Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
6 January 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 14 January 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 4 February 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 12
November and 26 November 2015.
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
(1)
HINDOLVESTON – TPO (Hindolveston) 2015 No.23 Land at 43 The Street
Ref No. TPO/15/0908
Page 1
(Appendix 1 - page 60)
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an
individual Sycamore tree at the above site.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(2)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1361 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of
dwelling; Garden Cottage, Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Hughes
Page 3
(3)
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1584 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden and erection of studio/office/store; 3 Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road
for Blue Tile Farm Barns Ltd
Page 7
(4)
HIGH KELLING - PO/15/1532 - Erection of two dwellings; Land adj. 28
Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs J Gethin
Page 12
(5)
HOLT - PF/15/1434 - Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class
A3) and erection of external flue (Revised scheme PF/15/0388); 4 Fish Hill, Holt
for Mr Bradley
Page 17
(6)
RUNTON - PF/15/1386 - Conversion of 31 grass pitches to stone finish
hardstandings and extension of internal site access road to provide all weather
site access; Camping & Caravan Club, Holgate Lane, West Runton for The
Camping and Caravanning Club
Page 20
(7)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1468 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and
access road; Plot 6, Land at 20 Abbey Road for Mr Clark
Page 26
(8)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1502 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Park Farm Barn,
Knapton Road for Mr & Mrs Bennett
Page 30
(Appendix 2 - page 73)
(9)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1024 - Continued use of agricultural land for B1 (Business),
B2 (General Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses and retention of
earth bund; Beeches Farm, Crowgate Street for Mr Paterson
Page 36
(Appendix 3 - page 103)
(10)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension and conversion
of outbuilding to 1 additional unit; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr Gilligan
Page 43
(11)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 49
(12)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 49
(13)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 57
(14)
NEW APPEALS
Page 58
(15)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 58
(16)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 58
(17)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 59
(18)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 59
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 14 JANUARY 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
HINDOLVESTON – TPO (Hindolveston) 2015 No.23 Land at 43 The Street.
Ref No. TPO/15/0908
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an
individual Sycamore tree at the above site.
Background
The Sycamore tree is in the rear garden of 43 The Street Hindolveston.
When the garden of 43 The Street Hindolveston was considered for development the
Sycamore tree was identified as being important and having amenity value and that it
should be retained as part of any new development. The aerial photographs supplied
by the objectors clearly show it was a large established tree prior to development.
The Landscape Officer was approached by the owners when they purchased the
property regarding the possibility of felling the tree. The Officer informed the owner
that if the tree was to be felled a preservation order would be served to protect the tree.
The Officer advised the owner what works could be carried out to reduce the impact of
the tree on neighbouring properties through thinning and reduction of the crown. It
would appear that this work was not carried out.
When the Council received a constraints check from a tree surgeon to fell the tree an
Order was served to protect it.
Representations
Objections to the Order:Six letters of objection to the Order has been received. (Appendix 1)
The main objections are:
1. The Tree does not have amenity as it is not clearly visible from the road.
2. There are many mature trees in the village.
3. The tree has not been managed.
4. The tree causes shading.
5. The tree causes debris in the form of leaves and seeds and the pigeons cause
mess.
Development Committee
1
14 January 2016
6. The tree is too large for the garden.
7. The roots of the tree could damage adjacent properties.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The tree is visible from the road and contributes to the landscape of the village.
There are many mature trees in the village and the Council will consider protecting
them if they are at risk.
The Council has recommended management for the tree and the TPO does not
prevent appropriate management.
Appropriate management of the tree as previously suggested would reduce the impact
of shading on adjacent properties.
Leaves and debris such as seeds from trees is considered a management issue and
not grounds to revoke a TPO. Pigeons are a natural feature and can be managed
through appropriate tree work and deterrents.
The tree was a large and established specimen prior to development on the site and
the previous residents of the property accepted the tree.
The soil in Hindolveston is predominantly glacial deposits so shrinkage should not be a
problem. The foundations of the new houses would have had to take into account the
proximity of the tree under building control regulations.
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
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 tree makes a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the wider public and that therefore has high
amenity value.
Development Committee
2
14 January 2016
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
Simon Case ( Landscape Officer)
Ext. 6142
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1361 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of
dwelling; Garden Cottage, Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Hughes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 November 2015
Extension to 18 January 2016
Case Officer: Mr B Smith
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
LDF - Countryside
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19882001 PF
Ground floor bedroom, utility space and toilet
Approved 17/10/1988
PLA/19971546 PF
Erection of two-storey extension
Approved 13/03/1998
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought for the erection of extensions to side and rear of existing detached
2-storey dwelling, which lays on north side of Alby Hill road, in its own large garden. The
proposal is to add a 2-storey extension to the rear northern side of the property, and a
smaller 2-storey set-back extension to the front south-western side of the property. The
existing ground level single storey rear addition will be retained.
The existing house has an L-shaped plan form, and the extensions are not extending
greatly beyond ‘squaring off’ the existing dwelling's foot print.
The front south-west side 2-storey extension will infill a front corner area, measuring
2.9m deep by 2.2m wide, but set back 0.4m from the front elevation building line. It will
have a new double pitched gable end roof on the west side elevation, with a central
ridge height of 5.3m, which is 0.4m lower than the main house roof.
The rear, northern side, 2-storey extension will only be added to the eastern side of the
rear elevation. The rest of the rear elevation would remain single storey. This extension
would extend back 5.5m from the existing dwelling, to a width of 4.85m. Its east side
elevation would be set back 0.5m from the east side building line, but would have an
east side external chimney stack buttress protruding from this, in a central position. It
Development Committee
3
14 January 2016
will have a new double pitched gable end roof on the northern rear elevation, with a
central ridge height of 5.55m, which is 0.15m lower than the main house roof, and a roof
eaves height of 4.2m that lines up with the existing eaves. The rear extension's other
(western) side will only project 1.475m from the house’s rear building line at this point.
Both extensions will be constructed in materials to match existing, i.e. red brick walls,
clay pantiles, and timber windows.
At first floor level in the extensions, new windows created in the side elevations would
be as follows:
(i) On western side elevation, a window for the bathroom/wc window;
(ii) On eastern side elevation, a window for the ensuite bathroom/wc for bedroom 1.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is brought to Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Norman
Smith for the following planning reason:
loss of privacy.
PARISH COUNCIL
Alby with Thwaite Parish Council commented as follows:
“The Parish Council objects to the planning application PF/15/1361.
The objections are the windows on both the east and west sides of the property that
overlooks adjacent properties.”
REPRESENTATIONS
One objection received on the following grounds:
The windows on both the east and west elevations of the property overlook adjacent
properties;
The planning notices were displayed at the end of cul-de-sacs not in prominent
positions where local residents could have seen the notices;
Parish Council comments not on the web-site.
CONSULTATIONS
None
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 HO 8: House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside)
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
4
14 January 2016
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Design and Visual Impact
Amenity Relationship with Neighbouring Properties
APPRAISAL:
Principle of Development – Extensions in Countryside – Policies SS2 and HO8
The application site lies within a small settlement of detached dwellings set in large
gardens in Alby Hill, an area designated as Countryside, where Policy SS2 states that
extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle. Proposals, however, will be subject
to meeting other relevant Core Strategy Policies such as HO8, and EN4 requiring
proposals to be designed to a high quality and reflect local distinctiveness.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend existing dwellings will be permitted provided
that they (a) would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale
of the original dwelling and (b) would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling
on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The proposal seeks to erect
two-storey rear and side extensions with a footprint of 69sq m. which would represent a
66% (approximate) increase to the footprint of the original dwelling. However, given the
proposed extensions will: have a footprint and appearance that largely follows, or is set back behind, existing
main building lines;
 have double pitch roofs and ridge heights lower than the existing dwelling roof;
 appear subservient to, and do not dominate, the scale of the existing dwelling
 be located within a large garden within an established small residential settlement;
the development is not considered to result in a disproportionately large increase in
height or scale, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
surrounding countryside in this locality. The proposal is therefore acceptable under
Core Strategy Policies SS2 and HO8.
Design and Visual Impact - Policy EN4
Policy EN4 states that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Also that: Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. It states that design which fails to have regard to local context, and does
not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
In terms of design, the front, side and rear elevations of the dwelling, as extended would
be in keeping - in terms of window proportions, glazing style, roof shapes and
construction materials - with the existing dwelling. The roof designs would be lower than
the existing dwelling roof ridge heights, of sensitive proportions and design, with
elevations set back in some areas, indicating the extensions subservience to the host
dwelling, and are not over dominant or overbearing. The design has regard to local
context, and respects and preserves the character of the existing dwelling. The design
of the proposed development is considered acceptable under Policy EN4.
Amenity Relationship with Neighbouring Properties - Policy EN4
Policy EN4 also states that development proposals, extensions and alterations should:
not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers. The North Norfolk Design Guide SPD assists with this.
With regard to the Parish Council and objector’s concerns, an assessment under Policy
EN4 and the Design Guide requires potential overlooking and loss of privacy to
neighbours to be examined. The neighbouring properties are both 2-storey detached
Development Committee
5
14 January 2016
dwellings – Martindale to the west and The Cottage to the east. They are all set back
approximately the same distance from their road frontages.
The application dwelling already has windows and glazed doors at Ground level in
existing east and west side elevations that respectively face the corresponding side
elevations of The Cottage and Martindale. In the proposal, there will be additional
windows and doors inserted in the same east and west side ground floor elevations of
the existing and extended dwelling, but these would not be any nearer the side
boundaries. The east side property boundary with The Cottage consists of fencing at
3.3m high, forming a screening barrier. This consists of 2.3m high timber fencing on top
of a 1m high earth bank on Garden Cottage’s side, as the application site is 1m lower
than this neighbouring land and dwelling.
The west side boundary with Martindale consists of timber fencing surrounded by dense
- approximately 3 to 4 metres high - vegetation, planted shrubs and trees - forming a
dense screening barrier.
At First floor level, East side - the proposed 1st floor rear extension will now have a new
bathroom (serving bedroom) side window overlooking the rear garden and blank (no
windows) side walls of The Cottage, approximately 9m away from its first floor blank
side wall and 7m from its ground level addition blank side wall. Whilst no direct window
to window overlooking will occur, overlooking of the private garden amenity area
adjacent to the dwelling is possible.
At First floor level, West side - the proposed 1st floor front side extension will now have
a bathroom side window overlooking the rear garden and gable end (with window) side
walls of Martindale, approximately 11m away from its side elevation wall. Direct
window to window overlooking could occur, also overlooking of the private garden
amenity area adjacent to the dwelling is possible, although the existing dense shrubs
and trees could still form a screening barrier.
The new first floor windows on east and west side elevations (to bathrooms) could result
in overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours on both sides, contrary to Policy EN4
and the Design Guide amenity criteria. However, following discussion, the agent has
responded in writing stating that the applicant considers a condition requiring obscure
glazing to be acceptable condition on any approval for this proposal.
Having considered the objections and relevant policies, and the applicant’s willingness
to accept a planning condition requiring obscure glazing for both east and west side
elevation first floor windows; the proposal, with the imposition of such a controlling
condition on glazing, would now prevent any unacceptable overlooking and protect the
privacy and amenity of adjoining residential occupiers, and address the objectors
concerns.
Subject to this amenity control by planning condition for these windows, preventing loss
of privacy, the proposal is considered to result in a design that does not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. The
proposal will now comply with Policy EN4 requirements to protect residential amenity.
Conclusion
The proposal, and its scale and impact, as an addition to this existing residential
dwelling within a Countryside settlement, is considered to be an acceptable
development in principle in this location, and to comply with the requirements of Policies
SS2 and HO8. The design, scale, proportions and materials of the proposed extensions
are acceptable for the building and area, and comply with the design requirements of
Development Committee
6
14 January 2016
Policy EN4. With the use of a planning condition requiring obscure glazing of the first
floor side elevation windows, the proposal will satisfy Policy EN4 requirements to
protect residential amenity. Accordingly, having considered the proposed scheme, the
appropriate policies and consultation undertaken, it is considered that the proposal
complies with the policies of the Development Plan and is therefore recommended for
conditional approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
To GRANT Planning Permission,
subject to the following Conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section
91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions of
the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. The new first floor windows on both the east and west side elevations of the
extensions hereby permitted shall be installed with obscured glazing with a degree of
obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in
accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
3.
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1584 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden and erection of studio/office/store; 3 Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for
Blue Tile Farm Barns Ltd
- Target Date: 21 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070474 PF
Conversion of Barns to three residential units
Approved 28/10/2011
Development Committee
7
14 January 2016
PF/14/0310 PF
Conversion of barns to three residential dwellings, re-location of access and change of
use of land from agricultural to residential
Approved 24/06/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the change of use of agricultural land to residential garden and
erection of studio, office and store.
The area of land is approximately 195sqm. The boundary to the south is approximately
18m in length, the eastern boundary approximately 17m, and the northern boundary
approximately 24m in length. The area of land is an irregular shape, and adjoins
neighbouring properties to the south and east and agricultural land to the north. Estate
type fencing is proposed along the northern boundary to match that of the remainder of
the development and a mixed native hedge to the east.
The proposed studio/office and store would be for private use in association with an
existing dwelling (Unit 3) approved under PF/14/0310. The building would measure
approximately 6.5m x 5.2m, and up to 4.5m in height to the ridge. It would have a hipped
clay pantile roof, with a brick plinth and timber cladding to the walls.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wells for the following planning reason:
Planning history of site
PARISH COUNCIL
This matter was discussed by the Parish Council and they wish to unanimously object.
The Parish Council feel the original plans for this site, which were subject to many
conditions have subsequently been broken down into small applications which are
being allowed through by the planning authority. The applicants will eventually have
exactly what they originally wanted by going down this route.
The original building has been moved onto agricultural land when there appears to be
no reason to move it, and regarding the change of use to residential garden, it has been
queried as to why an office needs a garden?
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:
 Concerns over use of proposed building as office for business purposes or
residential
 Proposal would result in overdevelopment
 Contradiction of existing planning decision
 Detrimental impact on neighbouring property
 Noise and disturbance
 Proposal does not protect the landscape as part of the natural environment
 Impact on wildlife
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design - No objection
Landscape - No objection has been raised in relation to the change of use of land from
Development Committee
8
14 January 2016
agriculture to residential. It is not considered that this part of the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact on the rural character of the area and wider landscape.
However, further information is required in the form of an Ecological Impact Assessment
in relation to bats before further comments can be provided.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwelling
3. Impact upon landscape
4. Impact upon Conservation Area
5. Impact on biodiversity
APPRAISAL
Background
Planning permission was originally granted for the conversion of the barns into three
dwellings under application reference 20070474. Following that approval and a change
in ownership a further application was submitted by the current applicant under
reference 14/0310 for minor changes to the external appearance of the barns as well as
re-location of an access and change of use of land from agricultural to residential. The
change of use element of the proposal included an increase in the residential curtilage
of the barns, and in particular to Unit 3. The curtilage to Unit 3 was originally shown to
Development Committee
9
14 January 2016
include a piece of land that extended to the east of the current eastern boundary to Unit
3 by approximately 24m. Due to surrounding boundary positions this piece of land is
triangular in area, and is directly to the north of the boundary with the adjoining
neighbouring dwelling known as Blue Tile Farm House. It was originally proposed for a
shed (5m x 3.5m x) to be located on this piece of land for the use of Unit 3. However, at
that time objections were received to this part of the proposal. Following a site visit by
the then Development Committee, Members asked the applicant if he would remove
this area of land from the curtilage of Unit 3 and retain it as is. The applicant agreed to
this and following re - positioning of the shed the Committee resolved to approve the
application.
The current application has now been submitted to re-instate this piece of land, (in the
ownership of the applicant), back within the curtilage of Unit 3 and to erect a
studio/office/store building. The applicant has confirmed that this proposed building
would be erected instead of a previously approved garage and shed on the remainder of
the barn development.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for ancillary
domestic buildings within the residential curtilage of a dwelling are permitted in
principle. A change of use of land from agricultural to residential curtilage may also be
permitted in principle in such a location subject to compliance with other relevant Core
Strategy policies.
2. Impact on neighbouring property
The application site is located directly to the north of the boundary with the neighbouring
dwelling known as Blue Tile Farmhouse. Blue Tile Farmhouse has a barn with a gable
end facing north onto the application site, and forms the boundary. The remainder of the
boundary between the application site and Blue Tile Farmhouse consists of a high
hedge.
The owners of Blue Tile Farmhouse have planning permission themselves to convert
their barn into habitable accommodation and for the erection of a detached annexe in
their garden, in association with their dwelling (Application Reference: 14/0578). As far
as Officers are aware this permission has not yet been implemented. The neighbours
barn conversion is shown on the approved plans to be a sitting room and has high level
glazing on the northern elevation with a cill level of 2m above ground level. The annexe
is approximately 10m to the east of Blue Tile Farmhouse, within their garden. Whilst the
neighbours annexe has three windows facing north towards the application site, they
are secondary and tertiary windows, with the primary elevation to the south which is fully
glazed, overlooking their own garden. At this point the high hedge along the boundary
between the application site and the neighbours property serves as as a screen and
would prevent any possible overlooking and loss of privacy to either property. The high
level windows in the northern elevation of the neighbours barn, facing the application
site, would also prevent any issues of overlooking or loss of privacy to either property.
In view of this it is not considered that either the change of use or erection of building for
use as a studio/office/store would have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the proposed use of the studio/office/store.
