OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 14 MARCH 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane for Mr T Field
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 January 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside Policy Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19970752 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and
alterations to form managers dwelling and two holiday units
Refused, 25 July 1997
19971198 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and
alterations to form manager's dwelling and two holiday units to replace mobile home
and two existing units
Refused, 15 Jan 1998
19980474 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and alterations to pair
of cottages
Approved, 29 May 1998
19991214 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for an existing
residential caravan
Refused, 10 May 2000
20011424 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
land for standing holiday caravan
Approved, 12 Dec 2001
20020592 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension of period during which existing
holiday caravan may be occupied
Approved, 08 July 2002
20031669 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of
two-storey dwelling
Refused, 05 Dec 2003
Development Committee
1
14 March 2013
20032117 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of
one single-storey dwelling
Approved, 17 Feb 2004
20041208 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of single-storey
dwelling
Refused, 27 Aug 2004
20050720 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved, 13 June 2005
20091022 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single storey dwelling with cellar
beneath
Refused, 22 January 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of a partially constructed dwelling with amendments to the design
to provide a two storey dwelling.
The part of the dwelling already built has been constructed using Styro blocks. The
design also incorporates photovoltaic cells, high performance glazing and water
harvesting. The external materials proposed would be a mix of natural timber
cladding and painted render with a contemporary profile sheet roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection. This is a complicated planning application and situation on a site in an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Parish Council wishes to leave this
matter with the Planning Authority.
REPRESENTATIONS
A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicant's agent is
contained in Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – Details of
Contamination condition required.
sustainable drainage system required.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – This site has a
complicated and lengthy planning history which is inextricably linked with the setting
and location of the development, set as it is within the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. Previous comments from the Landscape Section about the various proposals
on the site have centred around the prominent location of the proposed dwelling on
the small valley side, visible within the surrounding landscape to the north, west and
south west; together with the need for a sensitive and sympathetically designed
dwelling which respects and enhances the landscape setting.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy is the principal Development Management policy
which seeks to protect and enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
should be referred to in the determination of this application. An element of the
policy consideration is the need to ensure that development does not detract from the
special qualities of the AONB. Of principal importance to this location within the
AONB is the retention of the remaining areas of undeveloped, rural countryside
which separate the towns and villages along the coastal strip. This has been
identified in the Integrated Landscape Character Guidance (ILCG) adopted by the
Norfolk Coast Partnership which is supported by NNDC and corresponds with our
Development Committee
2
14 March 2013
own Landscape Character Assessment. Increasing infill development, degradation
of the quality of key views and the increasing sub-urbanisation of settlement fringe
areas are identified in the ILCG as being key forces for change. The ILCG
recommends a variety of conservation measures to maintain and enhance the quality
of the landscape in this part of the AONB, which include:
conserve and enhance the remaining areas of undeveloped countryside
between settlements which provide a setting for settlements and separation
between them,
ensure all new built development is consistent with existing settlement
pattern, density and traditional built form,
retain character and amenity by restricting building size to „like for like‟ and
not allowing subdivision of gardens for additional plots,
give priority to the conservation of key views to the countryside from within
settlements and prominent locations, such as from Beeston Bump,
Incleborough Hill, Commons and the Cromer Ridge.
Any development proposals should be sympathetic to the above guidance to ensure
that the special qualities of the AONB are retained.
Approval has been given for a single-storey dwelling on the application site.
Construction has started but the approved scheme was not adhered to and a new
proposal for a two-storey dwelling on the site is being applied for. Although the
resultant ridge heights of the approved single-storey and proposed two-storey
buildings are similar, the proposed two-storey dwelling adds significant features and
bulk to the western elevation, and a contemporary design which will impact on the
key views into and out of the AONB. It is questionable as to whether the proposed
design is concurrent with the AONB guidance outlined above. Although the
difference between the visual and landscape impact of the previously approved
single-storey dwelling and the proposed two-storey dwelling could be seen as
marginal, the Landscape Section consider that the current application does not follow
the AONB landscape character guidance and will result in an adverse impact on the
special qualities of the AONB. As a result the development does not accord with
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and should be refused.
Notwithstanding the above comments, the site is subject to an Area Tree
Preservation Order which protects all of the trees on site. An Arboricultural
Implications Assessment has been submitted with the application which categorises
the trees in terms of quality and value (non-fiscal) and determines which trees would
need to be removed to facilitate development. Three individual trees and two groups
of trees were classified as a higher value (category B), of which one of these trees
(T3 beech) was identified for removal as a result of the footprint of the new dwelling
and driveway being within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the tree. In addition to
the individual tree, a small group of hazel trees (G2) was also identified for removal
to facilitate the new driveway.
Of the trees of lesser value (category C and below), two trees will need to be
removed to achieve the visibility splay, one tree is to be reduced by 2 to 3m, and
three trees are to be removed on health and safety grounds. This results in a
reduction in tree stock of six trees and one group of trees which are proposed to be
replaced elsewhere on the site on a like for like replacement basis.
Whilst the conclusions of the Arboricultural Report are generally agreed, the removal
of T3 (beech) is seen as unnecessary. The footings of the dwelling have been in
place for several years now and it appears that the tree hasn‟t declined significantly
Development Committee
3
14 March 2013
(no evidence of crown die back) and has adapted to the root pruning caused as a
result of the building works. If development were approved it is considered that a nodig driveway construction method could overcome the issues with compaction and
the tree could be retained.
The replacement of the other trees identified for removal offer opportunity for
landscaping and screening for the dwelling, although careful consideration would be
required to ensure that any landscaping would integrate into the setting and
character of the location.
On balance, the Landscape Section considers that the application does not accord
with the Core Strategy and should be refused.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - In order to comply with Policy EN6 a condition should
be imposed that requires the proposed dwelling to achieve a Code Level 3 rating or
above.
Highway Authority - The Highways Officer is currently seeking further clarification in
relation to visibility and access construction and the proposed removal of NCC
hazard marker posts which is not considered to be acceptable. The Highways Officer
has also advised that the traffic survey submitted is not considered to be an
adequate representation of the use of Britons Lane and has requested a 7 day
permanent ATC to give a true picture of the vehicle flows and speeds. Upon receipt
and consideration of the above points a formal response will 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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Committee
4
14 March 2013
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and landscape character.
3. Design.
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
The extensive planning history regarding this site is considered to be a significant
material consideration in the determination of the current application and is explained
below.
In 2003, the Committee considered application reference 20031669 for the
„Demolition of outbuilding and erection of two-storey dwelling'. Only siting and access
were being considered.
Under the former North Norfolk Local Plan the site was located within an area
designated as Countryside, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped
Coast; this is still the case under the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. The
principal objectives of these policies have not significantly changed.
The proposal for a new residential dwelling in the Countryside policy area was
contrary to policy. In addition the proposal did not fully comply with the policy
regarding Undeveloped Coast as it had not been demonstrated that a coastal
location was required for the proposed dwelling.
However, the site contained two cottages (semi-detached), a holiday caravan, a
number of sheds and caravan used for domestic storage. There were also two
vehicular accesses, one of which is in a particularly dangerous position on the brow
of a hill. The applicant therefore offered to combine the two cottages into one to
ensure that the total number of dwellings on the site would not increase, remove the
caravans and unsightly sheds in order to improve the appearance of the site within
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which was considered as a significant gain.
A further gain was the closure of the dangerous access.
It was considered that the suggested exchange of residential uses together with the
associated site and access improvements might offset the breach of policy involved
in the application by constructing a dwelling in the countryside. However, it was not
considered that a two-storey dwelling would be appropriate because of the prominent
nature of the site.
The Committee therefore refused application 20031669 for a two-storey dwelling on
the following grounds:
"By virtue of the site's prominent location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
the Undeveloped Coast and within the designated Countryside Policy Area, it is
considered that the erection of a two-storey dwelling as proposed would have a
detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area. The
Development Committee
5
14 March 2013
proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted policies of the Local Planning
Authority."
The Committee did, however, invite without prejudice an alternative proposal for a
single-storey dwelling. This was on the basis that the applicant was still offering to
tidy up the site, improve the access and convert the two existing cottages into a
single dwelling in order to improve the appearance of the site and consequently this
part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Following this the applicant submitted outline application 20032117 for a singlestorey dwelling. The Committee approved that application as it was considered to
offer genuine improvements of the visual appearance of the site and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and improvements to highway safety. Condition 10
stated that „The dwelling hereby permitted shall be of a single storey construction
only, in the interests of the visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and Undeveloped Coast'.
A reserved matters application was submitted under reference 20041208 for a singlestorey dwelling. However, this was refused as the overall scale and bulk of the
dwelling proposed was considered to be unduly prominent in the landscape and
would require the loss of a number of trees which were considered to be of significant
amenity value. It was considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact
on the visual amenities and rural character of the area and the wider landscape of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A further application was submitted under reference 20050720 for a single-storey
dwelling, which was considered to be acceptable and approved.
However, since that approval and works commencing on site it became apparent that
the applicant was not constructing the development in accordance with the approved
plans under permission 20050720. As that application was due to expire by 21 April
2010 the applicant submitted a further planning application under application
reference 09/1022 in an attempt to regularise the work that had already been carried
out. That application was considered by the former Combined Development Control
Committee on 14 January 2010 and refused for the following reasons:
"It is considered that the overall scale, bulk and design of the proposal would result in
the construction of a dwelling that would be unsympathetic, lacking quality, visual
interest and local distinctiveness and would be unduly prominent in the landscape
and which would have a significantly detrimental impact on the special qualities of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the open coastal character of the
Undeveloped Coast.
Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the
requirements of Policy EN4 and would not preserve or enhance the character and
quality of the area.
The proposal is considered to be contrary to adopted Development Plan policies and
the material considerations put forward by the applicant are considered to be of
insufficient weight to justify approval when balanced against the material harm that
would arise as a result of the development, as proposed."
It was also resolved that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
commence enforcement proceedings relating to the unauthorised structure for the
Development Committee
6
14 March 2013
same reasons as the refusal of the planning application with the period for
compliance to be six months from the effective date of the enforcement notice.
The applicant appealed the enforcement notice, but the appeal was dismissed on 11
January 2011. The Inspector allowed against a longer period of compliance of 12
months, given the applicant's personal circumstances. Planning application 05/0270
has since expired so there is no longer an extant permission in place. Following the
expiry of the compliance period with the Inspector‟s decision the applicant and his
agent have been in discussions with Officers regarding the submission of a further
planning application.
Those discussions have centred around the applicant being in a position to offer the
same gains as offered on the original application and for the proposed dwelling to be
a single storey construction. Whilst the erection of a dwelling in this location is
contrary to policy this was also the case under the original application and Local Plan
policies. At that time the Development Control Committee (West) considered that the
gains being offered to improve the appearance of the site in the AONB were
sufficient to warrant a departure from policy. It is not considered that this position has
altered providing the applicant is still able to offer the same gains as previously.
However, the plans submitted under the current application (12/1157) are for a two
storey dwelling which the Development Committee and Officers have consistently
advised would not be acceptable in this location. Various designs have been
submitted over the years and whilst the current scheme is considered to be an
improvement on previous schemes, it is nevertheless still a two storey dwelling.
Officers have always maintained that the dwelling as approved under 05/0720 should
have been built where the current ground floor has been constructed with the roof of
the proposed dwelling constructed immediately above. However, the applicant does
not agree with this and this is not what has been constructed on site. Following the
approval of application 05/720 for a conventional single storey dwelling subsequent
applications have included accommodation over two floors creating a two storey
dwelling. The applicant has previously advised that in order to have a flat and
suitable foundation for the dwelling to be constructed that excavation of soil was
required. Officers accept that this is a sloping site, which was clearly evident from
photographs taken before any work commenced on the site. The land to the east is
higher than that to the west and the ground was slightly uneven in places at the lower
level. Clearly some excavation of soil was required to allow for the dwelling as
approved under 05/0720 to be constructed but it is not considered that the
excavation and change in levels would have been so great to require the need for an
additional floor to be added to the scheme, which itself required planning permission.
The principal issues for consideration are whether this new scheme can offer the
same gains as previously offered so as to enable an exception to policy to be
applied; whether the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the
special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting; whether it
would have a significant detrimental impact to the open coastal character; whether
the design is of high quality, having regard to local context; and whether it preserves
or enhances the character and quality of the area.
The previously approved dwelling under 05/0720 was a fairly conventional bungalow
with a hipped roof, constructed in brick with clay pantiles. The height of that dwelling
from the ground levels shown on the approved plan to the ridge was approximately
6.3m on the western elevation and some 3.5m to the eaves at its highest point.
Ridge height was approximately 5.3m on the eastern elevation and eaves height
Development Committee
7
14 March 2013
some 2.5m. The difference of 1m was due to the sloping ground levels across the
site east to west. However, this design was for a single-storey dwelling.
The plans submitted under the current application show that the proposed dwelling,
when measured from the ground level to the highest point, would be approximately
7.4m on the western elevation. The eaves height is shown to be approximately 3.5m.
On the eastern elevation the ground level to the highest point of the proposed
dwelling is shown to be approximately 5m. This difference in heights is due to the fact
that the ground level to the east is significantly higher than that to the west, and as a
result of this when viewed from the east (Britons Lane) the proposed dwelling has the
appearance of a single storey dwelling.
The agent has submitted a plan which shows sections across the site north to south,
and east to west to indicate different roof options and their scale. It shows three
alternative designs. The first is what the agent refers to as the single storey dwelling
as approved under 05/0720. However, whilst the design may be correct it is not
shown at the approved ground level. The second is what the agent refers to as the
existing structure with a conventional pantile roof, again Officers would question
whether this is the only other alternative way to roof the existing structure to create a
single storey dwelling. The third is the proposed scheme under this current
application (12/1157). Whilst the proposed scheme indicates that the ridge height is
lower than the two alternatives they are all still proposing a two storey dwelling. If the
approved bungalow had been constructed in accordance with the approved plans it
would be approximately 3m lower in height compared with what is shown on the
agent's 'roof option' plan, and approximately 2m lower in height than the proposed
scheme. It is not therefore considered that is has been demonstrated that the
proposed dwelling would have less visual impact in the Undeveloped Coast, Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and landscape than that previously approved, as
suggested by the agent.
The Committee will note the objection of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager on landscape grounds and that it is considered that the proposed dwelling
adds significant features and bulk particularly to the western elevation which would
impact upon key views into and out of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Nor is
it considered to follow the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape character
guidance given in the consultation response. In addition the Landscape Officer has
advised that one of the trees proposed for removal, T3, a Beech tree, is not
necessary.
Officers remain of the opinion that the overall scale and bulk of this building in this
prominent elevated location would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural
character and visual amenities of the area, Undeveloped Coast and special qualities
and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In addition to this, whilst the other planning gains previously identified are again
offered by the agent it would now appear from the agent‟s Design and Access
Statement that the stopping up of one of the vehicular access points to the site,
which was considered previously as a gain, is no longer being offered and that the
applicant is seeking to retain this vehicular access. The Highway Authority has raised
concerns in relation to this matter and are not satisfied with the information currently
submitted by the agent in terms of visibility and traffic movements. At the time of
writing this report further clarification on these matters was being sought from the
agent. The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting on these points.
Development Committee
8
14 March 2013
The applicant is proposing to make the dwelling as efficient as possible in terms of
resource consumption and energy use through the construction of the dwelling with
highly thermally efficient styro stone blocks, incorporation of photovoltaic cells, high
performance glazing and water harvesting to mitigate the resource consumption of
the dwelling. A sustainable drainage system is also proposed. The agent has also
advised in the Design and Access Statement that the relatively large areas of land to
the west can be used to generate heat and power from ground and/ or air source
heat pumps, store water and recyclable materials. The Sustainability Co-ordinator
has advised that the proposal does not currently comply with Policy EN6, but a
condition which requires the dwelling to be constructed to achieve a Code Level 3
rating or above would be acceptable.
The agent has made reference to particular paragraphs of the NPPF that he
considers relevant to this proposal in the Design and Access Statement; with
particular reference to sustainable development. Whilst the NPPF is a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications the North Norfolk Core
Strategy remains the District Council's adopted Development Plan. It is in this case
considered that the proposal is contrary to the policies contained in the Core Strategy
and the guidance in the NPPF does not outweigh the strategic policy objection. The
agent also refers to paragraph 61 of the NPPF which states that "Planning policies
and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes
and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated
requirements to confirm to certain development forms or styles"; this is not at issue. It
is considered that it is the scale and impact of the development in this location which
are not acceptable. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states that " decisions should
address....the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic
environment". It is not considered that the scheme as submitted would successfully
integrate the dwelling into the landscape. Paragraph 114 of the NPPF states that
Local Planning Authorities should "maintain the character of the undeveloped coast,
protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes", and paragraph 115 states that
"great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty".
This proposal is considered to be unacceptable for the reasons given above and any
further reasons for refusal which may be forthcoming from the Highway Authority.
The proposal is therefore not in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the following grounds and any other reasons given by the Highway
Authority:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast
Policy EN 4: Design
It is considered that the overall scale, bulk and design of the proposal would result in
the construction of a dwelling that would be unsympathetic and unduly prominent in
the landscape, which would have a significantly detrimental impact on the special
Development Committee
9
14 March 2013
qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the open coastal character of
the Undeveloped Coast.
Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 and would not preserve or enhance the character and
quality of the area.
In addition it would involve the unnecessary loss of a tree of significant amenity value
which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
The proposal is considered to be contrary to adopted Development Plan policies and
the material considerations put forward by the applicant are considered to be of
insufficient weight to justify approval when balanced against the material harm that
would arise as a result of the development, as proposed.
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/12/1224 - Erection of replacement workshops and change of
use of area of land to domestic garden; Stratton Long Marine, Westgate Street
for Mr P Long
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 January 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Conservation Area
Flood Zones 2 and 3
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of replacement workshops and change of use of area of land to
domestic garden.
The floorspace of the proposed workshops is approximately 346sqm. The materials
proposed are brick plinth and timber shiplap boarding to the walls, timber joinery and
fibre cement corrugated roof sheets.
Amended plans have been received which indicate the ground level to the south east
of the site being lowered by some 0.45m, the roof pitch being reduced to 30 degrees
and overall ridge height being reduced from 4.5m to 4.2m, a hipped roof on the
western elevation of the north western end of the proposed building and removal of
the internal walls.
The area of land to which the change of use refers to measures approximately 11m x
13m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object due to concerns of the possibility of up to 8 cars and maybe delivery vans
having to use this extremely narrow entrance and exit point to what is already a
difficult highway location in the village. We feel that this added traffic pressure could
Development Committee
10
14 March 2013
be detrimental to the safety of all users both motorists and pedestrians.
Further comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support has been received from a local resident.
