OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16 DECEMBER 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR INFORMATION
1.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly performance report covering the planning service for the period
from July to September 2010. It covers the turnround of planning applications,
workload and appeal outcomes and it provides the latest update on staffing changes
which have taken place through the restructuring of the service.
Table 1A in Appendix 1 sets out performance for the second quarter of 2010/11.
Four major decisions were taken, of which three were outside the 13-week target. In
terms of minor decisions, just under 63% were taken within the 8-week period, and
less than 80% of ‘other’ decisions were taken within the target period. Cumulatively
for the quarter, over 55.5% of major decisions and over 67% of minor decisions were
taken within the target periods, whilst for ‘other’ decisions, performance stood at over
83%. The evidence therefore is that for all three categories of development,
performance has been dropping and is running below the Council targets set for the
service.
Table 1B in Appendix 1 indicates a broader measure of workload and shows that
formal applications in the quarter rose substantially, with an increase of more than 60
compared with the previous quarter. There were also substantial rises in the number
of formal pre-application consultations and ‘Do I need planning permission?’
enquiries.
These are encouraging signs in the sense that they indicate the local development
industry appears to be pulling out of the recession and planning fee income has also
increased significantly. However, the implications of these statistics are less
encouraging in terms of impact on service performance and on staff. Since savings
have been made through the loss of a number of posts, measured performance has
fallen and workloads are continuing to rise. It is inevitable that these pressures will
lead to further loss of performance, delays and/or the need to review the levels of
service able to be delivered.
Table 1C in Appendix 1 indicates that delegated decisions remained at over 90%
during the quarter and stood at 92.8% cumulatively for the current year, marginally
above the out-turn figure for 2009/10.
Table 2 indicates planning appeal decisions and shows that during the quarter, four
of the eight appeals determined were allowed and four were dismissed. This is the
second quarter where there has been a disappointing outcome compared with the
previous excellent record of the Council at appeal. Sample numbers remain small,
but it is suggested that this issue should be monitored carefully to see whether there
are lessons to be learned from this drop in performance.
Development Control Committee
1
16 December 2010
In terms of staffing issues, Members’ attention is drawn to the up to date staff contact
list, which is attached at Appendix 1. This sets out current staffing arrangements.
Particular attention is drawn to the new Enforcement and Special Cases Team, which
is led by Geoff Lyon, who has responsibility for supervising the work of the two
Enforcement Officers following the departure and non-replacement of the former
Senior Enforcement Officer. This team also deals with planning applications which
result from enforcement activity and, more significantly, from major and unusual
proposals including energy-related developments, supermarkets and other ‘one-off’
proposals. The Development Control Committee will continue to receive a report on
all outstanding enforcement cases every quarter in order to enable Members to
exercise scrutiny over the service.
The bulk of planning application work is handled by the Development Manager’s
team, which consists of two Senior Planning Officers, two Planning Officers and two
Trainee Planning Officers. Larger residential developments are dealt with by the
Major Developments Team, led by John Williams. This team also has responsibility
for preparing and agreeing development briefs and masterplans for the sites
allocated for development through the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan
Document which will be presented for adoption by the Council early in 2011 following
the successful Examination in Public. The team will be also preparing the Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, which will be used to deliver
community infrastructure associated with new residential development. Hence, the
work of this team will have a significant impact on the service’s ability to deliver the
Council’s priorities for housing and affordable housing and also to secure finance
under the Government’s New Homes Bonus scheme which is due to come into effect
from April 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and assess whether
it raises any issues for further consideration.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control, ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BACTON - PF/10/0408 - Erection of wind turbine (15m height to hub) and
photovoltaic panels; Village Hall, Coast Road for Bacton-on-Sea Village Hall
Trust
Minor Development
Target Date: 10 June 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Development Control Committee
2
16 December 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19801593 HR - Proposed extension to village hall
Approved 12/09/1980
PLA/19831068 HR - Committee room extension
Approved 19/08/1983
PLA/20000492 PF - Erection of extension
Approved 24/05/2000
PLA/20051341 PF - Erection of extension and alterations
Approved 11/10/2005
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a 15 metre (hub height) twin blade wind turbine and photovoltaic
panels on the southern slope of the Bacton Village Hall.
Documentation
accompanying the application includes:
Feasibility Study
Noise Assessment
Arboricultural Impact Appraisal
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the
conflicting policy and community interests.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - no objection
because the local landscape is relatively diverse. Owing to the number of varied and
distinctive features within it, a modest wind turbine could be tolerated in this location.
Request a condition for a replacement tree to be planted in the north-east corner of
the site.
