to the cottages.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Application no different to that previously refused.
2. Increase in roof height will result in loss of light to garden of 22b Station Road.
3. Overlooking from windows on north elevation.
4. Property is currently earmarked for bin storage area for museum cottages.
5. The area indicated for the relocated bin storage area is not in the ownership of the
applicant. It is a shared right of way/access.
6. Would result in a loss of retail.
7. Tree would have to be cut back which would misshape the tree.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns in
relation to this proposal therefore I have no comments to make.
County Council Highways – As with the previous application (2008/1228), for this
site, I am satisfied that there would be no adverse highway impact as a result of this
proposed development. Therefore in relation to highways issues only, notice is herby
given that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – The conversion of the
Barbers shop will not have a significant impact on the landscape of the area. The
tree of Heaven has high amenity value and the Conservation, Design and Landscape
section considers this to be an important tree. If planning permission is granted for
the conversion then a condition should be added to ensure that the tree is protected
in line with the Methodology Statement submitted with the application.
Development Control Committee
27
14 January 2010
Sustainability Co-ordinator – This application complies with Policy EN 6 based on the
information supplied in the Sustainable Construction Checklist. Therefore subject to
conditions ensuring conversion in accordance with the Checklist, there is no
objection to the proposal.
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy 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 residential development in this location.
2. Impact on neighbours’ amenity.
3. Impact on the form and character of the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on trees.
5. Highway safety.
6. Waste disposal.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the town centre and primary shopping area of Sheringham
within which the principle of a residential dwelling is considered acceptable under
Policy SS 5, provided that the proposal would not result in the loss of shops or other
main town centre uses and subject to satisfactory compliance with adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy policies.
In this instance, whilst the building may have been used as a shop in the past, this
use has long ceased and permission has already been granted for non-retail use.
Application 20070989 permitted use of the building as a bin store for the adjacent
Museum Cottages, which were permitted to be converted to six one bed dwellings
with no amenity space (20070155). Whilst the permission to convert the Museum
Cottages to dwellings has been implemented, the proposal to convert the ‘Barbers
Shop’ has not been implemented to date.
Development Control Committee
28
14 January 2010
The site is located to the rear of No.22 Station Road and the plan indicates that the
only windows serving the proposed dwelling would be in the southern and western
elevations. It is the southern elevation only where first floor windows in the form of
rooflights are proposed. This application proposes two roof lights on the southern
elevation rather than a dormer window as proposed on the previously refused
application. Whilst the rooflights would not eliminate all overlooking, as views across
the rear garden of Nos.28-30 Station Road would be possible, given that it is
currently open to public view, the first floor rooflights are not considered to result in a
significant detrimental loss of privacy to those dwellings. On balance, given that the
proposed windows in the first floor would be secondary windows and the limited
number of windows in adjoining properties would achieve compliance with the basic
amenity criteria, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly
detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining properties.
The existing building is barely visible from Station Road, hidden as it is by the flat
roofed extension relating to the electrical shop at 22 Station Road. The building has
been significantly altered and its current condition could not be said to contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal
would significantly alter the form and character of the existing building, most notably
in respect of height, the introduction of additional windows and proposed re-cladding
of the building in timber. However, subject to appropriate detailing and choice of
external materials, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the appearance
of the building and preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Within the garden of a neighbouring property to the north of the site is a Tree of
Heaven, whose canopy spreads out above the application building. Raising the roof
and/or the potential need to rebuild the structure and provide new footings could
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree, which is protected by virtue of its location in
the Conservation Area. However, the applicant has submitted an arboricultural
Method Statement and the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager considers
that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not pose
a threat to the longevity of the tree and would be acceptable.
In respect of parking provision, Policy CT 6 requires an average of 1.5 vehicle
parking spaces for a 1-bed property, although in designated town centres the
standard may be reduced if justified by improved accessibility and/or to enhance a
Conservation Area. The applicant is not proposing to provide any parking. Clearly
the site is very well located in terms of access to shops and services and rail and bus
services are situated within 500m of the site. The Highway Authority has confirmed
that there are no highway safety implications and that they would have no objection.
