Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
6 October 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 15 October 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 5 November 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 17
September 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0849 - Conversion and extension of former
reading rooms to wedding venue; car park for 30 cars with new access off
Church Road; pedestrian path between car park and proposed venue; The Old
Rectory, Church Road, Alby for Mr S Williams
Page 1
(2)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1088 - Variation of condition 2 of Planning
Permission ref PF/12/0767 to allow adjustment to building position, timber
walkway along the south and west elevations and insertion of two windows;
Oaklea, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mr J Taylor and Mrs M Harris Page 9
(3)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
Page 12
(Appendix 1 – page 51)
(4)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J
Woodeson
Page 18
(5)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1137 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and replacement detached garage (re-submission 15/0847) Part
retrospective; 3 St Benets Avenue for Mr G Sexton
Page 27
(6)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of
planning permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting
windows to east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son
(Norwich) Ltd
Page 31
(7)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 36
(8)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 37
(9)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 48
(10)
NEW APPEALS
Page 49
(11)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 49
(12)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 49
(13)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 50
(14)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 50
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 15 OCTOBER 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0849 - Conversion and extension of former
reading rooms to wedding venue; car park for 30 cars with new access off
Church Road; pedestrian path between car park and proposed venue; The Old
Rectory, Church Road, Alby for Mr S Williams
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None.
THE APPLICATION
It is proposed to convert the church Reading/Meeting Rooms to a wedding venue to be
used primarily for civil wedding services and receptions. The applicants have
indicated it would also be used for other functions. The proposal also includes the
following:

A small single storey extension to the north side of the building to provide toilet
facilities. This would have a flat roof, vertical cedar board cladding to the walls
above a brick plinth to match those of the existing building. The existing small WC
building would be demolished.

Alterations to the existing building including the insertion of roof lights in the north
roof slope, a new window in an existing opening in the north elevation,
reinstatement of a first floor window in the east elevation and replacement of
modern French doors and window with new glazed entrance doors and new
arched head to the opening. Internally openings would be formed in some walls.

Construction of a car park with 30 spaces within a triangular parcel of land about
130m to the east of the building fronting Aldborough Road. Vehicle access into it
would be at the east end of the road frontage and the existing access to the west
would be closed with a hedge reinstated. The car park would have a gravel
surface. A pedestrian path running adjacent to the north boundary of the site and
through an area of trees would link the car park to the building.
Development Committee
1
15 October 2015
The Reading Rooms would have a capacity of 70 people seated for ceremonies and
receptions. Additional numbers of evening guests are suggested as being 20. It
would be open from 9.00am to allow for setting up. Catering would be done off site and
brought in. The existing access to the west side of the church would be used for
caterer's and other service vehicles, the wedding car and for disabled access. All
guests would be off site by midnight, music would finish at 11.30pm and drinks would
not be served after 11.15pm. Fireworks and sky lanterns will not be permitted.
Supporting documents: Design & Access Statement, Structural Condition Report and
Protected Species Survey. A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Method Statement has
been submitted subsequently along with further details and a draft management plan
regarding the external lighting, how the premises would be operated, numbers of
guests and likely vehicle movements.
There is a concurrent application (15/0913) for listed building consent for the physical
works to the building. It is anticipated that this will be dealt with under delegated
powers as although objections have been received, none relate to the physical works
to the building.
The Reading Rooms are to the north of the Church of St. Ethelbert off Church Road,
Alby. It is within the curtilage of the Old Rectory which is grade II listed and the setting
of the Church which is grade II*. The building is constructed of light brickwork with a
pan tiled roof. It is vacant and it is not known when it was last regularly in use. It is
within an area designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
The application site includes a triangular parcel of land to the east, which fronts Church
Road. There is a high Hawthorn hedge along the roadside boundary and at the west
end of it there is an existing vehicle access. There are a number of trees along the
boundaries. On the opposite side of the road there is a pair of detached bungalows
(Merrywinds and The Birches). The site also includes a strip of land along the
adjacent land to the north side of the wall to the garden of the Old Rectory and a strip of
land along the north side of the garden itself. Within this area there are also a number
of trees. The Old Rectory is in residential use, occupied by the applicants.
There is an existing vehicle access off Church Road between the west side of the
church and to the east of the graveyard, which serves a number of outbuildings.
The immediate surrounding area has a relatively isolated rural character as other that
the two properties opposite, the nearest buildings are some distance away.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr N Smith due to concerns about the increase in traffic using the
junction with the A140.
Members of the Development Committee visited the site on 10 September 2015.
PARISH COUNCIL
Alby with Thwaite PC: object for the following reasons:
 Light and noise pollution in a quiet rural area;
 Disturbance to the listed church and graveyard;
 Additional traffic arriving and leaving the venue within a short period of time;
 Dangers of extra traffic pulling out onto A140. Drivers may not be local and
unfamiliar with the road that has already seen several accidents in that area;
 The applicant intends to have 50-60 events per year and may take bookings for
other events;
 Concern over the size of the venue, which may lead to people spilling out of the
Development Committee
2
15 October 2015


building into the surrounding grounds, potentially causing disturbance;
Although the venue may employ 2 full time staff this is likely to be the applicants;
Inappropriate commercial development in a quiet rural area.
The PC also note that parishioners already suffer from noise disturbance from another
wedding events venue (Muntjac Meadow, Glebe Farm, Hanworth)
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of support.
A nearby resident feels the building has a nice setting for the proposed use.
The Scarrowbeck Benefice which covers a number of local parishes are pleased the
applicants wish to work with the church in developing a symbiotic relationship. This
would involve using the church on occasions for weddings and blessings after a civil
marriage. This would bring an income to the Church which would help secure its
future. It is felt there would be mutual benefit with the added advantage of providing
car parking which may, on occasion, be available to the Church.
Five letters of objection on the following summarised grounds:
 Thirty cars could mean 120 people, 200m away from their garden which could spoil
the enjoyment of it.
 Poor access - there will be five accesses on a narrow road which is not speed
restricted, the service access is on a bend.
 Highway safety - as junction with the A140 is already an accident black spot and
the venue would have attendees unfamiliar with it, increasing the risk of accidents;
 Noise - this is a peaceful rural area and the noise normally associated with such
uses will disturb near neighbours. Noise, i.e. music, crowd noise, increased traffic
and the use of fireworks would be a source of worry and a potential health issue
relating to stress for grazing animals;
 Need - there are several wedding venues in the vicinity e.g. Deer Glades, Chance
Farm, Blickling Hall;
 Possible restrictive covenant - it is a former church property and it used to be their
policy to restrict sale/use of intoxicating liquor and for music and dancing etc.;
 Impact on countryside - site is in a rural area with a strong rural character. Lighting,
the car park and commercial operations are contrary to this character and the
Council's policies. There would be a suburbanising impact;
 Effect on trees - the tree survey fails to adequately address the impact of the
development. The submission of this information is a new consideration requiring
re-consultation with the PC and objectors;
 Lack of information - with queries including whether the venue is to used solely for
weddings, maximum numbers of people, finishing times, whether there would be a
bar and music and more than one function per week.
 If the application is approved what restrictions would be in place re numbers, hours
of use and number of events. There need to be controls on the use of pyrotechnics,
traffic movements and general noise.
The occupiers of the Birches (which faces the proposed car park) are concerned about
the loss of peace and quiet. Reference is made to noise and disturbance from a
wedding venue in Gresham where they lived previously, which became a problem as
the venue became more successful, often going on through to the early hours.
The occupiers of the Merrywinds also opposite note that the car park would only be
14m from their boundary and would clearly be a disturbance late at night when people
Development Committee
3
15 October 2015
return to their cars with engines starting, doors banging and headlights shining straight
into their bedroom window. This would be worse when the hedge was bare. There
are queries as to whether the car park would be floodlit, gated and locked when not in
use to avoid inappropriate uses; and why a new entrance is required when there are
already three others which are much closer.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Protection: had some initial concerns given that the car park and
access would be directly opposite the closest neighbours, which could affect their
residential amenity, especially when events finish and cars leave the venue. Following
the receipt of further information they are satisfied that the management plan and
traffic management plan cover the use of the venue, but there are still some concerns
about such a venue in a rural area and it will need to be well managed so as not to
affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. It is considered that use of the building
would not affect residential amenity if it can be managed effectively, which can be
aided by conditioning i.e. requiring doors and windows to be closed and for music to
stop at 11.30pm.
The main concern is the car park noise and people coming and going causing intrusion
to the properties opposite. However if the applicant erects a close boarded acoustic
fence, and moves the entrance along further away from the properties this would
satisfy these concerns. Full details of the fencing would need to be submitted for
approval through conditions.
Provided the lighting is switched off at midnight it would be acceptable. Alcohol
licensing can be done using a Temporary Event Notice or Premises Licence. This
would be required for any music beyond 11.00pm.
Conservation and Design: no objection. Building makes a significant contribution to the
setting of the two adjacent listed buildings and the wider character and appearance of
the area. As the building has been vacant for a significant period of time and as a
consequence has fallen into a state of disrepair, the proposal represents a significant
opportunity to arrest the building's continued decline and secure its long-term
conservation.
The building has been subject to a number of unsympathetic alterations including to
the east elevation, which the proposal would improve upon and reverse. Repairing the
historic fabric can only be of benefit to the building. The proposed extension would be
sited within the rear courtyard, which is completely enclosed so would not be visible
from either listed building, and would tuck in nicely behind the existing brick boundary
wall. As the internal spaces would be retained at full height and not subdivided, the
building's original scale and character would be retained.
As the car park would be sited about 130m east of the building, the separation from
heritage assets and lack of inter-visibility means the overall harm to the character and
appearance of the area would be relatively minor.
Conditions are requested to secure further details on various elements of the proposed
works.
Historic England: do not object to the principle of the proposals and welcome the
positive use for the building. They are broadly satisfied that the proposals would not
cause harm to the setting of either heritage asset. Comments are made in respect of
the proposed door in the east elevation which it is felt is not of the correct proportions
and, the roof light which should be omitted.
Development Committee
4
15 October 2015
Landscape Officer (Trees): no objection. The Arboricultural Implications Assessment
submitted states the importance of the trees on the site and demonstrates that the
development can be accommodated without too much conflict with the trees.
Landscape Officer (Nature Conservation): following the receipt of the further
information, which clarifies the impact of the proposed development on the local bat
population, it is considered that the application would is acceptable with respect to bats
subject to appropriate conditions.
Highway Authority: no objection given the potential connection between the adjacent
church and the proposal, and the fact that a new vehicular access with acceptable
visibility would be provided. A number of conditions are requested.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for converting
buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle;
 The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings
 Its effect on the character and appearance of the area and setting off nearby listed
buildings;
 The effect on road safety
Development Committee
5
15 October 2015
APPRAISAL
Principle
CS policy SS 2 allows for the reuse and adaptation of buildings in the Countryside for
appropriate uses and the preservation of listed buildings. Policy EC 2 has a
presumption in favour of the reuse of buildings in the Countryside for economic uses
where they are appropriate in scale and nature to the location; it can be demonstrated
that the building is sound and suitable for the proposed use without substantial
rebuilding/extension; and the proposed alterations protect of enhance the character of
the building and its setting. Proposals must also accord with other relevant policies
seeking to protect biodiversity and amenity. The policy does not prevent proper
consideration being given to the optimum viable use of heritage assets that is
compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of such buildings.
Although not an economic use per se, the proposal would have some economic
benefits as it would be likely to bring additional business to related local businesses
such as florists, caterers and B&Bs/hotels for example.
The building is considered to be soundly built and only limited alterations and
extensions are proposed. The proposed use would secure the reuse of the building
and given its location, relationship with surrounding buildings and access to it, a more
viable option without greater alteration to the fabric, as would be needed for a
residential conversion, would be unlikely.