Twelve letters of objection have been received from local residents, two from the
same objector and one on behalf of 17 residents of No's 6 - 22 The Pastures which
forms a residents association. Three letters commenting on the application have also
been received. The points of objection and concern are as follows:
1. Height and bulk of development dominating
2. Obstruction of views
3. Out of character compared to existing boat yard
4. Four units may result in increased noise and traffic on an already congested
Westgate Street
5. Narrow and poor access
6. Proposal increases the developed area of site
7. Loss of fruit trees
8. Materials out of keeping with Conservation Area
9. Impact upon amenities of occupiers of The Pastures
9. Creating a small industrial estate
10. Not appropriate development for centre of a conservation village
11. Increase in traffic
12. Increase in congestion
13. Highway safety
14. Unsuitable development for area
15. Loss of view
16. Concerns over pollution
17. Out of keeping with village
18. Unsightly buildings
19. Noise pollution
20. Positioned too close to boundary with The Pastures
21. Any use creating noise and odour should not be allowed
A letter accompanying the amended plans has submitted by the agent clarifying that
there are a number of separate units currently on the site, the majority of which have
been in position for in excess of 40 years and are past economic repair. They are
randomly spaced over the site area with approximately half the units being used for
storage, the other half as workshops in which activities including woodworking,
engine maintenance and glass fibre moulding all associated with boat repair works
are carried out. The present application seeks to replace the old units in a more
logical new build scheme. The proposals having the same footprint as the present
units but the buildings set out so as to make better use of the site. As is the case with
the present units approximately half of the floor area has been designated for
storage, the remainder being as workshop area. It is not intended that the vehicular
use of the site will be increased from that as currently exists. The roof pitch has been
lowered to 30 degrees and a hipped end introduced to the north west corner. Spot
levels have been taken over the site, although it is more difficult to obtain a true
picture until the present units are removed. However, from the information currently
to hand it would seem possible to reduce the site levels at the east side by
approximately 450mm. Upon the removal of the present units a more detailed
levelling exercise will be carried out.
Development Committee
11
14 March 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - On the
basis that the existing workshops are not of any particular architectural or historic
merit, there need be no Conservation objections to their demolition.
In terms of the proposals submitted, they obviously involve replacing the existing
disparate collection of buildings with a more coherent group of workshops. Although
appearing to cover a greater proportion of the site, the gains to be had from the
consistent treatment should more than offset this increase in floorspace. In any case,
the new build would be a relatively low-key affair which, although visible from the
open grassland to the south, would not be especially prominent from outside the site.
In terms of detail, the buildings largely take care of themselves and are fairly simple,
functional structures. Whilst it could be argued that the window proportions unduly
emphasise the horizontality of the block, this is not considered to be a sustainable
ground for a design objection.
Therefore, with suitable recessive colours for the roofing sheets and the boarding,
the replacement buildings should not have a harmful impact on the appearance or
character of the Blakeney Conservation Area. Equally, with sufficient separation
distance being maintained to the Grade II Listed cottages to the west, there would
also be no detriment to the setting of these heritage assets.
The change of use of the small piece of land to a garden raises no obvious
Conservation & Design concerns.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
a condition requiring the submission and approval of a full Arboricultural Method
Statement and landscaping plan prior to commencement.
Environmental Health - No objections subject to conditions in relation to the
submission and approval of details of any extraction and ventilation, plant and
machinery.
Highway Authority - Based on the information currently submitted the Highway
Authority has placed a holding objection to the application on the grounds of
intensification of use of a substandard access being detrimental to highway safety. It
is considered that the application as submitted would generate a significant increase
in traffic compared to that currently generated by this dilapidated site. Informal advice
stated that " 'The proposed access suffers from poor visibility and cannot meet
modern safety standards. In the circumstances I would expect to raise an objection
against any proposal that seeks to intensify vehicle movements at this point on safety
grounds. Whilst I accept several buildings already exist on site, I would point out they
are somewhat dilapidated and the associated traffic generation is likely to be
minimal. Any application will need to be accompanied by a Transport Statement
evidencing the existing and proposed vehicular activity."
Comments on further information and amended plans from the agent are currently
awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
12
14 March 2013
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. The principle of the development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Highway safety
5. Impact on trees
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application following deferral at a previous
meeting in order for a site visit to take place.
Despite the site's central location within Blakeney and close proximity to residential
properties to the east, west and north, the site is located within an area designated
as an Employment Area in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a
location only employment generating development proposals will be permitted. These
include Use Classes B1 (Business and Light Industrial), B2 (General Industrial) and
B8 (Storage and Distribution).
The site and existing buildings are used as a boat repair yard which falls under a B2
(General Industrial) use. This means that any other use which falls within the B2
category could use this site without requiring the need to submit a planning
application. Under the Use Class Order 2012 it would also be possible for a B1 use
to be permitted without planning permission and a B8 use subject to any buildings
not exceeding 235sqm.
The designation of this land as an Employment Area reflects, in planning terms, the
historic commercial use of this site. Whilst such a designation and use are generally
Development Committee
13
14 March 2013
found on industrial estates and sites more remote from residential properties this
does not alter the fact that there can be no policy objection to a general industrial use
of this site.
In view of the close proximity of this site to residential properties the Environmental
Protection Officer has been consulted. No objections have been raised, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions on any approval in relation to extractor and
ventilation systems not being installed unless a scheme for noise and odour has first
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, as well as
details of any plant or machinery to be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to installation.
Noise, odour and pollution are understandably included as objections from
neighbouring residents in relation to this development. However, the proposed
conditions would allow the Local Planning Authority to retain control over any
potential noise and odour omitted from the site by requiring that appropriate
installations are in place so as not to have a significant detrimental impact on the
amenities of the adjoining residents. However, it should be noted that any B2 use
could lawfully operate from this site at present without any restrictions in place. Any
subsequent concerns of local residents in relation to noise, odour and pollution would
need to be reported to the Environmental Protection Team who would then be able to
investigate any nuisance under Environmental Health legislation.
Objections have also been received from local residents in relation to the scale,
layout and materials proposed for the replacement building. Currently there are six
timber buildings on the site of various sizes, the largest of which is located to the
north east corner of the site. The buildings are not in particularly good condition
hence the submission of this application. Instead of replacing each of the existing
buildings individually which are dotted all over the site the proposal is to have one 'U'
shaped building to better utilise the site. It would run along the entire length of the
northern and eastern boundaries at some 27m and 31m in length. The return along
the southern boundary would be approximately 16m in length. The ground levels
differ across the site with the land being higher to the south east and lower to the
north west.
The agent has indicated on the amended plans that the ground level to the highest
point of the site to the south east can be lowered by some 450mm to create a more
level surface along the eastern and southern parts of the site. The ground level to the
north of the site slopes downwards the further west it goes and this is reflected in the
design of the building which shows a stepped ridge between the eastern and
northern parts of the building. The amended plans show that the building would
measure approximately 4.2m in height from the floor level to the ridge, along the
southern and eastern boundaries. To the north the ridge height from the floor level to
the ridge would remain approximately 4.2m but the overall height from the ground to
the ridge at the very western end of the northern block would be approximately 4.5m.
The application form states that the existing buildings on the site have a total
combined floorspace of approximately 341m². The submitted plans would indicate
this to be slightly higher at 370m². However, the plans show the proposed building
would have an internal floorspace of approximately 346m².
As a result of the amendments, due to the differing ground levels, and since the roof
would slope away from the dwellings at The Pastures, and that the proposed building
would also be 2m away from the eastern boundary it is considered that the scale,
layout and relationship with the neighbouring properties would be acceptable and
would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the
Development Committee
14
14 March 2013
occupiers.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection to this application. It is not considered that the building would be
unduly prominent from outside of the site and that recessive colours for the external
materials would not have a harmful impact upon the appearance and character of the
Blakeney Conservation Area. Nor is it considered that the proposal would be of
significant detriment to the Grade II listed cottages to the west of the site given the
separation distance. No objections have been received on landscape grounds
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in relation to landscaping and the
submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement. It is not therefore considered that
the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area, character and setting of listed buildings or on
the landscape of the area.
Whilst the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty this is the
same for the whole of Blakeney. The site is not in an isolated location and is
bordered by development on three sides. There are existing buildings on the site and
it is not therefore considered that the proposal would have any significant impact on
the special qualities or setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Highway Authority has submitted a holding objection to this development. This
objection is in relation to the intensification of use of a substandard access being
detrimental to highway safety. The plans as originally submitted indicated that the
proposed building would be divided into four separate units. Clarification has been
sought from the agent as to how the building is intended to be used. The agent has
advised that half the building would be used for workshops and the other half for
storage associated with the boat repair works carried out at the site. This is no
different from the current use. The agent has therefore advised that it is not intended
that the vehicular use of the site be increased from that which currently exists. The
amended plans show that the internal walls separating the building into four separate
units on the original plans have now been removed to create one building. At the time
of writing this report further comments from the Highway Authority on the amended
details were awaited. The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting on this
matter. However, given the long standing use of the site as a B2 (General Industrial)
boat repair yard there would not be any restrictions in place that would limit the
number of B2 use premises that could be run from this site in the existing buildings. It
is therefore considered that the existing buildings on the site could be used by
separate businesses and intensifying the use of the access and that this would be
outside the control of the Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority.
This application also includes the change of use of part of the Employment Area to
garden for the adjoining property, which is in the ownership of the applicant. The
piece of land in question measures approximately 11m x 13m. Whilst Policy SS5 only
permits the use of Employment Areas for employment generating purposes the piece
of land in question is small in scale. It is not therefore considered that the change of
use of this land to garden would have a significant impact on the use of the
Employment Area or would significantly limit any future use of this area which is
already restricted by the limited access into the site. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has raised no objection and an new brick and flint wall to match
the existing boundary walls would be constructed to enclose the garden area. It is not
considered that this would have any significant impact on the privacy or amenities of
the neighbouring residential properties. It is therefore considered that on balance this
part of the proposal is acceptable.
Development Committee
15
14 March 2013
In conclusion the designation of the site as an Employment Area is a primary
consideration in the determination of this application. The replacement of the
buildings for a B2 use as shown on the amended plans is considered to be
acceptable, as is the change of use of the land to domestic garden for the reasons
explained above. The NPPF is supportive of such proposals as is the Council's
corporate objective of supporting growth and local business.
Subject to the conditions requested by Environmental Health it is not considered that
the proposal would have a significant detriment impact upon the residential amenities
of the neighbouring dwellings. Subject to no objections from the Highway Authority
the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections following
reconsultation and readvertisement of the amended plans, and the imposition
of appropriate conditions including extraction and ventilation, plant and
machinery, Arboricultural Method Statement, landscaping, ground levels,
materials, and any as may be required by the Highway Authority.
3.
HOLT - PF/12/1164 - Change of use from A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) and two
residential flats, conversion of barn to two dwellings and erection of two one
and a half storey dwellings; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for Capricorn
Estates Partnership
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 December 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use of the ground floor on the main Grade II listed building fronting
Station Road, from Use Class A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) having a floor area in
the region of 90 sq. metres and the conversion of the first and second floors to two
flats. Each flat would have two bedrooms with the smallest flat having a floor area of
approximately 64 sq. metres whilst the other flat would have a floor area of some 87
sq. metres.
The former barn linked to rear of the main building, which forms the western
boundary of the site would be converted from its current use as a kitchen and function
room, in connection with the public house, to two, one-and-half storey dwellings.
Each unit of accommodation would have two bedrooms and a total floor area of
approximately 89 sq. metres.
In addition, the scheme would involve the demolition of an outbuilding which is
attached to the southern gable end of the barn and the erection of a further one and
half storey extension. This building would have similar proportions and detailing to the
existing barn and provide for a three bedroom unit of accommodation having a total
Development Committee
16
14 March 2013
floor area in the region of 120 sq. metres and a further two bedroom unit having a
floor area of approximately 91 sq. metres.
Access to the site would be via the existing entrance off Station Road and there
would be nine parking spaces to the rear of the site adjacent to the eastern boundary
wall, two of which would be allocated to the retail unit and the remaining seven for
use by the occupiers of the dwellings. In addition, the four units to the rear of the main
Listed Building would each have a private amenity space, which would be separated
from the car parking area by a new hedgerow, into which would be set a bin storage
area for each dwelling.
Amended plans have been received showing alterations to the internal layout and a
reduction in the number and size of rooflights, the allocation of parking spaces,
together with minor changes relating to drainage, means of escape and fire safety
issues.
It is intended that the accompanying listed building consent application (LA/12/1165)
will be determined under delegated powers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds that whilst there are other licensed
premises in the town these are not traditional public houses but restaurants. Since
the public house has been sold by Punch Taverns there is clear evidence that it is
making a profit. Therefore the viability test to retain the premises as a pub can be
proved. The development would result in the loss of the premises as an important
local facility and service to our community.
The development to the rear is considered to be overdevelopment of the town centre
and would add to the existing problems which the town has of parking and access
onto the highway around the Market Place. The proposed shops are just outside the
defined Primary Shopping Area of the town centre.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fifty four letters of objection have been received, thirteen of which are a duplicate
letter signed and addressed by individual objectors, and further six duplicate letters
individually signed and addressed by members of the ladies darts team, which raise
the following concerns (summarised):1. The proposal will result in the loss of the last original local public house in Holt
that doesn‟t have to rely on bed and breakfast or three course meals to survive.
2. The public house currently has ladies and men‟s darts teams and a pool team
and holds charity fund raising nights that support local communities, all of which
would be lost.
3. If the plans are past it would destroy many, many years of local history.
4. The public house is a valued part of our society and is the only true local public
house in Holt.
5. We have enough boutiques and expensive holiday lets whilst traffic and parking
are a real problem.
6. At this time Holt only has two public houses.
7. Holt already has some empty shops and we should be looking to find occupiers
for them rather than increasing capacity.
8. Paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that
planning decisions guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and
Development Committee
17
14 March 2013
services such as public house, particularly where this would reduce the
communities ability to meet its day to day needs.
9. The Railway Tavern is essential in enabling the local community to meet their
social needs.
10. The closure of the Railway Tavern would restrict the choice of the ordinary
drinking man and woman.
11. The public house is a viable business which is not losing money.
12. How can NNDC turn down an application to convert the Hare and Hounds at
Hempstead yet approve this application?
13. Perhaps it is poor management that has led to a decline in trade rather than a
reflection of the premises which are at the heart of the bustling town of Holt.
14. Poor vehicular access and little parking provision.
15. In the right hands and with the right marketing the Railway Tavern can be viable.
16. Support for the Railway Tavern would demonstrate that the Local Planning
Authority truly supports the localism agenda.
17.The proposed housing and shops does not fit in with the character of the town
centre.
An objection has also been received from Holt Chamber of Trade who suggests that
the site is not suitable for housing and should be used for commercial development
and could easily accommodate a small hotel. Also that the Holt Vision and LDF point
to the need to protect and enhance the commercial offer of the town centre. In
addition, they do not accept the contention that the public house is not viable and
suggest that the façade of the listed building is not suitable for an A1 use.
Summary of information submitted by the applicants:
Information prepared by Everard Cole submitted as part of the application includes a
summary of the business over the past six years, which has been provided by the
previous owners, Punch Taverns. This indicates that since 2006 there has been a
50% fall in turnover and this has now dwindled to an unsustainable level. This decline
is considered to be due in part to the smoking ban, supermarket alcohol sales,
increased duty on licensed sales and the severe recession. In addition, it is
suggested that there has been a change in drinking habits which favour food
orientated pubs.
In 2008/09 the premises were marketed on a leasehold basis with apparent little
interest, leading to the public house being leased on a relatively short term lease to
the current landlords. A letter from the landlords to the Local Planning Authority
states that trading has been more difficult than anticipated and turnover has dropped
from 2009 through 2011. As a result, Punch Taverns granted a 20% concession on
the rent. In addition, due to poor trading performance, following an appeal in February
2011, the Business Rates of the property were reduced by £3,500. The letter also
indicates that at various times they informed Punch Taverns that repairs were needed
to the roof and chimney of the building, but these have not been undertaken.
A snapshot of the trading reality of the business in the viability assessment indicates
that based on declining annual wet turnover, staff wages rates, heating, lighting and
other variables the net profit of the Railway Tavern would be no more than £20,000
before rent. Whilst a letter from the applicant indicates that at the present time repairs
in the region of £65 -£70K + VAT are required to maintain the buildings fabric, which
is equivalent to 3-4 years' worth of rent and the building will then require over half of
the rent to be paid in annual maintenance, which it is suggested is clearly not
sustainable.
Development Committee
18
14 March 2013
This view is supported by Everard Cole in their assessment who point to the fact that
in April 2012 they undertook a full and open marketing campaign which included
advertisements in the press and trade magazines, on their web site and the erection
of for sale boards. In addition, there were direct mailings to licensed operators. Whilst
6 viewings took place none of the prospective purchases were interested in the
property for continued licensed use. The feedback generally being that due to the
disjointed layout the premises were not conducive for a viable modern pub offering
food and that significant investment would be required to install commercial kitchen
and link the rear building, which could be difficult given the listed status of the
premises.
The assessment also points to the fact that Holt also benefits from a number of other
places to eat and drink including The Feathers and the King‟s Head public house,
both of which trade well and hold a prominent position along with several other
licensed premises. It is therefore suggested that the town has ample establishments
to eat and drink, which has contributed to the decline of the Railway Tavern.
The tenant of the Railway Tavern has provided an unaudited Income and Expenditure
statement which indicates that during the period 1 August 2012 to 31 January 2013
after stock purchases and other expenditure including rent, rates, repairs and
renewals the excess of income over expenditure was just over £14,000. This
includes confidential financial information and is attached as exempt Appendix 3.
A further letter has been received from the applicant who points to the fact that the
Kings Head on High Street, has all the facilities that would be expected of a traditional
pub, namely;
A public bar
A more formal, quiet bar
Pool table
Darts board
Evidence of men‟s and women‟s darts team
Slot machines
Covered outdoor smoking facilities
With this in mind he suggests that the Railway Tavern is clearly not „the last of its
kind‟ in the town and Policy CT3 does not, therefore, apply.
In respect of the unaudited financial statements received from the tenant of the
Railway Tavern, the applicant has raised a number of issues which again due their
confidential financial content are included in exempt Appendix 3.
However the applicant believes that the annualized gross profit is not sustainable as it
has not been over a realistic period as there have been campaigns to support the pub
because of the threat of closure and trade must have been correspondingly higher
than can be expected over the longer term.
Also having compared the figures to the British Beer & Pub Association Guidelines,
several cost categories appear low, including wages and cleaning, and there are
omissions such as bank charges and stocktaking costs. The applicant suggests that
an alternative tenant would be unlikely to make the same assumptions.
Furthermore the personal drawings shown in the accounts would appear to be almost
exactly at the minimum level that the courts have deemed an operator would require.
Development Committee
19
14 March 2013
Therefore whilst the landlord believes that he can afford to pay the annual rent the
element which is missing is the building repairs. The landlord has made no
suggestion as to how these should be funded.