Given the small size of the property and the views of the Highway Authority, it is not
considered that refusal on highway safety grounds could be substantiated.
In respect of the bin storage area, it is unclear where the occupiers of Museum
Cottages are storing their bins as the permission for this building as a bin store for
Museum Cottages has never been implemented, but Environmental Health has
raised no objection to the proposal.
In summary, the principle of a dwelling in this location is acceptable, there would be
no significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and
subject to the use of appropriate external materials, the proposal would enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are no significant
concerns regarding the impact on the adjacent tree and there are no highway safety
implications. As such, the proposal would comply with Development Plan policy.
Development Control Committee
29
14 January 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
SUSTEAD - PF/09/0974 - Erection of Agricultural Storage Building; Farm
Buildings Adjacent Manor House, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
Minor Development - Target Date: 30 November 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/09/1008 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071516 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural storage building
Approved, 09 Nov 2007
20090437 - Erection of agricultural storage building
Withdrawn, 09 June 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an agricultural storage building measuring approx 34.5m long,
11.5m wide and 4.4m high to the ridge. The intended use if for the storage of straw.
The building is to be constructed with a steel frame and timber vertical Yorkshire
boarding on three elevations. Its roof would be constructed from corrugated fibre
cement boarding.
The internal arrangement of the building indicates one large area of 400sq.m.
Access to the building is along the recently formed track which runs along the
boundary to the east with the Manor House.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response.
REPRESENTATIONS
On behalf of the applicant a supporting statement has been submitted, providing
justification of the need for the building. This is attached in Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – No adverse concerns therefore no comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – The site lies within an
area of undesignated historic designed parkland that traditionally was linked to the
Manor House, a building dating from the late 1800’s of significant architectural and
historic interest. The land surrounding the house has recently been sold off and is
currently being converted to agricultural use.
Development Control Committee
30
14 January 2010
The proposal involves the erection of a large rectangular agricultural steel frame
shed adjacent to a recent similar agricultural building which is of similar scale
(300sq.m). The existing building is set 25m to the west of Manor House and the site
lies immediately south of Bessingham Conservation Area.
Occupying a footprint of 400sq.m, the proposed construction of the shed is vertical
timber boarding to the elevations and pale green corrugated fibre cement boarding to
the roof. Its intended use is that of the storage of straw.
From a design aspect, the proposed scale and materials of the new storage building
are out of keeping with the traditional brick and flint outbuildings making up the farm
complex of the adjacent Old Coach House which lies immediately to the north within
Bessingham Conservation Area.
Siting an agricultural building of this scale and form in such close proximity to the
historic Manor House would undoubtedly compromise its setting, which is already the
case to some degree with the existing cattle shed. The proposed additional shed,
which is 100sq.m larger than the existing, is to be sited on the west side of the exiting
shed. The combined effect of these two large buildings would be inappropriate for
this location as such is contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN 4 - Design. This policy
states that development proposals should be suitably designed for the context in
which they are set and that the scale and massing of buildings should relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area.
The site lies within an area classified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment as a Small Valley. Key characteristics of this landscape include
dispersed settlement with outlying cottages and small and medium farmsteads and a
larger than average network of water courses. Open areas interspersed with
woodland give a strong sense of enclosure.
Core Strategy Policy EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Settlement
Character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location,
scale, design and materials would protect, conserve and where possible enhance
these distinctive character areas and also the setting of Conservation Areas.
It must be said that the proposed building, although large in scale, would have
minimum visual impact on the wider landscape surrounding Bessingham by virtue of
the local topography and regular stands of mature woodland. It is the impact of the
building on the immediate surroundings, namely the setting of the Manor House and
the Old Coach House and the southern part of Bessingham Conservation Area which
is of concern.