This application has been submitted on the basis that these uses are for domestic
purposes in association with Unit 3, and the application is being considered on that
basis. Should the application be approved then a condition can be imposed to state that
the building can only be used for ancillary purposes to Unit 3 only and shall not be used
Development Committee
10
14 January 2016
for any commercial purposes. The proposed building would also not be considered
acceptable in principle for separate residential use. In accordance with Policy H09 of the
Core Strategy those buildings which have been recently been constructed for another
purpose and are outbuildings providing an ancillary domestic function are not eligible for
consideration as a dwelling under Policy H09. It is therefore considered that the use of
the building could be appropriately controlled by condition.
3. Impact on landscape
The application has been discussed with the Landscape Officer who has raised no
objection in relation to the landscape impact. Whilst the site is located within the
countryside policy area it is not in an isolated location. It is adjacent to the already
developed area of the settlement, and would not have a significant detrimental impact
upon the wider landscape setting.
4. Impact on Conservation Area
The site is located within the Field Dalling Conservation Area. The proposal has been
discussed with the Conservation and Design Officer who has raised no objection to the
proposal. It is considered that given the siting of the proposal and minimal visual impact
within the Conservation Area that it would continue to preserve and enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
5. Impact on biodiversity
The Landscape Officer has raised no objection in relation to the change of use of land
from agricultural to residential. The Landscape Officer also has no objection in principle
to the erection of a building for use as a studio/office/store. However, the Landscape
Officer has raised concerns in relation to the erection of the proposed building on the
site in terms of the impact upon bats. This matter has also been raised by the objector.
The original protected species survey on application 14/0310 showed the bats exiting
and entering the site from the north east corner of the site. The mitigation under the
licence provided for bat roosts in the proposed new garaging to the south east corner of
the site fronting the road. The Landscape Officer has advised that the licenced
mitigation would try to retain the commuting route for the bats and to re-create the
roosting opportunity as they were before the development. It is therefore expected that
bats would still be entering and exiting the site in that north eastern corner, and would
probably use the hedgerows and trees in that corner to access the wider landscape.
The application does indicate putting the proposed building in the middle of that
pathway. The proposed building may therefore disrupt a commuting routes for bats. An
Ecological Impact Assessment would therefore be required in order to be able to assess
any possible impact upon the bat population. Until such a report is submitted there is
insufficient information in order for the Landscape Officer to be able to assess the
impact of the proposal on protected species. At the time of writing this report that
information was awaited. The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location and would
preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and is acceptable in
terms of landscape impact. It will not have any significant impact on the residential
amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. However, until an Ecological
Impact Assessment to establish the impact of the proposed building on the site in
relation to bats has been provided the Landscape Officer is unable to fully assess the
proposal.
Subject to receipt of an Ecological Impact Assessment and the Landscape Officer being
satisfied, the proposal would be considered acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies for the reasons explained in the report.
Development Committee
11
14 January 2016
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the
Landscape Officer following receipt of an Ecological Impact Assessment and imposition
of conditions including time limit, in accordance with approved plans, materials, external
lighting, boundary treatments, ancillary residential use only, and any other conditions as
may be required by Landscape Officer.
4.
HIGH KELLING - PO/15/1532 - Erection of two dwellings; Land adj. 28 Pineheath
Road for Mr & Mrs J Gethin
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 December 2015
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871059 PF - Alterations and extension to existing house - Approved on 2nd
July 1987.
PLA/19780806 PF - Extension - Approved on 10th July 1978.
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks outline planning permission to construct two detached two-storey
dwellings within the grounds of 28 Pineheath Road in High Kelling. The only matters
for consideration are access, layout, scale and landscaping, with the matter of external
appearance reserved for future consideration.
Whilst the application initially proposed a new public footpath within the site to access
the woods to the rear, no details were provided as to its exact location or how it would be
provided or maintained. The agent has confirmed that the proposed footpath no longer
forms part of the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Young for the following planning reasons; application being locally
contentious and the conflict with planning policy due to the countryside location.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
High Kelling Parish Council - Objection on the grounds of overdevelopment and the site
being located in a countryside policy area.
Bodham Parish Council - No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
13 letters from local residents were submitted by the agent supporting the application
for two dwellings to be constructed and offering support to the proposed footpath
proposal.
One letters of objection has also been received from a local resident on the following
grounds;
* Site outside established planning guidelines for new dwellings. Dwellings in the
Development Committee
12
14 January 2016
'countryside' policy area should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.
* Subdivision of plots in the village would set undesirable precedent and spoil the
character of High Kelling.
* Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted was carried out after removal of many
established trees on the site. Loss of trees and vegetation needed and/or carried out
would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.
* Issues relating to creation of public footpath proposed in respect of ownership and
potential impacts on the an amenities local residents and security.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Highways - No objections on the grounds of highway safety
subject to conditions in respect of access, parking and turning provision, surface water
drainage and the installation of gates.
I note the reference to the provision of a link path from the highway footpath to the land
to the rear of the site, this will not form part of the adopted public highway and would
remain in private ownership and therefore under private maintenance, as such, I have
no reason to comment further.
Planning Policy Manager - Objection
The application site is outside any of the defined settlements listed in Policy SS1 and is
therefore considered to be in the countryside. Policy SS2 therefore applies.
This assessment considers the application in the context of Policy SS2 only. Policy SS2
of the adopted Core Strategy states that in areas designated as countryside,
development will be limited to that which requires a rural location and is for one or more
of the uses listed under the Policy.
The Agent accepts that High Kelling, as stated in policy SS1, is not a designated
Service Village and that it falls within designated Countryside. However, they argue that
the site lies within a sustainable location and that there would be no material harm to
approving the application. The Agent contends that the site is within easy walking
distance of a village hall, a shop, a post office, a doctors surgery, an undertakers and a
hospital and that the site is well served by bus services running east and west,
connecting settlements along the North Norfolk coast.
The Core Strategy includes controls over the location of development. The extent to
which development is supported is based on the relative sustainability of the location.
The ‘Countryside policy area is the least sustainable and within this designation Policy
SS2 states that planning permission for residential development should not be
permitted. Nevertheless some forms of housing, including the re-use of existing
buildings for dwellings and the provision of affordable housing, are acceptable in
recognition of the wider sustainability benefits associated with such proposals.
The NPPF states at paragraph 55 that to promote sustainable development in rural
areas housing should be located where it will ‘enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities and ‘isolated homes in the Countryside should be avoided. The NPPF is
silent in relation to what might constitute ‘isolation and what is necessary to
demonstrate that a proposal might ‘enhance or maintain vitality The limited number of
appeal decisions in the District which address this issue have focused on a combination
of the physical relationship of the site to other development and the proximity of day to
day services.
In this instance, whilst it is recognised that High Kelling provides some limited services
including some bus services, it is not considered that these services would fulfil the
Development Committee
13
14 January 2016
day-to-day needs of residents. The site lies within a location that lacks some key
facilities (including a primary school, with the nearest one being over 3.4km away (as
the crow flies) in Holt and the shop is not considered to meet daily shopping needs)
meaning that residents will be highly dependent on car journeys to access services.
Notwithstanding that the proposal appears well related to existing development and
represents an ‘infill’ development, the location is nevertheless considered
unsustainable and the grant of permission would be contrary to both national and local
policy.
NCC Public Rights of Way Officer - No objection.
The Planning Statement makes reference to pedestrian access. The applicant has
offered to create a new public right of way (footpath) linking Pineheath Road and the
woodland to the rear, which is classified as open access land. A new public footpath
along the southern boundary of the site would not be possible as it would not link to
another public place; the track it would link with does not have any registered public
rights. A public right of way along the northern plot boundary would link two places of
public resort.
In principle, NCC would accept the dedication of new public footpath along the edge of
the northern plot boundary. However, NCC would not accept the maintenance liability
for the route and this would need to be included in the dedication agreement. The
maintenance liability would rest with the owner of the plot.
If a route were dedicated, the surface of the footpath could be improved by importing
stone to create a hardened surface (a specification would need to be agreed with NCC).
It is presumed that the proposed footpath would be fenced from the adjacent properties
and therefore an appropriate width for the route would have to be agreed with Norfolk
County Council.
Council's Landscape Officer - No objection subject to a condition requiring that the
development be carried out in compliance with the methodology contained in the
Arboricultural Implications Assessment (Arbor Research Assoc Sept 15) submitted with
the application.
The site is heavily treed and the Council considered it expedient to serve a Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) in order to protect amenity. The Arboricultural Implications
Assessment submitted clearly demonstrates that the two proposed dwellings can be
accommodated on the site without significant negative impact on amenity. It is
considered that there may be some negative liveability issues regarding the close
proximity of the dwellings to the trees, however the TPO will stand as a warning to
potential buyers who should accept the trees.
The main issue is that the property is outside the current development boundary and
therefore CD&L would recommend refusal on that basis. If this issue is resolved then
CDL would request imposition of condition to ensure works are carried out in
accordance with AIA.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
14
14 January 2016
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Design, siting and scale
Trees/landscape impact
Residential amenity
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Principle of development: Policy SS2 and NPPF
The site lies within an area defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy as Countryside
where new market dwellings are not normally permitted under Policy SS2. Policy SS2
"restricts new market dwellings in the Countryside in order to protect the quality and
rural character of the landscape, prevent dispersed dwellings that will lead to a
dependency on travel by car to reach basic services, and ensure a more sustainable
pattern of development".
The agent considered that the site lies in a village served by adequate facilities and
having existing properties on three sides, to be a sustainable location for two new
dwellings. Furthermore, it is contended that the constraints imposed upon the site via
Policy SS2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy to be contrary to the more recently
published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The application makes
reference to Paragraph 55 stating "To promote sustainable development in rural areas,
housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities".
However, Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states the NPPF does not change the statutory
status of Development Plans, in this case the North Norfolk Core Strategy, and whilst it
is recognised that this was adopted prior to the NPPF, the Core Strategy went through
rigorous consultation period. Additionally, paragraph 12 of the NPPF refers to the
statutory status of Development Plans as a starting point for decision making, stating
Development Committee
15
14 January 2016
"proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved
and proposed development that conflicts should be refuses unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise". This is also reiterated in paragraph 196 of the
NPPF.
Furthermore, as highlighted in a number of recent appeal decisions, whilst the site is
surrounded by residential development and in this respect would constitute an infill
development that could not be described as visually or physically remote or
compromising the appearance of the countryside, this is not considered to be a
sufficiently compelling reason to set aside the presumption against new dwellings in the
countryside area, when taking into account the relative functional isolation of the site
from basic services.
In this case, whilst it is noted that the village of High Kelling offers some level of local
facilities including a post office, shop, village hall and pharmacy, they are few in number
resulting in residents still being dependent on travel by car to access higher level
services in places such as Cromer and Holt. The location is of the proposed dwellings
is therefore considered unsustainable and therefore contrary to Paragraph 55 of the
NPPF and Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy.
Design, siting and scale: Policy EN1, EN2 and EN4
Whilst the matter of 'external appearance' has been reserved for future consideration, it
is considered that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate two two-storey dwellings
in the positions proposed, subject to being sensitively designed, in a manner which
would be acceptable in design terms, and would not constitute the overdevelopment of
the site. Furthermore, it is not considered that the scheme would have a detrimental
impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). On this basis, it is
considered that the scheme would comply with Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4 of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Trees/landscape impact: Policies EN2 and EN9
Concerns have been raised that tree works were carried out prior to the application
being submitted. Given that he site is heavily treed, the Council considered it expedient
to serve a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in order to protect amenity. Notwithstanding
this, the Arboricultural Implications Assessment submitted clearly demonstrates that the
two proposed dwellings can be accommodated on the site without significant negative
impact on amenity. It is considered that there may be some negative liveability issues
regarding the close proximity of the dwellings to the trees, however the TPO will stand
as a warning to potential buyers who should accept the trees.
Residential amenity: Policy EN4
Whilst this is an outline application, with the matters of design and external appearance
reserved for future consideration, it is considered that the plots on which the proposed
dwellings would be set, combined with the degrees of separation from the existing
properties, is such that the residential amenities of existing and future occupants would
be adequately protected. As such, it is considered that with careful design, two
dwellings as proposed could be accommodated on the site, in a manner which would
accord with the requirements of Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Strategy.
Highway safety: Policies CT5 and CT6
The property is currently served by its own centrally positioned access off Pineheath
Road, with new accesses proposed to serve the two proposed dwellings, also served off
Pineheath Road. The proposed access arrangements are considered acceptable, with
no objections being raised by the Highway Authority on highway safety grounds, and
therefore the scheme is considered to comply with Policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core
Development Committee
16
14 January 2016
Strategy.
Conclusion
The development as proposed is considered unacceptable in this Countryside Policy
Area and unsustainable location and is contrary to Development Plan policy and the
provisions of the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
The proposal for two dwellings on the site is contrary to the provisions of Policy SS2 and
The National Planning Policy Framework in that:
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against new residential development. Furthermore, the location is
considered to be unsustainable under Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the case put forward
by the applicant in support of the application does not provide sufficient justification to
permit the erection of two additional dwellings in the Countryside, contrary to the
requirements of Policy SS2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
HOLT - PF/15/1434 - Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3)
and erection of external flue (Revised scheme PF/15/0388); 4 Fish Hill for Mr
Bradley
Target Date: 23 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
 Conservation Area
 Listed Building
 Primary Shopping Area
 Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/15/0388 PF
Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3)
Approved 12/08/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes the change of use from hairdresser (A1) to a pizza restaurant
(A3) and erection of kitchen extraction flue at 4 Fish Hill in Holt.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Prior for the following planning reason; impact upon residential
amenity.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of representation has been received from a local resident. The summarised
Development Committee
17
14 January 2016
grounds are as follows:




The flue will be unsightly, noisy, smelly and its proposed position in too close to
opening neighbouring residential courtyard properties.
Terminology used within the site analysis
Civil matters associated with potential for a wall mounted fan in associated with the
WC and outward opening rear door within the courtyard.
Concern the first floor flat will become a commercial use.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: No objection subject to satisfying issues relating to the
following: noise level insulation, noise level scheme and details of the
extractor/ventilation system. Further comments awaited on further information
submitted by the applicant.
Conservation & Design: No objections to the instillation of the extraction flue.
County Council Highways: (Comments made as part of application 15/0388). Given
the town centre location of the site in an area covered by well controlled waiting
restrictions, limited waiting parking bays and good access to public transport links and
public car parking, no objections are raised in respect to highway safety.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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
 Principle of Development
 Residential amenity
 Impact on listed building
Development Committee
18
14 January 2016

Highway Safety
APPRAISAL
Background
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit earlier in the year on
the 18 June 2015. Application (PF/15/0388) was then considered by the Development
Management Committee of the 23 July 2015 where members grant ed approval for
the change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3) subject to a number of conditions.
The applicant has now submitted details for the proposed flue where the current
Planning Application proposes to address all outstanding conditions imposed on
PF/15/0388. The only change to that which has already been granted approval
through application PF/15/0388 is the design solution for the proposed flue including
details for the noise level insulation, noise level scheme and extractor/ventilation
system. All relevant conditions will be re-imposed upon any subsequent planning
approval granted by members.
Location and Principle of Development
The vacant unit in question occupies the ground floor of a two-storey building located
within a group of buildings fronting Fish Hill, leading to the Market Place in the centre of
Holt town. The unit was formerly used as hairdressers, an A1 use. As the unit is
situated within the Town Centre policy designation for Holt, under Policy SS5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, the use for retail and other uses compatible with the town
centre are deemed to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The site is within the Primary Shopping Area but it is not within a Primary Retail
Frontage where the policy seeks to protect premises for A1 (retail) shopping uses.
Therefore, the principle of change of uses from an A1 ‘Hairdressers’ to an A3
‘Restaurant’ is acceptable.
Design, Appearance and Impact upon Heritage Assets (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The building lies within the Conservation Area of Holt and is a Grade II Listed Building.
In respect to the impact upon these heritage assets, the flue will be routed internally
through the building and situated on the flat roof extension to the rear of the building.
Given the secluded location of the proposed flue within the rear courtyard which is not
significantly visible to the wider public, including its siting on a 1960’s flat roof extension,
it is therefore considered that the works will not harm the significance of these heritage
assets.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 in
terms of the change of use and the erection of kitchen extraction flue.
A Listed Building Consent application has been submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for the internal alterations and erection of external flue which will be dealt with
under delegated powers.
Relationship with Neighbouring Properties: Policy EN 4
In terms of the proposed impact upon residential amenity of adjoining properties, further
information has been requested from the applicant in relation to satisfying matters
raised by the Environmental Health Officer in relation to noise and sound insulation.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting. Subject to Environmental Health
having no objections, it is considered that residential amenity will not be compromised
and that the proposal will be considered acceptable.
Development Committee
19
14 January 2016
The restriction on anything projecting/overhanging neighbouring properties raised by
the objector is a civil matter.
Highway Matters: Policies CT 5 and CT 6
The building is located within the town centre and adjacent to existing car parks where
ample parking currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of
public transport services. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal in regards to parking and current flows of traffic and as such,
it is considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that subject to no objection by Environmental Health, the
proposal is considered to comply with Policy SS 5, SS 9, EN 4, EN 8, EC 5, CT 5 and CT
6.
RECOMMENDATION
Delegated Authority to approve subject to no objection from Environmental Health and
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
RUNTON - PF/15/1386 - Conversion of 31 grass pitches to stone finish
hardstandings and extension of internal site access road to provide all weather
site access; Camping & Caravan Club, Holgate Lane, West Runton for The
Camping and Caravanning Club
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2015
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
County Wildlife Site
Register of Common Land
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Restricted Byway
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0674 PF - Alterations to toilet blocks - Approved on 17th August 2010.