The applicant suggests that the Listed building needs in the region of £100k spent on
the repair backlog – roof replacement, chimney repairs and leaning rear wall
estimated at £65-70k plus significant general repairs and re-pointing, redecoration.
The repair backlog is equivalent to around 4½ years‟ rent. If they borrowed this
money, they are being asked to accept a situation with no rent for a period of over 5
years as it is repaid. Annual maintenance costs of the building over the long term are
also estimated at £10-15k including a sinking fund for major works. The net rent over
the long term would therefore be a maximum of around £10k per annum if the pub
turnover is maintained, which they do not believe it will be.
As far as the possibility of retaining the public house within a scheme that converts
the rear buildings and accommodation above to residential, the applicant believes it
may be difficult to resolve some of practical issues relating to mixing a pub with
residential in a listed building. Furthermore, having discussed this with their
residential agency advisors, they felt that it would not only have a negative impact on
financial viability, but were much more categoric, and stated that they believed “the
residential would be unsaleable”. The applicant has therefore indicated that
regretfully they that do not believe there is a viable compromise scheme that retains
the pub, and as such wish to continue with the existing application.
In response to the comments received from the applicant the tenant of the Railway
Tavern has made further comments and expanded upon the financial figures, which
again due to their confidential financial nature are included in exempt Appendix 3.
However the tenant indicates that patrons of the Railway Tavern have stated that the
Kings Head does not have a dart board and there is no “evidence” of a men‟s and
women‟s darts team. Furthermore, the pool team folded two seasons ago due to lack
of support. The trade of The Kings Head and every other licensed premise in Holt
revolves around food. The Kings Head even calls itself “a steak bar”. There is not
another pub like the Railway Tavern, it is truly the last of its kind and Policy CT3 most
certainly does apply. In addition, both parties now appear to agree that the public
house is profitable; however the debate appears to be how profitable. In conclusion,
the tenant reiterates that the pub is viable, and there is no reason to assume that
trade is going to diminish, and now being able to trade free of tie monies this will
allow the tenants to sponsor other events which in turn will generate more trade. The
number of objections to this application show that the Railway Tavern is truly a
community pub, that it provides facilities and an ambiance that exists nowhere else in
Holt and that the bar deserves to be allowed to remain in existence, perhaps there is
scope for alterations to other parts of the property.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Due to the current use of the site and the potential level
of patronage it is considered that the proposed mixed use development provides an
acceptable reuse of these historic buildings with a comparable level of traffic. In
addition, the amended plan shows parking in accordance with the requirements
previously requested.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) – The amended plans
have addressed all previous built environment concerns, and as such there are no
longer any sustainable objections to this application.
Building Control - No objection to the amended plans.
Development Committee
20
14 March 2013
Environmental Health - No objection to the amended plans.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Planning Policy Manager - Considers that whilst the loss of a public house in Holt
town centre is regrettable. As this is not the only such facility in the area and the
scheme would include the use of the ground floor for retail purposes the proposal
would comply with Policies SS5 and CT3 of the Core Strategy.
English Heritage - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 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 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Acceptability of conversion and extension of the existing premises.
3. Impact on the Listed Building and setting of the Conservation Area.
4. Provision of amenities and impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Parking and highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 10 January 2013 in
order to allow Officers time to seek further information from the landlord of the
Railway Tavern in respect of the viability of the public house.
.
Development Committee
21
14 March 2013
The site is located with the Town Centre of Holt, a Principal Settlement as defined by
the adopted Core Strategy and is also within the Primary Shopping Area and
Conservation Area, whilst the building itself is listed Grade II. Core Strategy Policies
SS5, EN4, EN8, CT3 and CT6 are considered to be relevant in this case.
Policy SS5 states that within town centres a broad range of shopping, commercial,
cultural and other uses will be supported. Residential proposals will be permitted
where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses
including, retail, leisure, entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism which are
located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. In addition, proposals should also
have regard to the integration of public transport in town centres and seek to provide
pedestrian friendly environments.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition, proposals should
not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals including alterations and extensions,
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in this case
the Grade II Listed Building and wider Holt Conservation Area.
Policy CT3 states that development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or
premises currently, or last used for, important local facilities and services, including
public houses will not be permitted unless:
alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will
be provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months.
Policy CT6 requires the provision of adequate car parking in accordance with the
Council‟s Parking Standards.
In terms of the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Annex 1 states
that the policies in Local Plans should not be considered out-of-date simply because
they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. Furthermore for a period
12 months from the day of publication, decision makers may continue to give full
weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited conflict with
this framework. In terms of ensuring the vitality of town centres the NPPF states that
the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas be defined based on clear
definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres and set policies
that make clear which uses will be permitted in such location. Whilst the NPPF
recognises that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the
vitality of centres the Framework also states that it is important that the needs for
retail, leisure, office and other main town centre users are met in full and are not
compromised by limited site availability. In addition, it suggests that planning policies
and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and
services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its dayto-day needs.
Development Committee
22
14 March 2013
Based on the information provided, both as part of the original submission and which
has been received from the tenant and applicant, whilst it has been demonstrated
that at the present time the public house is making a small profit this does not allow
for the repair costs to the Listed Building. It is clear that the premises are currently in
a poor state of repair and that given the level of the upgrading required there is little
prospect of the retention of the public house without significant investment. This was
demonstrated in the marketing exercise which took place in the summer of 2011.
Furthermore there are other public houses within Holt town centre together with other
licensed premises which provide alternative provision of equivalent or better quality. It
is therefore considered that although the loss of this local facility is regrettable the
application complies with both requirements of Core Strategy Policy CT3 and the
National Planning Policy Framework, even though Policy CT3 only requires one of
the tests to be satisfied.
Furthermore, under the Use Classes Act 2010 a change of use of Public House, Use
Class A3 (Drinking Establishment) to A1 (Shops) is a permitted change for which
planning permission is not required. As such, the applicant would be within his rights
to close the public house and reopen it as retail premises without the need for
planning permission.
As far as the conversion and extension of the building is concerned the primary
alterations to the main listed building would involve internal alterations in order to
provide for the retail unit at ground floor and the two flats above. Externally the only
changes to the front elevation, facing Station Road, would involve the reinstatement
of a door in place of an existing window opening and replacing the existing leaded
lights to the windows with plain glass. The remaining works would be those of repair.
To the rear of the main building the alterations to the barn would involve lowering the
sills of the four existing east facing openings so as to provide an entrance and light to
the two units at ground floor and the insertion of high level rooflights to each roof
slope in order to light the first floor.
In addition, the scheme would involve the demolition of the outbuilding which is
attached to the southern gable end of the barn and the erection of a one and half
storey extension containing two further units of accommodation. This building, which
would be of clay pantiles and stock bricks would have similar proportions and
detailing to the existing barn, with the ground floor being lit by large openings to the
eastern elevation, whilst the upper floor would be lit by high level rooflights to each
roof slopes.
Overall it is considered that the scheme of conversion of the existing building would
preserve the character and appearance of the main Listed Building and the barn to
the rear. The proposed extension would, in terms of its scale and massing, be in
keeping with the host building and in context with the surrounding area would
enhance the appearance of this part of the Holt Conservation Area. This view is
supported by the Council‟s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, considers that the scheme as
amended has addressed all previous built environment concerns.
As far as the provision of private amenity space and the potential impact on
neighbouring properties is concerned, it is considered that the scheme would accord
with the requirements of the North Norfolk Design Guide in that the four dwellings
would each have adequate private amenity space and there would be bin storage
provision for each dwelling, plus the retail unit. In addition, as it is the intention that
Development Committee
23
14 March 2013
the upper floors of the new dwellings would be lit by means of high level rooflights this
would preclude any potential overlooking of adjoining properties.
In respect of the access and car parking arrangements at the present time the public
house car park is served by a narrow access between the eastern gable end of the
premises and Nos. 4 and 6 Station Road and provides informal parking for
approximately 20 vehicles. The scheme as proposed would utilise the same access
and there would be nine parking spaces to the rear of the site adjacent to the eastern
boundary wall, two of which would be allocated to the retail unit and the remaining
seven for use by the occupiers of the dwellings.
Based on the parking standards contained in the Core Strategy a minimum of twelve
spaces would be required for the 6 dwellings whilst a further five parking space would
be required for customers and staff in respect of the retail unit. Based on these
standards there would be a shortfall of eight spaces but the Core Strategy makes
provision within Conservation Area for a reduction in the parking requirements for
residential properties where there are acceptable levels of public transport, which is
the case in Holt. In respect of the lack of parking for customers of the retail unit this
would be no different from the majority of other premises within Holt town centre.
Therefore, given the existing use of the site and the fact the Highway Authority has
raised no objection to the access arrangements and car parking provision it is not
considered that refusal of the application would be justified on these grounds.
In summary, it is considered that applicant has provided sufficient justification to
demonstrate that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months; moreover it is considered that there is alternative provision of equivalent or
better quality available in the town centre. In respect of the actual scheme of
conversion and extension this is considered to preserve the character and
appearance of the listed building and wider Conservation Area. Furthermore there
would be adequate amenities to serve the needs of the development and there would
no adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In respect of the
access and car parking facilities although there would be a shortfall in parking
provision, given the town centre location and the adequate provision of public
transport links this is not considered to be sufficient justification to warrant refusal of
the application.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
HORNING - PO/11/1505 - Residential development of up to 26 dwellings; Land
east of Abbot Road for Church Commissioners for England
Major Development
- Target Date: 19 March 2012
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
A Road
Development Committee
24
14 March 2013
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Residential Use Allocation
Countryside
Public Rights of Way Footpath
THE APPLICATION
Is for residential development for up to 26 dwellings on a 1.5 hectare (approx) site.
Access is the only matter of detail being formally applied for at this stage. An
'illustrative masterplan' submitted with the application indicates a site layout including
an area of open space adjacent to the road frontage,
Vehicular access is proposed from a single point direct from Norwich Road, A1062,
on the northern site boundary. A cycleway and footpath link is proposed to Abbot
Road to the west and a re-aligned public footpath would run from the A1062 at the
east, alongside part of the southern boundary and into the development site.
A draft S.106 Obligation has been prepared. This covers the following:
50% affordable housing
£13,600 towards off-site play equipment
£50 per dwelling tourist visitor pressure contribution
£60 per dwelling library contribution
£250 per dwelling footpath contribution (toward footpath improvements to primary
school)
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Transport Assessment
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Flood Risk Assessment
Ecology Report
An amended plan has been submitted indicating the visibility splays on either side of
Norwich Road and the inclusion of two new bus stops.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management given that the site is a significant
housing allocation in the area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments on the original plans.
Concerns are raised to the following issues and the Parish Council is of the opinion
that approval should not be granted until the matters have been addressed.
Extension of the 40mph speed limit zone should be extended
Provision of a bus stop should be made.
Consideration should be given to the improvement of pedestrian access to
the primary school
Details of the financial contributions associated with the S106 requirements.
Recognition of the Three Rivers Way project should be made and supported.
The application has not indicated that the Horning Parish Plan has been
taken into account.
- Capacity of existing infrastructure (drainage, electricity etc) is queried by local
residents.
Development Committee
25
14 March 2013
REPRESENTATIONS
A total of 3 letters of objection have been received objecting to the proposed
development principally on the grounds of highway impact including the lack of a
footway, bus stop and failure to extend the 40mph speed limit.
CONSULTATIONS
Hoveton Parish Council - No objection but comments that the development will
result in additional levels of traffic passing through Hoveton, exacerbating an existing
problem where pollution levels are already high particularly during summer months.
Anglian Water - Initial comments - Advises that waste and foul water system is
available and has capacity for the anticipated flows from the proposed development.
However, request a planning condition requiring a surface water strategy/flood risk
assessment to be submitted and approved prior to the occupation of the dwellings.
Further comments - confirmed existing works is currently operating at capacity.
Environment Agency - Advises that the Horning Sewage Treatment Works are
running at capacity (notwithstanding the comments by Anglian Water) and that
additional flows are likely to cause deterioration of the River Ant. To satisfy the
Habitats Directive and the quality required under the Water Framework Directive it will
be necessary to demonstrate that the risks posed by the development can be
satisfactorily mitigated or removed. An objection is maintained until this has been
achieved.
An initial objection on flood risk grounds has now been lifted following additional
information being submitted in support of the Flood Risk Assessment. On this aspect
recommends a condition requiring submission of a surface water drainage scheme.
Sustainability Team - Recommends that planning permission should only be
approved subject to conditions requiring compliance with (at a minimum) level 3 of
the code for sustainable homes and at least 10% renewable energy to accord with
Core Strategy Policy EN 6.
Norfolk Constabulary
masterplan.
-
Provides some detailed comments on the illustrative
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to conditions in
respect of the submission of detailed plans, bus stop provision, visibility splays,
construction work details (wheel cleaning and parking) and promotion of a traffic
regulation order to extend the existing 40mph limit.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligation Requirements) - No requirement
for education contributions. Payments towards library provision (£60 per dwelling)
and fire hydrants (£802 per hydrant).
Norfolk County Council (Countryside Access Officer) - No objections and note
the need for diversion of existing footpath. Comments that the footpath through the
development should be part of the adopted highway and that the reference to the
cycleway does not currently apply to the footpath and that a Cycle Track Order may
be required to convert the remainder of the footpath into a cycletrack.
Norfolk County Council (Historic Environment Service) - Advises that an
archaeological trial trenching evaluation did not identify any significant heritage
assets and no further investigations are necessary.
Development Committee
26
14 March 2013
Strategic Housing - Comments on the illustrative masterplan and Planning, Design
and Access Statement which shows a mix of 13 affordable housing units. Points out
that the stated mix of units, whilst according with the types of units previously
provided to the applicants, is not accurately reflected in the types of properties
illustrated in the masterplan. At reserved matters stage the type of affordable housing
shown will need to reflect an updated assessment of need.
Supports the application subject to an acceptably worded S.106 Agreement regarding
the provision of the affordable housing.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Design)
comments at this outline stage.
-
No substantive
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Refers to the
response from Natural England whereby they have highlighted that the proposal as
submitted is likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the Broads
SAC. In view of this and the fact that an Appropriate Assessment, as required by the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 has not been undertaken, it
is recommended that the application is refused. As it stands if the application is
approved, the Council will be in breach of its statutory duties under the Habitats
Regulations.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The proposal indicates adequate open
space/play area; however should the play provision be considered to be inappropriate
on-site, an off-site contribution towards improved facilities on the existing parish
playing field would be acceptable (suggested calculated sum of £13,600). The
development triggers an allotment provision amounting to 403 sqm. If there is an
identified local demand this should be provided off-site (equivalent financial
contribution of £14,112).
Environmental Health - Aware of localised surface water flooding issues. Notes
that the application states surface water will be via SUDS/soakaways. Requests
conditions relating to surface water and foul drainage.
Natural England - Objects, commenting that he application site is in approximately
650metres from Bure Broads and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
and 2km from Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI. Both of these SSSIs are part of The
Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
The proposal, as submitted is likely to have a significant effect on the interest features
for which The Broads SAC has been classified. Under Regulation 61 of the
Conservation Regulations 2010. Advises that the District Council undertakes an
Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site‟s
conservation objectives.
The foul water drains from the proposed development would connect to a mains
sewer for treatment at Horning sewage treatment works (STW). This STW discharges
to the tidal section of the River Ant approximately 1.3km downstream of the Ant
Broads and Marshes SSSI and water quality in the SSSI is believed to be influenced
by discharges to the tidal reaches of the Ant including from this STW.
The Environment Agency‟s advice is that the discharge permit for these works is
currently being exceeded; flow is approximately 170% of that permitted. The
Environment Agency also advise that there is no guarantee that the water quality
standard on the permit will be maintained if additional flow is received to the STW.
Whilst we note that Anglian Water Services are programming work to remedy this
non-compliance the Environment Agency have expressed uncertainty as to whether
Development Committee
27
14 March 2013
this would be successful in remedying the breach of the permit and providing
additional capacity. Any breach of the discharge permit may contribute to harm of the
SAC features and therefore the advice that it is not possible to draw a conclusion of
no likely significant effect to the interest features of The Broads SAC.
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 Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011)
Policy HOR06 (Land east of Abbot Road)
Land amounting to 1.7 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 26
dwellings. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy
policies including
on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently 50%) and
contributions
towards infrastructure, services and other community needs as required and:
a. Extension of the 40mph zone and provision of safe vehicle access to Norwich
Road;
b. provision of pedestrian and cycle links to Abbot road and provision of footway
along the
site boundary with Norwich Road;
c. provision of suitable landscaping along the Norwich Road frontage and around site
boundaries;
d. archaeological investigation if required;
e. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the
relevant
SPA/SAC arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and on-going monitoring of
such
measures; and,
f. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and no
adverse
effect from water quality impacts on European Wildlife Sites.
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 SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
28
14 March 2013
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Foul sewage disposal
2. Impacts upon European wildlife sites
3. Highway safety
4. Open Space
5. Developer contributions
APPRAISAL
The site is allocated for residential development in the Site Allocations Development
Plan Document (DPD) which was adopted by the Council in February 2011. Policy
HOR 06 of the DPD allocates the site for approximately 26 dwellings. By implication
the principle of developing the site for residential development is therefore
acceptable. 50% of the dwellings are proposed to be affordable in full accordance
with adopted Core Strategy policy.
The site allocation has an area of 1.7 hectares whereas the application site covers a
slightly smaller area, omitting a section of land along the southern boundary.
However this variation in area has little consequence in bringing forward the amount
of new housing proposed by the allocation.
Details relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would have to be the
subject of a subsequent application for reserved matters in the event of outline
permission being granted. Notwithstanding this, the applicants have submitted an
„illustrative master plan‟. This provides an indicative layout that includes an open
space area along the majority of the site frontage creating a soft edge to the
development and an approach considered appropriate for this edge of village setting.
Highway Issues
Pursuant to the amended plan, the Highway Authority has recommended a condition
requiring the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order to extend the existing 40 mph
zone to the extremity of the site. The indicative layout also accords with Policy
HOR06, by providing for pedestrian and cycle links to Abbot Road.
No footway is indicated along the frontage of the site with Norwich Road. However,
the Highway Authority would be opposed to such a footpath on the grounds this
would encourage pedestrians to use the busy A1062 (where there is no footpath
beyond the site boundary), it would be the intention of the Highway Authority to adopt
a 2m verge along the site frontage, so that there would remain the possibility of
providing a footpath at a future date, should circumstances change. This takes
account of the Parish Council's reference to the Three Rivers Way Project which is
aimed to promote improved footpath access in the locality.
The draft S.106 Obligation includes a £250 per dwelling contribution towards off-site
footpath improvements from the village to the local primary school. This together with
Development Committee
29
14 March 2013
the other amendments submitted would appear to address the highway related
concerns raised by the Parish Council and others.