To conclude, there are concerns that this proposal by way of its form and scale would
not preserve or enhance the adjacent Conservation Area, nor would it make a
positive contribution to the immediate surrounding landscape and these issues must
be taken into consideration.
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.
In consideration of the impact of this proposal on Human Rights it is considered that
it would have no impact on any individual's human rights.
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).
Development Control Committee
31
14 January 2010
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.
2. Impact on the landscape setting.
3. Design.
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site following a recent site visit.
The proposed building would be situated immediately south of Bessingham
Conservation Area and adjacent to an existing agricultural storage building which
was granted permission in 2007, although was still being erected at the time of a site
meeting in July. The proposed building is approximately 60m to the west of Manor
House.
A previous proposal for the agricultural storage building located the building closer to
the Manor House. This was withdrawn and the applicant now seeks the revised
location.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where the principle of
development for agriculture is acceptable subject to compliance with other policies of
the Core Strategy.
In terms of siting and scale, whilst the proposed straw shed would be sited
immediately adjacent to another large metal framed agricultural building, it is larger in
scale than the existing (some 400sqm compared to 300sq.m) and, due to its linear
shape, it would project into the field by a further 19m than that of the existing
building. As such whilst there is an existing agricultural building of a similar scale
adjacent, it is considered that the cumulative impact of both agricultural buildings
here in such close proximity to the historic Manor House and the Bessingham
Conservation Area would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the adjacent
Conservation Area, having a detrimental adverse impact, contrary to Policy EN 8 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
In addition, with regard to design, proposals should be suitably designed for the
context in which they are set and the scale and massing of buildings should relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area. The scale of the proposed building, in
combination with the existing, is not considered to be sympathetic to the adjacent
traditional brick built farm buildings of a significantly smaller scale sited immediately
to the north, neither is it sympathetic to the Manor House to the west given its close
proximity. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EN 4.
With regard to the impact on the wider landscape, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has advised that whilst the proposal is large in scale, given the
topography and areas of mature woodland surrounding, the proposal would have
minimum visual impact on the wider landscape surrounding Bessingham. The
proposal is therefore considered to conserve the character of the landscape, in
accordance with Policy EN 2 of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
32
14 January 2010
In conclusion, therefore, whilst the proposed building would be sited adjacent to an
existing large scale agricultural building, taking into account their cumulative impact
the building would adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area. It
is not considered to be suitably designed for the context in which it is set. The
proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse by reason of inappropriate design and the adverse impact of the
building on the setting of the Conservation Area and related Development Plan
policies.
13.
SUSTEAD - PF/09/1008 - Extension and Alteration to Agricultural Building;
Farm Buildings Adjacent Manor House, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
Minor Development - Target Date: 07 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/09/0974 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20081733 - Prior notification of intention to restore agricultural buildings
Approved, 16 Jan 2009
20090873 - Prior notification of intention to alter and extend agricultural building
Withdrawn, 04 Sep 2009
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks further alterations to a building, subject to a 2008 prior
notification approval.
The amendments now sought include alterations to the internal layout of the building
including an enlarged toilet with a gun store room leading directly off this room;
additional internal linking doors; the addition of a chimney flue on the south west roof
slope; the enlargement and re-spacing of the roof lights along the north west
elevation and the re-allocation of the animal barn to an animal feed store and the
farm office to a farm staff rest room.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the basis that the revised plans are not sympathetic to agricultural usage.
The property resembles a residential dwelling rather than an agricultural property.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant's agent indicates in the submitted design and access statement that
the building is to be used for the storage of goods and machinery. The amendments
have been confirmed to be required to enable the building to have a better use within
Development Control Committee
33
14 January 2010
the site and more suitable needs of a working farm. With regard to the layout and
design the applicants agent has advised that the entire building is to be used for
agricultural purposes including a larger toilet (compared to that approved) capable of
meeting the needs of any disabled visitors or staff members. In addition the agent
advises that the roof lights have been altered in size and position allowing less
artificial lights to be used within the internal areas.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – No objection subject to an advisory note regarding.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the amendments to the building are reasonably necessary for the
purposes of agriculture.