Matters relating to biodiversity are acceptable. Those relating to amenity are the most
contentious and considered further below.
Living conditions
Any noise such as amplified music emanating from the building itself can be effectively
controlled through planning conditions requiring sound insulation or the use of noise
limiters, which can be set to an appropriate level, and through Environmental
Protection and licensing requirements. Other than the Old Rectory, which is occupied
by the applicants, the closest dwellings The Birches and Merrywinds are about 175m
to the east, with dwellings to the west, southeast and northwest being about 242m,
318m and 260m away respectively. As such it considered unlikely that the proposed
use of the building would result in significant harm to living conditions. Having the
applicants live close by is a further safeguard, although this must be tempered by the
fact they could choose to move elsewhere at a future date.
Background noise in the area is likely to be very low in the evenings and noise from the
car park in the late evening such as cars being started, engines idling, doors slamming
and cars manoeuvring along with general noise from groups of people
talking/shouting, cannot be so effectively controlled. The possible impact of such
noise on the two dwellings (The Birches and Merrywinds), which face the proposed car
park, particularly during warmer months when people sleep with windows open, is a
concern. Although the roadside hedge is substantial it would not provide effective
mitigation of such noise.
Much would depend on how well the business is managed and a condition requiring it
to be managed in accordance with an approved management plan is considered
essential. The additional information supplied states fireworks would not be permitted
for example. Following further discussion with the Environmental Protection officer,
the applicants have agreed to erect a 2.5m high close board acoustic fence adjacent to
the inner face of the roadside hedge along the length of the car park -(information on a
manufacturer's website suggests such a fence would provide a 12.5dB reduction in
noise 15m from its source). They have also agreed to move the car park access
Development Committee
6
15 October 2015
eastwards, which the Landscape Officer has confirmed can be done without harm to
the nearby tree, so it is further away from the dwelling opposite. In addition, the
acoustic fence would prevent car headlights shining through the hedge at times when it
is not in leaf.
On balance, it is considered that with these additional measures there would not be
any material harm to living conditions and that the proposal complies with policy EN 4.
Concerns have been raised about uses such as this intensifying as they become more
popular leading to problems for local residents. Being relatively small, the building's
capacity is limited and there is not space around it for large marquees for example. It
is likely that the applicants would want to maximise the use of the building so events
other than weddings, which would not represent a material change of use, could take
place there. For the reasons stated above it is not considered these would cause
harm and it would be unreasonable to limit the use to weddings only.
Character and appearance
The proposed car park would be effectively screened by the roadside hedge, which
would also screen the proposed acoustic fence. Conditions can secure its retention
and to ensure it is surfaced with materials appropriate for a rural location. Similarly,
conditions will ensure the footpath is appropriately surfaced. Additional information
has been provided confirming that the lighting to the car park and path would be low
level bollards with a green finish and of a type that prevent light spillage upwards.
Some would be on sensors and all would be switched off at midnight. Lighting to the
patio area next to the building would be similar. The proposal would have little if any
effect on the wider landscape and as such complies with CS policy EN 2.
On the basis of the advice from the Conservation Officer it is considered the car park
would not have a harmful effect on the setting of the nearby listed building because of
the separation of it from them. The alterations to the building are considered
acceptable and will reverse more recent less sympathetic works. The proposed
extension would be small scale and sit to the rear of the building and be screened by
the building itself and an existing high brick wall. It would have a contemporary
recessive appearance and not detract from the main building. The additional roof
lights would be in the rear roof slope and would not be visible other than from the small
rear yard. More detailed matters and the proposed internal alterations are subject of
the related application for listed building consent, which it is anticipated will be
determined under delegated powers.
For the reasons stated, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of CS policies
EN 4 and EN 8.
Road safety
Concerns about the junction with the A140 are noted, but there is no objection from the
Highway Authority in this respect. The numbers the proposal would cater for would
not result in a significant increase in use of this junction. Traffic generated by
weddings is usually in cycles being a short period when people arrive and a reasonably
short period when they leave. Weight has also got to be attached the fact that
weddings and other services can take place at the Church already.
The Highway Authority consider the junction of the A140 and the Aldborough Road is
reasonably well positioned with good visibility, but it is accepted that Church Road
should not be subject to a measurable increase in traffic. This is however, unlikely as
most cars leaving the car park would travel eastwards and the applicants have stated
vehicles would be directed this way by signage at the exit. They also feel it is likely
Development Committee
7
15 October 2015
that around 35% of guests would travel by taxi.
Adequate visibility in both directions would be provided at the car park access and
would be better than reusing the current one. Visibility to the west out of the access to
be used for deliveries etc. is not so good and has been queried with the Highway
Authority. As it is an existing access however there is no objection. The proposal is
considered acceptable in terms of policy CT 5. The Highway Authority has been
re-consulted on the latest amended plan.
With regard car parking provision there are similarly no objections from the Highway
Authority. The proposed use would fall within Class D1 but there is no specific
reference to this type of use in the adopted parking standards. It is considered the
nearest comparable is that for community/village halls as functions are often held at
them. Application of that standard would require only 7 spaces. On that basis and
as a proportion of guests would arrive by taxi, the 30 spaces proposed would be more
than sufficient and is acceptable in terms of policy CT 6.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Effect on trees - the Landscape Officer is satisfied that there would be no harmful
impact on the trees and hedges within the site provided the development is carried out
in accordance with an Arboricultural Method Statement which can be secured by
conditions. This will need to cover details of the root protection areas of the trees,
protection methods and detailed construction methods of the access, car park and
footway through the trees. Any works to trees necessary to accommodate delivery
vehicles will also need to be covered. It is considered the proposal is acceptable in
terms of CS policy EN 4.
Effect on bats - the building is used by small numbers of individual pipistrelle bats for
roosting (non-maternity) and the development will result in the loss of these roosts and
possible disturbance of the bats, therefore mitigation will be required to ensure that the
roosts are replaced and disturbance is avoided or minimised to an acceptable level.
This will need to be done under licence from Natural England. Initially there were
concerns about the impact of the lighting and noise disturbance from the proposed,
however the further information submitted indicates that this can be managed to
ensure that disturbance to the bats can be controlled to an acceptable level. It is
therefore considered critical that the external lighting as proposed in the details
submitted is installed as specified with no additional lighting installed. A condition
covering this would be included. The details also establishes that the potential
impacts on bats roosting at the adjacent church will be negligible. The proposal would
comply with CS policy EN 9.
In accordance with the Standing Advice issued by Natural England, as part of the
decision making process, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether an EPS
Licence is likely to be granted by Natural England in order to derogate from the
protection afforded by the Habitats Regulations. The Ecological Consultant has
provided reasons why they consider that the proposed development is likely to satisfy
the three derogation tests set out in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations and that
a licence is likely to be granted. The ecological consultant concludes that with
appropriate mitigation and compensation the favourable conservation status of the
local bat populations affected, would be maintained. With reference to the 'over riding
public interest' and 'no satisfactory alternative' elements of Regulation 53, reasons
have been provided why it is considered that a Natural England EPS Licence is likely
to be granted. This relates to the relatively low ecological cost of the development
against the social benefits to the owner and local economy, the benefits for the
environment and economic reasons. Based on the evidence provided, it is considered
Development Committee
8
15 October 2015
there is no reason why a Natural England EPS Licence would not be forthcoming
subject to the provision of appropriate mitigation and compensation measures.
Possible covenants - Matters relating to any restrictive covenants that may exist are
not material planning considerations.
Additional publicity - the additional information supplied by the applicants after the
application was submitted was in part to respond to issues that had been raised in
representations. There have been no changes to the proposals and it is considered
that further publicity, which is not a statutory requirement, was not warranted.
Conclusion
The proposal provides an opportunity to bring an unused and neglected heritage asset
back into use and secure its future. The alterations and extensions to it are
considered to be acceptable. There are no unresolved issues relating to highway
safety, trees and nature consideration. The proposal would have no material effect
on the character and appearance of the area or the setting of nearby listed buildings.
The use of the building as proposed is unlikely to result in harm to living conditions.
Whilst there are concerns about noise and activity from the car park in the late evening,
it is considered that with the mitigation proposed, refusal of the application on this
ground could not be sustained.
The proposal generally accords with adopted Development Plan policies and is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject no objections from the Highway
Authority on the amended plan, and to conditions to cover the following
matters:
 Time limit for implementation;
 Approved plans;
 Samples of external materials;
 Large scale details;
 Tree protection;
 Retention of roadside hedge;
 Sound insulation measures including acoustic fence;
 Hours of use;
 Operation in accordance with a management plan;
 Details of external lighting;
 Protection of bats.
2.
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1088 - Variation of condition 2 of Planning
Permission ref PF/12/0767 to allow adjustment to building position, timber
walkway along the south and west elevations and insertion of two windows;
Oaklea, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mr J Taylor and Mrs M Harris
- Target Date: 17 September 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Householder application
Development Committee
9
15 October 2015
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19881323 PF - Dwelling
Approved 19/12/1988
PF/12/0767 HOU - Erection of detached building for use as annexe
Approved 30/08/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for variations to an annex approved in 2012. The main
variations are;



A bathroom and a kitchen window in the west elevation.
Resiting the building approximately 7 metres further north away from the dwelling
and a metre away from the western boundary.
The construction of a raised walkway around the south and the west of the annex.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor N Smith having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Overlooking of a neighbouring property.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects because the two windows are very close to and overlook the boundary. The
applicant has also removed the boundary hedge that has taken away privacy of the
neighbouring property. Two rooflights would be more sympathetic than windows.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from an adjacent neighbour objecting on grounds of
Overlooking and loss of privacy
CONSULTATIONS
None.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Development Committee
10
15 October 2015
EN 4 - Design
HO 8 - House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The impact of the annex as built and the relationship to the adjacent property.
APPRAISAL
The annex at Oaklea was granted planning permission in 2012 though work did not
commence until earlier this year. However, the annex has not been constructed
wholly in accordance with the approved plan and this application seeks to retain the
annex as constructed. The main variations are detailed above though the annex is
also marginally further away from the boundary than originally proposed. Originally,
the proposed plan showed 1.5m to the side boundary whereas the current plan shows
approximately 2.2m. There was a well-established hedge along the boundary
previously which has been removed.
Resiting the annex away from the boundary and the removal of the hedge has
facilitated the construction of a walkway around the southern and western areas of the
annex to join up with the verandah approved on the north and east sides of the annex.
Along the western side the walkway is shown on the submitted plan as 2m wide but is
in fact a little less than that. Nevertheless it is of sufficient width to serve as a seating
area.
Of the two unauthorised windows the bathroom is obscure glazed and the kitchen
window is plain glass. The windows overlook the paddocks and riding arena of land
that has permission as a riding school though it is understood the business is not
currently trading. While there is overlooking into the neighbouring paddocks from the
kitchen window and the decking, it does not directly overlook a private garden and the
overlooking issue could be easily resolved with the erection of a 2m close boarded
fence along the western boundary. Another hedge would be a better alternative
solution but given the time this would take to grow and the restricted space between
the boundary and the deck this is not considered a practical solution.
The amended siting and design are considered acceptable and it is considered that
subject to the erection of a 2m fence along the boundary the changes to the annex
comply with Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the conditions listed below.
1
The annex hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for
purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Oaklea, Thwaite
Common, Erpingham.
Reason:
The site lies in an area of Countryside as defined in the North Norfolk Core Strategy
whereby proposals for new independent dwellinghouses are not normally
permitted, and the restriction is necessary to accord with Policy SS 2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the annex hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further
Development Committee
11
15 October 2015
windows or rooflights) shall take place unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Details of the external colour finish to the walls shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The development shall be completed in 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.