Open Space
The indicative plan submitted in support of the proposal indicates an area of open
space which would provide an acceptable amount in relation to this size of
development. The local village playing field is within walking distance from the site
and a contribution towards improved play facilities at the playing field is considered a
more appropriate option than to provide play equipment on the site. The draft S.106
Obligation includes a contribution of £13,600 towards these improvements.
Foul Sewage
Satisfactory disposal of sewage from the proposed development represents the
stumbling block in being able to recommend approval of this application. Despite
initially indicating that there was adequate capacity at the local sewage treatment
works (STW) to serve the development, Anglian Water have since accepted that the
STW is operating at capacity. The position of the Environment Agency is that
because of this and because any additional flows would be in breach of the
Environmental Permit which relates to the STW, the Agency objects to the
application. This objection is based upon the harm which would be caused to water
quality and nearby downstream ecologically important sites (Sites of Special Scientific
Interest) which form part of The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC). A
similar objection has been raised by Natural England.
In terms of adopted planning policy, Policy HOR06 (f) of the Site Allocations DPD
(relating to this site) requires 'demonstration that there is adequate capacity in
sewage treatment works and no adverse effect from water quality impacts on
European Wildlife Sites'. Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy states that 'development
proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to nationally designated
sites .... will not be permitted'. Similar sentiments are expressed in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states 'proposed development on land
within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect
on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other
developments) should not normally be permitted'.
Part of the reason why this application has been undetermined for a lengthy period is
that Officers have tried to explore options which could result in the objection by the
Environment Agency being lifted. This has not been possible, but following a meeting
last year involving the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and the applicant's agent,
Anglian Water have since confirmed a programme of works to redress the existing
capacity problem which are to be undertaken by 2015. It is therefore hoped that these
works will allow planning permission to be granted for this site in the not too distant
future. In the light of this the applicants have suggested that the application could be
approved with a condition which prevents any development taking place until
adequate sewage disposal is available. The Environment Agency does not support
such an approach, as it takes the view that it first needs to be demonstrated that the
remediation works proposed by Anglian Water have successfully overcome the
current problems. Officers support this position and consider that it would be wrong to
grant planning permission when there is uncertainty as to whether a condition of the
approval could be successfully discharged.
For the above reasons it is considered that there is no option but to refuse the
application. It should be borne in mind that this site represents a relatively small
housing allocation which forms part of the Council's strategy for housing growth for
the period ending in 2021. Provided that the improvement works which are planned to
Development Committee
30
14 March 2013
redress the sewage capacity issue are successful, there is no reason why this site
should not come forward during this plan period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
for all planning purposes, and the following policy statement is considered relevant to
the proposed development:
EN 9 - Biodiversity and geology.
In addition the District Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Site Allocations Development Plan Document in February 2011, and the
following policy statement is considered relevant to the proposed development:
HOR06 (f) (Land east of Abbot Road).
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there is presently inadequate foul
sewerage infrastructure to accommodate satisfactorily the additional flows which
would result from the proposed development. In the absence of improvements being
made to the foul sewerage network and to the local sewage treatment works, there is
the potential for the development to result in a deterioration to river water quality and
as a consequence cause harm to nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (The
Broads Special Area of Conservation).
Accordingly approval of this application would be contrary to the objectives of the
above Development Plan policies and to the guidance contained in the National
Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 118).
5.
RUNTON - PF/12/1196 - Erection of part first floor and part two-storey side
extension and front porch; 2 Garden Cottages, Sandy Lane, West Runton for
Ms S Brocklehurst
- Target Date: 24 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740247 PF - Proposed bathroom and living room extension to existing
cottage
Approved 07/06/1974
PLA/19831759 HR - Garage
Approved 06/01/1984
PLA/19800268 HR - Proposed improvements and extension to cottage
Approved 29/02/1980
PF/12/0660 HOU - Erection of two-storey side extension with single-storey front
extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/07/2012
Development Committee
31
14 March 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey side extension which would include partly
extending above the existing single storey extension and a front porch.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Eales having regard to the following planning issue:
Loss of privacy to neighbours
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
3 letters of objection received on the following grounds:
Proposed materials would spoil the character of the original building
Materials should be brick and flint
Red cedar wood cladding should not be used
Front extension would cause loss of light to our garden
Door to side of front extension should be omitted
Plans similar to previous that were turned down
Two first floor proposed windows in the gable end would overlook our living area,
patio and part of our garden
The bedroom on the south east corner has 3 windows which is unnecessary,
bedroom in the north east corner has two windows and a velux. One window from
each room would be overlooking our property
The design statement implies that we have agreed to screen planting, this is
incorrect
Concern about the scale of the proposal in relation to the original dwelling
Size and layout of the proposal easily lends itself to being manipulated into two
separate dwellings in the future. This would create an additional plot with sole
potential vehicular access over our land and could be exacerbated if used as
holiday lets
5.8m from extension to boundary with Wicklow Cottage and 10.75m from
boundary to Wicklow Cottage living area which might have a bearing on the
planning application
Application states property is not visible from the highway; this is incorrect with
the property being visible from a number of points along Sandy Lane, West
Runton Common and some of the areas footpaths (photographs and plan
provided)
Proposal large, intrusive and unsympathetic
Proposal would cover the whole of the traditional flint gable end wall
Cedar coloured shiplap cladding would be visible from the road and public path in
contrast to its surroundings
Impact on the adjacent Conservation Area
Proposed eaves line is higher than the existing (rear)
Loss of privacy to Applegarth's garden area which is 0.55m lower than that of
Garden Cottages
Present eaves height should be maintained and obscure glazing fitted to upper
storey north facing windows
Proposal includes addition of additional staircase which reduces the useable
living space and increases the overall size of the development unnecessarily
CONSULTATIONS
Development Committee
32
14 March 2013
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager: No objection. The amended proposal
has addressed previous reservations and it is considered that the proposal would not
harm the heritage asset.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring property
2. Design and appearance
3. Size of the proposal
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated Countryside policy area and partially within the
West Runton Conservation Area (CA) (part of the southern garden area is within the
CA but the proposed development is outside the designated area). Proposals of this
type are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the requirements of
relevant Core Strategy policies - in this instance, in particular, policies EN4, HO8 and
EN8.
The proposal seeks to erect a two storey side extension to the semi-detached cottage
which would partly include the area of an existing single storey side extension. A
previous proposal was withdrawn by the applicant following concerns raised in
relation to the design. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
advised that the revisions have addressed previous concerns and it is considered
would not harm the adjacent heritage asset. Internally the pair of cottages have a
'flying freehold' arrangement which results in the rear of the application cottage being
wider than the front.
Policy HO8 permits proposals to extend dwellings in the Countryside policy area
provided that they would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height
Development Committee
33
14 March 2013
or scale of the original dwelling and that they would not materially increase the impact
of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. Given the size and layout of the site it
is considered that the proposal to extend to the east would sit comfortably within the
large curtilage. The proposed rear elevation would not be positioned any closer to the
northern boundary than the existing cottages. The prevailing character of the area is
reasonably large dwellings with large gardens and as the site lies within the built up
area (and is surrounded by other residential buildings) the proposal would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
It is further considered that although it is recognised that the proposal would introduce
some additional overlooking of the garden area of Applegarth (to the north) from one
bedroom (not the master bedroom) window, given that there is existing overlooking
both from the existing cottages and to some degree from the rear of Wicklow Cottage
and The Grange, this could not be said to introduce a further significant detrimental
effect on residential amenity. It would be appropriate to impose a condition on any
approval to ensure that a proposed bathroom window on this elevation is fitted with
obscured glazing as this is not indicated on the plans.
The neighbours to the east of the site raised concern regarding overlooking and loss
of privacy being introduced by the proposed first floor gable windows. The proposal
falls short by approximately 1m in relation to the Design Guide recommendations for
distances between secondary and primary windows. Following discussions the
applicant has agreed to these windows being non-opening and obscure glazed. As
the bedrooms that these windows serve benefit from windows on other elevations this
is considered acceptable both in terms of addressing the neighbour objection and
comfort/usability of the proposal.
The proposal is considered to comply with the Design Guide criteria for extensions; a
step down in ridge height would be provided at the front of the dwelling with a small
step back which demonstrates a break between the original and the proposed. At the
rear of the proposal the catslide roof would be approximately 0.5m higher than the
existing roof slope. This has been necessary to provide enough internal head height
due to the step down in the ridgeline discussed above. There would be a step back in
the rear elevation so it is considered that overall the proposal would remain
subordinate to the original building.
A porch is proposed to the front of the side extension with both a front facing and
side facing door. Whilst this arrangement may be slightly unusual the applicant
explained that in practical terms the pedestrian access leads directly to the side of the
proposed porch and therefore they wished to have the entrance on this side. From an
aesthetic point of view it was also considered appropriate to have a front facing door.
The adjoining neighbour has raised objection to the side door as it faces their
property. However this neighbour has a front porch with side windows facing the
application site and the access to the application site (which is owned by the
applicant) passes directly in front of the neighbour‟s house and their front door/porch.
It is therefore considered that no significant loss of privacy would be introduced by
this element of the proposal and in addition the porch could provide additional
screening/privacy to both parties when the applicant is using the area of garden to the
east.
A mix of materials is proposed with reclaimed Norfolk pantiles to the front facing roof
slope and Anchor Centurion red/smut concrete tiles to the rear and red bricks to
match the existing. Agreement of the precise details of the rear roof tiles should be a
requirement of any permission; with joinery to be white timber. The proposal also
includes timber cladding at first floor level to the gable end and rear elevations. It is
Development Committee
34
14 March 2013
considered acceptable to incorporate cedar cladding provided that this is untreated
red cedar that would then weather to a grey/silver colour that would be in keeping
with the original dwelling. However the plans are annotated with 'stained timber
shiplap colour cedar'. The vibrant 'red cedar' colour would not be considered
acceptable or in keeping with the original dwelling. The applicant has provided
confirmation that it was intended that the cladding would be untreated cedar to
weather and therefore it would be appropriate to condition any consent to be in
accordance with those details.
Concern has also been raised in relation to the internal layout; specifically the
provision of an additional staircase. The concern being suggested is that the dwelling
could later be altered into two dwellings and/or be used for holiday letting. Any
proposal for creating an additional dwelling would be contrary to policy. The dwelling
as it is or as proposed could be used for holiday letting as this does not require
planning permission. In addition the applicant has stated that the additional staircase
has been proposed to allow for future installation of a lift. It is considered that there
are no material planning considerations to object to this internal layout proposition.
Given the considerations above the proposal is considered to comply with the policies
of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the conditions below.
2
Except as required by Conditions 4, 5 and 6 below, 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 bathroom window on the northern elevation of the extension 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.
4
Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans the bedroom windows on
the eastern elevation of the extension hereby permitted shall be non-opening
installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity equivalent to
Pilkington level 5. The windows shall thereafter be retained in accordance with
these details.
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.
5
Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans the cladding shall be
Development Committee
35
14 March 2013
untreated red cedar in accordance with the applicant's email dated 20
February 2013.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6
Notwithstanding the details provided on the submitted plan, before the
development is started samples of the proposed roof materials in relation to
the rear roof slope shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6.
STALHAM - PF/12/1427 - Mixed use development comprising 150 dwellings, B1
(a - c) employment buildings (3150sqm), public open space, landscaping and
associated highways and drainage infrastructure; Land off Yarmouth Road for
Hopkins Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 21 March 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Mixed Use Allocation
Archaeological Site
Public Rights of Way - Footpath
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for a mixed development comprising 150 dwellings, Class B1
employment buildings (3,150 sq m floorspace), and a neighbourhood park together
with other smaller areas of open space.
The site is currently an open, flat agricultural field which adjoins the south-eastern
boundary of Stalham. It has two road frontages, Ingham Road to the north-west and
Yarmouth Road to the south. The total site area measures 8.6 ha. The residential
area together with a landscaped area adjacent to its eastern boundary would occupy
approximately 5.1 ha, the employment area 1.5 ha and the neighbourhood park 2.0
ha.
The proposed housing development would comprise a mix of 1 & 2 bedroom
apartments and 2,3 & 4 bedroom houses/bungalows, in a combination of short
terraces, semi-detached and detached properties. The majority of properties are to be
two storey with the exception of 10 bungalows and (as recently amended) two blocks
Development Committee
36
14 March 2013
of flats which include an element of three storey accommodation. 45% of the
dwellings (68 units) are proposed to be 'affordable'. Of this figure 75% (51 units) are
to be affordable rented properties and 25% (17 units) to be what is described as
'shared equity dwellings sold by the developer at 75% open market value'.
The employment buildings are proposed to occupy an area to the south-east of the
site. These would comprise 6 individual buildings of varying sizes (all two storey)
divided into a total of 24 units ranging in size from 111 sqm to 167 sqm floorspace.
Each unit is shown to occupy two floors although the plans indicate that they could
each be further sub-divided into separate smaller ground floor and first floor units.
The proposed neighbourhood park would occupy the western part of the site
extending across from the boundary with Ingham Road to that with Yarmouth Road.
The new housing development would front onto the park. Cycle / footpaths would link
through connecting Ingham Road with Yarmouth Road. The park would incorporate
an equipped play area as well as accommodating a
permeable area to
accommodate surface water run-off from the remainder of the development site. A
smaller area of open space is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site.
Vehicular access to the residential area is proposed from two points along the
Ingham Road frontage (amended from a single point of access). Separate vehicular
access to the employment area is proposed from Yarmouth Road. There is to be no
vehicular connection between the residential and employment areas ( a cycleway /
footpath is proposed).
Pedestrian routes within the development are designed to connect with an existing
public right of way which passes along the eastern boundary of the site.
2.0 m wide footways are proposed along the two road frontages bordering the site
together with a new zebra crossing on Ingham Road (close to the entrance with
Stalham High School). In addition off-site highway works involve re-alignment of the
junction of Ingham Road with Brumstead Road and alterations to provide a consistent
carriageway width on a section of Yarmouth Road between the site entrance and the
nearby mini-roundabout junction.
Amended plans (aspects of which are referred to above) have been have been
submitted and have been the subject of public consultation.
The application is accompanied by proposed 'Heads of Terms' for a S.106 Planning
Obligation. The issues covered relate to affordable housing, open space, a financial
contribution towards libraries and a financial contribution towards mitigating increased
visitor impacts upon nearby Special Areas of Conservation (Broads SAC).
The application is supported by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design & Access Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Transport Statement
Safe Route to Schools Report.
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement
Habitat Report
Tree Survey
Landscape Assessment
Archaeology Report
Utilities Report
Development Committee
37
14 March 2013
Sustainability Statement
Renewable Energy Statement
Section 106 Heads of Terms
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects, making the following observations:
The industrial units should be sited at the top (eastern) end of the site near the
public footpath.
The pavement along Ingham Road could be widened to include a separate cycle
path.
Concerned regarding who will be responsible for the upkeep of the triangular
piece of land near the existing footpath. A diversion of the path would allow the
land to be used by the present owner.
Allotments could be incorporated at the site (i.e. on the above mentioned
triangular piece of land).
Restriction in height of the proposed buildings.
Water and sewage. Concern regarding the existing town drains and frequent
flooding at Chapel Corner. The development will only exacerbate the problems.
Industrial traffic using Old Yarmouth Road through Sutton as a rat run. Yarmouth
Road and Chapel Corner especially busy during school times.
The Town Council has raised objections to the amended plans with regard to the
introduction of elements of three storeys, together with concerns regarding drainage
and highway infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter received from local resident, not objecting to the principle of housing
development, but concerned that both Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road together
with the interconnecting pair of mini-roundabouts are not suitable to accommodate
safely the additional traffic arising from the development. This additional traffic will
pose a danger to school children who frequent these routes. In addition, concerns are
expressed regarding the strain upon local schools and doctors' surgeries, loss of
'green' land, impact upon wildlife and drainage.
Further letter received objecting on grounds of the loss of agricultural land and that
there is a preferable brownfield site in Stalham (the former abattoir) which should be
compulsory purchased for housing development.
CONSULTATIONS
Sutton Parish Council - Has great concerns regarding the existing infrastructure
which will be affected by the proposed development, there are already ongoing
drainage, sewage and flooding problems in both Stalham and Sutton and such a
development could exacerbate these problems.
The pumping station at Sutton is already working to maximum capacity and we have
been told by a senior engineer at Anglian Water that it is up to its limit.
Another major concern is that of the traffic this development will bring to the area.
There would be large industrial lorries using Yarmouth Road, they would probably
access Stalham via Sutton and the road network is already fragile. There are no
footpaths in The Street in Sutton and the road is not wide enough.
Development Committee
38
14 March 2013
Added to this the traffic may have to pass all three schools in Stalham, there have
been accidents in the past involving school children and vehicles. The footpaths are
narrow on Yarmouth Road and would need great improvement and widening.
Queries what the designated HGV route would be to the site. The junction off the
A149 near to Tesco is not of a high enough standard to take excessive traffic and in
fact during summer months there are queues back to The Swan Public House at
Ingham.
If the development is permitted the Parish Council would like to see a green build with
consideration given rainwater harvesting and solar panels on south facing buildings.
Ingham Parish Council - Thought should be given towards creating a cycle path
using the existing public right of way that crosses Church Farm running from
Campingfield Lane to Grove Road, Ingham. This would give access from the
proposed development to the wider countryside and coast away from the sensitive
Broads area. Norfolk County Council drew up a feasibility study for this route in 2008
and any funds as specified in the submitted Planning Statement could be used in this
way. Encouragement of cycling may help to counteract the inevitable increase in car
journeys from the development.
Oil heating to serve the dwellings will require a substantial number of HGV
movements leading to safety fears and environmental concerns. Questions whether
the possibility of accessing gas from a nearby pipeline should be investigated to
serve the proposed development and the wider community.
Otherwise generally complimentary towards the scheme as a whole.
Broads Authority Has no objections to the proposal. The principal concern
regarding the potential for a proposal of this size at this site to impact on the Broads
was the impact of the development on the water quality and ecology of the area.
Having considered the detail regarding treatment of foul sewerage and surface water
arising from the site contained within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and
having regards to Anglia Water‟s pre-development report, the Authority is satisfied
that due regard has been given to these issues.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires a payment
(secured by S.106 Obligation) of £9,000 towards library provision. Confirms that there
is currently sufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate additional pupil
numbers from the new development.
County Council (Highways) - Initial comments received cite 26 issues relating to
the submitted layout plan, many of these requiring amendments to be made.
Following the receipt of amended plans, the formal comments of the Highway
Authority will be reported at the meeting.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - The proposed development site
affects a number of heritage assets including Iron Age activity and areas of medieval
occupation. The details of these assets are contained in the archaeological field
evaluation reports accompanying the application. If planning permission is granted
conditions should be imposed in accordance with paragraph 141 of the NPPF (to
require a written scheme of investigation to be approved and thereafter undertaken).