PLA/20040039
February 2004.
PF - Erection of extension to reception building - Approved on 20th
PLA/20021015
2002.
PF - Provision of all-weather pitches - Refused on 9th September
PLA/19971352 PF - Extension of an existing caravan club site toilet block - Approved
on 13 November 1997.
PLA/19971178
PF - Siting of permanent static caravan for wardens use during the
Development Committee
20
14 January 2016
season March to October - Refused on 26th November 1997.
PLA/19780384 HR - Construction of 2 lavatory buildings, 1 wardens office/shop Approved on 22nd May 1978.
PLA/19780383 HR - Location of two standard portaloo temporary lavatory buildings
- Approved on 22nd May 1978.
PLA/19780278 HR - Relocation and extension of existing wardens hut/ store/office Approved on 10th March 1978.
PLA/19741207 HR - Proposed conversion of two existing male and female lavatory
buildings and erection of a new toilet block - Approved on 7th February 1975.
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks planning permission to carry out site improvements works at the
West Runton Caravan Club Site (an existing touring caravan, camping and motor home
site) set within approximately 5 hectares, and located on Holgate Lane in West Runton.
The scheme comprises of two elements; the conversion of the surfacing of 31 existing
pitches from grass to stone/gravel hard standings (with each pitch measuring
approximately 9 metres by 5 metres), and the extension of an internal site access
tarmac road within the south eastern part of the site, in order to provide all weather
access to 13 of the hard surfaced pitches.
The site is accessed via a long unmade access track known as Holgate Lane, and
currently has a total of 200 pitches, as well as a touring caravan storage facility,
reception and amenity buildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr S Butikofer for the following planning reasons; due to concerns in
respect of highway safety and the impact on the wider landscape.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Aylmerton Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
East and West Runton Parish Council - No objection in principle. Comment that
consideration should be given to the hard standings being constructed in a sympathetic
colour or in material which would not stand out against the woodland and would blend in
with the surroundings.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 17 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following
grounds;
* Scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the designated AONB, area of
Undeveloped Coast, and would result in having a detrimental impact on the surrounding
rural undeveloped landscape, contrary to Policies EN1, EN2, EN3 and EN9 of the North
Norfolk Core Stategy.
* Detrimental impact on the rural views for those using the surrounding public footpaths
including the Norfolk Coast Path and views of the site from Incleborough Hill, and
Congham Hill.
* Site has operated since the 1950's as a camping and caravanning site without need for
hard standings.
* Unacceptable intensification of manmade developments on this site would be both
harmful to undeveloped landscape assets and on the exceptional landscape/views
Development Committee
21
14 January 2016
which attract tourists to the area.
* Currently when site is closed over the winter months, it appearance reverts back to a
largely natural, grassed undeveloped site. If the scheme is allowed, this will no longer
occur.
* Approval of this scheme would set a undesirable precedent for further hard surfacing
of this and other sites in the district.
CONSULTATIONS
Council's Landscape Officer - No objections subject to a condition requiring the
development be carried out in full accordance with the submitted plans and documents,
including the tree protection measures.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - The site at present appears to be essentially a grassed area
with a few mature/ semi-mature trees enclosed by woodland/trees with two facilities
buildings and a roughly circular tarmac access track, with about ten pitches adjoining
the western side of the access track being hard surfaced.
Although enclosed by trees, the site is visible from Holgate Lane, currently the route of
the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail, which will remain a promoted route when the
England Coast Path is realigned closer to the coastline. It is also likely to be visible from
other important local public viewpoints, notably the National Trust's Incleborough Hill.
The proposed new tarmac track section and stone hard standing pitches are likely to be
visible from these public viewpoints and would have an impact on public views, so
sensitivities need to be carefully considered.
The site currently has permission to open from a week before Easter to around the end
of October, leaving the site unoccupied by tents or caravans for five months of the year.
The applicant does not explain the rationale for now wishing to add more hard standing
pitches and surfaced access track, which could only be used during this spring to
autumn period.
Although this application is not for expansion of the site, it represents some
intensification of the use of the site for caravans/camping and a potential increase in
visual impacts over the winter months in particular. Policy EC10 of the Local Plan states
that "Extension of, or intensification of, existing static caravan sites (including
replacement with woodland lodges) and touring caravan/camping sites will only be
permitted where the proposal conclusively demonstrates a very high standard of design
and landscaping and minimal adverse impact on its surroundings". This is particularly
important in the AONB, as Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and paragraph 115 of the
National Planning Policy Framework confirm.
The application as it stands does not meet these criteria; there is no consideration of
landscape and visual impacts or of appropriate design to minimise adverse impact on
the site's surroundings over the winter months. I suggest that the applicant should be
asked to explain the need now for additional hard standing and surfaced track, given
that the site appears to have operated satisfactorily in its current state for many years. If
the need appears to be justified, I suggest that the applicant is asked to undertake a
landscape and visual impact assessment and to consider and propose alternative
design and materials for the access track and hard standing, and any other appropriate
measures e.g. additional landscaping, that would not significantly affect the character
of the site over the winter months.
Council's Environmental Heath Officer - No objection subject to the imposition of a
condition requiring the submission and agreement of details in respect of the method of
surface water drainage.
Development Committee
22
14 January 2016
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
EC 3 - Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for new
sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NPPF: Paragraph 115
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design and landscape impact, particularly in respect of on the AONB and
Undeveloped Coast
3. Highway safety
4. Drainage
APPRAISAL
Principle of development:
The site lies within the an area defined as 'countryside' where Policy EC3 of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy support the principle of extensions to existing businesses where
Development Committee
23
14 January 2016
they are of a scale appropriate to the existing development, and would not have a
detrimental effect on the character of the area. Policy EC10 also supports the principle
of the extension and intensification of existing touring caravan/camping sites where they
demonstrate a very high standard of design and landscaping, and would have a minimal
adverse impact on its surroundings.
In this case, the agent has confirmed that the existing site already benefits from
permitted development rights which allow The Camping and Caravanning Club as an
'exempt organisation' to operate without the benefit of a Local Authority Site Licence or
planning permission. The site currently operates a total of 200 pitches, with this number
controlled by the clubs own standards which are based on standard pitch spacings,
amenity facilities provision etc, with the opening season currently running from March to
November. Whilst the opening season is not controlled by any planning permission or
by the permitted development rights from which the site benefits, there is no intention to
operate the site on a year round basis due to demand and it being a seasonal
destination. It should also be noted that the introduction of further hard standings on
the site, which are less flexible than grass pitches, may result in an overall reduction in
the number of pitches which can be provided.
The proposed improvements relate to improvements required by the Club in order to
upgrade and enhance the existing facilities on site, and would not increase the number
of visitors to the site. These improvements are required in response to changes in the
industry and higher expectations of visitors to the site. The agent has stated that there
has been a 25% increase in the use of motor homes over the last 10 years which require
hard standings whatever the weather. Furthermore, during early and late season there
is also increased customer demand and expectations for hard standings, providing
these would make the site more usable and support tourism and local businesses in the
quieter months.
Therefore, given that the proposed works would not result in a increase in the number of
visitors using the site, and would support an existing tourism business already in
operation, offering benefits to the local economy, the scheme is considered acceptable
in principle, subject to complying with a number of other Core Strategy policies.
Design and landscape impact, particularly in respect of the AONB: Policies EN1, EN2,
EN3, EN4, EN9 and the NPPF
Policy EN1 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy requires that in the Norfolk Coast AONB,
the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect must be carefully
assessed, with development only being permitted where it;
* Is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is
desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
* Does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk AONB; and
* Seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan objectives.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will also not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm, and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB and their setting will not be permitted.
Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also requires that in
any decision "great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic
beauty" in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Committee
24
14 January 2016
Concerns have been raised by local residents, the District Councillor and the North
Coast Partnership that the intensification of hard surfacing on the site (resulting from
both the conversion of the grass pitches to hard standings and the extension of the
surfaced access road) would be unacceptable in design terms, resulting in detriment to
the surrounding landscape, and causing significant harm to both the designated AONB
and to an area of Undeveloped Coast, particularly during the winter months when the
site is unoccupied by tents and caravans.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the scheme has been assessed by the Council's
Landscape Officer who has raised no objections on the grounds that it would not cause
significant detriment to the special qualities of the AONB, or fail to protect the distinctive
features and character of the surrounding landscape.
With regards to the
requirements of Policy EN1 and Paragraph 115 of the NPPF, due to the ground level
nature of the works proposed, in conjunction with the fact that the existing site as a
whole, is already used as a caravan site for a number of months of the year, whilst it is
acknowledged that the works would be directly visible from the adjacent footpath, it is
not considered that the scheme would have a significant effect on the majority of views
from the wider landscape. Discussions are currently taking place with the agent in
respect of the colour of the gravel to be used in the construction of the hard standings,
and the options which may be available. Members will be updated verbally at the
Committee meeting in respect of this matter. Furthermore, a condition has also been
requested by the Landscape Officer in respect of tree protection during construction
works.
Furthermore, whilst it is recognised that the site also lies within an area of Undeveloped
Coast, the existing camping and caravan site is already in operation, with the nature and
scale of the works proposed considered minimal, in the context of the manmade
features (including amenity buildings and a circular surfaced roadway) already present
on the site.
Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the scheme would conserve the natural
beauty of the surrounding area, and would not result in significant detriment to the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB and its setting.
Highway safety: Policies CT5 and CT6
Concerns have also been raised that the scheme may increase traffic movements to
and from the site, served off a long narrow unsurfaced access. However, as previously
discussed, given that the scheme would not involve an increase in the number of
pitches, and therefore visitor numbers to the site, it is considered that the scheme would
safeguard highway safety, and therefore would accord with the requirements of Policies
CT5 and CT6.
Drainage: Policy EN10
The application has been assessed by the Council's Environmental Health Officer who
raised no objections to the scheme on the grounds of drainage or environmental
protection, subject to a condition requiring the agreement of surface water drainage
details. Further surface water details have subsequently been submitted by the agent,
and based on soakaways being installed along the roadside edges and the surface
water managed as proposed, no further issues would be raised by Environmental
Health, with the requested surface water drainage condition no longer required.
Conclusion
In summary, whilst the concerns of the District Councillor, Norfolk Coast Partnership
and local residents have been taken into consideration, the Committee will note that the
principle and design details relating to the proposed works are considered acceptable.
Development Committee
25
14 January 2016
Given that no objections have been received from the Landscape Manager in respect of
the impact on the AONB, trees or the wider rural landscape, it is therefore not
considered that refusal of the scheme can be justified in this instance. It is considered
that the scheme would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies for the
reasons contained in the report, and as such the application is recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to agreement on
colour of the hardstandings and imposition of conditions considered to be
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1468 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and
access road; Plot 6, Land at 20 Abbey Road for Mr Clark
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892554 PO
One detached bungalow and garage
Approved 26/03/1990
PLA/19930251 PO
Erection of one detached bungalow and garage (renewal previous permission reference
01/892554/O)
Approved 01/06/1994
PLA/19941007 PO
Demolition of existing house and erection of three houses and garages
Withdrawn 15/05/1995
PLA/19950806 NP
Demolition of dwelling
Refusal of Prior Notification 10/07/1995
PLA/19970508 PM
Erection of bungalow and garage
Approved 26/06/1997
PLA/20001615 PO
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of six detached dwellings and garages
Approved 04/12/2001
PLA/20020556 PM
Erection of six detached bungalows
Approved 21/06/2002
PF/13/0345 PF
Erection of one and a half storey dwelling, formation of vehicular access and revised
Development Committee
26
14 January 2016
access road
Approved 31/05/2013
PF/13/0815 PF
Erection of 2 two and a half storey dwellings
Approved 22/10/2013
PF/14/0143 PF
Erection of two two-storey dwellings
Approved 30/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two and a half storey dwelling and access road as plot 6 of a site
which has extant consent for 6 bungalows. Amended designs for plots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
have been granted consent with plot one being for a one and a half storey dwelling with
attached garage, and plots 2 to 5 being two and a half storey dwellings with integral
garages.
The application plot is located within the south eastern area of the site with the building
proposed to be positioned some 3.5 metres further from the south eastern boundary
(with numbers 20a and 20b Abbey Road) than the position of the previously approved
bungalow.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Shepherd for the following planning reason:
Relationship with neighbouring dwellings
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
3 x objections received on the following grounds (summarised)::
 Loss of privacy
 Loss of light
 Only bungalows should be allowed
 Greater degree of noise
 The bottom of the patio doors to the east elevation will be level with the top of our
fence allowing a direct view into our property
 Concerned with distance from the proposed house to our house
 Proposal does not meet North Norfolk Design Guide recommended window to
window distances
 Overbearing impact
 Scale
 Does not comply with Policy HO1
 Increased vehicular movement compared to what existing permission would
create
 Increased traffic on Abbey Road (some vehicles driven by young people) will be
dangerous
 Construction traffic will damage the un-adopted road – such traffic should only
be allowed to enter site via the northern entrance or if allowed from Holway Road
the surface should be replaced or repaired by the developer
 Time scale for development to take place on the site is ridiculous, it seems
absurd that developers are allowed top obtain letters of acceptance that
development has commenced and then 10-12 years later be able to apply for a
Development Committee
27
14 January 2016
completely different set of properties simply because they have extant
permission.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection – sufficient space is detailed and exists within
the site to cater for the needs of the dwelling without affecting the public highway. In
respect of potential impact on the junction of Abbey Road with Holway Road I cannot
justify a reason for any objection given the extant consent on the site and the numerous
properties already served off the un-adopted section of Abbey Road.
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within a designated residential policy area and benefits from extant consent
for the erection of 6 bungalows and more recently for revised designs to plots 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 from single storey to one and half storey (plot 1) and two and a half storey (plots 2
- 5). The principle of development of the site has already been established and is
supported by current policy.
Design and impact on amenities of neighbouring properties
The topography of the site is such that the wider site slopes down from the north west
towards Abbey Road and less sharply towards the south east of the site where plot 6 is
located.
Development Committee
28
14 January 2016
The proposed design would be in keeping with the style of dwellings recently approved
under planning references 13/0345, 13/0815 and 14/0143. The proposed dwelling
would be located between approved plot 5 and the rear boundary of 20a and 20b Abbey
Road which are single storey dwellings. There is a private access track that runs along
the south western boundary which serves number 22 Abbey Road. The design intends
to utilise the site's topography by presenting integral garage and living accommodation
at ground floor level with bedroom and bathroom accommodation within the roof space.
From the front the proposed dwelling would appear as a one and a half story dwelling.
From the rear and from the eastern elevation the dwelling would appear as a two and a
half storey dwelling with additional living accommodation being provided at basement
level. The proposal seeks to lower part of the site level such that the resultant garden
level would match that of the neighbouring properties (20a and 20b). Due to utilisation of
the topography of the site, whilst overall on a like-for-like basis the proposal would
introduce an increase in ridge heights of approximately 1.7m from the earlier approval,
the proposed dwelling would present a hipped roof toward the existing dwellings with
the building moved some 3.5 metres away from the boundary with those properties
when compared with the extant permission which would present a gable end. In addition
it is considered that the extant permission would result in the single storey dwelling
being built above the existing ground level. It is therefore considered that the current
proposal would, overall, despite the proposed increase in height, have less of an impact
on neighbouring properties in terms of overbearing impacts than the extant dwelling.
Objections have been received from nearby residents in respect of loss of privacy by
overlooking from the proposed patio doors to the eastern elevation and from the rear
elevation. As discussed above, the proposal seeks to lower the existing ground level to
match that of the existing dwellings to the east. It is therefore considered that any view
from the openings to the eastern elevation would be interrupted by the intervening
boundary fence. No windows are proposed at what would appear as first floor level
when viewed from the east. It is therefore considered that no significant loss of privacy
would be introduced from the side elevation. Officers have given consideration to
measurements provided by the occupier of 20b in relation to the North Norfolk Design
Guide basic amenity criteria for recommended separation distances. Notwithstanding
the figures provided, Officers consider that those figures did not take into account the
intervening feature of the boundary fence (it was felt that the bottom of the patio doors
would be level with the top of the fence (additional sectional drawings have since been
provided to clarify the proposed site level arrangements)) and that this proposal places
the proposed dwelling some 3.5 metres further from the eastern boundary than the
previously approved dwelling. In light of this it is considered that the proposal would
not introduce any significant detriment to the amenities of this neighbouring property.
The windows proposed to the rear would serve, at first floor, a void area (such that the
living accommodation at this level would be set back approximately 2.2m from what
appears as a floor to ceiling window) and a W/C and utility room. A Juliet balcony is also
proposed at this level. Within the roof space 2 velux windows would serve bathrooms
and the pitched roof dormer would serve a fourth bedroom. It is considered that in
respect of the properties to the rear and east (number 20a), the proposal complies with
the Council's design guide amenity criteria and would not introduce any significant
detriment to the amenities of those neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal would result in a shortfall in the recommended separation distances
between the proposal and approved Plot 5. However a 1.8m fence is proposed between
the dwellings and it is therefore considered that this relationship raises no cause for
concern.
Given the above and notwithstanding the objections raised, the proposal is considered
Development Committee
29
14 January 2016
to comply with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of conditions considered to
be appropriate by the Head of Planning to include a condition requiring precise details of
slab levels to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development.
8.
TRUNCH - PF/15/1502 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Park Farm Barn, Knapton
Road for Mr & Mrs Bennett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/0962 PF
Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused 02/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling, with attached
utility linking to a double garage.