4
Within two months of the date of this planning permission a two metre tall close
boarded fence shall be erected along the western boundary for the length of the
annex to include the walkways and verandah and thereafter retained while the
annex remains in place.
Reason:
In the interests of privacy for the occupants of the adjoining land and in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 August 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
TPO Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061770 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Withdrawn 12/01/2007
PLA/20070149 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Withdrawn 19/03/2007
PLA/20070673 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Refused 06/12/2007 Dismissed at Appeal 13/06/2008
PLA/20090693 PF Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and garage - Approved
10/09/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect two single-storey dwellings
Development Committee
12
15 October 2015
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at the last meeting.
At the request of Cllrs. J. Punchard and J. Rest as both members are acquainted with
the applicant. Cllr. Punchard believes there is scope at the site for the proposed
development.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment was received. The following points were raised:
 The tree referred to as T4 in the Arboricultural Method Statement is located within
the garden of an adjacent property
 The garden is within a conservation area, thus the tree (T4) is protected via the
conservation area designation
 The tree has high amenity value
 No work shall be done to the tree without the consent of the adjacent garden’s
owner and the Council
The Local Planning Authority received additional information from the applicant's
arboriculturist on 15 September 2015 (Appendix 1). The information was in
response to comments received from the District Council's Landscape Officer's
consultation report.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: Comments awaited
County Council Highway Authority: The Highway Authority was unable to submit a
formal response at this time as additional and more up-to-date information is required.
The submitted visibility splay measurements relate to an out of date publication ‘Places
Streets and Movement’ measurements should now conform to current guidance
‘Manual for Streets (DfT 2007)’. Given the volume and speed of traffic using Holt Road
visibility splays from a setback position of 2.4m should measure 43m northeast and
37m southwest.
The Highway Authority also requires clarification as to whether the childminding facility
at 24 Holt Road requires planning permission. If the extent of the childminding facility
at the premises is such that planning permission is required it is unlikely the two
allocated parking spaces, as illustrated on the submitted plans, would be adequate.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): A dominant feature of
the proposed development site is a mature Beech tree which is protected by a Tree
Preservation Order (TPO). The Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) submitted with
the application demonstrates the proposed development could be accommodated
while protecting the tree. However, the AMS does not take into account the recent
illegal and inappropriate works that have damaged the tree. The tree has been badly
pruned and the roots have been disturbed by the use of an excavator at the site.
The Landscape Officer considers the proposed development would cause further
damage to the tree at a time when it needs to be protected from any further works. The
officer is of the opinion that the pressure of two dwellings and associated impact form
two families living at the site would have a serious negative affect the tree and would
be contrary to the TPO.
Development Committee
13
15 October 2015
The tree needs time to recover from recent events before further work takes place at
the site. The District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape section object to
the proposal as it is in direct conflict to the TPO.
The District Council's Landscape Officer made the following comments in relation to
the additional information submitted 15 September from the applicant's arboriculturist
(Appendix 1).
The pruning works carried out to the tree fell well short of the British Standard and
resulted in damage that the tree would find difficult to repair. The works granted
permission would have been similar in volume to that removed illegally however the
tree would have recovered and repaired the damage easier.
The roots of a Beech tree are shallow and can be easily damaged. The disturbance
by the excavator will have caused damage to the roots of the Beech tree and therefore
the tree will need to repair these as well as the wounds made by the recent cutting.
A large tree in a single garden will put pressure on the tree and will have to be
managed carefully. Two gardens in the same space will put twice as much pressure
on the tree and therefore will be in constant threat from the residents.
Any activity under the tree must be carried out in such a way as not to damage it. If the
Council considers that an activity has damaged the tree then they can consider legal
action.
The new owners of the property will be made aware that there is a Tree Preservation
Order on the tree when they conduct a local search and therefore will be well aware of
any restrictions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
14
15 October 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of development
2) Impact of development on a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
3) Design
4) Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings
5) Highway safety and car parking requirements
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site
visit.
1) Principle of Development
The application site lies in a residential area within the settlement boundary of
Fakenham. The North Norfolk Core Strategy defines Fakenham as a Principal
Settlement where proposals for the development of market housing are considered
acceptable in principle, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
This site has an extant permission for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling.
2) Impact of development on a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
The committee will note from the planning history section of this report that
applications for multiple dwellings on this site have previously been submitted and
refused; with one application (PF/07/0673) dismissed at appeal. The site has also
been the subject of numerous pre-planning enquiries for two dwellings to be erected at
the site.
The planning history is considered to be a material consideration in the determination
of this application as proposals for more than one dwelling on this site have been
strongly resisted by officers since 2006. The reason being is because of the large
mature Beech tree on the site which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
Whilst the appeal submitted under PF/07/0673 was for three dwellings, not two, the
Inspector's comments for that application remain relevant to this application. He stated
that the tree makes a valuable contribution to the appearance of the area because of
its stature and position, with the tree canopy reaching over a considerable area and
that following development the occupiers could request the tree be removed or
reduced in size due to perceived risks, damage to property or nuisance from falling
leaves.
These issues have remained a concern for Officers on schemes for more than one
dwelling on this site, as the potential impacts to the tree on the site from such a
development have not changed.
The District Council’s landscape officer acknowledges that the AMS demonstrates
how development can be accommodated while protecting the tree. However, it does
not satisfactorily address the issues of liveability impact nor does it offer any measures
to mitigate the recent illegal and inappropriate works to the tree. On the contrary the
AMS submitted by the applicant highlights the potential liveability problems associated
with dwellings in close proximity to mature trees. Section 3.6.2 of the AMS states “The
main issues that tend to present with liveability of trees in relation to property are:


Shading – direct and indirect light obstruction by trees
Overbearing and ‘fear’ of trees failing or being ‘close’
Paragraphs 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 of the AMS states, “The location of the new buildings will
Development Committee
15
15 October 2015
experience the following shading and overbearing issues …Both buildings will be
significantly affected by the shade and skylight loss occasioned by the tree”.
While the report goes on to say how the tree is the main focal point of the development
and future occupants will be made aware that the “reduction or removal of the tree is
not going to be an option for the residents to pursue in the future” (ibid). Clearly, this
statement is not enforceable.
The extensive glazing to property A, which faces east, will be shaded from the tree
earlier in the day and property B with its heavily glazed front elevation facing north will
also be in the shadow. Furthermore, as a result of this orientation property B would not
benefit from solar gain. Given the level of shading coupled with the perceived risks
associated with living in close proximity to a mature tree it is considered this would
inevitably lead to future residence seeking to reduce or remove the tree, an opinion
shared by the Planning Inspector when considering a previous application at the site.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer is objecting to the application in
view of the unauthorised works and the liveability pressures on this TPO tree.
Additionally, while the AMS makes reference to the difference in ground level across
the site the submitted plans do not indicate any change in ground level. This is of
particular significance to the proposed dwelling to the south of the site. At the time of
writing this report this information had been requested from the agent.
3) Design
In terms of design, the proposed dwellings would lie to the west and south of the site
and measure 17m W x 7m D x3.5 H (maximum height). Additionally each property
would have a covered terrace to their front elevations. The proposed dwellings are
acceptable in terms of their contemporary design, size and massing in relation to the
overall size of the site. Irrespective of the acceptability of the proposed buildings'
design, the Committee will be aware of the Officer's concerns with regard to orientation
and glazing in relation to the tree. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to
Policy EN4.
4) Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings
In terms of impact on neighbouring dwellings, the positioning of windows and the
single-story design of the dwellings suggest the development would not significantly
negatively impact on the residential / garden amenity of the neighbouring properties.
Whilst the proposed development may not impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
properties it is considered there would be considerable overlooking between the
proposed dwellings. The heavily glazed east and north elevations of the respective
properties overlook the site's garden area and with a boundary treatment consisting of
a either a 1m high chain link fence on metal / wooden posts or a 1m picket fence on
wooden posts, neither would provide an adequate level of screening between the
properties.
This lack of residential and private garden amenity would inevitably lead to future
occupiers either replacing the fence and or planting along the boundary in order to
increase their privacy. Given the boundary fence is shown as running through the root
protection zone gives cause for concern as to how much damage these changes could
inflict upon the tree. Whilst the Local Planning Authority may have control over future
fencing, the planting of hedges, shrubs or trees along the boundary would be out of the
Local Planning Authority's control. Furthermore, the North Norfolk Framework
Supplementary Planning Document: Design Guide states residents have a right to
Development Committee
16
15 October 2015
adequate privacy levels and to be kept free from excessive noise and unwanted social
contact The infringement upon residential and garden privacy and amenity is
contrary to Core Strategy policy EN4 and Paragraph of the National Planning Policy
Framework document.
5) Highway safety and car parking requirements
The County Council Highway Authority raised two areas of concern. Firstly, the
visibility splays as illustrated on the plans are considered inadequate, and the
submitted details fail to demonstrate how the required distances could be achieved.
The issue of inadequate visibility splays was raised by the Planning Inspector with
regard to PF/07/0673. Albeit that proposal was for three dwellings, nevertheless
highway safety is essential no matter the number of dwellings. At the time the
Inspector noted some of the land required for the visibility splays to the southwest was
not within the applicant's control and not part of the highway. Without such control,
there is a risk that visibility to the southwest could be restricted. Given that Holt Road is
a busy through road the Inspector found the restricted visibility contrary to highway
safety policies. The comments received from the Highway Officer suggest a similar
situation exists with the current proposal.
Secondly, within the shared access driveway two parking bays have been allocated for
the use of the neighbouring property, 24 Holt Road. The Highway Authority officer
noted that a childminding facility operates from that address. Depending on the scale
of the childminding facility planning permission may or may not be required. Should the
facility require planning permission it is highly likely additional on-site parking bays
would be required. Until the officer has additional details regarding the visibility splays
and clarification on the parking requirements for 24 Holt Road he is not able to submit
a formal response.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development fails to provide adequate visibility splays, is likely to be
detrimental to the health of a significant tree on the site (the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order) and will result in a poor relationship between the 2 dwellings. The
proposed is therefore contrary to the adopted policies of the Development Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
The development would result in damage to, and prejudice the retention of, the Beech
tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Furthermore, the future occupation
of the proposed dwellings in close proximity to this mature tree would inevitably lead to
pressure for felling or pruning as a result of overshadowing of the site or concerns for
safety.
Due to the layout of the dwellings and the proposed boundary treatment it is
considered the proposal would result in an unacceptable relationship between the
dwellings on the site to the significant detriment of the privacy of the occupants by way
of overlooking.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the required visibility splays would conform to
current standards. Additionally, there is a failure to demonstrate the two parking bays
allocated to 24 Holt Road would meet the requirements of the childminding facility
which operates from that property.
Development Committee
17
15 October 2015
4.
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J Woodeson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 September 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two
storey replacement dwelling and garage.
The proposed dwelling has an 'L' shaped footprint, and would be constructed along the
north and east boundaries of the site. The ground floor level of the proposed dwelling is
to be earth sheltered by re-grading of the garden banks to the north and east
boundaries. The first floor level would consist of two separate "pavilions".
The materials to be used on the external exposed walls at ground floor are brick, flint
and pintiles bedded into lime mortar with brick quoins to openings and corners. At
first floor the appearance would be more of a lightweight structure clad in Larch timber
boarding and allowed to weather grey, with a zinc coated aluminium standing seam
roof. External joinery would be Passivhaus standard, triple glazed, powder- coat faced
aluminium/timber frames. Thermal storage in conjunction with solar gain and a heat
recovery system may result in the house not requiring heating.
There are also a number of dilapidated outbuildings and sheds across the site.