2. Whether the building is designed for agricultural purposes.
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site following a recent site visit.
The building is sited on agricultural land adjacent to the Manor House. The land in
question and the Manor House are now in separate ownership.
The reconstruction of the building was approved under a prior notification application
on the basis that, whilst the design was considered somewhat domestic in its
appearance, its proposed use was agricultural and therefore acceptable and that any
use other than agricultural would require planning permission.
A significant number of amendments were sought to this prior notification consent,
many of which were considered to be domestic in nature, without justification as to
their reasonable necessity for the agricultural use of the building. These have
included the addition of a bath/shower room, raising the height of the roof and adding
three additional windows along the north west elevation. These requests were
declined as were not considered reasonably necessary for the agricultural use of the
building and a formal application requested for determination of any further
amendments.
Development Control Committee
34
14 January 2010
The additional amendments now sought are, individually, minor in nature involving
additional internal doors to enable access to all rooms internally, the enlargement
and re spacing of roof lights along the north west roof slope and the creation of a
larger disabled toilet with a room leading off which is intended to serve the gun store.
Whilst these are fairly minor individually, cumulatively, in addition to the already
domestic nature of the appearance of the building, these amendments are
considered to further unnecessarily domesticate the building.
It is therefore considered that whilst the basic structure appears to be reasonably
necessary for agriculture, the cumulative impact of the additional amendments and
the already quasi-domestic design of the building, means that its layout and design
are incompatible with this. The resulting layout fails to achieve a functional layout
associated with a farm building and appears more domestic in its nature. It is
therefore considered that the additional amendments sought result in a building with
a layout which the applicant has failed to demonstrate is reasonably necessary for
agricultural use. It appears capable of being used as living accommodation. The
building could therefore be considered to be tantamount to the creation of a new
dwelling in the countryside.
Concern has been expressed by the Parish Council that the proposed building
resembles a residential dwelling and there is therefore the possibility that it would in
the future be the subject of a change of use to a dwelling. It can be argued that any
future proposals for changes of use to a dwelling would require the benefit of
planning permission and would fall to be considered on their own merits, and the
current proposed use should be determined without regard to such possible
proposals. However, in this instance, given the cumulative domestic features of the
building and the lack of a sufficient agricultural justification for these amendments,
the proposal should be considered to result in the creation of a building that is
inappropriate for agricultural use. As such the resulting building would fail to comply
with Policy SS 2 which is only permissive of the re-use and adaptation of buildings for
appropriate purposes in the countryside.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposed changes to the building are reasonably necessary for the purposes
of agriculture or that the building has been designed for agricultural purposes.
As such, without substantive justification, the reconstructed building is
considered tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the
aims of Policy SS 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
14.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to make
representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
Development Control Committee
35
14 January 2010
FIELD DALLING – PF/09/1155 – Erection of Eight Dwellings on Land off Holt
Road for Victory Housing Trust
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle on the grounds of the visual impact of the
proposed development and vehicular access.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
15.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/09/0985 - Erection of 18.3m high Wind Turbine; East View
Farm, Stone Lane, Ashmanhaugh for Mr J Pond
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/09/1108 - Construction of Rear Balcony; 19 Kingsway,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PL for Lewis
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/09/1009 - Erection of Rear Extension, Formation of Storage
Compound and Installation of Front and Side Windows; Broads Business Park,
The Street, Catfield for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - NP/09/1130 - Prior Notification of Intention to Erect Agricultural
Storage Building; Walton Hall Farm Gipsies Lane Ludham for Mr Hellesdon