Environmental Health - There is no specific layout for the proposed LDF allocated
site but Environmental Health would have concerns over the positioning of any
property within 50 metres of the wind turbine.
National Air Traffic Services - awaiting comments
Norwich Airport - No objection
Planning Policy Manager - Initial comments:
The applicant's own submission suggests the siting of the turbine should be a
minimum of 50 metres from adjacent properties in order to avoid any potential loss of
amenity arising from potential noise pollution. The site is immediately adjacent to a
proposed housing allocation in the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan. The
plan is sufficiently material to be taken into account when determining planning
applications.
The proposal could have an impact on a significant proportion of the proposed
development site and is likely to undermine the ability of the proposed allocation to
deliver the specified number of dwellings. Although not yet adopted the Site Specific
Proposal has advanced sufficiently through the adoption process for the loss of
amenity for those in the future development to be cited as a reason for refusal.
Development Control Committee
3
16 December 2010
Further comments:
It is understood that potential impacts on residential amenity arising from noise
disturbance is an issue outside any property, rather than indoors. This means that
the area lying within 50 metres of the turbine is unlikely to be considered suitable for
gardens. As the area which will potentially be subject to unacceptable noise levels
extends over approximately 20% of the site area of the proposed development it
seems likely that the turbine will sterilise the development potential of a significant
part of the site. (It would be wrong to grant planning permission for residential
development in this area knowing full well that future residents were likely to be
subject to noise pollution). This is sufficient reason to justify refusal of the application
for the reason outlined in my initial response.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment)
Policy EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to,
including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
Policy EN 7 - Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals)
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
Potential impact upon a site allocated for development in the Local Development
Framework
APPRAISAL
Bacton Village Hall lies within an area designated as Countryside between
designated residential areas in Bacton. In the Countryside Policy Area proposals for
renewable energy projects, wind turbines in particular, may be acceptable providing
that residential amenity is not compromised by noise, shadow flicker or broadcast
interference.
The main issue for consideration is the potential impact from noise on a site that is
allocated for residential development in the Site Specific Proposals Document of the
Local Development Framework. The allocated site of 1.3ha lies between the current
development boundary and the village hall, wrapping around the northern and
western boundaries of the village hall site. The site is allocated for twenty dwellings
of which 50% are expected to be affordable housing. Development of the allocated
site is also dependant upon 0.6ha of Open Space land allocation on the Beach Road
Development Control Committee
4
16 December 2010
frontage to the south of the village hall. The Council has now received the
Inspector's Binding Report and the allocation has been confirmed. The document
will be put forward for formal adoption by the Council early in the new year.
A noise assessment produced for the applicants, compliant with ETSU-97 guidelines,
has been submitted as part of the application. That assessment shows that
dwellings within 50 metres of the turbine could potentially be affected by
unacceptable noise levels from the turbine. A 50 metre zone around the proposed
siting of the turbine could jeopardise about 20% of the allocated site. It has been
suggested that the allocation be changed but this is not possible.
An alternative siting has been suggested to the applicants further south along the
rear boundary of the proposed open space allocation. Apparently, this has been
rejected by the land owner concerned on the basis that a wind turbine in that location
could prejudice the future development of the remaining agricultural land.
Other than the potential impact on the allocation site, the proposal is considered
sufficiently small scale so as not to adversely intrude upon the landscape.
Photovoltaic panels are proposed on the southern roof slope of the village hall. The
roof pitch is shallow and though the panels would be visible there is considered to be
no detriment to the visual amenities of the area. Consequently, there are no
objections to this part of the planning application.
In summary, it is recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that
the erection of the wind turbine is likely to compromise a significant proportion of
housing on a site allocated in the Local Development framework for housing,
including affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse, on the following grounds:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
EN 13 - Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation
The District Council received notification from the Planning Inspectorate on 1
December 2010 that the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document was
sound and the following policy is considered relevant:
BACT03 - Land adjacent to Beach Road
The proposal is considered contrary to the above policies and proposals since the
Noise Impact Assessment submitted on behalf of the applicants indicates that
dwellings should not be sited within 50 metres of the proposed wind turbine. The
wind turbine as proposed is close to a site allocated for residential development
under draft policy BACT03. The siting as proposed would result in the 50 metre
radius covering approximately 20% of the adjacent residential allocation site and the
proposal is therefore considered to be prejudicial to the provision of housing on that
site including the policy requirement of 50% affordable housing. Consequently, the
proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.