Amended plans have been submitted reducing the width of the service tower from 5m
to 3m, and introduction of a glass box over staircase. A street scene plan has also
been submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor G Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
1. Local opposition
2. Impact on skyline next to church
PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council voted unanimously against this planning application for the
following reasons:

The village is a conservation area and the application is next to the church which is
a listed building.
The Parish Council has no aversion to modern architecture in the right setting,
these plans are alien in relation to other buildings in the village.
Development Committee
18
15 October 2015








The planned building in the heart of the village bears no relativity to the context of
the village.
The situation, next to the church and opposite what will be a new sympathetic build
will make this appear even more alien.
The lower storey of the building which will not be seen is made from materials
sympathetic to the surrounding but the upper storey which will be on view from
many parts of the village is made of larch and zinc totally foreign in the
surroundings.
The amount of glass in the building gives concern for the amount of light pollution
this could produce.
The building has many glass windows to give views over the village, but we have
been told by the architect that the building will be hidden by trees and hedges and
the owner 'is not intending to remove these' therefore making the views limited,
the more the views are opened up the more on display this building will be.
The zinc roof likened to an industrial building will become the dominant feature of
the skyline, spoiling views of the village and the church.
Current roofing material in the village is Norfolk Pantiles could the plans/slope of
the roof be amended to allow the use of local materials rather than zinc.
The plans are for a building approximately double the size of the current structure,
does this conform with current planning rules?
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection and one comment have been received raising the following
points:
1. Out of character with area
2. Inappropriate development in village setting next to ancient church
3. Not visually attractive
4. Contrary to NPPF
5. Impact on heritage asset
6. Fails to integrate into the natural, built and historic environment
7. Poor design
8. Fails to improve character and quality of area
9. Out of scale with site
10. Footprint greatly exceeds the property which it is proposed to demolish
11. Design bares no relationship to context of surrounding buildings nor to North
Norfolk domestic architecture
12. Roof height is excessive and clad in appropriate industrial material
13. Extensive glazing increasing light pollution
14. Unsympathetic materials
15. Concerns at loss of trees surrounding site
16. Overlooking
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): Although
a longstanding part of the village, Conservation & Design are unable to sustain an
objection to the demolition of the existing building for the following reasons: 1.
2.
3.
4.
It is not of any particular architectural or historic merit,
It has been heavily altered over time,
It is in a particularly poor state of repair, and
It makes a negligible contribution to the wider Mannington & Wolterton
Conservation Area by virtue of its modest size and relatively private setting.
In terms of the replacement proposals, the following comments can be offered:
Development Committee
19
15 October 2015
Scale & Massing
The proposed building would clearly have a much greater footprint than the existing
cottage and would thus provide a substantial increase in floorspace. Despite this,
however, it is not considered that the new build would be out of scale with its
surroundings or its own site. This is largely because it would be broken up
three-dimensionally and would affectively consist of a single-storey core sandwiched
by a pair of two-storey pavilions. Hence, it would not be viewed as a single monolithic
mass.
Form
Under this heading, an L-shaped plan-form has been proposed specifically in
response to the encircling contours of the site. This should ensure that the new
dwelling is properly housed on the site rather than appearing as an unsympathetic
addition. As regards the mono-pitch roofs, it has always been considered that these
would have been better turned through 90˚ so that they slope down into their
respective embankments. However, the fact that they would appear to run counter to
the levels is not seen as a sustainable ground for objection given the discrete nature of
the site.
Design & Appearance
Although clearly contemporary in its elevational treatment, the new build would be
grounded on the site through its solid brick and flint plinth. With this also interlaced with
pintiles, the net result should provide an attractive arts & crafts base to the dwelling. At
first floor level, meanwhile, the building has been given a more lightweight treatment to
further reduce its apparent bulk and to reflect its verdant setting. The net result should
be a bespoke composition which provides a level of visual interest way in excess of
that provided by the existing cottage.
Materials
In addition to the vernacular materials mentioned above, the larch cladding proposed
will go grey over time and will be relatively recessive material within its treed
surrounds. It should also blend well with the zinc proposed for the roofslopes. Whilst
accepting that there is no immediate precedent for its use within Little Barningham,
zinc is in fact a high quality material which has been used successfully elsewhere
within and outside the District in a traditional context (Dragon House, Thornage; Holt
Church Extension; Curve House Edgefield; Norwich Cathedral Refectory, etc). There
is therefore no reason to believe that it would not produce a similar complimentary (and
yet contrasting) appearance here.
Conclusion
In offering the above comments, C&D are mindful and respectful of the concerns
expressed locally about the design and materials proposed. At the same time,
however, we do have to give weight to the mix of building styles and materials found
locally. We also have to acknowledge that the proposed building would be an honest
design which has been informed by its site and which would be distinct to its locality.
For these reasons, and because; a) the conservation area designation relates
primarily to the wider Mannington & Wolterton estate rather than to the village itself,
and b) the new build would not compete with, or impinge upon any of the existing views
of, the Grade II* Listed St Andrew’s Church, it is not considered that the proposed
scheme would result in any harm being caused to the overall significance of the
existing heritage assets.
In the event of approval being issued, conditions covering the prior agreement of bricks
and zinc samples are requested.
Development Committee
20
15 October 2015
County Council Highway Authority: No objection subject to parking and turning be
conditioned.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to imposition of advisory notes.
Environment Agency: No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape):The proposed dwelling
will have a significant visual impact in the local environment. The height of the
building (particularly the main north-western element of the dwelling) will be visible
from the south-west and from the north-east across the fields (a northern elevation
drawing has not been provided). The building will rise up above the existing retained
vegetation with limited scope for future screening on the northern elevation. The
proposed orchard on the southern elevation is unlikely to reach sufficient height to
screen the building completely. The Council therefore has to be confident that the
design of the replacement dwelling is suitable and capable of sitting comfortably within
the Conservation Area and adjacent to the Church. Colleagues in Conservation and
Design are able to provide comment on this subject area.
Although the Arboricultural Report illustrates that majority of the trees on the southern
boundary will be removed (specifically trees T12, T11 and Group 3), the report does
not illustrate trees outside of the boundary of the property. Therefore a number of
trees will remain between the church walkway and the site boundary helping screen
the building from the south-westerly direction and can be supplemented by
replacement planting.
With respect to the impact on trees, the Arboricultural Report indicates that one
category B tree, seven category C trees and three groups of trees will be removed to
facilitate the development. These tree removals are acceptable in association with
the construction of the replacement dwelling subject to replacement
planting. However, because of the remaining retained trees on the site and the size
and position of the replacement dwelling, there will be an impact on the existing
trees. The consulting arborist is confident that the dwelling can be constructed without
having a detrimental impact but this will require root pruning to some trees, extensive
protective barriers and temporary ground protection as well as arboricultural
supervision. The construction will be a complicated process and constrained by the
trees and from experience it cannot always be guaranteed to be completed according
to the methodology. There is likely to be an additional resource placed on the Council
to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the tree protection
measures and specified methodology.
A tree has been missed off the tree survey, this is a mature holly growing in the hedge
on the south boundary. This tree has an approximate diameter of 20cm and should be
classified as a tree under the survey and would be protected as part of the
Conservation Area regulations. The tree is not part of the holly hedge that delineates
the boundary and has not been managed as part of the hedge. The survey and
method statement need updating to reflect this omission. In addition Section 6 of the
Arboricultural Report indicates that some of the existing hedging will be removed yet
this is not clear on the plans? This should be clarified as the existing hedging is
important and contributes to screening the proposed dwelling.
In addition to the above, an ecological report has been submitted. This has been
prepared in accordance with the British Standard for Biodiversity (BS42020:2013) and
by Suitably Qualified Ecologists. The survey did not identify any bat roosts or bats
within the property although the dwelling did provide some potential roosting
Development Committee
21
15 October 2015
opportunities. Bird nests were identified therefore mitigation will be required. The
report provides recommendations for mitigation and enhancement which will
safeguard ecology at the site, subject to the implementation of these
recommendations there is no objection in respect of ecology and policy EN9.
Although the Landscape Section does not object to the application, this is subject to
conditions and subject to Conservation and Design colleagues being accepting of the
design, the site does pose a number of constraints to development which will need to
be carefully managed and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, some
further clarification is required with respect to the arboricultural report.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon Conservation Area and setting of Grade II* listed Church
4. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
5. Impact upon trees and protected species
APPRAISAL
1. Acceptability of development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (SS2) as designated in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location replacement dwellings are
permitted. There can therefore be no policy objection to the principle of the proposal.
Development Committee
22
15 October 2015
However, such proposals in this location are required to comply with Policy H08 which
permits replacement dwellings provided that they:
a) would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
b) would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a 'disproportionately large increase' account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been or
could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of
the area.
The existing dwelling is a fairly modest cottage set back into the north east corner of
the site, over 35 m from the road. Whilst the overall length of the existing dwelling
measures approximately 19m from east to west, it has a low ridge height of some 5m
making it no taller than most single storey dwellings. It has a footprint of approximately
116sqm, and total floor area of approximately 217sqm. There are a number of
detached and dilapidated outbuildings across the site which are to be demolished as
part of the proposal. These structures have a cumulative floorspace of approximately
116sqm, in their own right.
The proposed replacement dwelling has a footprint of approximately 364sqm, total
floorspace of approximately 522sqm and varying roof heights ranging from
approximately 3m to 8.5m. There is also what is referred to as a service tower which is
approximately 9.5m in height. The increase in floorspace between existing and
proposed is approximately 140%. However, if the existing outbuildings on the site are
included in this calculation the increase in total floorspace from all structures is
approximately 63%.
In terms of comparing these floorspace figures there is no dispute that the proposed
replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing dwelling on the
site. However, the majority of the overall floorspace of the proposed replacement
dwelling is at ground floor level, and utilises the existing topography of the site. This is
by partially building the proposed dwelling into the sloping banks to the north and east
boundaries and re-grading these areas to create a part earth sheltered house. The
proposed dwelling would therefore be partially 'lost' into the existing landscape
features on the site minimising the overall visual impact and appearance of scale.
At first floor level two separate 'pavilions' are proposed. They would be separated by
the newly created roof garden above the ground floor. The floor space of the 'pavilions'
constitutes less than half of the floor space proposed at ground floor level
(approximately 43%). The height of the 'pavilions' vary which is partly because of slight
variations in ground levels across the site, but also because of the mono-pitch roof
design ranging from 5m up to 8.5m. This would be up to a 3.5m increase in height
when compared to the existing dwelling. However, given that this increase in height is
not across the whole of the first floor areas due to the mono-pitch roof design, it is not
therefore considered that the height of the proposed dwelling is disproportionate to the
existing.
Given the position of the existing dwelling on the site there is limited scope for
alterations under permitted development rights. This is due to the site constraint of
steep sloping banks to the north and east boundaries and that the site is located within
Development Committee
23
15 October 2015
the Conservation Area, where there are restrictions in terms of extending a dwelling
without planning permission.
In terms of prevailing character of the area there is a mix of dwelling type, scale, design
and use of materials. It is not an area where one character prevails over another.
There are disused barns opposite the site to the south, the church to the east on
significantly higher ground than the application site and surrounding properties, and to
the west are two storey dwellings which although 'modern' have a traditional
appearance in the sense that they have pitched roofs. The ridge height of these
immediate neighbouring dwellings is approximately 8.5m, across the whole roadside
frontage, and approximately 9.5m to the top of the chimneys. The proposed
replacement dwelling is no taller than this at its highest points. The proposed service
tower is approximately 9.5m in height which is again no different to the neighbouring
dwellings including the their chimneys. The ground levels between the site and the
neighbouring dwellings differs, as the levels drop the further west you are from the site.
This means that the dwellings all gradually step down from the application site by
approximately 1m.