The proposed dwelling has a footprint of just over 100m², with a double garage of 40m²
and connecting utility room covering approximately 27m². The proposed dwelling has a
45 degree pitched roof and is approximately 9m in height to the ridge. The garage also
has a pitched roof and is approximately 5.5m in height.
The proposed dwelling would be constructed to Passive house standards. The
materials to be used on the development would be knapped flintwork and western red
cedar cladding, and timber slat cladding on the roof. The joinery is proposed to be in a
powder coated aluminium.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Coppack for the following planning reasons:
Acceptability of proposal through compliance with Paragraph 55 of the National
Planning Policy Framework
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application explaining the
proposal. A copy of which is contained in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Landscape - No objection. The site is hidden from the wider landscape and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) by the natural hedge running along the east of the
site. The hedge is a significant feature on the landscape and should be retained as part
of the development. The Cypress hedge to the north of the site acts as a natural barrier
Development Committee
30
14 January 2016
however it is not considered “elegant” in relation to Parkland style planting that this
development would benefit from to meet the planning exemption requirements. The
Arboricultural Implications Assessment (Arbor Research Assoc. Sept. 15) submitted
with the application clearly demonstrates that the site can accommodate the proposed
dwelling without affecting the trees on site.
Conservation and Design - Object. Whilst some improvements to the design have
been made the original comments of Conservation and Design from application
reference: 14/0962 still apply (see full comments from 14/0962 in Appendix 2).
County Council Highway Authority - Awaiting a response
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework (27 March 2012):
Paragraph 55
Development Committee
31
14 January 2016
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Housing Land Supply and Sustainability
3. Compliance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF
4. Energy Efficiency
5. Impact on trees and landscape
6. Highway safety
7. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
APPRAISAL
Background
This application follows the refusal of application reference 14/0962 in October last year
for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling. That application was refused on the
following grounds:
"The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside
policy area where there is a general presumption against residential development and is
considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this case
or that compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework has
been achieved.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposed development would integrate
into the landscape character of the area and how it would protect, conserve and where
possible enhance that landscape character.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
polices and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework."
Subsequently the applicant submitted a pre-application enquiry for the same proposal
as refused under 14/0962. However, other than offering some suggestions in relation to
the specific design of the proposed dwelling Officers opinion had not altered since the
refusal of application reference 14/0962, in that the application is contrary to adopted
Core Strategy policy and Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). Following on from that pre-application enquiry the current application has now
been submitted.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within an area designated as Countryside in the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy where there is a general presumption against residential
development unless it has been demonstrated that such a dwelling is required to meet
the needs of full-time workers in agriculture, forestry and other essential workers
connected with that land or if there is a material consideration which would be sufficient
to justify a departure from Development Plan policies.
Whilst the applicants supporting statement sets out the proposal and how they consider
the proposal complies with planning policy no occupational justification has been
submitted.
The applicants supporting statement recognises that the proposal is contrary to policies
SS1 and SS2 contained within the Core Strategy. However, the supporting statement
refers to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is a
material consideration in the determination of this application.
Development Committee
32
14 January 2016
Notwithstanding the above, the principle of development in this location is not
considered acceptable and is contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
2. Housing Land Supply and Sustainability
As part of the applicants supporting case they continue to question the Council’s five
year land supply, as they did under the previous application (14/0962). They also
consider the site to be in a sustainable location given that Trunch had a settlement
boundary prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy, has a shop, post office, public
house and social club and has easy access to North Walsham. However, whilst Trunch
previously had a development boundary under the earlier Local Plan the application site
was not included within that development boundary and the site was designated then,
as it is now, as countryside.
The applicants recognise that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a 5 year
supply, but they consider that the Council has consistently under delivered and that a
buffer of 20% should be applied as suggested in the NPPF rather than 5%. Members
will be aware however that a Planning Inspector through a recent Planning Appeal
Inquiry (Gladman Developments Ltd Refs: PO/14/0846) has concluded that North
Norfolk District Council has a 5.4 year supply including a 20% buffer.
The Planning Policy Manager provided comments in relation to this matter under the
previous application (14/0962), which still apply now as follows:
“In relation to housing land supply, the NNPF and the Planning Acts require that
decisions are made in accordance with Development Plans. Only where Plans are
regarded as out of date should the provisions of the NPPF take precedence over out of
date policies. In particular the NPPF states that if a Planning Authority is unable to
demonstrate a five year land supply there is a presumption in favour of granting
planning permission for sustainable development. The Council’s latest five year land
supply statement demonstrates in excess of five years deliverable housing provision
and hence the Development Plan can be regarded as up to date in respect of housing
supply. "
In addition the applicants supporting statement states that they do not consider the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy reflects the latest guidance set out in the NPPF,
particularly paragraph 55, and that in such cases the NPPF should take preference until
such policies have been addressed. The applicants therefore consider that on such
matters the Development Plan is challengeable and that the presumption should
therefore be in favour of such a proposal being approved.
However, whilst the Core Strategy was adopted prior to the NPPF the Core Strategy
went through a rigorous consultation period. At that time Planning Policy Statement 7:
Sustainable Development in Rural Areas was in effect, and like the NPPF does now, it
also referred to dwellings in the countryside. Paragraph 11 of PPS 7 stated:
“Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of
a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for
granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and
ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or
its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise
standards of design now more generally in rural areas. The value of such a
building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary
architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its
sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area”.
Development Committee
33
14 January 2016
This is not dissimilar to paragraph 55 of the NPPF. However, at the time of the
consultation on the Core Strategy the Inspector did not require reference to this policy
document in relation to dwellings in the countryside and was satisfied that Polices SS1
and SS2 of the Core Strategy were sound. In accordance with paragraph 12 of the
NPPF it states that "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the
statutory status of the development plan as a starting point for decision making.
Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved
and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise". North Norfolk District Council has an adopted
Development Plan which is the Core Strategy adopted in September 2008.
Notwithstanding that there are some community facilities within the settlement the fact
of the matter is that the current adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy designates the
application site as countryside where there is a general presumption against residential
development. The site is considered to be in an unsustainable location.
3. Compliance with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF
Paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes sustainable development in rural areas, and states
that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities. However, it also states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new
isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. The special
circumstances relevant to this proposal and referred to in para 55 of the NPPF, and by
the applicant in their Planning Statement are as follows:

The exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a
design should:




be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design
more generally in rural areas;
reflect the highest standards in architecture;
significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The applicants Planning Statement also refers to other parts of the NPPF which they
consider support their proposal such as paragraphs 14, 15, 17, 47, 49, 56, 60, 61, 63,
66, 93 - 99 and 109. These paragraphs are in relation to sustainable development in
terms of location and lifetime of development, core planning principles, housing land
supply, good and innovative design, climate change, conserving and enhancing the
natural environment, and the application of planning policy.
Paragraph 55 of the NPPF is the overarching primary consideration. With regard to this
paragraph of the NPPF and "special circumstances", (which is considered to be the
principle issue regarding this application) it is not considered that this proposal
complies. The Senior Conservation and Design Officer was consulted on the original
application (14/0962), and also provided further comments in relation to the
pre-application enquiry. There have been some design changes since the original
application which Officers consider to be positive improvements. These include creating
a curved knapped flint wall on both the north and south elevations which Officers have
always considered to be an attractive feature. The roof arrangement has also been
improved with an increase in pitch on the middle section which now sits more
comfortably between the roofs either side. Improvements have also been made to the
fenestration on the central section of the western elevation by introducing ground to
ceiling glazing at ground floor to mirror the east elevation.
Development Committee
34
14 January 2016
However, notwithstanding these changes the overall view of Conservation and Design
remains the same as that given under application 14/0962 (see Appendix 2). Officers
consider that although the proposal would offer some architectural merit and some
visual interest, and would also incorporate innovative elements and sets out to raise the
general standard of rural design, the proposals are however relatively limited in scope
and engender a number of design and landscape reservations. As a consequence,
Officers have not been persuaded that it would be sufficiently exceptional as required
under Paragraph 55 to justify a departure from policy, and does not impress in the same
way as most other examples nationally. For these reasons Officers are not able to
recommend the application for approval.
4. Energy efficiency
In terms of Policy EN6 the supporting statement (see Appendix 2) details the
construction details and explains how the thermally conductive gable would work, that
an air source heat pump would be used and that the dwelling would be designed to
Passive House construction. This may go some way in terms of satisfying Policy EN6 of
the Core Strategy, however, notwithstanding this paragraph 55 requires ‘truly
outstanding’ and ‘innovative’ dwellings. Whilst the thermally conductive gable may be
an innovative element the actual construction of the remainder of the dwelling appears
to be fairly standard and the use of an air source heat pump, and Passive design is not
considered to truly outstanding or innovative. As in accordance with the Conservation
and Design Officers comments some innovative elements is not the same as saying the
design is ‘truly outstanding’ or that the innovative element is sufficient to carry the
proposal. It is for these reasons that the proposal is considered to be contrary to
paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
5. Impact on landscape and trees
In terms of impact upon the landscape and trees the Landscape Officer has been
consulted. The site currently has a tall and mature hedgerow to the eastern boundary,
which is the view you see of the site in the wider landscape from the north east, east and
south east. The Landscape Officer considers this to be a significant feature on the
landscape and that it should be retained as part of this development. The Landscape
Officer considers that the hedge screens the site from the wider landscape and from the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is located to the north of the site.
The Landscape Officer had previously raised concerns under application 14/0962 over
the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the hedgerow and that this could cause
liveability issues in relation to shading. It was also considered that insufficient
information had been submitted with that application to be able to satisfactorily assess
the impacts of the development on existing boundary treatments which could lead to
pressure to fell trees and remove hedgerow along the eastern boundary which would
open up the site to the wider landscape, and potentially have a significant detrimental
impact upon the landscape character of the area. However, an Arboricultural Impact
Assessment (AIA), Tree Protection Plan, Method Statement and Landscaping have
been submitted with this application, and have provided additional information to that
given previously. The Landscape Officer now has no objection subject to conditions.
The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EN2 of the Core
Strategy.
6. Highway safety
The Highway Authority have been consulted on this application, and at the time of
writing this report a response was awaited. However, the Highway Authority were
consulted on the previous application (14/0962) and due to the severely restricted
visibility in both directions at the access to the site, a visibility splay was required on the
submitted plans as 43m x 2.4m x 43m. That information was not provided, nor has it
Development Committee
35
14 January 2016
been provided on the current application. However, the Highway Authority advised
previously that whilst this was not shown on the plans the visibility was not sufficiently
poor to warrant a reason for refusal.
Subject to no objection from the Highway Authority it is not considered that the proposal
would have a significant detrimental impact upon highway safety and would be
compliant with Policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy.
7. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon
the privacy and amenities of neighbouring properties given the location of the site and
distance between neighbours. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance
with Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal is an unacceptable form of development in the
Countryside Policy Area, which is contrary to key Development Plan policies in relation
to permitted locations for development, and that it would be contrary to paragraph 55 of
the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds, and any other grounds
that may be required by the Highway Authority:
Policy SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Policy EN 4 - Design
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the
Countryside policy area where there is a general presumption against residential
development and is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate
satisfactorily that there are material considerations to justify a departure from
Development Plan policy in this case or that compliance with paragraph 55 of the
National Planning Policy Framework has been achieved.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development
Plan polices and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
9.
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1024 - Continued use of agricultural land for B1 (Business),
B2 (General Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses and retention of earth
bund; Beeches Farm, Crowgate Street for Mr Paterson
- Target Date: 06 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760253 HR Extension Approved 12/03/1976
PLA/19761058
HR Agricultural building Approved 27/08/1976
Development Committee
36
14 January 2016
PLA/19781739
HR Lean to on existing building Approved 15/12/1978
PLA/19810620
HR Residential caravan Approved 17/04/1981
PLA/20041350 PF Change of use of buildings from agricultural to domestic storage
Approved 24/09/2004
PLA/20060603 PF Change of use of agricultural building to b8 (commercial storage)
Approved 31/05/2006
PF/15/0161 PF Change of use of agricultural farm to plant hire office and plant
storage (retrospective) Withdrawn by Applicant 09/06/2015
THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application for the change of use of agricultural land and
buildings for business (B1), general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8)
purposes. The majority of the site is occupied by Anglian Plant Hire Ltd with small scale
facilities being provided for several other businesses and private individuals. It is
understood that the unauthorised change of use commenced 1 August 2008. Since
2008 the main business has grown significantly from originally 2 mini excavators to 150
machines in 2015. An earlier application submitted under reference 15/0161 was
withdrawn and the current application was submitted with additional supporting
information and detailed plans of the site for consideration.
The agent has submitted a supporting statement with the application which is attached
as Appendix 3. It provides details in respect of background to the use of the site;
current site occupiers; employment; traffic generation; landscaping/screening;
noise/fume controls; operation hours and the agricultural fall-back position.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning given the potential impact of refusal on
businesses and employment. It has also been the subject of a Committee site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
 Poor road access for heavy machinery
 Development too large for rural area
 Local residents seem to be ignored
 Lack of space for employee parking
 Noise must be restricted to meet sensible levels
 Working hours must be heavily restricted
 Suggest 06:00 -13:00 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or at least
same as suggested Saturday times and none on Bank Holidays
REPRESENTATIONS
2 x objections received (one from the immediate neighbour) on the following grounds
(summarised):
 Conflicts with the NPPF – does not meet the 3 requirements of sustainable
development
 Conflicts with Core Strategy Policies EC2, SS2
- Not appropriate in scale and nature for the location
- Business does not have any operational need to require a rural location
 Hours of operation wholly inappropriate given proximity to residential property
Development Committee
37
14 January 2016

Residential amenity
 Noise, fumes, dust and disturbance
- Movement of vehicles and plant
- Maintenance of machinery (undertaken in and outdoors)
- Early morning and late night operating – repairing, servicing, cleaning,
configuring machinery (including changing buckets on diggers), loading
and unloading the plant and machinery from the HGV’s
- Noise is far greater than use of the site for agricultural activities
- Pressure washing takes place on the south side of the larger steel building
facing the house not on the north as stated by applicant
- Acoustic barrier shown on plans but no details provided or any evidence as
to how effective this barrier could be
- Building on the boundary has windows that overlook garden
- HGV movements also create overlooking of what should be private garden
areas
 Surface water run-off from site has caused flooding to part of Beeches farm garden
 Highways and traffic generation
- Traffic generation information given is misleading – uses number of trips
not vehicle movements; omits customer vehicle movements
- Level of traffic on this single width road has over reached capacity due to
the size Place UK has reached
- Road cannot cope with additional traffic created by Anglian Plant Hire
- There are no official pull in's; verges are being eroded
- We accept Place UK as it is agricultural and not industrial
 Access
- Access is not acceptable (demonstrated by the damage to their own
fencing)
- HGV’s cannot turn into the site without using unofficial pull in on the
opposite side of the road – this has been created by erosion of the verge by
the vehicles
- Nature of the access now resembles an entrance to an industrial site out of
keeping with the rural character of the surrounds
- No HGV’s or low loaders can turn left out of the access due to the tight
angle
- Have been forced to place objects on my land to discourage the vehicles
from over-running my property
- Applicant states they are trying to follow un-official one way route that Place
UK use but without a new entrance and road widening this cannot fully
happen
 Future
- Business likely to continue to grow which will further increase traffic and
related problems
- Application should be refused and site returned to agricultural use
 Applicants example of site being used instead for pig rearing is not reasonable
- The buildings are not suitable for pig rearing
- Any new buildings for such use would need to be over 400m from
residential properties under permitted development rights
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): objects - This application clarifies a number of details
omitted from the previous application on this site for application 15/0161 that proposed
a plant hire office and plant storage.
Nevertheless my previous comments are still applicable in that the surrounding rural
road network that consists of poorly aligned mainly single-track roads is not suitable to
Development Committee
38
14 January 2016
cater for the use proposed. The argument that this proposed use represents
comparable traffic movements to that previously generated by the site is not considered
to be valid: firstly on grounds that the proposed use is not agriculturally based thus
requiring a countryside location and secondly that the re-use of the farmyard by the
proposed businesses does not restrict the cropping or livestock use of adjacent land
which is the general source of agricultural traffic movements. Accordingly it can be
expected that this use represents an intensification in use of the rural road network.
I have noted the contents of the submitted supporting statement however, this does
nothing to change my view that this is a totally inappropriate location for this type of
business which includes traffic movements by large and HGV vehicles.
In addition the visibility from the site access is sub-standard.
The application should therefore be refused for the following reasons:- (1) The roads
serving the site are considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by
reason of their poor alignment / restricted width / lack of passing provision/ restricted
visibility at adjacent road junctions.
(2) Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
highway and the proposed use of the site would cause danger and inconvenience to
users of the adjoining public highway. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give
rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety contrary to Development Plan Policies.
Environmental Health: Initially raised no objection subject to imposition of conditions in
respect of waste disposal, surface water drainage, noise, dust and odour, hours of use,
sewage disposal and lighting. Also advised that they have been in contact with the
Environment Agency (EA) for further advice and to notify them of the situation.
Update following response of applicant to questions raised (see Appendix 3): Now
object to the proposal on the following grounds –
 Operating times - The applicant has suggested that he would be unable to operate
at the stipulated times and has indicated the hours that he would find suitable.