Development Control Committee
5
16 December 2010
3.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1055 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr & Mrs Barnes
Minor Development
Target Date: 04 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20010325 PF
Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 29/05/2001
20021341 PF
Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 01/11/2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a three bedroom, contemporary design, single storey dwelling
having an area of 144 sq metres, including courtyard space, with an east facing
wedge shaped mono pitched dormer to the roof which would light the interior of the
building. The main roof would be of a sedum finish whilst the wedged dormer would
be of standing seam zinc.
The dwelling, which would be built up to the boundary on the west side, would be
“dug in” to the ground by 1 metre with the outer walls of property being 1.8 metres
above ground level.
Access to the site would be via an existing unmade driveway off Beeston Common.
An amended plan has been received which corrects an inaccuracy in the position of
the western boundary and also indicates the boundary walls to neighbouring
properties being of a red facing brick. In addition an e-mail has been received
confirming the applicant's agreement to the introduction of some timber cladding to
the east elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL – Objections of the grounds that the development would be out of
character with the Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection, two of which are from the same correspondent, which raise
the following concerns (summarised):
1. Design out of character within the Conservation Area
2. Limited access to the site due to narrowness single track driveway which is also a
public footpath and bridleway.
3. Would open the floodgates for further development on the rest of the plot.
4. Using the environmental friendly tag does not mean that it should be allowed.
Development Control Committee
6
16 December 2010
5. There are inaccuracies in the site plan with the result that the proposed dwelling
in closer to the rear of No. 3 Meadow Close than shown.
6. Adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
7. Trees will be affected by the development.
8. How will the boundary walls to the neighbouring gardens be maintained.
9. Part of the site is outside the development boundary for Sheringham.
10. The plans do not indicate the provision of satellite dish or television aerials.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Visual impact, including impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Highway safety.
Development Control Committee
7
16 December 2010
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee in order to allow
Members to visit the site.
The western corner of the site which would accommodate the proposed dwelling is
within the development boundary for Sheringham as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy whilst the remainder of the site, which
has an area in the region of 700 sq metres including the access, is within the
Countryside Policy area. In addition the whole of the site is within the Conservation
Area whilst the garden area is within the Undeveloped Coast.
Unlike the previous refusals for a dwelling on the site, since the property would be
within the development boundary in principle this would comply with Core Strategy
Policies SS1 and SS3 which direct new development in North Norfolk to the towns
and large villages, of which Sheringham is a Secondary Settlement. However as part
of the site is within the Countryside Policy area it is also considered that Core
Strategy Policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN8 are applicable. Policies EN2 and EN3
require that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale,
design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area including the setting of, and views from,
Conservation Areas. In addition proposals should not be significantly detrimental to
the open coastal character of the undeveloped coast. Polices EN4 and EN8 require
that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness.
Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Furthermore
development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in this case the
Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 also states that proposals should not have
a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and
new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
The site forms part of the garden area of No. 4 Meadow Cottages running in a
northerly direction to the east of Nos. 96 - 99 Church Lane, with the proposed
dwelling itself being contained in the smaller area immediately to the rear of the
garage to No. 4 Meadow Cottage. The dwelling would form the eastern boundary
with No. 3 Meadow Cottages, which is currently defined by a close boarded fence
and would be to the south of the garden area of No. 99 Church Lane. Part of the
scheme would involve removal of three fruit trees in the area of the dwelling whilst to
the north east are three large conifer trees which are to be retained. Immediately
adjoining the site to the east, which is separated by a flint wall, is an overgrown area
of land similar in proportions and size to the application site which has a well defined
hawthorn hedgerow to its eastern and northern boundaries.
Given the relatively secluded location of the proposed dwelling, its low profile and
use of recessive materials coupled with the amount of screening afforded by the land
to the east it is considered that the development would preserve the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area and it would not have a significantly harmful
impact on it or the wider landscape, being seen amongst other properties which form
the built edge of Sheringham. Whilst there are traditional cottages to the south of the
site, there are also more modern dwellings to the north and due to the particular
design and secluded nature of the site it is considered that it would not adversely
affect the form and character of the area.
Development Control Committee
8
16 December 2010
In respect of the proposed dwelling's relationship with neighbouring properties, whilst
it is accepted that it would be close to No. 3 Meadow Cottage and No.99 Church
Lane, given the fact that the property would be single storey, with an eaves height of
just 1.8 metres its impact would be no more than a boundary fence of a similar
height. Given the dwelling's layout the only potential for overlooking would be from
the bedroom and living room window to the north elevation which would look directly
onto the boundary fence of No. 99 Church Lane. However since the dwelling would
be set 1m into the ground the window heads would approximately 1.4 metres above
existing ground level, well below the height of the fence. In terms of the visual impact
of the property when seen from the upper floors of the adjoining dwellings, the use of
a sedum roof would soften its appearance with the only discordant feature being the
zinc roof to the east facing dormer.