(Prior Notification (Agricultural)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/09/1030 - Erection of Single-Storey Side/Rear
Extension; Lime Tree House, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr Kingsbury
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/09/0143 - Conversion of Redundant Barn to One Unit of Holiday
Accommodation; Holly Farm, Ingworth Road, Banningham for Mr Green
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/09/1005 - Erection of First Floor Rear Extension and Raising Height
of Chimney; Old Mill Farm, Mill Road, Banningham for Mr A Clements
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/09/1011 - Erection of Single-Storey and Two-Storey Rear
Extensions; 31, Alfred Road, Cromer for Mr Cornell
(Householder application)
DUNTON - PF/09/1093 - Erection of Garden Shed; Clifton Cottage, Swaffham
Road, Toftrees, Fakenham, NR21 7EA for Mr A Friedel
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/09/1028 - Formation of Replacement Vehicular Access and
Erection of Wall; Dollys Cottage, Holt Road, Edgefield for Mr Major
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
36
14 January 2010
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/1014 - Erection of Conservatory; New Road Corner, The
Street, Erpingham for Mr Middleton
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0999 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension and 2.3m High
Boundary Fence; 38, North Park, Fakenham for Mr A Fowle
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1090 - Formation of Temporary Access; The Grove
Veterinary Group, Holt Road, Fakenham, for CVS (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/09/0878 - Conversion of Redundant Agricultural Building to
Dwelling (Revised Scheme); The Barn, Home Farm, Slaughter Road, Gimingham
for Mr and Mrs Kirby
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/09/1085 - Erection of Grain Storage Building (Revised
Scheme); Land off Thorpland Road Great Snoring for Mr R Perowne
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - PF/09/1047 - Re-Instatement of Outbuilding to Provide Annexe and
Erection of Link Extension; Church Farmhouse, Cromer Road, Lower Gresham
for Mr Windley
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/09/1035 - Erection of Two-Storey Extension; Gardeners
Cottage, Heath Lane, Gunthorpe for Mr Rush
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/09/1041 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; Aspen
House, The Common, Happisburgh for Mr Lennox
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/09/1132 - Extension of Outbuilding to Provide Bedroom
Accommodation; The Lawns Hotel, 26 Station Road, Holt for Mr Rees
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/09/1050 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension and
Construction of Bay Window; The Laurels 1, Letheringtons Lane, Horning for Mr
Corden
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/09/1061 - Change of Use of Former (B1) Office Building to A3
(Cafe); Industrial Estate, 29 Stalham Road, Hoveton for Mrs Bean
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - PF/09/1134 - Change of use from Annexe to One Unit of Holiday
Accommodation and Change of Use of Land from Agricultural to
Garden/Amenity Land; Brickle Barn Brick Kiln Lane Ingham for Weeks
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/09/1131 - Siting of Oil Tank; 30 Weynor Gardens, Kelling, Holt for
Mr R Bullimore
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
37
14 January 2010
LANGHAM - PF/09/1044 - Conversion of Barns to Two Units of Holiday
Accommodation and Design Studio; Old Manor Farmhouse, Binham Road,
Langham for Lady Goodenough
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/0992 - Erection of Attached Garage; 64, Brick Kiln
Road, North Walsham for Ms Lambert
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1006 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; 16,
Bacton Road, North Walsham for Mr D Audley
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1018 - Erection of Agricultural Storage Building;
Land adjacent to Railway Line, Bradfield Road, North Walsham for Mr B
Copland
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1033 - Erection of Shelter/Storage Shed; North
Walsham Rifle Club, Happisburgh Road, North Walsham for North Walsham
Rifle and Pistol Club
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1038 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; 22,
Royston Green, North Walsham for Mr Cutting
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1057 - Erection of Double Garage; 3, Acacia Drive,
North Walsham for Mr and Mrs Underwood
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/09/1135 - Display of Illuminated Advertisements; Rossis
Leisure Tungate Farm Aylsham Road North Walsham for Rossis Leisure Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTHREPPS - PF/09/1040 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling; Land Rear of
Former Garage, Norwich Road, Cromer for S J D Enterprises
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/09/1063 - Erection of Car Port; 36, Pauls Lane, Overstrand