Unfortunately given the proximity of the adjacent property (Beech House) we would
not allow the business to operate at these times. If the applicant is unwilling to
adhere to the stipulated operating hours we would have no choice but to object in
this instance. I understand the owner of Beech House has now made an official
complaint (statutory nuisance) and we will be progressing this separately.
 Foul Drainage/Surface Water Drainage - The applicant has suggested that drainage
proposals have been agreed with the EA, however I would wish to examine these
proposals before making further comments.
 Shot Blasting/ Paint Spraying - I have also noted comments regarding shot blasting
activities and paint spraying on site (not associated with Anglia Plant). I was not
previously aware of these activities and I would be highly critical of the use of the site
for this activity without appropriate abatement/permissions. Again given the
proximity of this activity to the residential property I would have grounds to object to
the application if it were to continue.
Environment Agency: Object – we wish to raise a holding objection in the absence of an
acceptable foul and surface water drainage scheme which poses an unacceptable risk
of pollution to the water environment (see Appendix 3 for full response)
Conservation, Design & Landscape (Landscape) - response awaited
Economic Development: From an economic development perspective only, our priority
is that all businesses located within the North Norfolk District are given the opportunity
to operate, grow and provide employment to local residents. Where barriers to trade
exist, all reasonable attempts should be made to work with the business to overcome
Development Committee
39
14 January 2016
them and achieve a satisfactory outcome for all concerned parties. However, should it
be the case that Anglian Plant Hire cannot remain on their present site (for whatever
reason) the Economic Growth Team would be happy to meet with Anglian Plant Hire,
gain an understanding of their needs and assist where possible in relocating them
elsewhere within the District.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for converting
buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on residential amenity through noise and disturbance.
3. Transport impact/highway safety
4. Drainage
5. Waste
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application following a recent site visit.
Principle of Development
The site lies within the designated countryside occupying agricultural land and buildings
(previously a farmyard). The applicant has advised that the commercial uses at the site
directly support employment for 38 full time equivalent jobs.
Policy SS 2 (development in the countryside) limits development to that which requires
a rural location and is for one of the purposes specified in the policy. It is considered that
Development Committee
40
14 January 2016
the types of uses proposed should be situated within designated employment land away
from residential properties (Policy SS 5). Policy EC 2 does allow for the re-use of
buildings in the countryside for non-residential purposes, including for economic
purposes, but states that such re-use must be appropriate in scale and nature to the
location and that proposals should, amongst other requirements, seek to protect
amenity and character of the area. It is therefore considered that the proposed use of
the site is contrary to policies SS2 and EC2.
Impact on residential amenity through noise and disturbance.
Two residential properties are situated immediately adjacent the site’s boundaries one
of which is within the ownership of the applicant. Significant concerns have been raised
in respect of the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise,
dust, privacy and drainage matters. The Council’s Environmental Heath team have
advised that any approval of the proposal should have hours of use restrictions imposed
for no working before 7am or after 6pm weekdays and not before 7am or after 1pm on
Saturdays with no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The applicant has advised
that the business would not be able to comply with these restrictions (see applicant’s
supporting statement and email dated 09 December 2015 Appendix 3). In light of this
the Council’s Environmental Health team have advised that they object to the proposal.
Given the proximity of the adjacent property (Beech House) they would not allow the
business to operate at the applicant’s proposed times. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would cause significant detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties
and the rural character of the area which could not be mitigated by the imposition of
conditions contrary to Policies EN 4 and EN13.
Transport impact/highway safety
The Highway Authority objects to the proposal and recommends refusal (see full
comments above) on the grounds that the roads serving the site and the access to the
site are inadequate to serve the proposed development. The proposal is therefore
considered to be contrary to Policy CT 5.
Drainage
The Council’s Environmental Health team have advised that surface water run-off from
yard surfaces and vehicle wash down areas are currently discharging into surface water
system. This contravenes pollution prevention guidelines. It is considered that offences
in respect of the discharge of trade effluent are taking place at the site and the
Environment Agency (EA) (as enforcing body) has been informed. It is understood that
they are investigating this matter. A formal consultation with the EA has been
undertaken in respect of this application and they have raised a holding objection
subject to the provision of an acceptable foul and surface water drainage scheme (see
Appendix 3).
The Council’s Environmental Health team have further advised that if disposal to a foul
drain were to be proposed the applicant would need to gain a trade effluent consent
from Anglian Water. As there are known loading issues to existing infrastructure
downstream, it is considered that there may be no capacity for extra loadings into the
foul system. A condition has been recommended to be imposed on any approval of the
proposal in respect of approval of surface water disposal. It is however considered that
the proposal as submitted is contrary to Policies EN 10 and EN 13.
Waste
The Council’s Environmental Health team have advised that the site is not currently
operating in accordance with waste management practices and the appropriate waste
authorisations for certain activities have not been obtained. However, the EA have been
informed and are investigating this matter. Members will be updated at the meeting.
Development Committee
41
14 January 2016
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the potential for the applicant to address concerns raised by the
Environment Agency in relation to drainage matters at the site, it is considered that
there are overriding objections to the proposal in relation to the location, highway
matters and impact on residential amenity and drainage such that the proposal is
considered to be contrary to the policies of the development plan and refusal of this
application is therefore recommended.
Officers are mindful of the potential implications to the business/businesses at the site
should the application be refused. Officers have briefed the Council’s Economic
Development Team of the situation, such that early assistance could be provided if
necessary. In the event members are minded to refuse the application authority is also
sought to commence enforcement proceedings to remove the unauthorised uses from
the site within 12 months under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reasons specified below and delegate
authority to the Head of Planning to add any additional ground of refusal that may be
appropriate following receipt of any further responses from consultees.
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 5 - Economy
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
EC 2 - The re-use of buildings in the Countryside
EN 4 - Design
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 13 - Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal constitutes an unacceptable
form of development in the Countryside policy area where development is limited to that
which requires a rural location. It is considered that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that there are material considerations to justify a departure
from Development Plan policy in this case.
Furthermore the roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed by reason of their poor alignment, restricted width, lack of
passing provision and restricted visibility at road junctions and inadequate visibility
splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County highway such that the
proposed use of the site would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway to the overall detriment of highway safety.
In addition, the development proposal would result in significant detriment to the
residential amenity of adjacent properties as a result of the intensive use of the subject
site by way of noise disturbance.
The application as submitted does not include any details of how it is intended to deal
with surface water drainage or waste management such that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that the development is acceptable in terms of drainage and pollution
matters.
Development Committee
42
14 January 2016
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan policies and the applicant has failed to provide substantive material
considerations sufficient to outweigh the identified policy conflicts.
In the event that Members are minded to refuse the application authority is sought for
enforcement action to remove the unauthorised uses from the site within 12 months
under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
10.
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension and conversion of
outbuilding to 1 additional unit; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr Gilligan
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
LBIICA Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
ENF Enforcement Notice
LDFCTRY LDF - Countryside
CONA Conservation Area
ARCS Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
The wider site has a lengthy planning history of which the following is relevant to the
current application:
PO/11/1278 PF
Erection of single-storey extension to provide toilets and dining area and conversion of
outbuilding to three units of holiday accommodation and micro brewery
Approved 06/03/2012
LA/11/1279 LA
Alterations to facilitate erection of extension and conversion of outbuilding to three units
of holiday accommodation and micro brewery
Approved 06/03/2012
PF/12/1032 PF
Conversion of outbuildings to one unit of holiday accommodation and micro-brewery
with ancillary retail
Approved 06/12/2012
LA/12/1033 LA
Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate conversion to holiday accommodation and
micro-brewery
Approved 29/11/2012
Development Committee
43
14 January 2016
THE APPLICATION
Erection of single-storey building to provide a 1/2 bed holiday unit. It would be an
extension to the existing range of outbuildings on the north side of Ruin Road that adjoin
the boundary to the church yard. It would have brick walls to match those of the
adjacent buildings, with timber windows and doors. The roof covering would be clay
pantiles with two small roof lights within it. As amended, the proposal also includes car
parking to serve the additional unit and to replace car parking spaces that were part of
the previous schemes for the conversion of the outbuildings to holiday accommodation
and dining room extension, but which could otherwise not be provided, as they were in
the area to be occupied by the proposed building.
There is an associated application for listed building consent ref 15/0513.
The White Lady Public House (formally the New Inn) is situated in the heart of Worstead
village off Front Street, to the south of St Mary's Church (listed - grade II*). It is within
designated Countryside, the Worstead Conservation Area and the main public house is
listed (grade II).
The immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential to the south and east.
The village hall lies to the west and the parish church to the north.
The wider site comprises of the main public house building which sits back from Front
Street and has been extended to part of its south side and rear relatively recently, where
a new dining area and kitchen area has been formed. To the east side of the building
there is a gravelled area used for parking. To the rear of the building there is a large
garden area with an old brick wall running along much of its northern boundary. This
adjoins an unmade track/road known as Ruin Road which runs between Front Street
and a road to the west of the church leading to Westwick Road. On its north side there
are a range of single and two storey outbuildings formerly stables and a garage which
have extant planning permission to be converted to four units of holiday
accommodation. At the time of the site visit, only the two storey building had been
converted. There is extant planning permission for a single storey building on the
south side of Ruin Road adjacent to the rear of the pub, to be used as a micro-brewery
with an associated shop unit.
The current application relates to an area of Ruin Road at the west end of the range of
the former outbuildings, which may have also been occupied by an outbuilding many
years ago. It also includes a small part of the pub garden. It is adjoined on its north side
by the boundary wall to the church yard which is 1-2m higher than the level of Ruin
Road. The lower two thirds of the wall are constructed in rubble with brick pier details
and a canted brick coping. There is a section of brick wall above it which is still clearly
old. The boundary wall also forms the rear wall of the existing outbuildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Requested by Cllr Glyn Williams for the following planning reasons:
1. The parking solution proposed is impractical when the overall use of the site is taken
into account;
2. Parking on the site remains a significant concern locally particularly when events at
the pub are held;
3. Previous conditions attached to planning approvals requiring parking provision have
not been implemented and this application needs to be considered in that context.
Development Committee
44
14 January 2016
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Worstead PC: objected to the application as originally submitted on the grounds of
over-development and car parking, contrary to condition 2 of 12/1033. Following re
consultation on the amended plans the PC again objects for the following reasons:
Condition 10 of planning permission PF/11/1278 (dated 6th March 2012) stated that
"Prior to first use of the restaurant or holiday accommodation hereby permitted the
proposed car parking as indicated on the Site and Location Plan received by the Local
Planning authority on 19 January 2012 shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced
and drained. The car parking shall be retained thereafter available for those specific
uses". The applicant has chosen not to adhere to that condition and to date has not
provided the required parking areas. It is the PC's view that the applicant will again
ignore the requirement to provide parking. Another cause for concern is the siting of a
marquee in the pub garden for various events. With the said marquee in place the
designated parking areas that should exist in the garden are either not available or
inaccessible.
The comments refer to the fact that the applicant attended a meeting of the PC on 24
November 2015, and was questioned about his lack of parking provision. The applicant
did intimate that he would be prepared to put in place the parking provision for the
proposed additional holiday unit prior to any building work taking place. He was unable
to provide suitable answers to the PC on how he plans to overcome the loss of parking
whenever a marquee is erected in the garden.
Prior to any permission being granted the PC requests that the Planning Authority
imposes conditions on the applicant to comply with the requirements of the aforesaid
Approval Notice, provides proper parking facilities for the proposed additional holiday
units and supplies details of how he will overcome the loss of parking facility whenever a
marquee is in place.
Finally, the PC feel that a further consideration is that the Parish has provided an
additional 40 parking spaces at the Village Hall adding to a total of 90 spaces for when
people hire it out. The village still struggles with parking however, and the proposed
development is not going to help this especially as the pub as a business wants to
encourage events that they cannot provide parking for.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two objections received from local residents. They object on the grounds of the
current lack of suitable car parking, which would be worsened with the additional unit.
The pub and hotel nearby attract a lot of traffic and take up all of the available space.
The proposal would generate additional cars which would park on already congested
roads adjoining the development. They refer to it being difficult to access their
driveway when there are events at the pub, which the proposal would make worse.
Car parking required by conditions attached to previous permissions have not been
complied with.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk CC (Historic Environment Officer): given the site's location on the boundary
with the 14th C church there is potential that significant heritage assets with
archaeological interest (buried remains including human remains) may be present and
these could be affected by the proposed development. A condition requiring a
programme of archaeological work is requested.
Development Committee
45
14 January 2016
Environmental Protection: no objection.
Conservation & Design: no objection
Highway Authority: the proposal has been discussed informally with them.
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 EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents extensions
of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the area).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach
for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to be
attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION




Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle;
The design of the proposed building and its effect on heritage assets;
Traffic and parking provision;
The effect on living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties
APPRAISAL
Principle: CS policies SS 2 and EC 3
The policies allow for extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside where it is of
a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not have a detrimental effect
on the character of the area. The proposed building would be small scale,
Development Committee
46
14 January 2016
representing a continuation of the existing range of outbuildings in terms of scale, height
and proportions. The style and materials would reflect that of the single storey
buildings within the range as approved. The proposal is considered to comply with
these policies.
With regard to the principle of holiday accommodation, one of the aims of policy SS 5 is
to support the tourist industry by, amongst other things encouraging new
accommodation. Policy EC 7 allows for new tourism development in the Countryside
where, as is in this case, the proposal is an extension to an existing business. As it
would be unserviced accommodation, a holiday occupancy condition would be included
as required by policy EC 9. On that basis, it is considered the proposal complies with
these policies.
Design and effect on heritage assets: CS policies EN 4 and EN 8
As already referred to, the proposed building would be small scale and read as an
extension to the existing range of outbuildings in terms of its appearance and being
ancillary to the public house. It would preserve the character and appearance of the
conservation area and would not result in any material harm to the setting of either of
the listed buildings (the pub and church) within views from which it would be seen with
them. The existing outbuildings fall within the scope of the listing of the pub, as they
are curtilage buildings which existed before 1948. The proposed building would attach
to the west end of the range but would have no particular impact on their significance.
A condition requiring a programme of archaeological work is recommended, which
would ensure any buried assets are properly protected and recorded. The proposal is
considered to comply with these policies.
Traffic and parking: CS policies CT 5 and CT 6
The small unit proposed would only result in a small increase in vehicle movements to
and from the site and on the existing road network. The access arrangements are
acceptable and the proposal complies with policy CT 5.
In terms of parking and the concerns raised by both the nearby residents and the Parish
Council, are acknowledged. The current proposal would only result in a minimal
increase in parking demand given the number of bedrooms proposed. As originally
submitted however, it would have resulted in the loss of some parking spaces which
were required to be provided by conditions attached to the previous approvals (11/1278
and 12/1032) and would have not resulted in any extra provision to serve the proposed
unit. Amended plans have now been received which show additional parking that
addresses this. A total of 40 spaces would be provided to serve the business as a
whole.
Whilst the approved plans for the previous approvals showed 50, this was only
indicatively, with spaces shown adjacent to, and along the length of, the boundary wall
on the north side of Ruin Road and adjacent to, and along the length of, the west
boundary of the pub garden. The new floorspace that has been added to the original
pub recently i.e. the dining area extension and other holiday units, would be likely to
generate additional parking demand and as such the requirement for parking provision
to address this was justified. It would however, not have been possible to provide that
many spaces based on the normal recommend parking space dimensions of 2.5m x
5.0m.
A proportionate approach as to parking requirements is to consider what would be
required if the pub and all the more recent development was an entirely new build
Development Committee
47
14 January 2016
proposal based on current standards.
 Original pub building: 40 spaces (38 spaces plus 2 spaces to serve the two bedroom
flat)
 Dining room extension: 15 spaces
 Micro brewery/shop: 3 spaces
 Holiday accommodation: 10 spaces (this is based on 11 bedspaces, which includes
those currently proposed). As there is no specific adopted parking standard for
holiday accommodation of this type, the standard for a dwellinghouse has been
applied.
 Total = 68 spaces
The biggest parking requirement is from the original pub building. However, weight
should be given to the fact that due its age, it was built before the current planning
system came into operation, so there was no requirement for dedicated parking
provision for it and there are no conditions requiring what may have been provided
subsequently to serve it, now to be retained. On this basis it is considered the
requirement for the pub can reasonably be discounted from the total and only the
demand arising from new extensions, holiday accommodation and the
micro-brewery/shop considered, which results in a requirement of 28 spaces. The
amount of parking that would be provided, although lower than required by conditions
attached to the previous approvals, would exceed this and for these reasons it is
considered that on balance, the proposal complies with policy CT 6.
A condition is recommended requiring the parking to be provided and kept available for
use as such, as well as for a scheme of signing to make it more apparent to customers
where the car parking is, which may help to reduce some on-street parking. It should
also prevent car parking areas being used for other things as referred to in the
representations. Whilst the non-compliance with similar conditions attached to
previous permissions is acknowledged and that given this, conditions attached to a new
permission may equally not be complied with, it does not make the proposal
unacceptable. Any breach that subsequently occurred would have to be dealt with at
the time, through the powers available to the local planning authority.
Finally, it is acknowledged there may be occasions when on-site parking demand
exceeds what is available but these are likely to be limited. Parking standards are
based on likely average demands and equally there could be times when not all parking
is used. As the proposal complies with the parking standards it is considered to be
acceptable in terms of policy CT 6.
Living conditions: CS policy EN 4
There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building.
Holiday accommodation of the type proposed is compatible with a residential area. It is
understood there have been complaints about noise and rowdy behaviour emanating
from the premises but these are a matter for licensing. As the proposal is for a small
unit of holiday accommodation, it would not be likely to exacerbate these problems and
is considered to comply with this policy.