County Council (Public Rights of Way) - A public right of way (Stalham Footpath
No.4) is located along the north-eastern boundary of the site. The submitted plans
indicate it would be surfaced with paving slabs. This is not acceptable and any
surfacing treatment needs to be discussed with NCC public rights of way officer
Development Committee
39
14 March 2013
beforehand. It is assumed that a commuted sum will be made available for future
maintenance. Any planting in the vicinity of the footpath will need to be agreed in
order to ensure the public right of way is not affected.
Environment Agency - Initially raised a holding objection on grounds that the
submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) did not comply with the requirements set out
in paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However following revised
details submitted by the applicants (involving the relocation of the surface water
drainage basis within the area of public open space), the Agency has removed its
objection, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and
approval of a detailed surface water drainage scheme.
Anglian Water - Advises that the foul drainage from this development is in the
catchment of Stalham sewage treatment works that at present has available capacity
for these flows. The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these
flows.
Internal Drainage Board - The proposed development lies just outside the Broads
Internal Drainage Board district, but part of the area discharges surface water through
the district by gravity to outfall in the tidal upper River Ant. It is uncertain whether the
existing surface water drainage system is capable of accepting any further discharge,
either from this proposed development or any future development on the nearby
Tesco site. The proposed development will need to address the disposal of any
additional surface water by either attenuation on site, or by engineering
improvements to the existing system.
Natural England - No objection.
Norfolk Police (Crime Prevention Design) - Content with the overall layout as
proposed which it is considered has been put together with some thought and care
with regard to crime prevention, particularly when looking at the amount of natural
surveillance afforded to the open spaces.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) Comments on amended plans as follows:
Layout
With improvements having been secured to the private drives and to the surfacing,
the layout has undoubtedly taken a step forward. Whilst there remain reservations
around; a) the scheme‟s ability to create genuine street scenes, b) the actual
contribution of the „focal features‟ within the carriageway (which still look like missed
opportunities), c) the myriad of minor areas where the transition between surfaces
looks awkward or lacks definition, and d) the sheds which still sit in the middle of the
„affordable‟ gardens, the original design objections have now been eroded.
Design
Firstly, in respect of the office units, the amended plans have addressed the earlier
design concerns. Consequently, they are now considered acceptable.
As regards the house types, again some of the earlier criticisms have been
addressed. Hence, „stronger‟ buildings have been introduced on a few of the focal
plots, design detailing has been added to some plots, and the gap between the
market and affordable units has been narrowed. Balanced against this, however,
some of the revisions have had retrograde results; namely: -
Development Committee
40
14 March 2013
The „slipped‟ pair of semis on Plots 32 & 33 is a rather weak composition
architecturally.
Plots 36-39 have been diluted by the loss of the contrasting gable (the field
elevation is especially bland).
Plots 41-46 have similarly suffered from the loss of the bookend gables.
Whilst the scheme has generally benefitted from the introduction of the two
„maltings style‟ buildings on Plots 58-63 and 93-100 (even if they are rather
questionable contextually), both blocks feature some uncomfortable changes of
roof pitch through the various elements. With the former block also likely to be
quite prominent when approaching from the NE, there are some less than ideal
aspects of these units.
No doubt you will consider these observations in due course and decide whether they
need to be addressed in the context of what is largely an architecturally neutral
scheme.
Materials
The amended plans have introduced clay pantiles on five of the most prominent plots.
They also see natural slate added to Plots 130 & 131 overlooking the open space.
Whilst these changes are clearly to be welcomed, it is unfortunate that the two most
prominent blocks have not been similarly upgraded. Indeed, with 58-63 & 93-100
rising above the other units, the addition of clay pantiles would provide a
disproportionate lift to the scheme. It would also better address one of the requests
from Committee.
The previous comments about the inappropriateness of some of the other materials
still stand.
Conclusion
In summary, the revised plans have certainly moved this scheme in the right
direction. Through a series of incremental changes, improvements have been
secured to the layout and to the individual buildings. Fundamentally, however, the
results for the most part still tread familiar architectural territory and rather fail to
enthuse accordingly. However, with the contribution to the built environment
outweighed by other material considerations, there is little to be gained from
maintaining a design objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments that
the submitted Landscape & Visual Appraisal has been carried out in accordance with
accepted practice and recognised guidelines. The proposed Landscape Masterplan
builds on these principles together with advice contained within the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment, retaining existing trees and hedges along the site
boundary, provision of a structural landscape buffer to the north-east boundary and
the creation of a new neighbourhood park. Within the site substantial tree planting is
proposed, both within the neighbourhood park and amongst the housing, which will in
time give some verticality to the scheme.
Whilst 11 trees are required to be removed to facilitate site access it is considered
that the landscape proposals provide more than sufficient replacement planting to
compensate for this loss of vegetation.
The location of the neighbourhood park in the western section of the site is
appropriate, close to the edge of the existing settlement and providing pedestrian and
cycle routes from Ingham Road to Yarmouth Road. The soft landscape proposals are
Development Committee
41
14 March 2013
suitable, including significant tree planting framing the main path, native planting and
species rich wildflower grassland areas to break up the amenity grass spaces. The
play area is well positioned. In addition the proposed infiltration basin and swales
forming part of the SUDs strategy for the scheme have the potential to be attractive
landscape features.
Landscape proposals within the housing layout are well thought through and provide
variety in the street scene.
In terms of ecology the submitted details demonstrate that there will be no detriment
to protected species (bats and reptiles) as a result of the development.
Concludes that there are no overriding issues of concern relating to the landscape
strategy and masterplan as submitted.
Recommends conditions requiring submission of a full landscaping scheme, 10 year
management & maintenance plan, tree protection measures and to safeguard local
ecology.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Advises that if the District Council were to adopt
the open space on the site (two areas), plus the footpaths/cyclepaths, a commuted
sum would be required, based on the standard 15 year maintenance period taking
account of year on year inflation. This assumes that the developer would provide
play equipment on the site.
Strategic Housing - Agrees to the affordable housing proposals and their phased
completion as part of the overall development, subject to agreement on the details of
a S.106 Obligation. Requests an amendment to the car parking proposals in relation
to a disabled persons bungalow.
Environmental Health - Satisfied with the contents of the submitted Flood Risk
Assessment subject to a condition requiring more detail regarding surface water
drainage. Also requests conditions relating to the proposed employment buildings in
respect of noise control and lighting.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Supports the allocation of land
for development as specified within Policy ST01 which is in accord with the major
policy initiatives contained within the Council‟s Corporate Plan. Recognises the
increasing concerns felt by the town‟s inhabitants about Stalham‟s ability to thrive as
a rural service centre. It is generally agreed that the town is in need of revitalisation
and has a high level of out-commuting (only 35% of people who live in Stalham also
work there) into the Norwich area, owing to the limited employment opportunities
available locally. As a result local communities fear that it may be difficult to grow the
vitality of the town and the commercial viability of its retail centre. This application
presents the district with a quality mixed development scheme which has the potential
to elevate the social and commercial environment of the settlement through the
quality and scale of the development.
The impact of the proposed development on the commercial prospects of the town
and its businesses is difficult to judge. Stalham is one of the district‟s smaller centres
and it functions primarily as a convenience and service destination for its local
catchment population (3,800). The size of the population is unlikely to be of a
sufficient force to attract new sustainable commodities into the town. Also the
changing pattern of consumer spending presents significant challenges, and it is
Development Committee
42
14 March 2013
likely that internet trading will continue to unsettle towns of this size into the
foreseeable future.
However, the proposed development does throw light on an otherwise suppressed
commercial outlook for the town and its community by providing the following
opportunities;
3,150 sqm of employment space (equivalent to 15 small offices for general
commercial activity).
150 dwellings leveraging up to 400 additional consumers (attracting new
innovative businesses to the High Street).
Potential to increase visitor spend and promote Stalham‟s attractive
environment and close proximity to the Broads.
Potential to increase the range of outlets in the food and drink sector thereby
underpinning the growing demand for quality dining experience.
The Economic Development Unit supports this planning application for the reasons
outlined. However, in recommending the application for approval, the unit is aware
that the proposed provision of low key employment space has been designed to
accommodate both residential and employment uses.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - The application confirms that all the dwellings are to
comply with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in accordance with Policy
EN6 and satisfactory measures are proposed to minimise energy and resource
consumption in the case of the proposed employment buildings. In addition measures
are proposed to achieve at least 20% renewable forms of energy as part of the
development in compliance with Policy EN6. Recommends conditions to ensure
compliance with the above.
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.(See comments of
Norfolk Police above).
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011)
Policy ST01 (Land Adjacent to Church Farm, Ingham Road, Stalham):
Land amounting to approximately 9 hectares is allocated for a mixed use
development of not more than 160 dwellings, 2 hectares of public open space,
community facilities and low-key employment uses. Development will be subject to
compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies including on-site provision of the
required proportion of affordable housing and contributions towards infrastructure,
Development Committee
43
14 March 2013
services and other community needs as required and:
a. Comprehensive mixed development in accordance with a development brief that
must
incorporate:
- not more than 160 dwellings at a net density of not less than thirty dwellings per
hectare;
- provide not less than 2 hectares of land suitable for community and low key
employment
generating uses;
- provision of a neighbourhood park (incorporating suitable public open space and
recreational
facilities) of not less than two hectares on a suitable part of the site; and,
- a footpath and cycle link joining the Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road and suitable
footways
linking the development to the town centre;
b. provision of at least two separate vehicular access points (one each to Ingham
Road and
Yarmouth Road).
c. the layout, design and landscaping of the site, respecting the setting of the edge of
the town
and the adjacent Listed Buildings and Conservation Area;
d. a suitable landscaping scheme including retention of mature trees along the
Yarmouth Road
frontage and planting of new trees within the site;
e. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the
Broads SAC
/ Broadland SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor pressure,
and
on-going monitoring of such measures; and,
f. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and the
foul
sewerage network, and that proposals have regard to water quality standards, and
that
there is no adverse effect from water quality impacts on European Wildlife Sites.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development,
will not be permitted.
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 SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 13: Stalham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
44
14 March 2013
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
THE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
Policy ST01 of the Site Allocations DPD requires a development brief to be prepared
for the allocation at Church Farm Stalham. A development brief was approved by the
Council's Cabinet in September 2012 and formally published in November 2012.
The brief includes the following main details / requirements:
A masterplan which indicates the locational distribution of land uses on the site
(e.g. the residential area, the employment area, community use area, the location
of the neighbourhood park and other areas of open space / landscaping)
Vehicle access to be provided both from Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road.
Access to the employment land to be from Yarmouth Road.
Access to serve the employment land to be part of a phasing agreement to be
secured as part of developing the residential land.
The development to incorporate elements of local distinctiveness (architectural
detail and materials).
Principally two storey with some variances to provide visual interest.
Employment uses to be 'low-key' (Class B1 uses only).
Enhancements to footpaths links from the site to the town centre and good
pedestrian / cycle links within the site.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Housing layout, mix and design
2. Affordable housing
3. Employment layout and design
4. Open space / landscaping
5. Highway capacity and safety
6. Drainage
7. S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting allow further discussions in
respect of details in respect of the affordable housing element; highway issues;
sewerage; landscaping and materials, and consultation in respect of amended plans.
The application site forms most, but not all of the land allocated for mixed use
development under Policy ST01 of the Site Allocations DPD. That part of the
allocation site which is not included comprises 0.5 ha of land fronting on to Yarmouth
Road, (the development brief shows this area of land to be reserved for community
purposes, in accordance with the mix of land uses required by Policy ST01). The
application site is to be divided into three distinct areas; the housing area (5.0 ha
approx), the employment area (1.5 ha.) and the neighbourhood park (2.0 ha.). The
location of each of these separate areas complies with that shown in the development
Development Committee
45
14 March 2013
brief. Accordingly, the types of development proposed and their distribution on the
site is considered to be acceptable.
Housing Layout, Mix and Design
The proposed housing development follows a fairly standard pattern in terms of
current residential estate layouts. It is proposed (as amended) to be served by a two
access roads off Ingham Road which separate within the site, terminating at three
principal points. There is no circulatory route through the site. A large proportion of
the dwellings would front and have direct access onto the main estate roads,
although also proposed are a number of private drives serving smaller clusters of
dwellings.
The proposal comprises a mix of detached and semi-detached houses, short
terraces and a small block of flats. The majority of buildings are to be two storey with
a small proportion of single storey (10 in total). As referred to above, amended plans
have introduced an element of three storeys to two blocks of flats. Detached and
semi-detached properties are located almost entirely in the northern , central and
eastern parts of the site. The flats and terraces are concentrated to the southern side
bordering with the proposed employment area. This latter area contains all the
proposed affordable housing. Some single storey properties would be close to the
eastern boundary of the development facing open countryside.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposal is
for 37% of the dwellings to meet this requirement, which is not considered such a
significant shortfall to raise objection, particularly in the context of the amount of
affordable housing being proposed (see below).
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design & Landscape
Manager in the light of the amended plans now submitted. Whilst still not fully
endorsing the design approach taken and highlighting some remaining individual
details which would merit further adjustment, overall it is acknowledged that
improvements have been made to the scheme since the initial submission and an
objection to the application is no longer raised.
Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires residential developments of this size to comprise
45% affordable housing (subject to viability). The application complies within this
policy in that a total of 68 dwellings (45%) are proposed as being 'affordable'. Of this
total 75% (51 dwellings) are proposed as affordable rented dwellings and 25% (17
dwellings) as 'shared equity' dwellings which are to be sold by the developer at 75%
of their open market value. The Council's Strategic Housing Officer is satisfied with
this mix of tenure and the mix of affordable house types proposed together with the
phasing timescales, subject to these details being secured by means of the S.106
Obligation.
Policy HO2 also states the affordable housing should be mixed within the
development in groups of not more than eight units within each group. The proposal
does not accord with this requirement. All 68 units would be located on the southern
part of the site with only one group of flats separated from the remainder by some
market dwellings. This aspect of the development needs however to be balanced with
the fact that the optimum amount of affordable housing is being proposed in terms of
Core Strategy policy.
Development Committee
46
14 March 2013
Employment Provision, Layout and Design
The employment element of the proposal would be served by an access onto
Yarmouth Road in compliance with the approved Development Brief. The layout of
the buildings within the site is considered acceptable as is their relationship with
nearby residential properties (both existing and proposed). In accordance with the
Development Brief these would be Class B1 employment units and by implication
appropriate within a residential neighbourhood.
The quality of the building designs would be very high incorporating pitched pantile
roofs (even chimneys) and brick / timber clad walls. The proposals resemble a small
high quality business park rather than a more rudimentary light industrial estate.
The Development Brief states that the access to serve the employment land should
be provided as part of a phasing agreement to be secured as part of the grant of
planning permission for housing development of the site. The applicants have
suggested that a section of the access road would be constructed prior to the
occupation of the twentieth dwelling and conditioned as such. The precise amount of
the access proposed to be constructed at this stage is to be clarified. The applicants
state that progression of the employment units will depend on demand. They suggest
a condition requiring submission and approval of a marketing strategy on a similar
timescale.
Open Space and Landscaping
The neighbourhood park which forms an integral part of this proposal represents a
very positive local amenity both for the new housing development and the wider local
community. It would provide a number of beneficial roles. Visually it should be an
attractive area of open space providing an appropriate buffer between the
Conservation Area and the new development. It would provide for recreation
(including an area of children's play equipment). It would also allow safe passage for
pedestrians and cyclists between Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road. In addition it is
proposed to provide an area for surface water drainage (SUDs).
A smaller area of open space is proposed on the eastern perimeter of the site. This
would allow associated landscaping to soften the impact of the development upon the
adjoining open countryside.
A landscape masterplan accompanies the application. The Committee will note that
the Council's Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager is content with the
landscaping approach indicated on the masterplan, subject to full details being a
condition of planning permission.
Linked with these areas of open space is a network of footpaths, including an existing
public right of way along the eastern site boundary. These are all to the benefit of the
overall scheme, but the issue of who will adopt them and at what cost needs to be
resolved.
Highway Capacity and Safety
One of the main local concerns which became apparent both at the consultation
stage of the development brief and from the applicant's own pre-application
consultation related to traffic safety and the capacity of the local road network to
accommodate additional traffic from the development.
The submitted Transport Statement concludes that the development site is well
located to provide good accessibility to local transport facilities and local amenities
and that it will not adversely impact on the existing traffic and transport network.
Development Committee
47
14 March 2013
Proposed off-site highway improvements are limited to nearby the site (as described
in the 'Application' section above). There is no indication that the Highway Authority's
view differs from the conclusions of the Transport Statement.
In terms of details (particularly in respect of the residential development) the Highway
Authority initially raised a considerable number of issues which it required to be
addressed. The site layout plans have been amended in an attempt to address these
issues. Confirmation is awaited from the Highway Authority as to whether the
proposals are now acceptable.
Drainage
The adequacy of local drainage systems to cope with the additional demands of the
development is another local concern which became apparent during the earlier
public consultation process.
The application proposes to retain and drain all surface water within the site itself.
The submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) indicates that roof run-off would drain to
soakaways (in the case of the dwellings, individually within gardens); parking areas
and private driveways would have a permeable surface (subject to infiltration
testing); run-off from all adopted roads would drain to into an infiltration basin within
the large area of open space; in other words a sustainable drainage system (SUDs).
An initial objection from the Environment Agency to the applicant's surface water
drainage proposals (included in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment) has now been
resolved, principally by the relocation of the infiltration basin to a more permeable part
of the public open space.
A requirement of Policy ST01 is that it needs to be demonstrated that there is
adequate capacity to accommodate sewage from the development. There are
connecting sewers in both Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road. These sewers drain to
the local waste water treatment works via a pumping station at Mill Road (close to
Stalham Staithe). At the time of publication of the adopted Core Strategy in 2008 it
was stated that there was no spare capacity at Stalham Sewage Treatment Works
until 2016. However Anglian Water in response to the planning application has
confirmed that both the sewer network and the treatment works currently have
capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed
development. It is understood that improvements have recently been undertaken at
the pumping station which have helped to speed up flow movements within the
sewage network. The further comments of Anglian Water have been requested to
explain why the situation has changed since 2008. It is hoped to report these at the
meeting. It would appear however that there are no grounds to object to this aspect
of the proposed development.
S.106 Requirements
If planning permission is to be granted for this development, it will need to be subject
to a S.106 Obligation to secure the following:
The provision of the affordable housing (including its phasing and other detailed
requirements)
County Council contributions towards library provision
A commuted sum to the District Council for adoption of the areas of open space.
Development Committee
48
14 March 2013
A contribution towards minimising increased visitor pressure impacts on the
nearby Broads area, to meet the site allocation policy requirement.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and negotiations are ongoing in order
to reach final agreement.