It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a significantly
adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties, in terms of overlooking,
loss of light or visual impact, whilst the dwelling itself would have adequate amenity
area and car parking to the east.
In terms of the access to Church Lane, although this is fairly narrow it is considered
that it is adequate to serve a single dwelling and the Highway Authority has raised no
objection to the proposal. It is pointed out that many bridleways co-exist with routes
that are used by people exercising private rights over them.
It is therefore considered that since the dwelling would be within the development
boundary, given that the property would not significantly affect neighbours' amenities,
on balance the scheme is acceptable and would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
BODHAM - PF/10/1098 - Erection of domestic wind turbine; Stone Lodge,
Kelling Road, Lower Bodham for Mr Barron
Minor Development
Target Date: 16 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
THE APPLICATION
Originally sought the erection of an 18 metre domestic wind turbine on rising ground
some 100 metres to the south of Stone Lodge.
Amended details have been received which seek to change the specifications of the
wind turbine from an Evance Iskra R 9000 as originally submitted to a Nova–wind
6kW wind turbine. This wind turbine would consist of a three stage, hydraulic ram
mounting pole, 15 metres in height to the hub with the diameter of the upper section
being 219 millimetres. The turbine itself would consist of a four blade rotor
configuration having an overall diameter of 6 metres, with the slim line gearbox
housing and a directional aerofoil to the rear.
Development Control Committee
9
16 December 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection on the grounds of potential noise to neighbouring properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns
(summarised):
1. Potential noise pollution to neighbouring properties.
2. Visual intrusion on neighbouring properties in terms of appearance, and blade
flicker.
3. Detrimental impact on wildlife.
4. Visually intrusive in the landscape.
5. Out of character with the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) (summarised):
It is not considered that the degree of visual impact incurred by this development on
the wider surrounding landscape, nearby listed buildings and biodiversity interests
would have a sufficiently harmful effect to justify refusal on these grounds. However
any reduction in height that could be achieved would substantially reduce the visual
impact from A148 and the AONB and would be well received. In the event of this
application being recommended for approval conditions should be included relating
to colour finish.
Environmental Health No objection to the original proposals subject to conditions.
Awaiting comments in respect of the revised specification.
National Air Traffic Services –
No objection.
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-ordinator No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Control Committee
10
16 December 2010
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
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. Visual impact in the landscape.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Impact on biodiversity interests.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies EN2, EN4 and EN7 are
applicable, as is the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment.
Policy EN2 requires that proposals for development should be informed by, and be
sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement
character studies. Development proposals should demonstrate that their location,
scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the
special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character.
Policy EN4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not
preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. In
addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential
amenity.
Also relevant is Policy EN7 which states that renewable energy proposals will be
supported and considered in the context of sustainable development and climate
change, taking account of the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of
renewable energy gain and their contribution to overcoming energy supply problems
in parts of the District. Proposals for renewable energy technology will be permitted
where there are no significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape,
townscape and historical features.
In terms of the wind turbine's impact on the wider landscape and in particular when
viewed from the A148 to the north, the wind turbine would be screened to a degree
by surrounding vegetation. Due to the rising topography and open landscape, and
because of their height, the blades would be visible on the skyline from the main road
(600m to the north of the site) and for over a kilometre along the road from High
Kelling to Bodham. This road also forms the southern boundary of the AONB. From
here views south towards the site are already punctuated by utility poles. In this
context the visual impact of the turbine would be minimal and not of a sufficiently
harmful degree to justify refusal. However, any reduction in height that could be
achieved would considerably alleviate this impact.
Development Control Committee
11
16 December 2010
As far as the impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties is concerned, with
the exception of the applicant's dwelling, the closest property to the site is The
Cottage some 160 metres to the north east. To the north west, Nos. 87 and 88
Kelling Road, which have small rear gardens facing towards the site, are 90 metres
away. The only other properties in the immediate vicinity are Glaven River Barns 110
metres to the north west.
The Council's Environmental Protection Team have indicated, based on the noise
data originally submitted in respect of the Evance Iskra R 9000, that the separation
distances between neighbouring properties and the wind turbine would be sufficient
so as not to result in noise nuisance. Comments are awaited in respect of the revised
wind turbine.
However, the fact that the turbine would be set in what is a fairly open landscape on
rising ground means that it would be clearly visibly from the neighbouring properties,
all of which have rear gardens facing the site. Given the concerns raised by local
residents the applicant has changed the specifications of turbine to the four blade
model, which the manufacturer's details suggests allows the blades to rotate at a
lower speed, thereby reducing visual disturbance, potential blade flicker and noise.