Conclusion
The proposal itself being for a small additional unit of holiday accommodation would be
unlikely to result in a significant increase in parking demand. The application as
amended, has also addressed the loss of parking required under previous permission,
although this has not yet been provided. It is considered that the amount of parking
Development Committee
48
14 January 2016
proposed for the site as a whole meets the adopted standards in respect of the recent
and proposed additions to the site, whilst it is accepted that there may be some
occasions when functions for example, generate more demand for parking than can be
accommodated on the site. As these would be likely to be relatively infrequent, the
proposal is on balance, considered to be acceptable and complies with Development
Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject conditions to cover the following matters:





Time limit for implementation
External materials and details
Car parking provision, retention and signing
Holiday occupancy only
Archaeology
Final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning.
11.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BLAKENEY – PF/15/1312 – Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr Goff
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wells to enable the Committee to appreciate the site and
its setting.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/15/1490 - Removal of condition 5 of 11/1495 requiring dwelling
to achieve code level 3; Walnut Cottage, The Street for R J Bacon Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/15/1634 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling
incorporating site facilities (re-submission); Felbrigg Lodge, School Road for Mr
and Mrs Lomax
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
14 January 2016
AYLMERTON - PF/15/1609 - Variation of condition 2 of PF/15/0103 to allow
alterations to fenestration and to siting of dwelling and garage; Home Farm, Holt
Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, NR11 8QA for Mr K Massingham
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/15/1606 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Jays, North
Walsham Road, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0LN for Mr & Mrs Pettersson
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1677 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; St. Patricks, Church Close, West Runton for Mr Allen
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1514 - Single-storey rear and front extensions and
porch and replacement roof; Solana, 33 Britons Lane, Beeston Regis,
Sheringham, NR26 8TR for Mr & Mrs Francis
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/1407 - Re-roofing single storey area over staffroom including
construction of parapet wall to match existing churchyard wall; Blakeney C Of E
Va Primary School, Wiveton Road, Blakeney for Diocese of Norwich
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - PF/15/1623 - Erection of 1 dwelling and garage (Revised scheme
15/0997 refers); Plot 1, John William Way, Bodham for Mr and Mrs Prince
(Full Planning Permission)
BRINTON - PF/15/1377 - Erection of 1st floor extension to side of dwelling; 1 Bale
Road, Sharrington for Mr K Parks
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1601 - Erection of single storey side/rear extension; Highfield,
Craymere Road, Briston, Melton Constable for Mr & Mrs Babbage
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1057 - Erection of single-storey agricultural workers dwelling;
Brambles Farm, Thurning Road, Briston for Mr M Holden
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/15/1135 - Erection of extensions and alterations to bungalow
including raising of roof height, dormer extension, insertion of rooflights,
revised balcony details (position and size) and increased size of covered
entrance (PF/14/1586 refers); The Maples, Fakenham Road for Mr M Newman
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1644 - Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of 13/0598 to allow
alterations to access and fenestration materials; Highfield, Craymere Road,
Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LS for Mr G Babbage
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/15/1480 - Proposed insertion 2 new windows to South and West
Elevations.; Unit 1, Broads Business Park, The Street for RNLI (Trading) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
14 January 2016
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1040 - Erection of extensions to front, side and
rear of dwelling (Revised to include changes and extension to conservatory,
lower roof to entrance hall, changes to balcony shape including enclosure to
underside of front balcony) and revised parking.; Quay House, High Street,
Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt for Mr A Livesey
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/15/1570 - Erection of extension to existing cattle shed; Land
adjacent to "Blenheim", Tuttington Road, Banningham for Ms Rachel Brooks
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1541 - Conversion of barn into 2
residential units; 2 Manor Farm Barns, Norwich Road, Corpusty for Mr Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1426 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 8 Links Avenue, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 0EQ for Mr R West
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1518 - Change of use from A3 to mixed use of A1 and tattoo
studio; 26 Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9ES for Inkspired
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1539 - Subdivision of shop and flat to shop and 3 flats; Kent
House, 28 West Street, Cromer, NR27 9DS for Mr Williamson
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/15/1555 - External alterations to facilitate erection of replacement
conservatory; 95 Overstrand Road, Cromer, NR27 0DJ for The Grove
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/15/1427 - Retention of single-storey side extension; Suffield Spar,
Rosebery Road, Cromer, NR27 0BX for Mr S Gunaratnam
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1605 - Change of use from shops (A1) to cafe (A3); 10 High
Street, Cromer, NR27 9HG for The Art House Cafe
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1621 - Erection of extension to activities building; Cromer Lawn
Tennis & Squash Assoc, Norwich Road for Cromer Tennis and Squash Club
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1567 - Creation of additional car-parking spaces; North Norfolk
District Council, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - PF/15/1483 - Change of use of part of barn from B1 (offices) to C3
(residential) and removal of condition 2 from planning permission
APP/Y2620/A/1127523 to allow change; Shereford Lodge, The Street, Shereford,
Fakenham, NR21 7PP for Raynham Farms Company Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0706 - Erection of 2 industrial buildings (B2/B8) with
associated access and parking; Plot 2B, Clipbush Business Park, Hawthorne
Development Committee
51
14 January 2016
Way, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 8SX for Steel Build Masters Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1506 - Relaxation of condition of 8 planning permission ref:
11/1343 to delete requirement for Code Level 3 to be met; Lavengrove, Heath
Way, Fakenham, NR21 8LW for Mr Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1384 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of dwelling.;
17 Greenway Close, Fakenham, NR21 8DE for Ms Richardson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1592 - Erection of two storey side extension; 71 Jubilee
Avenue, Fakenham, NR21 8DG for Mr & Mrs B Swift
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/1472 - Change of use of detached garage to holiday annexe;
The Beeches, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ for Mr M Hernandez
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1608 - Insertion of window in north elevation to ground
floor; Barn 2, Field Barn, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs R Nichols
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/15/1270 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double garage with studio above;
Forty Winks, Fakenham Road, Great Snoring for Mrs J Youngs
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/15/1311 - Retention of childrens play area and equipment;
The Manor House, Barsham Road, Great Snoring for Mr P Chapple
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - PF/15/1130 - Erection of detached car port to front of dwelling;
Laurel House, Swanton Road, Gunthorpe, Melton Constable for Mr M Bunting
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/15/1531 - Erection of single storey extension to dwelling; Folly
Cottage, The Common, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QG for Mr & Mrs D Clarke
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/15/1595 - Erection of first floor extension to rear of dwelling; 21
Dereham Road, Hempton, Fakenham, NR21 7JY for Mr J Suckling
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/0944 - Siting of shepherd's hut for holiday letting
purposes.; Birkfield House, Bridge Road, High Kelling, Holt for Mr Gebbett
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/1418 - Variation of conditions of 2 and 4 planning
permission ref: 08/0496 to permit the installation of 1.82 metres fence to eastern
boundary and change to external materials; Homely Acre, 1 The Street,
Hindolveston, Dereham NR20 5DA for Mr A Mavilio
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
52
14 January 2016
HOLKHAM - PF/15/1379 - Alterations to single-storey outbuildings and ground
floor of two-storey building in east courtyard, to form B1 office/ light industrial
space. Upgrading works to large barn at the south of the complex, to allow
relocation of joinery workshop and associated landscape, drainage and
ecological enhancement works; Longlands, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea
for Viscount Coke Fund
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/15/1380 - Alterations to single-storey outbuildings and ground
floor of two-storey building in east courtyard, to form B1 office / light industrial
space. Upgrading works to large barn at the south of the complex, to allow
relocation of joinery workshop, including the insertion of mezzanine floor;
Longlands, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea for Viscount Coke Fund
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLKHAM - PF/15/1030 - Erection of orientation centre (D1) and associated
cafe/restaurant (A3) upon new landscape mound; Land at Lady Anne's Drive,
Holkham for Coke Estates Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/1456 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and detached single
garage; Hanworth House, 23 Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs K Gosden
(Householder application)
HOLT - AI/15/1465 - Display of various illuminated and non-illuminated signage;
33-35 Cromer Road, Holt, NR25 6EU for Vauxhall
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - AN/15/1602 - Installation of 2 replacement fascia signs; 4 Fish Hill for Mr T
Bradley
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/15/1607 - Installation of 8 solar PV panels on roof of existing single
storey rear extension; 30 Cromer Road, Holt, NR25 6DX for Mr D Hunt
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/15/1582 - Erection of extension to side of building; Village
Hall, The Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham for Kettlestone Village Hall Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/15/1624 - Installation of 10 stand alone PV solar panels;
Manor Farm, The Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham, NR21 0AU for Mr R Ives
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/15/1581 - Variation of condition 2 (approved plans)
attached to planning permission ref: PF/15/0546 to allow for revised eaves
details, installation of PV panels to south roof slope, inset balcony to south
elevation and relocation of front door; Green Farm House, The Street, Little
Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0HU for Grocott & Murfit Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - PF/15/1496 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling;
Lilac Cottage, The Street, Matlaske, Norwich, NR11 7AQ for Mrs Gillard
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
14 January 2016
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0695 - Demolition of existing shop and store, erection
of replacement shop with attached dwelling and single-storey dwelling with
parking area and driveway; 110 Mundesley Road, North Walsham for Mr C Dyke
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0149 - Continued use of land and building for storage
and manufacture of timber and timber products; Land at Station Yard, Norwich
Road, North Walsham for Mr S Emerson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1559 - Change of use of ground floor dental practice
to residential flat; 9 New Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DE for Mr Robin Copson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1463 - Change of use of existing storage warehouse
to vehicle MOT, workshop and storage units, external alterations to include roof
lights, repositioning and installation of additional doors; Land at Cornish Way,
North Walsham for Drurys Transport Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1661 - Erection of conservatory to front of dwelling; 5
Weavers Close, North Walsham, NR28 0NQ for Mr Long
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1651 - Erection of first floor extension to side of
dwelling; Spa View, 89 Brick Kiln Road, North Walsham, NR28 9XR for Mr S Attew
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/1466 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref
PF/14/1559 to permit external design amendments, change in dwelling types
(plots 36 & 37), re-positioning of plot 10 and addition of car port to plot 14;
Former Cherryridge Poultry Site, Church Street for Lovell Partnerships Limited
(Reserved Matters)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/15/0051 - Non material amendment request to permit: (1)
altering hipped roof to gable ended roof on east facing roof extension, including
addition of velux windows; (2) raising flat garage roof height over north side
garage.; 19 Mundesley Road, Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PT for Mr I White
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/1625 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of
dwelling; 14 Hillingdon Park, Overstrand for Mr and Mrs P Healey
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/15/1549 - Alterations to mill and erection of single-storey extension
for conversion to single unit of holiday accommodation; Stow Mill, Stow Hill,
Paston, North Walsham, NR28 9TG for Mr & Mrs Hough
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - LA/15/1550 - Alterations to mill and erection of single-storey extension
for conversion to single unit of holiday accommodation; Stow Mill, Stow Hill,
Paston, North Walsham, NR28 9TG for Mr & Mrs Hough
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
54
14 January 2016
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/1412 - Erection of conservatory and garden room
extensions to farmhouse; Rose Farm, Church Lane for Mrs Murray
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1632 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling;
Southerly, Chapel Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8AF for Mr Clark
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/1522 - Groundworks to form outdoor play area and installation
of associated play equipment; Visitor Centre, H M Prison Bure, Jaguar Drive,
Badersfield, Scottow, NORWICH, NR10 5GB for Ormiston Families
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/1557 - Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission
98/0600 to allow permanent residential occupation of Clarence's Lodge; Caxton
House, Clarence's Lodge, Creake Road, Sculthorpe for Mr John Banson
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/1576 - Erection of office/store room; Education/Visitor
Centre, Turf Moor Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham for Hawk and Owl Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/15/1535 - Alterations to cottage to including new front porch
extension and an increase in the roof height above kitchen to create first floor
bedroom. Retrospective permission for alterations to design and roof height of
attached garage/workshop.; 2 Woodbine Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr P Austen
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1387 - Ground floor extension to front side and rear
including annexe; The Hutch, 7 St Josephs Road for Mr Hutchins
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1604 - Erection of single-storey detached garden annex
(amended design); 21 Nelson Road, Sheringham, NR26 8BU for Mr J Patston
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1520 - Extensions to Existing Dwelling and Conversion of
Dwelling into Two Dwellings; 22 Norfolk Road for Mr & Mrs Munday
(Full Planning Permission)
SIDESTRAND - PF/15/1052 - Demolition of detached double garage and erection
of detached replacement double garage/store and erection of front porch;
Bizewell Farmhouse, Main Road, Sidestrand, Cromer for Mr & Mrs Cooper
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - LA/15/1053 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion to kitchen including raising the roof and erection of front porch.;
Bizewell Farmhouse, Main Road, Sidestrand, Cromer for Mr & Mrs Cooper
(Listed Building Alterations)
SMALLBURGH - PF/15/0623 - Demolition of existing detached dwelling and
erection of detached two-storey dwelling and detached double garage with
studio above; Corner Cottage, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Beeby
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
14 January 2016
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1487 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of dwelling;
26 Chapel Street, Southrepps, Norwich for Worstead Developments LLP
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/1547 - Installation of domestic fuel tank to front of
dwelling; Oak Tree Cottage, St Giles Road, Swanton Novers for Mr R Monday
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/15/1640 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 25
Wellington Crescent, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, NR21 7PU for Mrs L Paulusz
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/15/1399 - Erection of detached cart shed and store; Keepers
Cottage, Holt Road, Thornage, Holt, NR25 7QB for Mr Purcell
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - LA/15/1572 - Internal and external alterations; Brook House, The
Street, Thornage, Holt, NR25 7AD for Mr A Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/15/1414 - Renewal of temporary permission for siting of mobile
home for use of Equestrian Yard Manager; Lime Kiln Farm, Hindringham Road,
Thursford, FAKENHAM, NR21 0BL for Mr Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1397 - Installation of 4 kilowatt photo voltaic ground mounted
array; The Tithe Barn, Mundesley Road, Trunch, North Walsham for Mr Stops
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1628 - Erection of single storey extension to farmhouse.; Millers
Farm, Mundesley Road, Trunch, North Walsham for Mr and Mrs M Bagguley
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - NMA1/15/0953 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
window design; Hall Farm, Mundesley Road, Trunch for Mr and Mrs Settle
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1629 - Conversion of garage to residential annex; The Lodge,
Church Street, Sco Ruston, Norwich, NR12 8EY for Mr & Mrs J Pulford
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/15/1473 - Block up existing road access and re-locate new
vehicle access and visibility splay; Lighthouse Inn, Coast Road, Walcott,
Norwich, NR12 0PE for Mr Bullimore
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/15/1626 - Erection of single storey extension to side and rear of
dwelling.; Genesis, Ostend Gap, Walcott for Mr and Mrs B Richardson
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/1334 - Extension to building to provide biomass fuel store
with new access off existing drive, flue to existing building and associated
engineering operations comprising pipe network to Walsingham Abbey, 3
residential flats within the Abbey and 34, 36 & 38a High Street; Land adjacent to
Development Committee
56
14 January 2016
the Abbey, Sunk Road for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/15/1335 - Extension to building to provide biomass fuel store
with new access off existing drive, flue to existing building and associated
engineering operations comprising pipe network to Walsingham Abbey, 3
residential flats within the Abbey and 34, 36 & 38a High Street.; Land adjacent to
the Abbey, Sunk Road for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1497 - Erection of single storey extensions to
dwelling and detached cart shed/car port; Yaffle House, 7 Southgate Close,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HG for Hayley Wright Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1112 - Erection of glass house over existing
swimming pool; The Old Rectory, Church Street for Mrs S Olivier
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1495 - Erection of first floor extension to
dwelling; Pleasant Place, Standard Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr Pinder
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1275 - Variation of condition 2 of 14/1546 to allow
alterations to roof and windows; Burnt Farm, Burnt Street for Mr P Smithers
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1475 - Erection of two-storey rear and
single-storey rear side extension; Westleigh, 98 Mill Road for Mr Edwards
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/15/1421 - Conversion of one dwelling to two dwellings and
erection of first floor and single-storey extensions; 18 Church Road, Wickmere,
Norwich, NR11 7NA for Mrs L Hardy
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/1600 - Erection of front, side and rear extensions and
alterations to existing barn/garage; Westview Cottage, Withergate Road,
Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9SF for Mrs S Kaszubowski
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PU/15/1545 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to two dwellings (C3); Boundary Farm, Reepham Road,
Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
(C/U Agricultural to Residential (Prior))
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1574 - Erection of single storey extension to front of
dwelling.; 125 North Park, Fakenham, NR21 9RJ for Mr Robert Fox
(Householder application)
Development Committee
57
14 January 2016
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/1560 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and double
garage to serve new dwelling and no 17 St Nicholas Way; 17 St Nicholas Way,
Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5LG for Miss E Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PO/15/1474 - Erection of 5 Timber Holiday Lodges; Land adj.
Wensum Pools, The Hatchery, Wellingham Road, South Raynham NR21 7HN for
Wensum Pools Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane, Briston, NR24 2JB for Mr C Nutkins
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1515 - Change of use of land from D2 (visitor attraction)
to siting of thirteen holiday chalets; Priory Maze & Gardens, Cromer Road,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8SF for Priory Maze and Gardens
INFORMAL HEARING 21 January 2016
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane, Briston, NR24 2JB for Mr C Nutkins
CROMER - PF/15/0533 - Installation of front elevation first and second floor PVCU
bay windows to replace existing timber bays; 28 High Street for Mrs Russell
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road,
Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BT for Norfolk County Council
SITE VISIT:- 01 December 2015
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 57 Sea View Road, Mundesley, NR11 8DJ for Mr Somers
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/0451 - Erection of detached one and a half-storey dwelling
and detached double garage; Street Hill Farm, The Street, Neatishead, Norwich,
NR12 8XG for Mr and Mrs C Loveday
Development Committee
58
14 January 2016
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road, North Walsham,
NR28 9HB for Ashford Commercial Ltd.