for Mr Stenson
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/09/1013 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension and
Detached Double Garage; Roseacre, Thorpe Market Road, Roughton for Mr and
Mrs Chappell
(Householder application)
RUNTON (EAST WARD) - PF/09/1023 - Erection of First Floor Side Extension; 37,
Renwick Park East, West Runton for Mr and Mrs Bakewell
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
38
14 January 2010
RUNTON (EAST WARD) - PF/09/1066 - Erection of Extension to Outbuilding to
Provide Ancillary Residential Accommodation; 1 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg
Road, East Runton for Mr Murphy
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/09/1069 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Allwood,
Moor Lane, Sculthorpe for Mr and Mrs Talbot
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0982 - Erection of Single-Storey Side and Rear
Extensions; 2, Copland Drive, Sheringham for Mr N Garner
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1029 - Erection of Single-Storey Side/Rear Extension to
Provide Granny Annexe; 11, Heath Road, Sheringham for Mr Millar
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/07/1907 - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling; Land between 1
and 3, Havelock Road, Sheringham for Mr and Mrs Wells
(Outline Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - NP/09/1136 - Prior Notification of Intention to Erect Polytunnel;
Thornage Hall, The Street, Thornage, Holt for Camphill Community
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
THURSFORD - PF/09/1042 - Conversion of Former Workshop to Annexe; Heath
House, Brick Kiln Road, Thursford for Mrs Graham-Wood
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/09/1024 - Change of Use of Land from Agriculture to Garden
and Formation to Vehicular Access; Sea House, Mundesley Road, Trimingham
for Mr P Carpmael
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - LA/09/1015 - Removal of Internal Cupboard and Installation of New
Internal Door.; Ivy House, Mundesley Road, Trunch for Mr Binny
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALCOTT - PF/09/1027 - Erection of Replacement Front Extension; 26, Ostend
Place, Walcott for Sandra Chapman
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/1058 - Removal of First Floor Partition Walls and
Formation of En-Suite Bathroom; The Merchant House 48, High Street, Wellsnext-the-Sea for Mrs Jennison
(Listed Building Alterations)
WIGHTON - PF/09/1102 - Construction of Pitched Roof to Rear Extension; 14
Copys Green, Wighton, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/09/1053 - Erection of Rear Conservatory; Three Willows, The
Street, Ridlington for Mrs Croft
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
39
14 January 2010
16.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/09/1039 - Removal of Agricultural Occupancy
Restriction; Rectory Hill Nursery, Holt Road, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr S J C
LaCoste
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/1065 - Change of Use from A1 (Retail) to Public Toilets and
Restaurant/Cafe; Erpingham Post Office and Service Station, Norwich Road,
Alby for Martin Service Station Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/09/0997 - Erection 1.5m Close Boarded Boundary Fence; 6,
Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr D Moodie
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road Wood Norton for Mr C Jeffrey
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
17.
NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker Drive
for New Hall Properties
INFORMAL HEARING
HANWORTH - PF/09/0727 - Reconstruction of derelict dwelling; Taylor's Lodge,
Gunton Park, White Post Road for Mr Sawyer
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
18.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/06/1254 - Demolition of Buildings and Erection of Retail Unit and
Twelve Flats; Bus Station, Prince of Wales Road for Ortona Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 16 December 2009
FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker
Drive, Fakenham for New Hall Properties
INFORMAL HEARING
HOLT - PF/09/0053 - Use of Land for Siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk
Railway, Holt Station, Cromer Road for Miss Jones
INFORMAL HEARING 19 January 2010
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Development Control Committee
40
14 January 2010
19.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One-and-a-Half-Storey Side Extension;
73, Norwich Road, Fakenham for Mrs Rose
LANGHAM - PF/09/0197 - Part Retention and Erection of 2 metres High
Boundary Fence; Langham Lodge, Cockthorpe Road for Mr Blackwell
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road for Mrs Buxton
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
20.
APPEAL DECISIONS
WARHAM - PF/08/1310 - Erection of Two Dwellings; Adjacent The Reading
Room, The Street for Holkham Estate
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
41
14 January 2010