Updates from the previous Committee meeting
In summary, the following changes have occurred and improvements to the plans
have been made:
The inclusion of natural roof materials (clay pantiles and slate) on certain more
prominent plots.
A number of detailed changes to certain plots (both market and affordable)
including the introduction of chimneys, brick detailing, window styles and porch
details.
Subtle changes to the road layout to introduce traffic calming measures which
also help to make a more visually interesting street scene.
The introduction of more private drives and 'shared surfaces' which incorporate
changes in surface treatments (block paving and tar spray / shingle finish). This
now applies to both market and affordable housing areas.
A revised landscaping masterplan has been prepared.
Surface water drainage issues have now been resolved.
Further clarification regarding sewerage capacity has been requested from
Anglian Water.
Conclusions
The proposed development would have the benefit of bringing forward this significant
mixed use allocation in accordance with the planned growth of the District up to 2021,
as specified in the Council' adopted Core Strategy. In addition the proposal
satisfactorily accords with the principles for developing the site as referred to in Policy
ST01 of the Site Allocations DPD as well as the approved Development Brief for the
site. Notable benefits of the scheme include the policy compliant provision of 45%
affordable housing and a substantial area of public open space.
The scheme as now amended is considered acceptable subject to confirmation from
the Highway Authority that the various detailed concerns they initially expressed have
now been resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to:
1) The formal response from the Highway Authority.
2) The completion of a S.106 Obligation.
3) The imposition of conditions to include the following:
Development Committee
49
14 March 2013
Full landscaping details
Highway requirements
Drainage details
Details of children's play provision
Archaeological investigation
Code for sustainable homes
Renewable energy requirements
Class B1 restriction on employment units
Submission of a marketing strategy for employment units
Plus any other conditions required in the opinion of the Head of Development
Management.
7.
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0168 - Construction of 20 mw solar photovoltaic farm
with associated works including inverter housing; Land at North Creake
Airfield, Egmere for British Solar Renewables Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 13 May 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Low/Medium
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable energy facility with associated
landscaping and vehicular access
Approved 05/02/2013
PF/12/1318 PF - Construction of 20 mw solar photovoltaic farm and associated
works including inverter housing, landscaping and security measures
Withdrawn by Applicant 07/02/2013
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 20MW set across
approximately 48 hectares of land to the west of Egmere. A 20MW solar farm
equates to approximately 82,280 individual solar panels to be installed on site. The
proposal is sited predominantly on land part of the former RAF North Creake. The
panels would be sited within three fenced groups divided by existing belts of mature
trees and hard standing from the former airfield use.
The panels would be ground mounted on angled racks with the panels set
approximately 0.8m off the ground with the highest point of the panels rising to
approximately 2.9 metres above ground level. The site would be enclosed by 2m high
dark green security fencing. Within the fenced site the applicant proposes to house
11 inverter units which convert the direct current generated by the solar panels into
alternating current to feed into the electricity grid and switchgear which converts the
electricity to the correct voltage prior to being transported to the connection facility,
which then leads into the adjacent electricity substation via overhead wires. In
addition a CCTV system is proposed comprising 10 cameras which include day and
Development Committee
50
14 March 2013
night infrared cameras at the three site entrances (which do not require lighting) and
thermal imaging cameras within the rest of the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in the light of the breadth of
policy issues raised and the Committee‟s previous visit to the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One representation has been received in objection to the proposal.
Summary of objections:
Will be built on the historic airfield running up to the old runway;
Will be built across a public footpath;
Will increase slow moving traffic on the B1105;
Will industrialise agricultural land and could pave the way for further
development;
Would be overdevelopment in combination with the anaerobic digester and the
Local Development Order proposed for the area.
The applicant has indicated that determination of the application is time critical in view
of changes to the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) scheme which are due to
take place at the end of March 2013. An early decision has therefore been requested.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions to secure suitable landscape mitigation
English Heritage - Comments awaited.
Environment Agency – No objection.
In respect of surface water management the EA have commented that the proposed
development site lies within Flood Zone 1 and although the site is over 1ha in size,
we would not expect the nature of the development to significantly increase the
surface water run-off. We do not therefore consider this application to pose any
additional flood risk.
Re contaminated land, refer to the “Contamination Report Desk Study, Ref: 17763,
and associated Addendum, prepared by Plandescil Consulting Engineers for the
above site. The report indicates the former use of the proposed development area
would appear to be limited to aircraft runways associated with the air field and
agricultural land. It is further indicated that in consideration of the guidance for
Ministry of Defence (MoD) Land there is always a possibility on such sites that buried
material, unexploded ordnance and areas associated with fuel/oil leakage & burning
may exist.
The report therefore recommends that during the ground works if any unusual ground
Development Committee
51
14 March 2013
conditions are encountered or contamination suspected it should be brought to the
attention of a competent person for further inspection and assessment. Based on the
information provided, satisfied that the risks to controlled waters are well understood
and any potential contamination encountered during development works will be
appropriately addressed. Will not therefore be providing detailed site-specific advice
or comments with regard to land contamination issues for this site.
Environmental Health - The applicant/developer is advised that in view of the history
of the site it could potentially be "contaminated" (as defined in Part IIA of the
Environmental Act 1990). It is understood the site was previously associated with a
military airfield between the approximate dates 1940 -1961 and has subsequently
been used for agricultural purposes.
On the basis that the site was previously associated with a Military Airfield during the
1940‟s, there is a possibly of unexploded ordnance (UXO) existing on site. Applicants
have a legal duty under Construction Design and Management Regulations (2007) to
provide contractors with health and safety information needed to identify hazards and
risks associated with construction work. In view of this it is advised that prior to the
commencement of development, an investigation and assessment into the presence
of possible unexploded ordnance affecting the site should be undertaken.
In respect of noise or other impacts, there are no objections subject to the imposition
of conditions to ensure the noise of inverter units and equipment on site does not
exceed the background noise level at the boundaries of the site and subject to
conditions preventing the addition of lighting.
Natural England - This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected
sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is
the proposal EIA development.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Comments awaited.
Norfolk Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer - Comments awaited.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Comments awaited.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services - The proposed development affects the former
RAF North Creake, a former decoy airfield converted to a very heavy bomber station
in 1943 - 1944.
RAF North Creake is unusual as it was a centre for electronic counter measures
(Mandrel and Window radar jamming devices), rather than a bomber base as such.
After the war, it was converted to a dismantling station for De Havilland Mosquitoes.
The impact of the proposed development on the historic environment is covered in
the archaeological desk based assessment and heritage statements accompanying
the application, and, in fact, the impact is very small. While the design of the solar
farm no longer respects the former perimeter tracks, dispersals and apron of the
former RAF North Creake, the majority of the layout is preserved, and the damage to
the heritage asset will be offset by physical markers on site delineating the former
runway and an interpretation board, as outlined in the Design and Access Statement.
There is some potential for artefactual recovery on site, and so if planning permission
is granted, we request that it be subject to the following conditions, in accordance
with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF:
Development Committee
52
14 March 2013
A) No development shall take place/commence until a Written Scheme of
Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in
writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research
questions; and 1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and
recording 2. The programme for post investigation assessment 3. Provision to be
made for analysis of the site investigation and recording 4. Provision to be made for
publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation 5.
Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site
investigation 6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written
Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A).
C) No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the installation of
historical interpretative material, in accordance with a method statement submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The programme of works in this instance will comprise a systematic metal detecting
survey of the site. The Historic Environment Service will provide a brief for these
works and the interpretation panels on request.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator – Supports the proposal for the solar photovoltaic farm
which will deliver a contribution to the generation of renewable energy in the District.
Recommends that the application be approved, subject to Conservation, Design and
Landscape and Environmental Health Officers confirming no significant adverse
effects as outlined in Policy EN 7.
Barsham Parish Council - Objection - The proposal would cover a large area of land
and, notwithstanding the proposed mitigation, would be out of character with the
surrounding area and have a huge visual impact. There is also the issue of glare from
the panels. The proposal would take prime arable farmland out of production for 25
years, although we note that sheep will be used to graze the land which does still give
some useful farming of the area. There is also concern about traffic impact during
construction phase. Concern also about impact on scheduled ancient monuments
within close proximity to the site.
Holkham Parish Council - Comments awaited.
Wighton Parish Council - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Development Committee
53
14 March 2013
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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Environmental Impact Assessment
National Policy
Local Policy
Principle of the development
Background
Landscape
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Impact on Biodiversity
Impact on Residential Amenity
Light Pollution
Highway Safety
Impact on Footpaths
Flood Risk
Contamination
Archaeology & Setting of Holkham Hall and other assets
Renewable Energy benefits
Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. Screening Opinions were produced at pre-application stage which advised the
applicant that solar proposals, albeit in a slightly different location, were not
considered to be EIA development as the potential impacts could be properly and
rigorously assessed through the standard planning process. Officers remain of the
opinion that the proposed solar farm is not EIA development.
National Policy Guidance
Development Committee
54
14 March 2013
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements, circulars
and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, Planning
Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning Policy
Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of the
previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework, the
wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has been
retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for
Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The CS was
adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the Framework
and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily,
including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
Development Committee
55
14 March 2013
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning
authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale
projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets
the criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘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-ofdate, granting permission unless:
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’.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
‘Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance. The
continuing production of ‘greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims
of sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation’.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
‘The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy’.
Development Committee
56
14 March 2013
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS
2 would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on amenity,
wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are not
compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken account of advice
not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within Policy EN
2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character) which
states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
Development Committee
57
14 March 2013
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach to
site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type of
development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered
acceptable subject to compliance with relevant Government advice and other Core
Strategy policies.
BACKGROUND
The Committee will recall having visited the site which, at that time, was in connection
with submission of application ref: PF/12/1318 also for a solar farm but in a
substantially different location. Following concerns raised by the Landscape Officer
about the location of panels within the southern field, officers and the applicant met
on site to discuss alternative solutions and this has led to the submission of the
application now for consideration.
LANDSCAPE
The site is located within landscape characterised within the Landscape Character
Assessment as Rolling Open Farmland (ROF1). In respect of landscape impact, a
key consideration is the effect of a large area of solar panels and associated
infrastructure on the character and appearance of this character type and also the
wider landscape.
The proposed development would occupy approximately 48 hectares (approximately
120 acres) of arable land. The perceived scale and visual impact of the proposal are
considered to be acceptable by virtue of the existence of existing mature landscaping,
the effect of which is to break-up the area of panels into smaller sections, a significant
portion of which would be well away from public view and would be barely perceptible
from the main B1105 Fakenham to Wells road.
Some further landscape mitigation is proposed including native woodland planning to
the northern section adjacent to a public footpath and native hedge planting to parts
of eastern, southern and western boundaries. The impact on the landscape is
considered to have been appropriately mitigated and is considered acceptable in
planning terms.
In respect of loss of agricultural land, the land is designated as a mixture of grade 2
and 3 agricultural land. Whilst the loss of farming land for crop growing is regrettable,
this has to be balanced against the potential environmental and biodiversity benefits
of reduced nitrogen use on the land for the duration of the solar farm and the potential
for biodiversity enhancement. Whilst commercial crop growing would be prevented
for the duration of the development, the loss is only temporary and would be
reversible. In any event the applicant has indicated that sheep grazing would take
place under panels to manage the grassland and therefore could be seen as a form
of farm diversification. Officers consider that the temporary loss of agricultural land for
crop production is not sufficient to justify refusal.
Development Committee
58
14 March 2013
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation
planting, it is considered that the landscape impact of the proposal would be broadly
compliant with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
The site lies approximately 600m south of the southern boundary of the North Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a designated landscape. The
AONB was designated in 1968 in recognition of its scenic beauty, remarkable
landscape and cultural diversity and unique and special wildlife. The Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) considers that although resulting in a
change in land use from arable to industrial, given the proximity of the site to the
adjacent commercial operation and associated large scale structures, the impact of
the proposal on the „special qualities‟ of the AONB...could not be assessed as
significant. The submitted LVIA concludes that there would be no significant effects
on the surrounding landscape features and the Landscape Section concur with this.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, particularly those conditions required to
secure proposed landscape mitigation, Officers consider that the proposal would
accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 1.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
A Phase One Habitat Survey undertaken in October 2012 and updated in January
2013 by the Landscape Partnership has been submitted with the application and
which officers understand has been carried out in accordance with recognised
standards.
Amongst other things, the report suggests that the proposal would have limited
impact on biodiversity and has proposed a number of recommendations in relation to
habitat-specific measures (including a seed mix to create species rich grassland),
breeding birds and reptiles/amphibians.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has noted that,
given that the connectivity of the site to surrounding habitat is already moderately
strong due to the existing wildlife corridors (hedgerows, shelterbelts, field margins),
the proposed landscape mitigation planting, once enhanced as proposed, would
further improve this connectivity. In this regard, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Landscape) has no significant concerns with regard to the
ecological impact of the proposal.
Natural England have raised no objection to the proposal.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest properties to the site are
located due south at Egmere Farm (New Cottages) at approximately 100m distance
but screened by trees. Other residential properties lie immediately east at Bunkers
Hill. There are seven properties at Bunkers Hill, the closest properties being in excess
of 150-200m away from the nearest proposed solar panels.
Development Committee
59
14 March 2013
The Committee has had the opportunity to view the development site from the roof
top of the former Control Tower at Bunkers Hill and therefore will be able to
appreciate the relationship between residential properties and the application site.
Whilst the proposed solar farm may be visible from some properties, given the
distance between residential properties and the application site and having regard to
the height of the panels, it is not considered that the proposal solar farm would in any
way result in overbearing impacts of loss of daylight or sunlight. The panels are
designed to absorb sunlight and therefore glare from the sun is not likely to be an
issue.
In respect of the CCTV system, whilst they are required for insurance purposes,
having learned from the experience of systems on other sites within the District,
Officers consider that because of the type of cameras being used and their general
position on site and distance from properties (in excess of 200m), they would not
pose a risk to the amenity of residents. Furthermore no loudspeaker system is
proposed and conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers therefore consider that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts to
residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be imposed to
ensure that the noise impacts remain acceptable.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants
are not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded
to approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent external
lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development would not pose a highway safety risk
during its operational life with very few vehicle movements associated with
maintenance and repair of the panels once constructed or maintenance of the
grassland. It is only during construction phase when a significant number of vehicle
movements will be generated and it is delivery of the 82,280 panels to site that would
be likely to create the most number of vehicle movements. However this is
considered to be a negligible impact given the relatively short construction timescale
and given the availability of existing hard-standing to allow delivery vehicles to pull off
the main B1105 to offload.
It is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and
CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, Great Walsingham
Footpath 9 runs close to the northern boundary of the site. The applicant proposes a
belt of woodland planting between the footpath and the application site The proposal
would have no direct impact on the footpath itself, although users of the footpath
would experience a different view south of the footpath once the solar panels and
fencing are installed and also once the landscaping matures. Therefore whilst the
views of slow moving receptors such as walkers would be affected by the proposal,
the use of the footpath itself would not be impeded by the proposal.
Development Committee
60
14 March 2013
FLOOD RISK
Whilst the application site area is above 1 hectare in size and therefore the applicant
needs to consider surface water flooding issues, the Environment Agency has
indicated that it would not expect the nature of the development to increase
significantly the surface water run-off and does not consider the application to pose
any additional flood risk.
The proposal would therefore accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the primary risk relates to the previous military use of the
site. In particular there is the risk of unexploded ordnance and the applicant would
need to carry out necessary checks before work commences to ensure the risk to
construction workers is minimised.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and notes attached to the permission, the
proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & SETTING OF HOLKHAM HALL AND OTHER ASSETS
The site is located on the former North Creake airfield and the Committee will have
noted the historical context of the site from other recent planning application
proposals in the immediate area. Whilst it is understood that RAF North Creake was
only operational for a short period of time, a number of representations received in
relation to development in the area have raised concern about the impact of the solar
farm proposal and wider proposed development on the historical context of the site.
The application for consideration is now located primarily on the former airfield site
and whilst it is acknowledged that the character of the site may change as a result of
the proposal, ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement for the Committee in
weighing the benefits of the proposal against the dis-benefits but, from the evidence
available, Officers consider there would be insufficient grounds to refuse based on
impact of the solar farm on the character and setting of the former airfield.
The applicant has proposed to provide information/interpretation boards on or near
the site of the airfield memorial stone. These would provide information about the
airfield which would help visitors understand and learn about the previous RAF North
Creake. This would be secured by way of planning condition and could be completed
under the guidance of Norfolk Historic Environment Services (NHES).
Officers consider that, given the topography of the site, the proposed development
would not have any adverse impact on archaeology associated with the site of the
medieval village of Egmere nor the ruins of the Grade II* listed Church of St Edmund.
In addition it is considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on
the setting of Holkham Hall or its parkland setting nor on the setting of nearby
Egmere Farmhouse or Quarles Farmhouse.
In respect of the views expressed by Norfolk Historic Environment Services (NHES)
and in particular their suggested conditions a) and b), Officers have questioned the
justification for these conditions, particularly in view of the fact that the solar panel
mounts would be driven directly into the ground with little or no ground/soil
disturbance. Officers therefore question whether the archaeological benefits would
justify the need for the condition. In response NHES have indicated that their
proposed conditions a) and b) relate to artefactual recovery, and accept that this
Development Committee
61
14 March 2013
would not be particularly threatened by the development. The conclusion therefore is
that the NHES suggested conditions a) and b) are no longer critical and can be
omitted from any decision if the proposal is approved. However, in relation to
information/interpretation boards, Officers and NHES are in agreement as to the need
to secure this public benefit by way of planning condition.
Therefore subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would accord with
Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
The applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this
element of Policy EN 7 in their planning statement and that the benefits are primarily
related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposal solar farm would generate
approximately 20.4GWh (20,400,000KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 20MW. Officers estimate that the
predicted output of the solar farm would equate to an efficiency factor of about 22.7%
(assuming average annual daylight hours of approximately 4,500 per annum). This
would seem broadly in line with the expected efficiency of solar panels in the UK.
Putting the electricity generation into context and using the latest Department for
Environment and Climate Change (DECC) figures, approximately 4715.5 kWh of
electricity were used per consumer (household) annually in North Norfolk. Using this
figure the proposed solar farm would generate enough electricity to power
approximately 4,326 homes annually. This would make it by far the largest on-shore
renewable energy project in the District and would make a significant contribution
towards meeting national renewable energy targets, to which significant weight can
be attached.
Subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal would broadly
comply with these further requirements of Policy EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND PROJECTS
AT EGMERE
A number of representations have been received in relation to the other possible
developments in the area referred to below, raising concerns about the cumulative
impact of proposed development in and around Egmere. In addition to the proposed
solar farm, an anaerobic digester was recently approved under planning ref:
PF/12/1256. In addition, on 13 December 2012 the Council's Cabinet agreed to
conduct public consultation in respect of the designation of approximately 30 hectares
of land at Egmere for future development in support of offshore wind energy
developments off the North Norfolk coast through the use of Local Development
Order (LDO) powers. This would directly support the Council‟s Corporate Plan
objectives of seeking to attract new jobs and investment associated with offshore
wind energy developments to the District.