Whilst there is a significant increase in floorspace and the scale is greater than the
existing dwelling it is in part mitigated by the use of topography on the site, design and
materials. There is also a clear increase in height, but given the mix and scale of
dwellings in the immediate area it is not considered to be disproportionate. The site is
of more than ample size to accommodate the proposed dwelling. There is therefore no
objection to a replacement dwelling on this site which is larger in scale than the
existing.
Notwithstanding the comments of the Landscape Officer the site would not be visible
from the east until you are directly outside the site. Views approaching from the west
would also be limited until in closer proximity. Whilst there are steep banks with
vegetation to the north and east the upper levels of the proposed dwelling would be
visible from the north, but no more so than a traditional style two storey dwelling. Given
that the site is located within an already developed settlement and is not in an isolated
location there are dwellings to the west and south east, disused barns to the south and
the church to the east, it is not therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would
materially increase the impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
2. Design
The design of the proposed dwelling is "unashamedly contemporary", as stated by the
applicant's agent in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application.
This is in contrast to the traditional and modest appearance of the existing dwelling
which is fairly inconspicuous in the street scene, and is considered to be of no
architectural merit, contributing little to the character of the area.
The Committee will note the objections received from local residents in the
Representations section of this report and from the Parish Council. A number of issues
have been raised regarding the design, materials and appropriateness of such a
proposal in this location, given that the site is in the Mannington and Wolterton
Conservation Area and adjacent to the Grade II* listed St Andrews Church.
However, in this case it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating a
dwelling of a contemporary design. Whilst the proposed dwelling is significantly larger
than the existing dwelling it has been designed in such a way to minimise the visual
impact by using the topography of the site, and re-grading the existing sloping banks
within the site boundaries, as well as breaking up the scale and mass of the first floor
Development Committee
24
15 October 2015
by creation of two separate 'pavilions'. The height and proportions of the two storey
elements of the proposal are not out of keeping with the scale and massing of the
neighbouring dwellings. The use of differing materials and fenestration has also been
used to break up the elevations and create visual interest. Given the mix of
architectural styles in the immediate area a contemporary design is supported.
The design includes Passivhaus standard, triple glazed, powder-coat faced
aluminium/timber frames. Thermal storage in conjunction with solar gain and a heat
recovery system is also proposed and may result in the house not requiring heating.
The orientation and glazing would help to maximise solar gain from the site.
Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy positively encourages high quality, innovative and
energy efficient design. In addition paragraph 60 of the NPPF 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 conform to certain development forms or styles. It is,
however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness".
Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that "In determining applications, great weight should
be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design
more generally in the area".
The North Norfolk Design Guide also provides a number of guiding principles when
considering a contemporary and locally distinctive building under paragraph 2.3.1. It
refers to successful architecture having less to do with a particular style and more to do
with the successful co-ordination of proportions, materials, colour and detail, and how
it also creates its own sense of place and character. It also refers to a development
relating well to their context by making the most of existing landscape features and
topography, and that developments should respond to the scale and massing of their
neighbours and to the overall rhythm of the street scene.
In terms of materials a solid brick and flint plinth, interlaced with pintiles is proposed at
ground floor. It is considered that this would ground the development on the site, and
use the more traditional materials found in North Norfolk. The timber cladding is
proposed at first floor along with areas of glazing, which would provide a more
lightweight treatment creating visual interest. The cladding would be larch which would
be allowed to weather naturally to a silver/grey creating a more recessive appearance.
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of zinc on the roof. However, Officers
have no objections to the use of this material. While it is accepted that there is no
immediate precedent for its use within Little Barningham, zinc is a high quality material
which has been used successfully elsewhere within and outside the District in
traditional context. The Design Guide advises that in terms of materials it is not
necessary to slavishly copy existing materials. It can involve creating interesting
contrasts and textures between complementary materials creating a richness and
variety not sameness and uniformity.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer who
has raised no objection to the proposal.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of design in
accordance with Policy EN4.
3.Impact upon Conservation Area and setting of Grade II* listed church
The site is located within the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area, and is
located to the west of the Grade II* listed St Andrews church. The Conservation and
Development Committee
25
15 October 2015
Design Officer has been consulted on this matter and has raised no objection. He
considers that weight has to be given to the fact that there is a mix of building styles
and materials locally, and that it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would be
an honest design which has been informed by the site and would be distinct to its
locality. He also states that for those reasons and because the conservation area
designation relates primarily to the wider Mannington and Wolterton estate rather than
to the village of Little Barningham itself and that the new building would not compete
with or impinge on any of the existing views of the Grade II* listed St Andrews Church.
it is not therefore considered that the proposed scheme would result in any harm being
caused to the overall significance of the existing heritage assets, including the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of compliance with Policy EN8.
4. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
The nearest neighbouring dwelling is Pound House, a 'modern' dwelling, to the west of
the site. There is a field access track in between Pound House and the application site.
The eastern gable of Pound House would face the application site, and has no first
floor windows. There would be approximately 37m between Pound House and south
projecting wing of the proposed dwelling. Whilst there is a first floor window to a small
kitchen area and glazing to a studio, these face the gable of Pound House, and given
the positioning, distance and boundary treatments it is not considered that this would
constitute any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to Pound House.
There is also a window at first floor to a bedroom facing the north west corner of the
application site. However, this is a secondary window, and is some 20m away from the
boundary with Pound House. It is not therefore considered that this would result in any
significant overlooking or loss of privacy.
The first floor terrace garden would also have views to the west, but again due to
distances between dwellings and boundary treatments it is not considered that this
would result in an unacceptable relationship between dwellings. The main grassed
garden area still remains at ground floor in a central position to the site. There is a
terrace on the first floor garden area but this screened to the west preventing any
possible overlooking.
5. Impact upon trees and protected species.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application. It states
that "the design has been developed with the benefit of arboricultural advice sought at
an early stage in order to retain screening and keep the most prominent mature trees".
One Category B tree and seven Category C trees are to be removed for development
purposes along with three groups of conifers. They are to be replaced with seventeen
new heavy standard trees which will include large native species such as Oak and
Beech to maintain long term mature tree cover, a new orchard and new native hedging
approximately 30m in length supplemented by ornamental tree planting. All retained
trees will be properly protected in accordance with the appropriate BS during
construction.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the
application but has requested additional information in terms of an updated tree survey
as a Holly tree appears to have been missed and what hedge removal is proposed. At
the time of writing this report this information was awaited. The Committee will be
updated at the meeting.
In terms of protected species a survey has been submitted with the application and
Development Committee
26
15 October 2015
concludes that no bat roosts were found. Bird nests were identified and mitigation is
therefore required and can be addressed by way of condition. The Landscape Officer
has confirmed that there are no objections in terms of ecology on the site. The
proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EN9.
Conclusion
The Committee will note that no response has been received from the Environment
Agency and that no other consultees have raised an objection. Notwithstanding the
objections of the Parish Council and local residents the proposed replacement
dwelling is considered to be acceptable in this location. Whilst the dwelling would be
significantly larger than the existing dwelling it is not considered that this would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the area or on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area or setting of the Grade II* listed
Church. The relationship to neighbouring dwellings is also considered to be
acceptable.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies.
The application is currently being re-advertised as affecting the setting of a listed
building. Therefore subject to no new material grounds of objection being raised
following this re-advertisement and subject to the Landscape Officer being satisfied
with the additional information requested the recommendation is one of approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no new
grounds of objection following re-advertisement, no objections from the
Landscape Officer following receipt of the requested additional information and
imposition of appropriate conditions including statutory time limit, in
accordance with approved and amended plans as well as Arboricultural Impact
Assessment and Protected Species mitigation, materials, landscaping, and any
other conditions deemed necessary by the Landscape Officer.
5.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1137 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and replacement detached garage (re-submission 15/0847) Part
retrospective; 3 St Benets Avenue for Mr G Sexton
- Target Date: 25 September 2015
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/15/0847 HOU - Proposed single-storey side and rear extensions and
replacement detached garage - Withdrawn by Applicant on 22nd July 2015.
PF/14/0728 PF - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling and detached garage Refused on 4th September 2014 Dismissed on Appeal on 2nd February 2015.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks full planning permission to carry out extension and alteration works to a
detached bungalow on St Benets Way in North Walsham. The scheme would
comprise of the construction of a side porch extension measuring 1.8 metres by 4
Development Committee
27
15 October 2015
metres, and a single-storey garden room extension to the rear of the property
measuring approximately 3.9 metres by 3.6 metres. Both extensions would be
constructed in horizontal imitation timber cladding (known as hardiplank) in a
greyish/blue colour finish (boothbay blue), set on a cream painted render plinth.
Planning permission is also sought to construct a pitched roof above the existing
single-storey rear extension (including replacing the existing hipped roof with a gable
and the installation of rooflights to provide accommodation in the roofspace.
The application is part retrospective as some works including the changes to the roof
have already been undertaken.
An existing garage would be demolished on the site and replaced with a detached
single-storey pitched roof detached garage located to the south-east of the existing
bungalow. The garage would be constructed in cream painted render walls and red
clay pantiles, and would measure approximately 4.5 metres by 8 metres with a height
to the ridgeline of 4 metres.
The scheme also involves the cladding of the existing bungalow in hardiplank cladding
set on a cream rendered plinth to improve insulation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore, due to concerns in respect of the previous
site history and visual impact.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following
grounds;
 Works commenced prior to permission being granted.
 Use of cladding being inappropriate in this location, with the colour (boothbay blue)
also being inappropriate.
 Concerns relating to maintaining hedges and fences on adjoining properties, and
the impact of an unauthorized shed (which does not form part of this application).
 Plans not showing dimensions of proposed garage etc.
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Development Committee
28
15 October 2015
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design and visual impact
3. Impact upon residential amenity
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within the settlement boundary for North Walsham as defined in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy where the principle of residential extensions,
alterations and the construction of domestic outbuildings is considered acceptable,
subject to the compliance with Policies SS1, EN4, CT5 and CT6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Design and visual impact
Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy supports the principle of
extensions to dwellings providing that they are acceptable in terms of their design,
scale, siting and materials, and would protect the appearance and character of the
surrounding area.
Concerns have been raised locally that the alterations and extensions proposed,
particularly in respect of the use of coloured hardiplank cladding, would result in a
development which would be out of keeping with the appearance of the neighbouring
properties, and cause detriment to the character and appearance of the surrounding
area. Members will note that recent planning application (ref: PF/15/0847) was
withdrawn due to concerns raised by officers in respect of the scale and materials to be
used in the construction of the proposed garage, and in order to allow alterations to the
roof and other amendments to be included as part of the application. Following
discussions with the agent, the design of the proposed garage was subsequently
amended, resulting in a reduction in the overall length from 10 metres to 8 metres, with
the materials to be used on the garage changed from cladding to cream painted
render. Furthermore, the use of hardiplank cladding on the main property as
proposed, whilst not reflecting the character of the surrounding development, could be
carried out as 'permitted development' and therefore not require planning permission
in its own right. Therefore, given the amendments which have been made in respect
of the proposed garage, the modest scale of the extensions proposed, and the fact that
the alterations to the external appearance of the existing property could be carried out
under 'permitted development', on balance, it is considered that the scheme would be
broadly acceptable and would not be significantly detrimental to the appearance and
character of the wider area, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN4.
Impact upon residential amenity
The property is situated in a predominantly residential area, with existing properties
situated to the east and west. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the
Development Committee
29
15 October 2015
extensions proposed, including the alterations to the roof and the proposed garage,
have been designed in manner which would minimise any impacts on the residential
amenities of the occupants of the adjoining neighbouring properties in terms of
overshadowing, loss of light, privacy or disturbance. It is therefore considered that the
scheme would adequately protect residential amenity, and would accord with the
requirements of Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. The issue raised in
respect of access to maintain hedges and fences on adjoining properties is a civil
matter.