SITE VISIT:- 14 December 2015
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh, FAKENHAM, NR21 0DX for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham, NR21 9AS
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Leisure Pk
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8JT for Mr R Kalynuk
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
PASTON - PF/15/1073 - Retention of retaining wall; Meadow View, Bears Road,
Paston, North Walsham, NR28 9TH for Mr Gwynn
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
18.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report
Development Committee
59
14 January 2016
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
60
14 January 2016
Development Committee
61
14 January 2016
Development Committee
62
14 January 2016
Development Committee
63
14 January 2016
Development Committee
64
14 January 2016
Development Committee
65
14 January 2016
Development Committee
66
14 January 2016
Development Committee
67
14 January 2016
Development Committee
68
14 January 2016
Development Committee
69
14 January 2016
Development Committee
70
14 January 2016
Development Committee
71
14 January 2016
Development Committee
72
14 January 2016
APPENDIX 2
Development Committee
73
14 January 2016
Development Committee
74
14 January 2016
Development Committee
75
14 January 2016
Development Committee
76
14 January 2016
Development Committee
77
14 January 2016
Development Committee
78
14 January 2016
Development Committee
79
14 January 2016
Development Committee
80
14 January 2016
Development Committee
81
14 January 2016
Development Committee
82
14 January 2016
Development Committee
83
14 January 2016
Development Committee
84
14 January 2016
Development Committee
85
14 January 2016
Development Committee
86
14 January 2016
Development Committee
87
14 January 2016
Development Committee
88
14 January 2016
Development Committee
89
14 January 2016
Development Committee
90
14 January 2016
Development Committee
91
14 January 2016
Development Committee
92
14 January 2016
Development Committee
93
14 January 2016
Development Committee
94
14 January 2016
Development Committee
95
14 January 2016
Development Committee
96
14 January 2016
Development Committee
97
14 January 2016
Development Committee
98
14 January 2016
Development Committee
99
14 January 2016
Development Committee
100
14 January 2016
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
To:
Jo Medler (Development Management)
Your Ref:
PF/14/0962
From:
Chris Young (Conservation & Design)
Re: Detached two-storey dwelling, Land adj Park Farm Barn, Trunch.
The site in question lies on the south eastern side of Trunch and is currently a piece of grassland
framed by mature planting. It is also washed over as Countryside for planning purposes where the
principle of additional development is not normally acceptable. It is for this reason that the
applicants have advanced a case for the proposed building being considered under Para 55 of the
NPPF; i.e. that the exceptional quality of the design justifies special circumstances being applied.
It therefore makes sense to look at the scheme in the light of the four criteria laid out under this
para; namely that a design should: 
Be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in
rural areas.
Unlike the old Country House test under PPG7, this criterion now involves an either/or test in
which the applicant must demonstrate that their dwelling would either be truly outstanding or
innovative. Reading through the D&A statement, and assessing the submitted elevations, it is
clear that thought has gone into the proposed dwelling. It is also apparent that the building
would incorporate some innovative elements – most notably through the thermally
conductive gable. It is therefore acknowledged that the net result would be a bespoke
composition which would have no direct comparison within the District. This of course is not
the same as saying that the design would be truly outstanding or that the innovative content is
sufficient to carry the proposal as a whole.

Reflect the highest standards in architecture.
This criterion is a difficult one in the sense that it requires us to look objectively at what is
commonly perceived as a subjective judgment. From other similar applications nationally, it
is clear that buildings are expected to provide a genuine architectural legacy which will define
the age. Within this they should be beautiful and impressive and provide a sense of drama
which is commonly linked to size (many of the approvals across the country are over
1000m2). Against this context, the curved, knapped flint gable undoubtedly has the potential
to be an attractive and elegant feature in its own right. However, Conservation & Design are
far from convinced that this alone would enable the scheme to get over the high bar set. As
outlined prior to the submission of this application, the main body of the building features a
series of angular elements which knit together in a way which is less than easy on the eye. In
particular, it is suggested that the central ‘slipped’ section with its shallower roof pitch and
tapering abutments, and the fenestration on the north elevation, err more towards the
uncomfortable rather than the beautiful. With the building also relatively modest in size, the
opportunities for making an impressive statement seem rather limited.
Development Committee
101
14 January 2016

Significantly enhance its immediate setting.
Key under this criterion is that the proposed development must extend beyond the building to
also include its landscape setting – in essence echoing back to the way country houses were
historically supported by their parkland. Within this the choice of site is clearly important and
will determine the opportunities for enhancement. In this particular case, with the site being a
relatively small and featureless piece of grassland which is enclosed by mature trees and
hedging, there appears to be very little scope in this regard. Whilst the garden would no doubt
be attractively planted, the basic thrust of the NPPF looks for much more than this.
Particularly with the submitted application not actually including any firm landscaping
proposals, it is considered that the scheme clearly fails under this heading.

Be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
Lastly, it is not sufficient for new buildings to be outstanding standalone compositions. They
must also be locally distinctive and be well grounded in the area to be considered a worthy
exception. In this case, the building would certainly be anchored to the site through the use of
flint, and would (in part) replicate the steep roof pitches seen locally. Beyond this, however, it
must be extremely doubtful whether the average observer would tie the building to North
Norfolk or make the connection with the thatched buildings elsewhere in the village
(particularly as the proposed roof covering would extend below the eaves).
Conclusions
On the basis of the above assessment, it is clear that the proposed development would offer some
architectural merit and some visual interest. As it would also incorporate innovative elements, it
certainly sets out to raise the general standard of rural design.
At the same time, however, the proposals are relatively limited in scope and engender a number
of design and landscape reservations. As a consequence, even looking at the scheme in the most
objective of ways, Conservation & Design have not been persuaded that it would be sufficiently
exceptional to justify a departure from ordinary countryside policy - certainly it doesn’t impress
in the same way as most other examples nationally. For these reasons, it is not possible to
recommend the application for approval.
11th September 2014
Development Committee
102
14 January 2016
APPENDIX 3
Change of use - Beeches Farm, Tunstead
Supporting Statement
Introduction
This application seeks retrospective permission to regularise existing activities at
Beeches Farm, Tunstead. Beeches Farm facilitates a range of business activities, and
is an important contributor to the local economy.
Growing over the previous six years, the majority of the site is occupied by Anglian
Plant Ltd but it provides small scale facilities for several other businesses and private
individuals. Commercial use at the Farm now directly supports employment for 38 (fulltime equivalent) jobs and supports many more in the wider area.
Anglian Plant
Anglian Plant is a plant hire business providing a range of equipment, including
excavators, dumpers, loaders, and generators. The business also includes the hire of
tools but following the closure of its Mildenhall base, this aspect of the business is
being phased out.
Based in North Norfolk, Anglian Plant has enjoyed continued success, growing to be
increasingly important to the local economy, despite its origins in the depths of the last
recession::
'In 2008 Joe Paterson was working as a building contractor on a small residential
development in Norfolk. Following the completion of that site, Joe was keen to pursue
more residential development work in the area. Sadly all his potential plans were
quickly put to bed by the property crash. With building work drying up, Joe decided to
sell the mini digger he had bought for his fledgling development business and
advertised the machine on ebay. In no time at all he sold the excavator to a retail
customer in Poland. Joe quickly saw the potential in the plant sales business and it was
at this point that Anglian Plant Sales began.
Development Committee
103
14 January 2016
Joe spent a year travelling around the country visiting machinery auctions, plant
dealers, hire companies and anyone else that had good quality secondhand kit to
purchase, with a view to re-selling the machines through his own business. With many
people asking if the machines for sale in his Norwich yard were available for hire, Joe
decided to venture into the machine rental game in 2010, with the formation of Anglian
Plant Hire.
The company initially started with two mini excavators, comprising of a 1.5-tonne model
and a 3-tonne machine, these machines were added to as demand grew at a rapid
pace. In 2011, Anglian added brand new Bobcat mini and midi excavators to the fleet
ranging in size from 1 to 8 tonnes.
The company’s current inventory consists of 50 pieces of equipment, including mini
excavators, 14-tonne excavators, telehandlers, dumpers and skid steer loaders, and
includes models from famous names like Bobcat, JCB, Terex and Doosan to name a
few.
The business' latest acquisition is in the form of a new depot in Mildenhall. Anglian
Plant & Tool Hire in Mildenhall offers the hire of small tools, aggregates, building
materials and also includes all the other equipment that they offer from their existing
Norwich depot.'
(copyright: theconstructionindex 15 November 2012)
Anglian Plant has grown with the improving economy (and in particular the recovering
construction industry) and now operates 150 machines, employing 20 people and
turning over £3M per year.
The growth in the plant fleet has now plateaued as part of capital management, with
the company now focusing on improving efficiency and profitability through increasing
utilisation rates and decreasing downtime.
Development Committee
104
14 January 2016
The site
Beeches Farm is a former agricultural farmyard located just off Crowgate Street,
Tunstead. The site is set back behind Beeches House and immediately to the east of a
bungalow, Beeches Farm Bungalow.
150m further east from the site along Crowgate Street is Place UK, one of the UK’s
leading growers and processors of more than 3500 tonnes of high quality soft fruits
each year for major British supermarkets including M&S, Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s
and the Co-Op, and which has a workforce of up to 650 (including seasonal staff).
The site extends to approximately 0.5 hectares and contains a range of buildings
constructed to serve its original agricultural purpose. These buildings consist of smaller
traditional red brick and pantile structures (surviving remnants from a larger barn and
yards complex which predated the 20th. Century) and more modern structures (most
significantly a large steel frame building clad in corrugated sheeting).
Although the buildings and the former farmyard are now adapted to support new uses,
the number, size, and location of those buildings (and the size of the yard itself) have
not significantly changed from when in agricultural use.
Previous use
Beeches Farm was formerly part of a working farm and was used for a range of
agricultural purposes.
The farmyard and buildings were used for livestock housing, produce storage, and
machinery storage and maintenance. As the level of agricultural use (and size of
agricultural machinery) increased following the Second World War, the original red
brick and pantile buildings proved insufficient. Large modern steel frame buildings
were constructed to accommodate those new requirements, and the access created to
the west of Beeches House to serve Beeches Farm Bungalow was widened and
improved to serve as the main farm access.
Development Committee
105
14 January 2016
Changes to agricultural practices meant that the farmyard and buildings were no longer
necessary for the efficient operation of the farm, and an alternative use was
implemented.
Current use
The site was no longer needed for agricultural purposes, and so has been reused for a
range of alternative uses (described below).
Please see the site plan for the location of uses throughout the site.
ANGLIAN PLANT
Anglian Plant is the major occupier and its office is located onsite. This is operated by
20 staff (6 of which work at client's sites and do not visit the premises) and most
business is transacted by phone or electronic communication, resulting in very few
customer visits. The office is served by a small car parking area.
The site is also the operating base for plant and tool hire. There is limited machinery
storage, cleaning, and maintenance undertaken onsite - however, utilisation rates of
over 92% mean that most plant is in use with hirers at any given point in time, and
items are transferred directly from one hirer to the next. In order to facilitate this, the
majority of cleaning and maintenance takes place at the premises of those hirers either
on a routine basis or on transfer to a new hire.
The site provides a workshop and storage (for consumables/spares) in order to
facilitate maintenance and service work (whether on or offsite). It also provides
cleaning facilities for those occasions when plant is returned and has not been cleaned
before leaving the hirer.
When larger items of equipment are stored onsite, they are either stored in the centre
of the site within the larger steel frame building or in a holding area to the north of the
buildings. Smaller hire items are stored inside.
Development Committee
106
14 January 2016
OTHER BUSINESSES
The site provides facilities and associated parking for other small businesses:
RMP Civil Engineering - office for 3 staff and storage
Panaepos (supply and support of Electronic Point Of Sale systems) - storage
Rundle & Young Builders - storage
ATM Builders - storage
KAR Services - workshop for 2 staff
Ignition Marine - workshop for 1 staff
PRIVATE STORAGE
There also 4 small units currently let to private individuals. 3 are let to store personal
items (typically hobby or leisure equipment) and 1 is let as a non-commercial
workshop.
Access and highways
Beeches Farm was formerly part of a working arable and livestock farm, and
previously, the site would have been accessed by agricultural machinery
(tractors/combine harvesters etc.) and by bulk produce and livestock lorries.
Originally, the site was accessed through Beeches House but for many years, access
to the site has been via an separate driveway leading from Crowgate Street. Crowgate
Street connects Market Street, Tunstead to the west with (via Church Road and Stone
Lane) the A1151 in the east.
In addition to Beeches Farm, it serves both Place UK and several houses. Crowgate
Street is relatively narrow but has numerous passing places, and (as predominantly
single vehicle width) vehicle speeds are relatively low.
The site access is a concrete surfaced track running along the boundary of Beeches
House and Anglian Plant has installed a close boarded fence along this boundary to
minimise any impact on the adjoining property.
Development Committee
107
14 January 2016
Traffic arriving and leaving the site has traditionally tended to use Crowgate Street to
the west. As a result of very recent comments concerning the perceived effect of site
traffic on the amenity of residents between the site and Tunstead, Anglian Plant is
introducing a trial traffic management change to direct some of its vehicles to access
the site via Church Road and Stone Lane to the A1151. Whilst this route is physically
similar to the route to the west, it only passes one residential property (Beeches House)
and is already in regular use by heavy vehicles serving Place UK.
ANGLIAN PLANT
Traffic movements to and from Beeches Farm are comprised of cars (both staff and
visitors) and larger vehicles. Most of the hire stock (in excess of 90%) is normally away
from Beeches Farm and so larger vehicle movements are limited.
CAR MOVEMENTS
Type
Number
Frequency
Staff
14
Each day Monday to
Saturday
Visitors
-
Average 3 per day
Note: although the tool hire business is being phased out, an average of two
customers per month currently visit the site to collect/return items.
LARGER
VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS
Type
Number
Frequency
44t Low loader
1
One return trip per day
Note
Monday to Friday
Development Committee
108
14 January 2016
26t Beavertail
1
One (occasionally two)
return trips per day
Monday to Friday
26t Grab
1
One return trip per day
Monday to Friday
7.5t Beavertail
1
Between one and three
return trips per day
Monday to Friday
3.5t Dropside
1
Between one and three
Normally used for
return trips any day
only three days
Monday to Friday
each week
Note: Saturday use is typically by only one of the above vehicles making one return
trip.
Anglian Plant staff are instructed to keep vehicle movements to a minimum, both to
ensure local amenity and as a matter of good commercial practice.
OTHER BUSINESSES ONSITE
Traffic movements associated with other businesses onsite are entirely by car or small
commercial (Ford Transit or similar) vehicles.
VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS
Business
Number
Frequency
Notes
RMP Civil
3
Each day Monday to
2 visitors per
Engineering
Saturday
week
Development Committee
109
14 January 2016
Panaepos
1
1 visit per quarter
Rundle & Young
1
2 visits per week
ATM Builders
1
1 visit per fortnight
KAR Services
2
Each day Monday to
Builders
Saturday
Ignition Marine
1
Each day Monday to
Saturday
PRIVATE USE ONSITE
Traffic movements to the 4 private let units are by car or small van, and average 1 or 2
visits per unit per week.
Landscaping/screening
Views into the site are limited by vegetation on the existing boundaries, and the existing
buildings in and around the site.
As part of the surrounding agricultural unit, the northern edge of Beeches Farm
originally merged into the adjoining arable field. An earth bund has been created to
define the northern boundary of the site and to screen views of the site (and any plant
stored in this area) from the north. Consideration could be given to enhancing this
screen by the planting of native hedging species upon it.
The eastern and western boundaries of the site are largely screened by existing
hedges and hedgerow trees.
There is an substantial screen along the southern boundary, created by buildings and
existing planting. However, there is a gap in this screen towards the centre of the
Development Committee
110
14 January 2016
boundary and it is proposed to close this with short-term acoustic fencing which will be
superseded by new planting.
It has been suggested that the use of the site means that the privacy of Beeches
House is (in some way) reduced. Whilst it is true that the drivers of larger lorries sit
high enough to have some glimpses into the garden of Beeches House, this is equally
true for modern farm machinery from the previous agricultural use, and for lorries and
similar sized vehicles passing along Crowgate Street.
Noise and dust/fumes
It is inevitable that a plant hire business will generate some noise during normal
working activities, but the former agricultural use of the site (with associated livestock
and machinery noise) means that any noise generated does not represent the
introduction of noise where none had been present before.
However, Anglian Plant takes noise very seriously and (although there are intervening
buildings and vegetation) are sensitive to the proximity of its neighbours. All staff are
instructed to keep noise to a minimum, and all loading/unloading of equipment takes
place to the rear of the site, which is sheltered by two large agricultural buildings. The
decision to make this the loading/unloading area was based on reducing the risk of
noise pollution to Beeches House. Plant is not operated in the yard but only moved
when being checked over, running for no more than five minutes at a time. Transport
vehicles are only running when arriving, moving, or departing, and are not left running
in the yard.