Based on the available evidence and subject to satisfactory resolution of any issues
raised by consultees, there is no reason to suggest that the Committee is unable to
determine this solar farm application, particularly if the Committee has taken account
of the fact that permission has already been granted for an anaerobic digester on
adjacent land.
Development Committee
62
14 March 2013
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 20MW solar farm would, amongst other things, have some
visual impact on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that the impacts of the
proposal can be made acceptable. It is considered that proposal would not have a
significant impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan policies.
In addition, the public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy generation
is a material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded in
accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
those relating to landscape mitigation, landscape management, biodiversity
enhancement and provision of interpretation boards relating to the former
airfield.
8.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1228 - Erection of petrol filling station including
kiosk with associated residential flat; Land at Polka Road for Lindum Group
Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
Flood Zones 2 and 3
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19810323 PF - Erection of chimney and water supply tanks
Approved 14/04/1981
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the erection of a petrol filling station with kiosk and an
associated residential flat.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management given the conflicting policy
issues at stake.
TOWN COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
63
14 March 2013
An amended Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan have been
submitted along with a report from Wyeth Project Services in response to the
objection from the Environment Agency, and supporting information in relation to the
applicant of the Sequential and Exception Tests. Copies of this information is
contained in Appendix 2, along with the Design and Access Statement.
The agent and applicant have also submitted emails following the objection from the
Environment Agency in relation to groundwater pollution issues (see Appendix 2).
The emails explain the local need and technical justification for the proposed
development.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection in relation to flood risk subject to a condition that
requires the drainage to be in accordance with the details provided in Section 7.0 of
the Flood Risk Assessment. Conditions are also required in relation to external
lighting, extraction and ventilation, waste and site contamination. Clarification is
sought in relation to opening hours and whether any tanker deliveries will be out of
hours.
Highways - It is noted that the proposed alignment of the surface water drainage from
the site follows the alignment of the eastern footway of Polka Road. It is County
Council Policy to solely permit lateral crossings of highways by private sewers and so
the connection between the site and the existing surface water manhole must be
diverted clear of the highway. The applicant has demonstrated by track runs that the
site will be accessible to a variety of vehicles and vehicle combinations. Subject to an
acceptable alteration of the surface water sewer, I am pleased to advise you that the
Highway Authority has no objection to the application. Conditions are required in
relation to access, signage, on site car parking, servicing, loading and unloading,
turning and waiting areas, on site parking for construction workers, Construction
Management Plan and Access Route, and wheel cleaning facilities.
Environment Agency - A copy of the original comments are contained in Appendix 2
and explain the Environment Agency's objection in relation to groundwater protection
and the risks proposed by the development and how to overcome those objections.
In summary, in relation to flood risk the Environment Agency advises that the
proposed development site lies within tidal Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone as
defined by Table 1 of the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy
Framework. However, the site is defended to the 1 in 1000 year flood level (including
climate change) so would only expect the site to be at risk of flooding if those
defences were to breach/fail. The Environment Agency also advises that the
Sequential Test and Exception Test will apply if a Hazardous Substances Consent is
not required. They advise the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that there
are no reasonably available alternative sites in areas with a lower probability of
flooding that would be appropriate for the type of development proposed.
Whilst the Environment Agency considers the Flood Risk Assessment is not fully
compliant with the requirements set out in the NPPF, it does not consider that it has
grounds to object. It advises that the views of the Emergency Planning Officer should
be sought.
In relation to contaminated land based on the information provided the EA is satisfied
that the risks to the water environment from potentially contaminated land are well
understood. Should the groundwater objections be overcome conditions are required
in relation to a site investigation into contaminated land, no occupation until
Development Committee
64
14 March 2013
verification report approved, no development should take place until a long term
monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination is approved, and if
during development contamination not previously identified is found to be present
then no further development unless otherwise agreed with the LPA shall be carried
out until a remediation strategy has been submitted and approved by the LPA.
Objections made in respect of potential impact on groundwater quality.
Advice regarding site drainage is also given.
Comments on amended details: Refer to the document prepared by Wyeth Projects
Services Limited: Response to Objection by The Environment Agency to a planning
application for Proposed Petrol Filling Station Polka Road, Wells next the Sea,
Norfolk, dated January 2013.
This document refers to EA updated position statements D2 – Underground storage
(and associated pipework) and D3 – Sub water table storage (GP3, November 2012).
Whilst position statement D2 does permit situations where underground storage of
pollutants on Principal and Secondary Aquifers would be acceptable provided certain
conditions were met, based on position statement D3, object to any proposal for sub
water table storage. This policy remains unchanged from the previous version of GP3
(2008).
As stated within EA groundwater protection policy ‘while we are seeking to reduce the
regulatory burden on industry by simplifying our permitting procedures and adopting a
risk-based approach, where appropriate we apply the precautionary principle’. By
placing the tanks directly in the underlying groundwater, the pathway between the
source and receptor is lost. With no unsaturated zone present, no attenuation of
contamination can occur prior to entering groundwater. Under the current legislation,
the direct discharge of hazardous substances, e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons, should
be prevented rather than just limited, hence our policy statement D3: ‘We will object
to storage of hazardous substances below the water table in principal or secondary
aquifers. (...)’. The use of above ground storage tanks would address and comply
with these statements.
The reference to D2 in position statement D3 applies to situations where sub water
table storage already takes place. As such, D3 cannot be interpreted as allowing sub
water table storage and our policy is to object in principle to any new developments
involving sub water table storage on Principal or Secondary Aquifers.
The site is underlain by Alluvium designated as a Secondary A Aquifer, which in turn
overlies the solid geology of Cretaceous Chalk (undifferentiated) classified as a
Principal Aquifer. In the report above, it was confirmed that a shallow groundwater
level was believed to be present beneath the site. As such, if a leak or spill were to
occur, it would directly and immediately affect the groundwater quality in the
underlying aquifers.
We therefore maintain our objection to the proposed development.
Please note that we will not be providing further comment on flood risk issues as
these fall within the remit of the Local Authority.
Further comments on applicants' supporting emails: Following confirmation from our
national team we are unable to remove our objection. We consider that the proposed
development poses an unacceptable risk of causing a detrimental impact to
groundwater quality for the reasons given in our letter dated 19 November 2012.
Development Committee
65
14 March 2013
Building Control - A site investigation should be undertaken to establish the presence
or otherwise of any possible contamination.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection. Conditions in relation to external materials for kiosk building and canopy
required.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection.
Landscaping condition required.
Planning Policy Manager - Comments are made in relation to the residential
accommodation proposed within what otherwise appears to be a policy compliant
proposal. The inclusion of a residential flat within the proposal is a departure from
Policy SS5 which limits the uses of the site to industrial developments and other
specific employment uses including petrol filling stations. The applicant makes the
case that the inclusion of a residential unit within the development makes the
difference between the proposal being viable or not viable. There is little if any
supporting evidence to support this case. Nevertheless looking at the specific
proposal the residential element would appear to comprise a small 'ancillary unit' of
residential accommodation associated with the petrol filling station. Consequently, if
the applicant is prepared to accept a condition that the residential accommodation
should not be occupied until such time as the petrol filling station is trading then I
would not wish to raise a policy objection.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Recommend application be approved subject to a
condition that the building is not occupied until measures have been implemented to
minimise energy use, resource use and adapt the building to withstand climate
change as described in Chapter 11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide and details
which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Emergency Planning Officer - In relation to amended Flood Risk Assessment and
Flood Evacuation Plan there are no objections. The procedures that are detailed
within the plan will enhance the safety of the residents and the user of the kiosk
during any potential flooding incident.
Norfolk Fire Service - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Development Committee
66
14 March 2013
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Flood Risk and application of the Sequential and Exception Tests
3. Contaminated land
4. Groundwater pollution
5. Highway safety
6. Design
APPRAISAL
The site is located within an area designated as an Employment Area in the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location only employment generating
development proposals are permitted which include those uses that fall with Use
Class B1, B2, and B8 as well as petrol filling stations, car/vehicle hire, the selling and
display of motor vehicles and builders yards. The use as a petrol filling station is
therefore policy compliant. However, in association with the petrol filling station a two
bedroom first floor flat is proposed over the kiosk building. This aspect of the proposal
constitutes a departure from Policy SS5 as residential accommodation is not normally
permitted in such a location.
Whilst the residential accommodation is a departure from policy it is located within a
building which would be required for the functioning of the petrol filling station
regardless. It is not therefore considered that this small residential element would
have a significantly detrimental impact on the designated Employment Area. Although
not strictly compliant with Policy SS5 it is considered that on balance the principle of
the proposal as a whole is acceptable in this location.
The site is also located within Flood Zone 3 as designated by the Environment
Agency. A Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan have been submitted
with the application.. The Environment Agency has commented in relation to flood
risk, groundwater pollution, contaminated land and site drainage.
The Committee will note from the Environment Agency's original response attached
in Appendix 2 that it has no objection in terms of flood risk.
It is not considered that the petrol filling station requires Hazardous Substance
Consent and in accordance with Environment Agency advice the proposal is
therefore classed as 'more vulnerable' in the Technical Guidance in the NPPF in
relation to flood risk and flood risk vulnerability classification. The petrol filling station
alone is classed as 'less vulnerable'. However, it is the associated residential element
of this proposal which is classed as 'more vulnerable'. In accordance with the
Technical Guidance in the NPPF in Flood Zone 3 'less vulnerable' uses are permitted
Development Committee
67
14 March 2013
in this zone, and 'more vulnerable' uses should only be permitted if the Exception
Test has been passed.
Because of the inclusion of the 'more vulnerable' element of this application it is first
necessary for the District Council to apply the Sequential Test. The aim of the
Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of
flooding. The NPPF advises that 'development should not be allocated or permitted if
there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in
areas with a lower probability of flooding'. In applying the Sequential Test in this case
it is not considered that there is another site appropriate for this development with a
lower probability of flooding. The reason for this is because Wells-next-the-Sea does
not have a petrol filling station so the need for one is specific to the town itself.
Residents of the town currently have to go elsewhere. This is recognised in the Core
Strategy in paragraph 1.3.13. It is stated that the town is a local service centre, but
that its remote location, high housing prices and second home ownership has created
problems in retaining local services, and specifically refers to the fact that there is no
petrol filling station. The Core Strategy also states that this imbalance is beginning to
be addressed and that in order for this to continue and to ensure the Town's long
term vitality and viability that a positive framework to encourage greater economic
diversity and social enterprise is required. Since it is considered that the need for a
petrol filling station is specific to the town and not the wider District this means that
consideration needs to be given to whether there are other more suitable sites within
the town itself.
Given the nature of the development, petrol filling stations need to be accessible not
only for passing traffic but also for tanker deliveries, so need to be located on a main
road. The applicants‟ agent has submitted details in relation to the Sequential and
Exception Tests, and has advised that due to the accessibility needs of a petrol filling
station they considered two other potential sites in the town that could have
accommodated the development but both have been discounted. They are the
festival amusements site fronting the quay and the Ark Royal Public House. The
festival amusements site has an approved permission for retail units and
accommodation and is in the same flood zone as the Polka Road site so it is not at
any lesser risk of flooding. This would not comply with the Sequential Test. Part of the
Ark Royal site is also within Flood Zone 3 which would also not comply with the
Sequential Test. In addition the agent has advised that the Ark Royal site is being
marketed for redevelopment at a cost which exceeds the completed development
value of the petrol filling station, as ascertained by an independent valuation. This
means that the site cannot realistically be delivered as it would require the asking
price for the land to be reduced by 95% in order for the petrol filling station to be
viable. In view of the character of the built form of Wells-next-the-Sea and its narrow
streets and close knit development it is considered that there are no other suitable
sites within the town which would be suitably located and at a lower risk of flooding
for development as a petrol filling station.
This conclusion means that the Exception Test now needs to be applied. This test
requires it to be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability
benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk and that a site specific Flood Risk
Assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime; this
includes locating most vulnerable development in areas of lowest risk unless there
are overriding reasons to prefer a different location and that the development is
appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes
where required and that any residual risk can be safely managed, and priority is
given to the use of sustainable drainage systems.
Development Committee
68
14 March 2013
The Environment Agency provided guidance in terms of the content of the Flood Risk
Assessment and advised the District Council to consult the Emergency Planning
Officer. As a result of the comments provided by the Environment Agency the agent
submitted an amended Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan. The
Environment Agency raised no objection on flood risk grounds and have no further
comments to add. The District Council's Emergency Planning Officer has also been
consulted and has raised no objection to the proposal. He is satisfied that the
procedures set out in the Flood Evacuation Plan will enhance the safety of the
residents and the users of the kiosk during any potential flooding incident. The Flood
Risk Assessment contains details of the flood resistance and resilience measures
proposed including the owner of the property registering with the Environment
Agency's flood warning service. The site is currently defended to the 1 in 1000 year
flood level including climate change so the only risk of flooding would be in the event
of a breach of failure of the defences. Should there be such a breach the Flood Risk
Assessment has concluded that the site under present day modelling would be
flooded to a depth of 140mm. In 2112 (the 100 year life of the building) a depth of
1070mm is predicted, which would be for a short period either side of high tide. This
clearly would not reach the floor level of the first floor residential accommodation.
In view of this it is considered that the wider sustainability benefits to the community
from the provision of a petrol filling station outweigh the possible flood risk. In
addition, whilst this application is entirely separate from the Anglia Regional Co-op
Society and Lindum Group application for the supermarket on land directly adjacent
to the south of this site approved under application reference 12/0418, it would act as
a complementary facility which would not only serve the local community of Wellsnext-the-Sea but also the surrounding area and the tourism industry, reducing trips
outside the town for local residents and providing much needed facilities within the
town for locals and tourists alike. It is therefore considered that the proposal also
complies with the Exception Test and is therefore policy compliant in terms of flood
risk.
In relation to contaminated land the Environment Agency, the District Council's
Contaminated Land Officer and Building Control Manager have raised no objections,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including a site investigation into
possible contaminants on the site. The Environment Agency is also recommending a
number of other conditions in relation to the following matters:
No occupation until verification report approved; no development should take place
until a long term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination is
approved; and if during development contamination not previously identified is found
to be present then no further development unless otherwise agreed with the LPA
should be carried out until a remediation strategy has been submitted and approved
by the LPA. The Environment Agency has also provided some guidance in terms of
drainage.
However, the Environment Agency has raised an objection to this application in
relation to ground water protection. The Committee will note from the Environment
Agency's original response contained in Appendix 2 that it considers that the
proposed development would pose an unacceptable risk of pollution of groundwater.
The Environment Agency's position statement states that it will object to pollutants
below the water table in principal or secondary aquifers; the proposal would pose an
unacceptable risk of causing a detrimental impact of ground water quality because:
1. The proposed development involves the installation of two large Underground Fuel
Storage Tanks (UFST's) and Petroleum fuels are classified as a hazardous
Development Committee
69
14 March 2013
substance under Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR)
2010.
2. Based on records the site is underlain by shallow groundwater and thus the
development as outlined in the application would pose an unacceptable level of risk
to groundwater.
3. The site is underlain by Alluvium designated as a Secondary A Aquifer, which in
turn overlies the solid geology of Cretaceous Chalk (undifferentiated) classified as a
Principal Aquifer.
The Environment Agency also provided advice as to how its objection could be
overcome as follows:
1. Demonstrate that the fuel storage tanks will not be located below the water table
2. Provide evidence of overriding reasons why the proposed activity could not be
located on unproductive strata
3. Provide evidence why the storage cannot be provided above ground
4. Provide appropriate mitigation for the risk to the water environment.
In response to the objection from the Environment Agency on this matter the
applicants have submitted a report by Wyeth Project Services who provide specialist
advice to developers and operators of retail petroleum networks. A full copy of this
report is contained in Appendix 2. It specifically sets out the reasons why the tanks
are located where they are, why they should not be above ground and what mitigation
measures are proposed. This is also supported by the email received from the
applicant in Appendix 2.
In summary in response to points 1 and 2 made by the Environment Agency as to
how their objection could be overcome the Wyeth Project Services report explains
that it has been demonstrated through the Sequential and Exception Tests that this
site is the only suitable site in the town for this proposed development. Given the size
of the site the applicants are limited as to where the fuel tanks can be positioned,
taking into account required separation distances from boundaries to ensure
hazardous zones are wholly contained within the site. The report also states that the
geology of the entire site remains fairly consistent and therefore there are no other
options for positioning the tanks on unproductive strata.
In relation to point 3 made by the Environment Agency the Wyeth Project Services
report provides in some detail as to why above ground storage would pose an
unacceptable risk to public safety. In brief these risks are fire, explosion, accidental
release of products, increased vaporisation, flammable atmospheres, tank filling
process, impact damage which is the risk of impact to tanks from vehicle movements
on the site, Acts of God (lightning strikes), and malicious damage which could lead to
sudden and uncontrolled release of fuel. In addition to risks to public safety other
reasons why the fuel tanks cannot or should not be installed above ground are as
follows:
1. The site off Polka Road is of limited size at approximately 50m x 30m. A 40,000
litre storage tank measures approximately 9m x 2.5m, it would require a minimum
separation distance from any boundary of 4m, plus a minimum spacing to another
tank of 1m. In addition to this the impact protection required would mean that the site
is not big enough to support this development or any other filling station design which
would be suitable for the acknowledged demand in Wells-next-the-Sea.
2. Due to the nature of the products being stored it would be necessary to ensure the
above ground storage tanks were in clear open space, this would mean a 2.5m
Development Committee
70
14 March 2013
diameter tank installed in the open air with limited possibilities for screening or
disguise would be extremely unattractive in a town situation.
3. The HSE have recently expressed concern about the above ground storage of
petrol at public filling stations where the risk of fire, explosion to customers and safety
concerns for maintenance contractors is higher than at a conventional petrol station
with underground tanks.
In response to point 4 the Wyeth Project Services report states that environmental
risks from underground storage would be mitigated through the use of the latest
proven and tested techniques for construction of petrol filling stations. These are
summarised as follows:
1. All design and construction will be in accordance with the accepted industry guide
publication "Design, construction, modification, maintenance and decommissioning of
filling stations" 3rd edition, jointly published by the APEA (Association for Petroleum
and Explosives Administration) and Energy Institute.
2. The underground storage tanks will be of a double wall steel construction,
externally coated with solvent free polyurethane. The space between the walls will be
fitted with a continuous monitoring system designed to raise an alarm if any change in
pressure is detected. This will allow investigation and repair prior to the release of
motor fuel.