Highway safety
Whilst the proposal involves a larger replacement garage to that being demolished,
along with the construction of an extension to the side of the property, the new garage
would be set further back into the site, with the scheme not having any implications in
respect of traffic generation or result in the unacceptable loss of onsite parking. It is
therefore considered that the proposal would safeguard highway safety, and accord
with Policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposals would be acceptable in terms of their
design, scale, materials and siting, and would not have a significantly harmful impact
on either the character and appearance of surrounding area or on the residential
amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties in respect of loss of light,
privacy and noise and disturbance. Furthermore, the scheme would not have any
implications in respect of highway safety. The application accords with adopted
Development Plan Policy and is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of the following
conditions;
1. 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.
2. The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the visual
amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to retain
control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the approved
development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
30
15 October 2015
6.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of planning
permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting windows to
east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son (Norwich) Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
None relevant to the consideration of this proposal.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission (11/0509) for the erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail unit with
ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats was granted on 7 September 2011. The
approved plans (PL01/A and PL02/A) showed a number of projecting windows to the
east elevation at first and second floor levels.
Condition 3 required the development to be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans except where further details were required by other conditions.
Condition 18 required further details through the submission of 1:10 scaled drawings of
the projecting windows for approval prior to their installation, and then for them to be
constructed in accordance with the approved details. The reason given for the
condition was to ensure the windows were complementary to the appearance of the
building, in accordance with policy EN 4 of the NN Core Strategy.
The Highway Authority raised no objections to that application subject to the inclusion
of a number of conditions. Nearby residents did however raise concerns about the
proposed projecting windows and the report to the meeting of the Development
Committee on 23 June 2011 states:
"the concerns of residents regarding projecting windows on the eastern elevation have
been brought to the applicant's attention but, in view of the lack of objection on highway
safety grounds from the statutory consultee, it is not considered that refusal on
highway safety grounds could be substantiated or supported by officers, particularly as
the windows are understood not to overhang the highway. The applicant has
indicated that vehicles striking the building in the manner described in the
representations would be highly unlikely and have submitted plans to support this
opinion".
Two non-material amendments to the approved scheme have subsequently been
approved as follows:
1. Changes to the design of the third floor roof, installation of a privacy screen and to
change a door to a window for flat 7 - November 2013.
2. Revisions to the ground floor front elevation windows increasing the glazed area to
the shop windows whilst not increasing the area of the openings themselves December 2013.
These amendments did not allow for any changes to the projecting windows and relate
solely to the changes applied for.
Details of the proposed projecting windows were received in March 2013 and were
approved on 26 April 2013. The approved drawing (WD24) and an updated site
Development Committee
31
15 October 2015
layout plan showed the windows projecting 590mm plus the thickness of the external
cladding from the east wall of the building and them sitting back slightly from the line of
the kerb.
In April 2014 shortly after the development was completed a complaint was received
from a resident of Croft Yard on the grounds that the projecting windows projected
further and sat lower than indicated on the approved plans, which restricted access to
Croft Yard for larger vehicles. Further complaints from other residents followed
referring to difficulties delivery and bin lorries had negotiating Croft Yard.
Initial investigation concluded that there was a breach of planning control as the
windows sat lower than shown on the approved plans and projected over the kerb line.
Following this measurements were taken at the site and compared with those on the
approved plans as follows:





Projection of windows from east wall - 0.71m (approved plans - approx. 0.63m)
Height above road level to underside of windows 2.48m (northern window) and
2.49m (southern window) (approved plans - approx. 2.58m)
Distance between front face of windows and west facing wall of The Granary
opposite - 3.76m (approved plans - 3.84m)
There was no difference in the wall-to-wall distance between facing walls across
Croft Yard (4.47m)
The projection of the kerb from the east wall was less 0.58m (approved plans approx. 0.67m)
It was acknowledged that there was a technical breach of planning control, but
following the receipt of no grounds for objection from the Highway Authority and
Building Control Manager, it was agreed in consultation with the then Chair and
Vice-Chair of the Development Committee and the local ward councillors that it would
not be expedient to take formal enforcement action to secure compliance and that the
developer be invited to submit an application to vary relevant conditions on the original
planning permission.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary the following conditions attached to planning permission 11/0509:

Condition 3 which lists the approved plans, drawings and specifications except as
where may be required by other conditions, for example those requiring further
details; and

Condition 18, which required the submission of large-scale details of the windows
to be installed on the east side elevation.
This is to enable the windows to be retained as built.
(It should be noted than publicity for the application stated variations of conditions 2
and 3. Whilst this was an error it is not considered this has resulted in any prejudice to
either the applicant or objectors).
The submitted plans show the following:
 Overall projection the windows from the east wall of the building - 0.710mm
 Height above surface of Croft Yard - 2.470m
 Distance from front face of windows to west flank wall of The Granary - 3.760m
 Projection over the kerb line.
Development Committee
32
15 October 2015
Quayside Court is a mixed-use retail and residential development that was completed
in 2014. It occupies the site of the former Grays Amusements, fronting The Quay,
Wells and is within the Wells Conservation Area. The east side of the development
adjoins Croft Yard, which provides vehicle access to a number of properties.
There are three projecting box bay windows on the east elevation. These are clad in
zinc with windows in their north and south sides. The northernmost bay is at first and
second floor level, the middle to the first floor level and southernmost to the second
floor. There is a narrow margin with upstand kerbs along its edge running adjacent to
the east wall of the building. On the opposite side of Croft Yard is The Granary, an
older building of similar scale that is in residential use above offices.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is brought to committee at the request of Cllr V Fitzpatrick because of
the contentious issues involved and the level of objections.
TOWN COUNCIL
Wells Town Council: object as the windows have been built in contravention of the
planning permission and obstruct vehicular access for the residents of Croft Yard.
REPRESENTATIONS
Objections have been received from nine separate nearby residents some of whom
have sent in a number of letters. The summarised grounds are as follows:
 The windows should not have been approved;
 Access for large vehicles is now restricted. The most northerly window has been
damaged twice by vehicles attempting to access Croft Yard;
 Refuse vehicle can no longer access the yard and now a smaller vehicle has to be
sent. Removal vans similarly have difficulty accessing it;
 Major safety concern about access for fire service vehicles;
 Windows are a monstrosity, ugly, not in keeping and serve no functional purpose;
 Only a matter of time before there is more serious damage to the windows, a
high-sided vehicle or both;
 It is development through the back door;
 Latest example of the developer pushing the planning boundaries to beyond the
limit to the detriment of the residents of nearby properties;
 Windows project over a public footpath and vehicular right of way for about 35
dwellings in Croft Yard;
 Windows have built over the property of others;
 Croft Yard has been narrowed at the harbour end and the east elevation has been
extended over it, in addition to the windows projecting further than approved;
 The pediment of The Granary projects out by 200mm reducing the width of the
access at the point of entry to 3.55m not 3.7m as measured;
 Land has been taken from Croft Yard along its full length.
CONSULTATIONS
Consultations carried out at time of investigation of complaint in 2014:
Building Control: Approved Document B states 3.7m is required between kerbs which
due to the projection of the bay windows is not achieved; however as this is a small
reduction in width, a minimum of 3.1m is still achieved which would be acceptable if the
developer had closed the opening with a gate. It is therefore considered that as built
the development does not adversely affect access for fire service vehicles.
Development Committee
33
15 October 2015
Highway Authority: there is no dispute that Croft Yard is a public highway but it is
specifically recorded within the definitive map and statement as a public highway on
foot only (Wells FP9). There are no existing public rights to drive a vehicle along it. It
has not been shown that a public vehicular use has become established. Use by
residents and delivery vehicles are not examples of public use, but rather individuals
exercising a private right of access.
Neither the reduction in width nor the lower height causes an impediment to the public
use of Croft Yard on foot. It is not a matter for the highway authority to comment on
any restriction that may be caused to private rights of access with or without vehicles.
The reduced width of 0.06m does not cause an additional highway safety concern on
the adjacent highway, for example from manoeuvring vehicles.
Access for fire
appliances is an issue that needs to be raised with building control.
In the circumstances, the Highway Authority has no objection to the windows as built.
It is suggested that whilst not a highway issue, if there remains a perception of the
window causing a problem to motorists the developer could be asked to consider
making the presence of the window more conspicuous. This could be achieved
through the use of either a bollard or signage.
Further consultation
Norfolk Fire Service (Western Area): have had the site checked by their crew and have
no objections.
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way: the Highway Research team have
investigated the PROW width, which is between the walls of the two properties either
side of it. From a PROW perspective the windows are 2.4m (minimum) above the
public right of way and as such do not present a problem to users of it.
Norfolk County Council Highways Research: Croft Yard is a Public Right of Way on
foot only and the buildings have always formed the boundary to the highway at its north
end. Copies of detailed correspondence between the developer's surveyors and the
Highway Research Team have been supplied.
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):
As the development has been completed and given the matters subject of this
application, it is considered only the following policies are relevant:
Development Committee
34
15 October 2015
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 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).
National Planning Practice Guidance
Provides advice on how a proposal that has planning permission be can be amended:
New issues may arise after planning permission has been granted, which require
modification of the approved proposals. Where these modifications are fundamental or
substantial, a new planning application under section 70 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 will need to be submitted.
Where less substantial changes are proposed, the options for amending a proposal
that has planning permission are either making a non-material amendment or, an
application can be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses
of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment, where there is a
relevant condition that can be varied, as is the case here.
There is no statutory definition of a 'minor material amendment' but it is likely to include
any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not
substantially different from the one which has been approved.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Whether the proposal can reasonably be described as being a 'minor material
amendment'
 The reason why the condition was imposed on the original planning permission
 Whether there are any other implications likely to arise from varying the condition
APPRAISAL
Comparison of the as built measurements with those from the approved plans clearly
illustrates that the changes are minimal particularly when taken in the context of the
development as a whole. Whilst there are accepted construction tolerances these are
very small and the windows, as built, would exceed these albeit by only a small amount
(at a maximum the changes are only 100mm different from what was approved).
Whilst there is no statutory definition, it is considered the proposal does not conflict
with the advice in the National Planning Practice Guidance noted above.
The reason why condition 18 was imposed was to ensure the appearance of the
windows was satisfactory. It did not relate to highway safety or any other related
matter such as access. Details submitted subsequently in this respect were
considered acceptable and approved.
Whilst objections also relate to the
appearance of the windows, the very minor changes to their dimensions has not
resulted in any material change to their design and appearance and the change would
not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They
are acceptable in this respect and accord with Policies EN 4 and EN 8.
Condition 3 listed the approved plans with the reason to ensure the satisfactory layout
and appearance of the development. The wording of the condition is such that any
details approved to comply with other conditions would supersede the details on the
approved plans.
Development Committee
35
15 October 2015
On the basis of the information supplied by NCC's Highway Research Team (that was
not available at the time the original planning application was being considered), that
the public highway extends up to the wall of the building and prior to that, the
amusement arcade building, it is clear that the windows as originally approved would
have overhung the public highway. Whilst the local residents’ concerns are
acknowledged and reflected in the fact that the lower part of the northernmost window
has been damaged, presumably by a larger vehicle, it is considered that in this respect
the slight increase in their projection and being slightly lower than approved as built,
has not had any material effect. There is no conflict with policy CT 5.
Any structure overhanging the public highway requires licensing and as such this is a
matter to be dealt with under the Highways Acts. If a licence cannot be issued, as this
would restrict the private rights of people to drive along Croft Yard as could be the case
in this instance, it is considered it could result in an unlicensed structure overhanging
the public highway. Again this would be a matter for the Highway Authority to deal
with. Similarly if the development impedes private rights to drive along Croft Yard this
is a civil matter between the developer and users of Croft Yard. Approval of this
application would not override any other requirements in this respect or the private
rights of people to drive along Croft Yard, in the same way as it would not override any
restrictive covenants for example.