This also ensures that exhaust fumes are kept to a minimum. Anglian Plant are also
striving to run a modern fleet of vehicles and machinery with the latest tier 3b and tier 4
low emission engines. All items are regularly serviced so they are running at optimum
efficiency thus creating the lowest emissions possible.
As with its former agricultural use, Beeches Farm remains subject to dust at certain
times after an extended period of dry weather. The majority of dust is blown into and
around the site from the surrounding fields. As most plant is cleaned offsite, relatively
little soil is brought onto the site and most of this is from the tyres of vehicles.
Development Committee
111
14 January 2016
Although the movement of vehicles can kick up dust, it is overwhelmingly redistributed
by the wind. However, current use ensures the presence of parked vehicles and plant
onsite which helps to break up the wind and prevent it from scouring through the whole
site (as would be the case if the site was unoccupied).
Opening hours
A majority of the customers served by Anglian Plant are in the construction industry
where work traditionally starts at 7 - 7.30 a.m. This means that they expect plant to be
delivered ready to start work at that time. Failure to provide a service to the expected
standard will obviously be detrimental to the success of the business.
Consequentially, the operating hours of the business can extend from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
from Monday to Sunday including bank holidays. Not least for reasons of staff
retention and health and safety, the business would not be open during those periods,
nor would it operate fully. However, it is occasionally necessary to work the odd hour
on a Sunday, or in the early morning or late evening. When this does happen, every
effort is made to prevent disturbance to others.
There has been a suggestion that operating hours should be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
from Monday to Friday, and 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. As explained above, this
would seriously prejudice the success of the business. The most restrictive hours that
could be accommodated would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from Monday to Friday, and 6 a.m.
to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Although all efforts would be made to avoid it, this is likely to
still require some infrequent but unavoidable work for an hour or so outside those
times.
Alternative (fall-back) use
Beeches Farm was selected as the base for Anglian Plant because it was not needed
for agricultural use by the farming unit at the time (2010). However, since that date,
changes in agricultural economics and in the activities of the farming unit mean that
Development Committee
112
14 January 2016
Beeches Farm now has an agricultural future use if the present business use is not
allowed to continue.
The farming unit has recently expanded into the pig fattening industry, and now
operates a 2500 pig fattening unit at Dilham. The success of this means that a location
is now needed for a second unit. If Beeches Farm was no longer in use by Anglian
Plant, its existing facilities make it suitable for returning to an agricultural use as a
fattening unit for 2500 pigs.
Based on the existing Dilham unit, a 2500 pig unit would require 2 articulated lorry
loads of feed a week, and two lorry collections of finished pigs and two lorry deliveries
of new pigs per week. There would be at least two tractor/trailer loads of waste a day
going out and replacement straw coming in. The site would be staffed by one or two
operators who would attend each day Monday to Sunday, and with daily visits by a
manager and weekly visits from a vet.
It is expected that two tractors would be working onsite for most of each day, and
although every reasonable effort would be made to minimise impact on neighbours,
noise from machinery and stock would be unavoidable. Similarly, the normal operation
of a fattening units means that (wind dependant) there would be straw blowing around
on occasions and odour may be more or less noticeable. It is expected that incidences
of dust would remain broadly the same, blowing in from the fields and from the yard
during dry and windy periods.
Conclusion
Anglian Plant has grown from strength to strength during some of the most difficult
economic conditions in decades. It now forms an important part of the local economy,
both directly and through the contributions of its suppliers and clients.
Any disruption to its business (for example through forcing its relocation or
unnecessarily restricting its operating hours) could prejudice its continued success and
consequentially, the benefits it provides to the economy of the area.
Development Committee
113
14 January 2016
Beeches Farm provides facilities for several other businesses (besides Anglian Plant)
and supports employment for 38 full-time equivalent posts. Whilst its purpose is now
dissimilar to its former agricultural one, it provides a new use for the existing
agricultural buildings and yard in a location historically used to activity.
The surrounding road network is relatively narrow, requiring meeting traffic to use
passing places) and is therefore not ideal. However, there are very few places in
Norfolk that do have ideal road networks, and the narrowness of the roads around
Beeches Farm ensure that traffic speeds are normally low. This, combined with the
relatively low numbers of vehicle movements generated by Beeches Farm, means that
its current use does not prejudice highways safety.
This is illustrated by the example of Place UK, a business located 150m from Beeches
Farm, which employs up to 650 people, processes more than 3500 tonnes of produce
each year, and supplies many major supermarkets. Despite these impressive
statistics, Place UK has successfully operated from its Tunstead base (utilising the
same road network) for many years.
The site is largely screened and steps have (and are continuing) to ensure that any
visual impact on the countryside are not significant. Despite this, it is inevitable that the
use of Beeches Farm with have some impacts on its immediate surroundings.
However, this should be considered in the context of its previous arable and livestock
use, and the subsequent continuing efforts made by Anglian Plant to minimise these.
They have taken steps to reduce noise, dust, and fumes as far as currently possible,
and again are always looking for ways to reduce these further. The present use has far
less impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties than the likely future use (as a
pig fattening unit) if business use is prevented on the site.
Much of the success of Anglian Plant has been built on the quality of customer service
provided. The requirements of the construction industry and the customers served by
Anglian Plant can mean that work needs to happen early in the morning and later in the
evening, Monday to Sunday. Although every effort is made to restrict working to
normal opening hours, it is sometimes unavoidable to meet customer needs. When
this does happen, every effort is also made to prevent any disturbance to others.
Development Committee
114
14 January 2016
It is clear from the above and from the following (Appendix 1 - Planning policy context)
that the continued use of Beeches Farm and the success of Anglian Plant is important
to employment in, and the economy of, both the local area and the wider District.
Whilst its location is not ideal, it is clear from the fact that it has operated successfully
from the site for some considerable time with no previous complaints that it can
continue to do with significant detriment.
Accordingly, the District Council is asked to grant the necessary permission to
regularise the existing situation.
Development Committee
115
14 January 2016
Appendix 1 - Planning policy context
1.
National Planning Policy Framework
1.1.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that the policies of an adopted
Core Strategy are pre-eminent unless they conflict with those of the NPPF to
more than a limited extent. Where a local authority has not adopted a Core
Strategy or is still relying on some 'saved' policies of the former Local Plan, those
'saved' policies are material in so far as they are not in conflict with those of the
NPPF.
1.2.
The Government introduced the National Planning Practice Guidance in March
2014 to provide additional information about the practical application of the
NPPF policies. .
1.3.
Consequently (and until sufficient case law develops to clarify the NPPF) there is
considerable uncertainty on its interpretation in specific circumstances. This is a
disadvantage when seeking to predict outcomes but introduces new
opportunities - particularly where a local authority does not have a valid Core
Strategy.
1.4.
Policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (and guidance from the
National Planning Practice Guidance where appropriate) of particular relevance
to the matters discussed in this statement are (extract):
ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
6. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development...
There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and
environmental.
an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive
economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right
places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and
coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;
THE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in
favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread
running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
For decision-taking this means:
● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay; and
● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
granting permission unless:
Development Committee
116
14 January 2016
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
1. BUILDING A STRONG, COMPETITIVE ECONOMY
21. Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined
requirements of planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise
and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment
or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing. In drawing up Local Plans, local
planning authorities should:
19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does
everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate
to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore
significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth
through the planning system.
3. SUPPORTING A PROSPEROUS RURAL ECONOMY
28. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to
create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new
development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans
should:
•
support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and
well designed new buildings;
DECISION-TAKING
187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and
decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively
with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
2.
Local Plan
2.1.
The North Norfolk Core Strategy was adopted in September 2008 and covers
the period to 2021 (although it is expected that it will be reviewed before then).
The major policies of the Core Strategy that cover the issues considered are
(extract):
Development Committee
117
14 January 2016
POLICY SS 5
...
The rural economy and farm diversification will be supported including extensions to
existing businesses of an appropriate scale and re-use of existing buildings,
including appropriate re-use of the operational land at redundant defence
establishments.
POLICY EC 2 THE RE-USE OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
The re-use of buildings in the Countryside for non-residential purposes will be
permitted in accordance with the following:
economic uses (including holiday accommodation) must be appropriate in scale
and nature to the location.
it can be demonstrated that the building is soundly built and suitable for the
proposed use without substantial rebuilding or extension and the proposed
alterations protect or enhance the character of the building and its setting;
the proposal is in accordance with other policies seeking to protect biodiversity,
amenity and character of the area.
This approach does not prevent proper consideration being given to the optimum
viable use of Listed Buildings, and locally listed buildings, that is compatible with the
fabric, interior and settings of these buildings.
Development Committee
118
14 January 2016
Hi Sarah
Please see my responses to James queries below highlighted in red.
Best Regards
Joe Paterson Managing Director
01692 536997 • 07789
636204 • joe@anglianplant.com
Anglian Plant Ltd. Beeches Farm, Crowgate Street,
Tunstead, Norwich, Norfolk, NR12
8RF www.anglianplant.com
From: James Ashby
Sent: 17 November 2015 11:22
To: Sarah Tudhope
Subject: FW: PF/15/1024 | Continued use of agricultural land for B1 (Business), B2 (General
Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses
Sarah,
In respect to our subsequent discussions my initial concerns with the site are as follows:
I have concerns associated with the site in respect to waste and surface water management,
consequently I have been in contact with the Environment Agency for further advice and to notify
them of the situation.
In the first instance Anglia Plant are not currently operating in accordance with waste management
practices and the appropriate waste authorisations for certain activities have not been obtained.
However the EA have been in contact with the applicant to discuss further and my concerns in this
area are currently being addressed.
In respect to surface water concerns, the EA have been notified and have been in contact with the
applicant. They have informed Anglia Plant of their drainage requirements and have requested that
details are submitted with their application.
In respect to the current planning application I have the following comments:
Waste:
Given the current issues associated with waste provision on site, and the likely requirement to
remove trade effluent, I would ask that the following condition be attached:
E29 (amended)
Within one month of the date of this decision the proposed means of waste disposal shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Waste disposal shall thereafter
be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
119
14 January 2016
N52 - The applicant is advised that businesses require a Trade Waste contract to dispose of all waste
associated with commercial activities as stated in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 34.
For further advice regarding this matter can be obtained by contacting the District Council’s
Environmental Protection Team (telephone 01263 516085).
Surface Water Drainage:
The existing drainage system is currently used for the discharge of trade effluent from vehicle wash
down together with general surface water disposal and will require significant improvement to
become compliant with current regulations. The EA will be requesting drainage details as part of this
existing application; as such I would wish to attach condition E36:
E36 (amended)
Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application, within one month of the date of this
decision details of the proposed surface water disposal from the development hereby permitted shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed drainage
scheme shall then be fully implemented within 3 months the date of this approval.
Noise/Dust and Odour:
I have concerns that operations in their current form will be detrimental to amenity of an adjacent
property, as such I would request that the following condition E11 be attached and also attach the
hours of use specified below. In addition I would ask the applicant to confirm if shot blasting
activities are occurring or are likely to occur on this site? Minimal shot blasting activities have
been occurring on site although as of the end of December this will cease due to the occupier
vacating the premises. To be clear no shot blasting will occur on site from 01/01/16.
E11
Within one month of the date of this decision, full details of any ventilation, mechanical extractor
systems or any other plant and equipment to be installed as part of the approved development shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall
specify measures to control noise/dust/odour from the equipment. The approved scheme must then
be fully implemented within 3 months the date of this approval. The equipment shall be maintained
in accordance with the approved details thereafter.
Hours of Use
As understand one of the adjacent properties is owned by the applicant, however the other property
is privately owned. In view of this and in the interests of amenity I would recommend attaching the
following operating times:
Mon-Fri 7.00am-6pm, Sat 7.00am – 1pm, no operation on Sundays or bank holidays. The applicant
previously indicated that he would not be able to comply with such a condition – can you please
clarify if this is still the case and if so the reasons why? As per the supporting statement - Opening
hours
A majority of the customers served by Anglian Plant are in the construction industry
where work traditionally starts at 7 - 7.30 a.m. This means that they expect plant to
be delivered ready to start work at that time. Failure to provide a service to the
Development Committee
120
14 January 2016
expected
standard will obviously be detrimental to the success of the business.
Consequentially, the operating hours of the business can extend from 6 a.m. to 6
p.m. from Monday to Sunday including bank holidays. Not least for reasons of
staff retention and health and safety, the business would not be open during those
periods,
nor would it operate fully. However, it is occasionally necessary to work the odd
hour on a Sunday, or in the early morning or late evening. When this does happen,
every effort is made to prevent disturbance to others.
There has been a suggestion that operating hours should be limited to 7 a.m. to 6
p.m. from Monday to Friday, and 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. As explained above,
this would seriously prejudice the success of the business. The most restrictive
hours that
could be accommodated would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from Monday to Friday, and 6
a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Although all efforts would be made to avoid it, this is
likely to still require some infrequent but unavoidable work for an hour or so outside
those
times.’
Sewage Disposal:
No information has been submitted in respect to sewage disposal, given the number of staff
operating on site I assume that sanitation facilities would need to be provided, In view of this I
would request that the applicant specifies further details. Details of sanitation facilities have been
provided to Sophie Cousins of the Environment Agency, alterations in the form of a soak away
have been suggested by Sophie and agreed to install by myself.
Lighting
Due to the proximity of the site to residential premises and absence of information from the
application I would wish to add condition E32 together with informative note N28:
E32
Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
N28
The applicant/developer is advised that the lighting details referred to in condition number
PF/15/1024 should comply with the Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the
Reduction of Light Pollution For further guidance the applicant/developer is advised to contact the
District Council’s Environmental Protection Team (telephone 01263 516085).
The time provisions specified in some of the conditions are subject to agreement with you, but given
that the site is currently in breach of various regulations both planning and environmental
Development Committee
121
14 January 2016
regulations I believe the time frame on each condition to be reasonable. Let me know what you
think?
If you have any further questions regarding my comments please let me know
Thanks
James
James Ashby
Contaminated Land Officer
+441263 516372
Development Committee
122
14 January 2016
Miss S Tudhope
North Norfolk District Council
Planning Department
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
Our ref:
Your ref:
AE/2015/119850/01-L01
PF/15/1024
Date:
01 December 2015
Dear Miss S Tudhope,
CONTINUED USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR B1 (BUSINESS), B2
(GENERAL INDUSTRY) AND B8 (STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION).
BEECHES FARM, CROWGATE STREET, TUNSTEAD, NORWICH, NR12
8RF.
Thank you for your consultation on the above application received on 11
November 2015. We have reviewed the application as submitted and we wish
to raise a holding objection in the absence of an acceptable foul and surface
water drainage scheme which poses an unacceptable risk of pollution to the
water environment. Our detailed comments are below.
Foul and Surface Water Drainage
The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 states that the
planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by preventing both new and existing development from
contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely
affected by unacceptable levels water pollution.
The proposal does not include any details of the arrangements for foul and
surface water drainage, however our Environmental Management team have
had discussions with the applicant regarding drainage arrangements at the
site, so we are aware of the existing situation.
Currently clean roof rainwater and washings from vehicles all go into the same
pipe, with a homemade interceptor to discharge in a ditch. In addition the
septic tank liquid discharges into this ditch rather than through a soakaway.
The washing from vehicles is classed as trade effluent and should not be
discharged directly to surface water ditches, neither can septic tank liquid.
Development Committee
123
14 January 2016
It is an offence to discharge to a water course without consent under the
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. This is because the ditch water
will lead to main rivers and carry with it the high ammonium and phosphate
levels from the septic tank liquor, dirt, dust and oils from the vehicle which can
harm the water quality and ecology. Only clean uncontaminated water can be
discharged directly to surface water, the clean roof water from the buildings
downpipe can still be discharged to the ditch but nothing else.
Therefore the existing scheme is unacceptable as it poses an unacceptable
risk of pollution to the water environment.
Overcoming our Objection
You can overcome our holding objection by submitting an acceptable foul and
surface water drainage scheme. If this cannot be achieved we are likely to
maintain our objection to the application.
We ask to be re-consulted with the results of the drainage scheme. We will
provide you with bespoke comments within 21 days of receiving formal reconsultation.
If you are minded to approve the application contrary to this advice, we request
that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us in
line with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
We have provided further information on our position in the technical appendix
below which you should read.
Advice to Applicant – Foul and Surface Water Drainage
We recommend that you install a sealed tank to collect all the vehicle washing
effluent and have this tankered off site. All run-off collected must be sent to a
site which is authorised to take it and authorised sites will have an
Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency.
Additionally you need to alter your foul water drainage and consult a drainage
consultant to arrange for a soakaway to be installed to take your septic tank’s
liquid contents. Soakaway’s are not always suitable depending on the ground
and soil conditions so please seek advice from a drainage consultant before
undertaking works.
A soakaway used to serve a non-mains drainage system must be sited no
less than 10 metres from the nearest watercourse, not less than 10 metres
from any other foul soakaway and not less than 50 metres from the nearest
potable water supply, spring or borehole.
Environmental Permit
Please note that the granting of planning permission does not guarantee the
granting of an Environmental Permit. Upon receipt of a correctly filled in
application form we will carry out an assessment. It can take up to 4 months
before we are in a position to decide whether to grant a permit or not.
Development Committee
124
14 January 2016
We trust this advice is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Ms Louisa Johnson
Sustainable Places - Planning Advisor
Direct dial 01473 706007
Direct e-mail louisa.johnson@environment-agency.gov.uk
cc Ground-Designs Limited
Awarded to Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk Area
Development Committee
125
14 January 2016