3. The leak detection system proposed is a class 1 system. It will keep the two skins
of the double wall tank under a test pressure the whole of its working life. The
containment spaces around the pipes and the tanks are maintained at a positive
pressure. Any failure of the primary or secondary layers will result in an alarm. As the
pressure is greater than the internal liquid pressure this will always push air into the
fluid rather than allowing it to escape.
4. Underground tank manhole chambers will be fitted with sealed, non-metallic liners
to prevent ground water entry into the chambers which could lead to corrosion and
premature failure of metallic components.
5. All underground pipework will be of approved non-metallic construction, and will be
double walled with the space between fitted with continuous monitoring systems to
trigger an alarm should they detect any failure and allow repair prior to any release of
motor fuel.
6. Fuel dispensers will be installed with specifically designed sumps below each to
capture securely any spillage from the dispenser during maintenance or malfunction
during operation.
7. The forecourt drainage system will be designed to ensure any spillage of motor fuel
is captured and contained within a class 1 forecourt oil/water separator, fitted with an
automatic shut off valve to prevent motor fuel entering the public drains.
8. The site will be fitted with Electronic Tank Contents Measuring equipment that will
be continuously monitoring stock levels and be fitted with an alarm system to notify
any problems as soon as they arise.
9. The site operator will implement via a 3rd party monitoring service a system of
Continuous Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) which will ensure any variation
in normal operating patterns will be immediately detected, alerted and investigated
often before the site is aware of an issue.
The Environment Agency was re-consulted on the amended information from the
applicants but is maintaining its objection for the reasons given in the consultation
section of this report. The objection of the Environment Agency has been carefully
considered in the light of the responses received. It is considered that a petrol filling
station in the location proposed is a much needed local facility which would benefit
the local community. It is considered that the applicants have gone to some length to
demonstrate that the petrol filling station would be constructed to accepted industry
Development Committee
71
14 March 2013
standards and that any possible risks to the groundwater can be appropriately
mitigated against. It is considered that the local community benefits outweigh the
possible risks posed to the groundwater quality as raised by the Environment Agency.
No objections have been received from the Highway Authority subject to conditions.
Environmental Health have also raised no objections subject to conditions. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on
highway safety or the residential amenities of the nearest neighbouring dwellings to
the site.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised no objection in
respect of design. Given the close proximity to the Wells Conservation Area and
prominent position, conditions in relation to external materials are required in order to
safeguard visual amenities of the area and to ensure that there is a cohesive design
for the development and adjacent supermarket.
The site is also located within an Area of Outstanding Beauty. However, it is
designated as an Employment Area and within the developed part of the town. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would have any detrimental impact on the
special qualities or setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In conclusion, whilst the principle of the proposed overall development does not
strictly comply with Policy SS5 because of the residential element it is considered to
be acceptable. The proposal complies with both the Sequential and Exception Tests
and is therefore policy compliant in terms of flood risk. Whilst the Environment
Agency has maintained its objection in relation to potential ground water pollution
from the tanks it is considered that the applicants have demonstrated why they
cannot reasonably be located anywhere else or above ground and have proposed
appropriate mitigation measures. Subject to no objections from the Norfolk Fire
Service or Environmental Health in relation to opening hours it is considered that the
benefits to the local community as a result of this proposal outweigh the possible risks
to ground water outlined by the Environment Agency, given the mitigation measures
proposed.
It is considered that the proposal would not significantly conflict with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no objection from the Norfolk Fire Service or
Environmental Health in relation to opening hours and imposition of
appropriate conditions, including those regarding drainage; flood resilience
and resistance measures; flood evacuation plan; mitigation measures for
protection of groundwater; contamination; waste; external lighting; extraction
and ventilation; landscaping; flat not to be occupied until petrol filling station
trading; implementation of measures to minimise energy use; resource use and
to adapt the building to withstand climate change; materials; access; signage;
on site car parking; servicing; loading and unloading; turning and waiting
areas; parking for construction workers; Construction Management Plan and
Access Route, and wheel cleaning facilities.
If the Committee is minded to agree the recommendation a further consultation
will be necessary with the Environment Agency advising them of the
Committee resolution.
Development Committee
72
14 March 2013
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with
ancillary buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road
for Mr D Oliver
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management to expedite the processing
of this major application.
HEMPSTEAD – PF/12/1339 – Erection of 78m high (to tip) wind turbine with
access track, substation, temporary metrological mast and associated
infrastructure; Land at Selbrigg Road for Selbrigg Generation
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application and enable Members to appreciate fully this major
development proposal.
MUNDESLEY – PF/12/1441 – Formation of artisan education centre/holiday
development consisting of the erection of 7 residential/holiday lodges,
camping area and change of use of dwelling to communal facilities/holiday
accommodation, retention of two static caravans for holiday accommodation;
67 Cromer Road for Kiln Cliffs Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith and Councillor Northam in respect of the impact of
the development on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
SCOTTOW – PF/13/0033 - Erection of two wind turbines each with a maximum
blade tip height of 126.5 metres together with substation and control building,
access tracks and other infrastructure; Scottow Estate, land off Potspoon Hole,
North Walsham Road for Airvolution Energy Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management to expedite the processing
of the application and enable Members to appreciate fully this major development
proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Committee
73
14 March 2013
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/0856 - Conversion of barns to five units of holiday
accommodation and associated residential dwelling; Barns rear of Aldborough
Hall, Hall Road for Mr R Lawson
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0058 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 6 of planning
permission reference: 12/0967 to permit relocation of garage, opening up of slit
windows and change of roof materials; Chestnut Farm, Thurgarton for
Aldborough Farms Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/1400 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 12/0896 to permit use of revised materials for front and rear extensions;
Cricketers Rest, The Green for Mr Hooker
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/12/1446 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 04/0339 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Piggeries,
Church Road for Mr & Mrs Knights
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - NP/13/0036 - Prior notification of of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Land at New Barn Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mr R Cubitt
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BODHAM - NMA1/11/1062 - Non-material amendment request for revised
cladding, parapet, glazing and door arrangements, removal of canopy between
buildings and revised parking layout and surfacing materials; Crayford And
Abbs, Weybourne Road for Crayford & Abbs & North Norfolk Garden Machinery
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/12/1413 - Erection of extension to stables and repositioning of
tack room; Walnut Tree Barn, Fakenham Road for Mr Irwin
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0037 - Erection of porch; The Barn, Town Yard for
Mr N Dolby
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1369 - Erection of front porch; Christmas Cottage,
4 The Old Maltings, High Street for Mr M Rigby
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0026 - Erection of B1 office/storage building; Red
Hare Studios, The Shieling Stable Block, Holt Road for Ms S Whittley
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/1259 - Erection of first floor rear extension to provide annexe
and erection of replacement balcony; 7 St Marys Road for Mr & Mrs R Collins
(Householder application)
Development Committee
74
14 March 2013
CROMER - PF/12/1103 - Erection of one and a half storey side extensions,
raising of roof and erection of single-storey front and rear extensions with
balconies above; 10 Cliff Drive for Mr D Crossley & Mrs J Middlemass
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0012 - Erection of rear conservatory and side facing dormer
window to facilitate conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation; 55
Station Road for Mr J Dupuis
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/05/0527 - Non material amendment request to reduce unit F1
(1 bedroom flat) to studio flat and alteration to elevations; Fletcher Hospital,
Roughton Road for J A Investments
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - NP/13/0041 - Prior notification of intention to erect re-located
agricultural storage building; Home Farm, Hall Road for Cromer Hall Estate
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
EAST RUSTON - NMA1/11/1095 - Non material amendment request to alter
shape of first floor rear extension front windows and install timber clad steel
piers; Simms Cottage, Back Lane for Miss Leslie
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EDGEFIELD - LA/13/0010 - Alterations to barn and erection of link extension to
facilitate conversion to residential dwelling (amended scheme); Barn At, The
Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Mrs Erlam
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/12/0015 - Non-material amendment request to omit high
level glazing to north elevation and insert 2 rooflights to piggery, alterations to
window sizes and use zinc cladding to west face of roof link; Barn at The Old
Rectory, Rectory Road for Mrs Perkins
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1379 - Erection of replacement garage; 4 William Road for
Mr & Mrs D Pratt
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PO/12/1223 - Erection of two detached dwellings; 101 Rudham
Stile Lane for Mr A Daly
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/12/1386 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; The Garden House, 30 Bridge Street for J D Wetherspoon
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/0013 - Installation of partial replacement roof covering
and photovoltaic panels to southern roof slope; Village Hall, Holt Road for Field
Dalling & Saxlingham Village Hall Management Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
75
14 March 2013
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/1265 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of planning
permission reference:12/0154 to permit revised drainage details, position of
downpipes and water butts, porch design, position of PV and solar panels,
window position, increase in height of two-storey extension and revised
external finish; Meadow Cottage, Langham Road for Mr & Mrs B Goodale
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/13/0016 - Erection of entrance porch and extension of roof
to provide covered storage area; Barn adjacent 1 Bridge Cottage, Croxton Road
for Mr A Pitt
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/10/0203 - Non material amendment request to delete porch
on east elevation to annex and insert window and erection of screen wall to
south side of patio; Land at School Lane for Mr Colbourne
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0001 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 8 The
Street for Mr Taylor
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - NMA1/12/1079 - Non-material amendment request for reduction in
size and height of crop storage buildings; Land rear of Hempton Poultry Farm,
Helhoughton Road for Raynham Farms Co Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HEMPTON - PF/12/1359 - Erection of two-storey side extension with rear
balcony; 12 Horns Row for Mrs C Mahon
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/12/1276 - Conversion of barns to dwelling and erection of cart
lodge with storage above; Plummers Farm Barn, Pockthorpe Loke, Stubb Road
for Mr & Mrs R Hallan
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/12/1397 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling (revised
design); Bay Cottage, The Green for Anne Thorne Architects LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/1044 - Removal of conditions 2 & 5 of planning
permission reference 07/1367 to remove requirement for provision of turning
area; 1 The Street for Mr & Mrs D Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/1313 - Conversion and extension of former agricultural
building to provide garden studio, covered parking and temporary living
accommodation during the course of construction of PF/12/0432; Great Crow
Farmhouse, Blakeney Road for Mr P Hooper
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/12/1334 - Erection of bio-mass heating plant house and bulk
store; Holkham Hall, Holkham Park for Holkham Estates
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
76
14 March 2013
HOLT - NMA1/12/0939 - Non material amendment request to reposition window
on south facing elevation and installation of woodburner flue on ridge line of
extension; 16 Mill Street for Mr Edwards
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - PF/12/1225 - Creation of vehicular access; The Grove, Cromer Road for
Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/1415 - Removal of garage and erection of two-storey side
extension; 62 Hempstead Road for Mr T McMonagle
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1425 - Restoration of River Wensum and its floodplain;
Land at Pensthorpe Nature Reserve, Fakenham Road for Pensthorpe
Conservation Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1429 - Construction of adventure playground and
formation of replacement parking area; Pensthorpe Nature Reserve & Gardens,
Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Pensthorpe Wildlife & Gardens
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0032 - Erection of rear extension; 28 Broad Reaches for Mr
Warren
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/12/0311 - Non material amendment request to replace
patio doors on north elevation of extension to window; 52 Sea View Road for Mr
& Mrs Taylor
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1371 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
13 Texel Way for Mr & Mrs G Witham
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/0059 - Change of use from B2 (general industrial) to B8
(storage and distribution) with ancillary offices, re-cladding of roof and walls
and insertion of windows and doors; The Granary, School Road for Flexitog ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/11/0517 - Non material amendment request to permit
replacement of cladding to cedar effect cement-fibre cladding, 'sail cloth' to first
floor of house type 1; Land off Wood View for Young Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/11/0073 - Non-material amendment request for
revised elevation details; 106 Cromer Road for Independence with Care Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/11/1483 - Non-material amendment request for
revised materials, building level, cycle store, siting of unit 1, window details and
rear elevation of unit 2; Malthouse Plain, Mundesley Road for Lovell
Partnerships
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
77
14 March 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1430 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 12/0882 to permit revised design for entrance lobby; The
Lawns Site, Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane for Paston Sixth Form
College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1406 - Installation of dormer window and rooflights
to facilitate conversion of first and second floors to two residential flats; 6 St
Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Len Bullimore & Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1006 - Erection of two-storey office building with
cycle and refuse storage; Maces Yard, Cromer Road for Bullen Developments
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/1372 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement
dwelling and detached garage; Daisy Cottage, 2 Bulls Row for Mr & Mrs A
Breeze
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/1404 - Installation of two front dormer windows to
facilitate conversion of attic to habitable accommodation; Watergardens, 26
Harbord Road for Mrs S Dickenson
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0852 - Conversion of former school to one dwelling
and erection of entrance conservatory; Round Bridge, School Road for Mr J
Overy
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - LA/12/0934 - Installation of Broadband Receiver Dish; 28 The
Street, West Raynham for Mr A Forsyth
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/12/1434 - Installation of roof-mounted PV array; Uphouse Farm,
Swaffham Road, South Raynham for Uphouse Farm Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/0321 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 00/1200 to permit permanent residential occupation; Jonas Farm
Holiday Barns, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs S Kelly
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/1447 - Erection of garage (revised siting); Roundabouts House,
Greens Lane, Top Common, East Runton for Mr Nichols
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/12/1376 - Erection of 2m high boundary fence; Fervaques, 204A
Holt Road for Mr P Haynes
(Householder application)
Development Committee
78
14 March 2013
RYBURGH - PF/12/1402 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached
car port; The Dower House, 7 Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mrs E Savory
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/12/1418 - Erection of attached garage; 3 Mill Road, Great
Ryburgh for Mr J McGrath
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/1432 - Conversion and extension of garage and stables to
provide annexe/holiday accommodation; Cranmer Lodge, Creake Road,
Cranmer for Miss S Mullins
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1442 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; 11 Links Road for Mr R Krol
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/11/0625 - Non material amendment request to replace
timber windows and doors with PVCU material and to reinstate vertical timber
posts to front and rear elevations, insertion of a soil vent pipe, change to a
Julliet balcony and internal re-arrangement; Adjacent 42 St Austins Grove for
Burrows
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1277 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 18
Cromer Road for Mr K Gleave
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1398 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 36
Augusta Street for Mr T Claydon
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1414 - Installation of two front dormer windows; 7
Salisbury Road for Mr Manton
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/13/0049 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Highview,
Felmingham Road for Mr P Davison
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PM/12/0436 - Construction of winter storage reservoir; Land
north of Old Hall Farm for Worstead Farms Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/1440 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings;
Plots 8 & 9, Meadow Lane for Mr R Codling
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/1335 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension;
Monifieth, Crown Loke for Morris
(Householder application)
Development Committee
79
14 March 2013
STALHAM - PF/12/1382 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 11 West
End Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr J Parker
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - PF/13/0031 - Erection of single-storey side extension and singlestorey side annexe; Blue Tile Farmhouse, Wood Norton Road for Mr & Mrs
Harmer
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/0061 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 04/1604 to permanent residential occupation; Pond Farm
Barn, The Hill for Mr H Read
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/12/1312 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of planning
permission reference 06/1844 to permit use of Barn F as a wedding venue;
Manor Mews, Fakenham Road for Mr A J Wagg
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/12/1395 - Formation of self-contained apartment to
provide owner's accommodation provision of additional guest bedroom (total of
5), erection of garden wall and re-location of parking area; Green House, Cromer
Road for Mr A Stewart
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - LA/12/1396 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion of
part ground floor to residential apartment; Green House, Cromer Road for Mr A
Stewart
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - NMA1/12/0530 - Non-material amendment request for change of
colour for dormer cladding and window frames; Meadow View, Trunch Road for
Mr S Hayes
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/1426 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1381 to permit permanent residential occupation; 6 Laurel Farm
Barns, Market Street for Mr J Inwood
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - NP/13/0083 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; The Chimneys, Ostend Road for Walcott Farms
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WALCOTT - NP/13/0121 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
farm office and raise roof height to existing farm building; The Chimneys,
Ostend Road for Walcott Farms
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WALCOTT - PF/12/1412 - Erection of front porch; Barrington Farm, Rookery
Farm Road for Incatern Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
80
14 March 2013
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1417 - Continued use of land as temporary car
park for 65 days per year; Wells Town Football Club, Beach Road for Wells
Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/1433 - Change of use to bed & breakfast establishment;
Millstream House, Beach Lane for Mrs M Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/09/0029 - Non material amendment request to remove
section of rear boundary wall and extend existing flint wall at lower level and to
erect flat roof over porch; The Roost, Bolding Way for Mr Harrison
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/1504 - Removal of Condition 3 of permission reference:
05/0745 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Mill, Beach Lane for Mr
& Mrs M J Girling
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - PF/12/1410 - Restoration of outbuilding; Church Farm House, High
Street for Mrs T Guillory
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - LA/12/1411 - Restoration of outbuildings including re-facing of front
and side walls and re-instatement of tiled roof; Church Farm House, High Street
for Mrs T Guillory
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/13/0006 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 05/0820 to permit permanent residential occupation of the unit known
as 'The Barn'; The Barn, Happisburgh Road, Ridlington for Mr R Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/12/1304 - Variation of conditions 2, 6 and 10 of planning ref:
10/0594 to permit revised design, installation of air source heat pump,change
the materials of roof and carrying out of the development in accordance with
updated Ecology Report.; Mill Common House, Mill Common Road, Ridlington
for Damery
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/1340 - Conversion of barn to ancillary residential
accommodation; The Grange, Church Road for Mr & Mrs A Kennedy
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - LA/12/1341 - Refurbishment and alterations to barn to
facilitate conversion to ancillary residential accommodation and installation of
showering facilities in outbuilding; The Grange, Church Road for Mr & Mrs A
Kennedy
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1362 - Erection of part single-storey and two-storey rear
extensions; The Cottage, Withergate Roadfor Farrow
(Householder application)
Development Committee
81
14 March 2013
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
OVERSTRAND - PO/12/0615 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land between
36 Bracken Avenue and 21 Cromer Road, Overstrand for Mr D Ayres
(Outline Planning Permission)
SIDESTRAND - PF/12/1281 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation; Ivy Farm, Main Road, Sidestrand, Cromer for Mr S Guy
(Full Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road, Suffield for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PO/12/0546 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land
adjacent Astley, Coast Road, Cley for Mr T Baker
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 29 January 2013
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Rememberance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane, Beeston Regis,
Sheringham for Mr R Edwards
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
SITE VISIT:- 07 March 2013
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
Development Committee
82
14 March 2013
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams, Sea Palling for Mr R
Contessa
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 26 February 2013
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams, Sea Palling, Norwich,
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/12/1018 - Erection of single-storey
rear extension; High Barn, Riverside Road for Mr S Futter
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road, Roughton for Mrs D Pritchard
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street, Swafield for Lord Watts
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WITTON - PF/12/0434 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference
05/0820 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Barn, Happisburgh
Road, Ridlington for Mr R Ward
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
Development Committee
83
14 March 2013