In conclusion, it is accepted there are outstanding issues but these are either civil
matters or ones that need to be dealt with under other legislation. On the basis of the
Government's Planning Practice Guidance regarding modifications to planning
permissions it is considered the windows as built have not resulted in a development
which is substantially different from the one which has been approved previously.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether it would be expedient to take formal
enforcement action to secure compliance with the originally approved plans, which it
has been concluded previously it would not.
The application is therefore
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions. As the development has been completed only
those conditions attached to the original permission which remain relevant would be
included. The conditions subject of this application would refer to the plans submitted
with it.
7.
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.
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1208 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station tower with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment cabinets at Friary Farm Caravan Park, Cley Road for
Arqiva
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in order to assess the landscape and heritage
implications of the proposal.
Development Committee
36
15 October 2015
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1191 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
(re-submission PF/14/1499); Land adjacent Lion House, 6 The Street,
Hindringham, NR21 0AA for Mr & Mrs P Iles
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor V FitzPatrick to enable the Committee to appreciate the
location of the site.
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/1204 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment, land to the rear of Stulps Plantation, Wolterton Road
for Arqiva
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in order to assess the landscape and heritage
implications of the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/1162 - Removal of shop-front and demolition of single
story side and rear extensions and erection of two-storey side and single-storey
rear extensions; Village Antiques, The Green for Mr & Mrs Holdgate
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/15/1011 - Erection of 1.95 metre fence to part of front
boundary; Broad Acre, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Sadler
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/15/0225 - Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of
two-storey dwelling; Wrights, Coast Road for Mr & Mrs Shepherd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/15/1131 - Erection of porch to side and conservatory to rear of
dwelling.; The Granary, Church Road for Mr B Reeve
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - NMA1/15/0254 - Non-material amendment request for
alterations to internal layout and fenestration; Field Fare, Church Close, West
Runton, Cromer for Mr S Dallimore
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1097 - Erection of detached garage with study and
games room above; Fox Hill, Sheringwood for Mr E Denny
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0959 - Erection of two-storey triple garage; Closewood,
Sheringwood, Beeston Regis for Mr A Burton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
37
15 October 2015
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0814 - Erection of single-storey side extension with balcony
above.; Watermark, Langham Road, Blakeney, Holt for Dr P Franklin
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1071 - Erection of two-storey extension to side of dwelling
and boat store extension to annexe; 50 High Street for Mr & Mrs Archer
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/1072 - Boat store extension to annexe; 50 High Street,
Blakeney for Mr & Mrs Archer
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRINTON - PF/15/0908 - Erection of single and two-storey extensions to
dwelling; Grange Cottage, Old Hall Lane for Ocean Rock Companies
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1044 - Conversion of barn to create artist studio and residential
annexe and detached former dog kennel building to hobbies/store room
(Resubmission 14/1313 refers); Frogmoor Farm, Tithe Barn Lane for Mr M Hearn
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - NMA1/13/0598 - Non material amendment for additional velux
window, boiler flue, vent pipe,extractor fan outlets, hall door and canopy, and
ground level (french drains); Highfield, Craymere Road for Mr Babbage
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/15/1098 - Erection of detached double garage; The Pig Pen, 104A
Hall Street for Mr N Banks
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1175 - Removal of conditions 3 and 6 of PF/10/0550; Westview
House, 36 Church Street, Briston, Melton Constable for Mrs R Grand
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0975 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of
dwelling, extension and increase in roof height to outbuilding and erection of
replacement shed; Porticus, High Street for Mr & Mrs Read
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0858 - Internal and external works including
removal of partition wall, relocation of stair, additional rooflights and increase in
size of ground floor window to rear elevation; 3 Old Hall Farm Barns, Coast
Road, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr R Cross
(Listed Building Alterations)
COLBY - PF/15/0998 - Erection of detached garage to front of dwelling; Spring
Meadow, Bridge Road, Colby for Mr and Mrs R Hall
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/1070 - Erection of shed to front of dwelling; 27A Norwich Road,
Cromer for Mrs E Baron
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
15 October 2015
CROMER - NMA1/14/0802 - Non material amendment request to permit
alterations to roof, insertion of larger rooflights, omission of bay window and
raise height of bay window; 27 Cabbell Road, Cromer for Mr R Smart
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/15/0914 - Change of use of vacant first floor to antiques centre; 8
Louden Road for Mr Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1060 - Creation of one 1 bedroom flat to second floor of
building.; 8 Louden Road, Cromer for Mr Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0218 - Conversion of barn to a dwelling, including part
demolition, and erection of front and side extensions; Holly Farm, Chapel Road,
East Ruston, Norwich for Mr Brookes
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0946 - Erection of garage/outbuilding and creation of new
access; Simms Cottage, Back Lane for Miss Leslie
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1148 - Single Storey extension to rear of West wing; The
Mount, Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable for Mr Buckman
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/15/1149 - Single Storey extension to rear of West wing; The
Mount, Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable for Mr Buckman
(Listed Building Alterations)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1056 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Eastend, The Street, Erpingham, Norwich for Mr and Mrs S Hawkes
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PM/15/1027 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings
(approval of reserved matters); 14 Sculthorpe Road for VJS Developments Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - HN/15/1169 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4.3 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 3.7 metres and an eaves height of 2.3 metres;
82 Wells Road, Fakenham for Mr & Mrs Dixon
(Householder Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0977 - Erection of first floor extension and two-storey
extension to side of dwelling; 63 Oak Street, Fakenham for Mr Page
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1078 - Change of use of swimming pool area to provide 2
treatment rooms in association with beauty salon; 61 Greenway Lane, Fakenham
for Mr and Mrs A Ficarra
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
39
15 October 2015
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1109 - Single storey extension to rear; 18 North Drive,
Fakenham for Mr Tagg
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1076 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, front porch
and detached garage; 2 Greenway Lane, Fakenham for Mr G Stratton
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - AN/15/0853 - Display of non-illuminated signs; Sue Ryder,
Fakenham Superstore, Greenway Lane, Fakenham for Sue Ryder
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FELMINGHAM - NMA1/12/0666 - Non-material amendment request to permit
installation of separate septic tank; The Farmhouse, Aylsham Road,
Felmingham, North Walsham for Mr D Yuasa
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/1155 - Erection of detached cart shed/garage; The Retreat,
Gimingham Road, Trimingham for Mr M Kelly
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/15/1079 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear/side
extension and single-storey front extension; 17 Cromer Road, Lower Gresham,
Norwich for Mrs C Dennis
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/15/0707 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a
replacement dwelling.; Yenga, 1 Barton Lane for Mr Spencer
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/14/1470 - Conversion of agricultural building to residential
and erection of single-storey front extensions; Home Farm House, The Street,
Helhoughton, Fakenham for Mr Townshend
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0986 - Electricity substation in fenced compound; Land off,
Shereford Road, Hempton for Lightsource SPV 148 Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/1064 - Erection of outbuilding following removal of
existing sheds; Coach House at, Voewood, Cromer Road for Mrs Ackling
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - LA/15/1065 - Insertion of window to rear elevation of dwelling.
Listed Building Consent.; Coach House at, Voewood, Cromer Road for Mrs
Ackling
(Listed Building Alterations)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/1150 - Installation of bay window to front elevation;
Nutwood, Bernard Close, High Kelling, Holt for Mr & Mrs Fish
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
15 October 2015
HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/1158 - Erection of garden room to side of dwelling.; 1
Station Road, Hindolveston, Dereham for Mr & Mrs Johnson
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/15/0651 - Conversion of agricultural barn to dwelling; Field Barn,
Wells Road, Quarles, Holkham for Coke Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - PF/15/0823 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0754 to allow louvred timber screens to west facade and removal of condition
5; Holkham Estate Office, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea for Holkham Hall
Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/15/0824 - Variation of condition 2 of listed building consent ref:
14/0755 to allow louvred timber screens to west facade and removal of condition
5; Holkham Estate Office, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea for Holkham Hall
Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/15/1039 - Formation of bay window to front of dwelling; Aralia House,
3 Laurel Drive, Holt for Mr and Mrs Lidgett
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/1075 - Erection of extension to rear of dwelling.; 12 Town Close,
Holt for Mr & Mrs Gardner
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0889 - Demolition of outbuildings and erection of 3 shop units and
change of use of existing dwelling to shop on ground floor with flat above and
alterations to car park boundary wall; Franklyns Yard, Bull Street, Holt for Solar
Palaestra Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/1156 - Erection of extension to side, increase in roof height and
erection of dormer extensions to front and rear of dwelling; 22A Cromer Road,
Holt for Mr & Mrs J Donnellan
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0604 - Conversion and extension of detached single-storey
outbuilding to create ancillary annexe; 76 Grove Lane for Mr Fields
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/15/1160 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
12/1201 to permit revised fenestration and door design, roof cladding, insertion
of rooflights to east elevation, PV panels and wood burner flue to south
elevation; Tithe Barn, Norwich Road, Horning, Norwich for Mr Baker
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/15/1046 - Erection of extension to Police station.; 12 Stalham
Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8DG for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
41
15 October 2015
INGWORTH - NMA2/14/0684 - Non-material amendment for addition of external
flue pipe and addition of flat square sunpipes; West End Cottage, West End,
Ingworth for Mr Farrow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/1047 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension;
Peter Smith's Cottage, The Common for Mr Busby
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - PF/15/0966 - Erection of two-storey extension to front and side of
dwelling; Brambles, The Street for Mr & Mrs D Jackson
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1426 - Erection of replacement washroom facilities and bin
store; Eccles Beach Caravan Park, Beach Road, Eccles-on-sea for Mr Claxton
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/1116 - Erection of extensions to 2 industrial units;
1, 2, 3 and 4 Tower Bank Industrial Estate, Hindolveston Road for Daubeney
Investments
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/1002 - Change of use of former signal box to
self-contained holiday let; Lavender Cottage, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road,
Melton Constable for Mrs P Wake
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0735 - Erection of first floor side/rear extension; 52 Sea
View Road, Mundesley, Norwich for Mr & Mrs R Taylor
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1173 - Relocation of 20m monopole within compound area,
replacement of headframe and 3 antennas, removal of 1 equipment cabinet and
ancillary work.; Ivy Farm, Butchers Common for CTIL and Telefonica Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/15/1141 - Erection of two detached single-storey
dwellings (Revised scheme PM/15/0450 refers); 1 - 3 Oak Road for M & R Whiting
Developments Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1058 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey
rear extensions; 83 Lynfield Road, North Walsham for Mr Thorne
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/15/1093 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
insertion of pine stair-case, re-painting exterior front and side elevations and
external joinery; 20 Kings Arms Street for Mrs T Guest
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0759 - Demolition of single and two-storey extensions and
erection of two-storey side and front extension and relocation of access to
north/east of site; 34 Bulls Row for Coastline Property Services
(Householder application)
Development Committee
42
15 October 2015
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/1183 - Erection of detached garage; Sally Beans House,
Cromer Road, Northrepps for Mr & Mrs Skey
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/1041 - Conversion of outbuildings to habitable
accommodation and erection of single-storey link extensions (Revised scheme
PF/14/0831 refers); 8 The Londs, Overstrand, Cromer for Mr T Bagnell
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0811 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
15/0300 to permit occupation of detached ancillary annexe as short-term holiday
accommodation; Greenway, 12A Pauls Lane for Mrs L Gepp
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0999 - Erection of log cabin to provide residential
annexe; Farm View, Green Lane for Mr D Fenn
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0987 - Erection of single storey front and rear extensions
and detached carport; The Woodlands, Felbrigg Road for Mr Gower-Smith
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0931 - Erection of detached bungalow and associated
access; Adjacent Keepers Retreat, Old Turnpike Road for Mr and Mrs D Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0524 - Demolition of existing detached three-storey dwelling
and erection of 3 storey detached dwelling with basement; Hill House Farm,
Norwich Road, Roughton, Norwich for D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - NMA1/13/1245 - Non material amendment to change pitch of roof
to suit roof tile; Lor Cot, Cross Street, Salthouse for Mrs Johnson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SALTHOUSE - NMA2/13/1245 - Non material amendment for addition of solar
panels; Lor Cot, Cross Street, Salthouse, Holt for Mrs Johnson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SALTHOUSE - PF/15/1139 - Erection of summer house to rear of property; The
Cow Shed, Purdy Street, Salthouse for Mr K Waters
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/1054 - Retention of flue to detached outbuilding; The
Pightle, Moor Lane, Sculthorpe, Fakenham for Mr Pape
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0116 - Conversion of former cattle/agricultural pens to
holiday let accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road,
Cranmer, Fakenham for Mr Garvin
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - LA/15/0117 - Conversion of cattle/agricultural pens to holiday
accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road, Cranmer,
Development Committee
43
15 October 2015
Fakenham for Mr Garvin
(Listed Building Alterations)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/1195 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Dolphins, The
Marrams, Sea Palling, Norwich for Mr Dunn
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0960 - Erection of single-storey extension to rear of
dwelling; 41 Beeston Common, Sheringham for Mrs A Hancock
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0948 - Erection of single storey and first floor extensions
to dwelling; 22A Hooks Hill Road, Sheringham for Mr Kerr
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/10/0704 - Non material amendment request to allow
conversion of attached garage to fitness room, omission of proposed staircase
and revised design; Cottage At, Burlington Lodge, 5 St Nicholas Place,
Sheringham for Dr R McDermott
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1117 - Erection of two-storey extension to side with
balcony to rear of dwelling; 17 Lawson Way for Mr & Mrs Ketteringham
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0588 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
13/1101 to permit parapet walls to south, part west and north elevations;
Westcliffe House, 17 Victoria Street for Mr & Mrs Kirkham
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0961 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; Land rear of
15 Weybourne Road, Sheringham for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/14/0850 - Non material amendment request to omission of
attic window to west gable and addition of attic window to south gable and
rooflight to main south-facing roof to Plot 3; Land to rear of 15 Weybourne Road,
Sheringham for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/1414 - Non material amendment to add 4 velux
windows to new pitched roof; 6-7 Lifeboat Plain for Mr Platt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SMALLBURGH - PF/15/1087 - Upgrade to telecommunications installation by
replacement of 15m monopole with 15m mini macro pole, replacement of 2
equipment cabinets and ancillary works.; Grange Farm Barns, Gunns Corner,
Norwich Road, Smallburgh for CTIL and Telefonica UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1188 - Erection of single storey extension to side of
dwelling; Yorkdale Cottage, 18 Pit Street for Mr and Mrs Seekings
(Householder application)
Development Committee
44
15 October 2015
STALHAM - NMA1/15/0840 - Non-material amendment request to alter materials
from render to brick; Lancaster House, 7 Whiley Lane for Mrs S Palmer
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STALHAM - PF/15/1180 - Erection of single-storey front & rear extension; 6
Sutton Terrace, High Street, Stalham for Mr & Mrs Bramble
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/1154 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Greenacre, Camping
Field Lane for Mrs L E Walters
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - LA/15/1118 - Internal alterations and external soil vent pipe; Apple
Cottage, 26 Bridge Street, Stiffkey, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr Mills
(Listed Building Alterations)
STIFFKEY - PF/15/1025 - Erection of cartshed, replacement garage and
greenhouses; Mill Pightle House, Hollow Lane for Ms Husain
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/15/1147 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission ref.
PF/08/0874 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 2, Cooks Farm,
Rectory Road, Suffield for Mr J Landreth
(Full Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - PF/15/1151 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission ref:
08/0874 to permit residential occupation; Barn 6, Cooks Farm Barns, Rectory
Road, Suffield for Mrs D Gelder
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/15/1091 - Erection of single storey extension with entrance ramp to
rear of dwelling; 21 Ingham Road, Sutton for Mr G Baird
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/15/1105 - Retention of access and parking area to front of
dwelling.; 9 Towerside, Tattersett Road, Syderstone for Mr M Vertigan
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/1034 - Relocation of storage shed, re-siting of park
railings and re-siting car park entrance; The Gunton Arms, Cromer Road, Thorpe
Market for The Gunton Arms
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0797 - Change of use of land from agriculture to part of
residential curtilage to Cottage Farm. Creation of new access across the land
from Walsingham Road to serve Cottage Farm and two barns to replace existing
access; Cottage Farm, Walsingham Road for Mr C Rheinberg
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - LA/15/1081 - Internal and External alterations and repairs; White
House Farm, Mundesley Road for Mr Birkbeck & Ms Cornish
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
45
15 October 2015
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1125 - Erection of shed; 11 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street,
Tunstead, Norwich for Mr V Scarff
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1062 - Erection of storm porch to front and
extensions to rear; 1 Heath Farm Cottage, Cranfield Road, Upper Sheringham,
Sheringham for Ron Wiebe and Jan Grieve
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/15/0386 - Conversion of barns to six residential dwellings; Barns
at Walcott Hall, Walcott Hall, Walcott Green for D & J Love
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/15/1096 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions, first
floor rear extension, pitched roof to conservatory and first floor side window;
Sealand, Coast Road for Mr Peatfield and Ms French
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/0616 - Demolition of existing rear & side extensions and
erection of single-storey side extension and two-storey rear extension; 27 Wells
Road, Walsingham for Ms Wood
(Householder application)
WARHAM - PF/15/0636 - Conversion of barn and outbuilding to two residential
dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping; Field Barn, Grove
Farm, Wells Road, Warham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NF for Coke Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0779 - Installation of cladding to front elevation
and up to 1.2m brick wall to rear; 16 The Glebe for Mr Stovin
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0955 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission PF/12/0907 to vary design details (part retrospective); Plattens Fish
And Chips, 13 The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea for Plattens Fish & Chips
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1084 - Variation of condition 2 of Listed Building
Consent LA/12/0906 to vary design details (part retrospective); Plattens Fish And
Chips, 13 The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr P Platten
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0867 - Installation of external insulation; 8 Park
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0868 - Installation of external insulation; 12 Park
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0870 - Installation of external insulation; 14 Park
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
Development Committee
46
15 October 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0712 - Demolish and rebuild southern boundary
wall using bricks/masonry reclaimed from the current wall and to include
additional strengthening works; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands,
Wells-next-the-Sea for Flying Kiwi Inns
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0703 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 13/1338 to permit alterations to the design of the approved
development and increase size of garden store and boiler house; The Crown
Hotel, The Buttlands, Wells-next-the-Sea for Flying Kiwi Inns
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1066 - Variation of condition 2 of Listed Building
Consent LA/13/1339 to allow alterations to original plans.; Crown Hotel, The
Buttlands, Wells-next-the-Sea for Flying Kiwi Inns
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0871 - Installation of external insulation; 20 Park
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0872 - Installation of external insulation; 1 Gales
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0874 - Installation of external insulation; 5 Gales
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0875 - Installation of external insulation; 11 Gales
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0876 - Installation of external insulation; 17 Gales
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DL for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0881 - Installation of external insulation; 18 Gales
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DL for Aran Services Ltd
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/1127 - Erection of single storey extension to side and rear,
dormer extension to rear and rooflights to front and rear of dwelling.; 27 Beck
Close, Weybourne for Mr Bishop
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/15/0898 - Erection of part two-storey and single-storey
extension; 33 Church Road, Wickmere, Norwich,for Mr N Watchhorn
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/15/1122 - Erection of shepherds hut, summerhouse and
replacement garage and alterations to dormer extension, installation of leaded
windows and addition of rooflight.; Meadow View Cottage, Mill Common Road,
Ridlington for Mr and Mrs Ashmore
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
15 October 2015
WORSTEAD - PF/15/1015 - Retention of detached bar/serving building; The White
Lady, Front Street, Worstead, North Walsham for Mr Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - LA/15/1038 - Erection of canopy; Bengate House, Tucks Road,
Bengate, Worstead, North Walsham for Mr Rogowski
(Listed Building Alterations)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0483 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at
Little Lane, Blakeney for Mr Lindop
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/15/0792 - Extension to swimming pool building and change of use
of area of land from agriculture to use in association with holiday
accommodation; Manor Farm, Manor House Road, Lower Bodham for W Cubitt &
Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/15/1037 - Erection of extension to side and rear of dwelling
(Revised scheme PF/14/1605 refers); 7 Jewel Close for Mr J Willimot
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0983 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide three residential dwellings; Building to rear of George Hotel, High Street,
Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt for Hi-Brow Leisure LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PU/15/1129 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural buildings to two (C3) dwellinghouses; Pond Farm, North Walsham
Road, Banningham, Norwich for R W Randell Trust
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
EDGEFIELD - LA/15/1120 - Removal of section of internal wall; The Mount,
Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable for Buck Estate Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
PASTON - PF/15/1073 - Retention of retaining wall; Meadow View, Bears Road,
Paston, North Walsham for Mr Gwynn
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1144 - Change of use from holiday let to permanent residential
occupation.; Lavender Lodge, Church Lane, South Raynham for Wensum Pools
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0770 - Demolition of garage and erection of two-storey
side/rear, part first floor and two-storey side and two-storey east elevation
extensions to facilitate creation of semi-detached dwelling, alterations to vehicle
access and car-parking arrangements; Fairway, 2 Links Road for Mr and Mrs
Greene
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
48
15 October 2015
STALHAM - PF/15/0882 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
08/0313 to permit change of two holiday units to two residential dwellings;
Chapelfield Cottage, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr P Davies
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/15/1142 - Conversion of existing shop and office accommodation
to ground floor flat and single-storey front extension; Broadside Chalet Park,
Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9PN for Tingdene Holiday Parks Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/15/0533 - Installation of front elevation first and second floor PVCU
bay windows to replace existing timber bays; 28 High Street for Mrs Russell
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road
for Mrs Cargill
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr L Kidd
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
House, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs Everett
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0419 - Erection of single and two-storey rear extensions;
Annandale Cottage, Ramsgate Street for Mr and Mrs S Smith
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road for
Norfolk County Council
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead for Primrose
Developments (Anglia) Ltd
Development Committee
49
15 October 2015
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for Ashford
Commercial Ltd.
SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street, Sutton, NR12 9RF for Mr Cutting
TATTERSETT - PF/15/0240 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear and side
extension; Heath Cottage, The Street, Tattersett for Ms J Skinner
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At, Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Leisure Pk
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
EAST RUNTON – PF/15/0273 – Proposed extension (dormer/rooflight) to
dwelling at 6 Victoria Terrace High Street East Runton NR27 9NY for Mr Gould
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
6 Victoria Terrace is located off the High Street and within the East Runton
Conservation Area. Planning permission was refused for a dormer/rooflight extension
at the dwelling.
In a relatively short decision, the Inspector found the main issue to be whether the
proposed extension would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area. After describing the extension and the context of the building the
Inspector concluded that the character or appearance of the Conservation Area would
not be preserved or enhanced.
As such the development would be contrary to policies EN4 and EN8 of the Council’s
adopted Core Strategy. The appeal was therefore dismissed. As well as being
relatively brief, the appeal decision is also worthy of note as containing no specific
reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
14.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
50
15 October 2015
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
51
15 October 2015
Development Committee
52
15 October 2015
Development Committee
53
15 October 2015
Development Committee
54
15 October 2015
Development Committee
55
15 October 2015