Furthermore the turbine and blades would be mounted on what would be a fairly
slender pole. Based on the available information whilst it is clear that the wind turbine
would have some visual impact on the neighbouring properties, given the separation
distances involved and the relatively small scale nature of the proposal, it is not
considered that it would have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers; this is considered to be a very finely balanced
judgement, however.
In terms of the wind turbine's effects on wildlife interests, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager has indicated that bat records do not show a large
population in the immediate area and that based on the location of the known bat
roosts and surrounding habitat, it would not be proportionate to request further
survey work. Furthermore given the small scale of the development the potential
impact is unlikely to be significantly harmful to local bird populations.
In conclusion, therefore, it is considered that whilst the wind turbine would be visible
in the wider landscape the principal concern relates to its potential impact and
disturbance on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Whilst it is inevitable, given
the relatively open nature of the site that there would be some visual impact, subject
to no new ground of objection from Environmental Health, and given the relatively
small scale of the development coupled with the separation distances involved, on
balance it not considered to that there would be sufficient justification to refuse the
application. As such the scheme as amended would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated approval, subject to no new grounds of
objection from Environmental Health and the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including details of the colour finish of the mounting pole, turbine
and blades.
Development Control Committee
12
16 December 2010
5.
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1187 - Demolition of dwelling and outbuildings and
erection of 2 one and a half-storey dwellings and associated car ports; Jordans
Yard, Norwich Road for Belcombe Ltd
Target Date: 10 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080579 PO - Erection of one two-storey dwelling and one single-storey
dwelling
Approved 02/10/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings and erection
of two one and a half storey dwellings and associated car ports.
The proposed replacement dwelling (Unit A) would have a similar footprint to the
dwelling would replace, measuring approximately 6m x 15m and 7m to the ridge.
The new dwelling (Unit C) would measure approximately 6m x 8.5m, with a single
storey projection of 3.5m x 4.5m, and up to 7m to the ridge.
The materials proposed are brick, flint, painted render and weathered clay pantiles.
The car ports would be constructed in timber.
An amended plan has been received removing a roof light on the northern elevation
of Unit A.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
1. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
2. Impact on the street scene
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the erection of Type C property as it is ahead of the building line and not
aesthetically pleasing to the village.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:
1. Concerns over increasing number of dwellings in a small rural community
2. Object to dwelling 'C' as it is well in front of building line, and will overpower
neighbouring dwelling as on higher ground
3. Dwelling 'C' would change the skyline and totally crowd out the neighbouring
properties, one of which is a bungalow.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
existing cottage, by virtue of its age and characterful proportions, does make a
contribution to this part of Edgefield’s Conservation Area. At the same time, however,
Development Control Committee
13
16 December 2010
it is also a building which has been heavily altered over time and which is now in a
particularly poor condition. As it also occupies a relatively withdrawn position off both
Peck’s Lane and Norwich Road, Conservation and Design do not consider it to be
critical capital which must be retained at all costs. Certainly, it is not of listable quality.
For these reasons, there can be no sustainable objections to its demolition.
In terms of the re-development, the principle of an additional unit at the front of the
site has already been accepted at outline stage. Comments hereunder can therefore
concentrate purely on the form and design of the two cottages proposed. In this
regard, the two units tread familiar vernacular paths. In contrast to many similar
designs, however, they do actually offer convincing proportions and design detailing.
Possibly with the exception of the rash of rooflights on Unit A, the elevations have
been well considered and have little to jar on the eye. They should therefore take
their place comfortably within the designated area.
With regard to siting, Unit A simply takes the place of the existing cottage and will
therefore not have a huge presence among the other buildings. Unit C, meanwhile,
has been turned through 90˚ and sits gable end to the road. In so doing, it actually
would provide some variety along Peck’s Lane and would add visual interest in the
process. With appropriate planting on the roadside, there should in time be no
detriment to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
In the event of the application being approved, please condition that the bricks, tiles
and windows are all agreed prior to their use/installation on site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments
County Council Highway Authority - This proposal was the subject of informal advice
and a subsequent site meeting. The advice given has been incorporated into the
design and as such, I would not wish to raise a highways objection to this proposal. If
minded to approve conditions are required in relation to vehicular access, visibility
splays, on- site parking and turning and no means of obstruction at access.
Environmental Protection Officer - No objection. Condition required in relation to the
demolition.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order to comply with Policy EN6 the Code Level 3
rating condition would be required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
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).
Development Control Committee
14
16 December 2010
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 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. Acceptability of principle of proposal.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Impact on trees and Protected Species
5. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area under Policy SS2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. The application is seeking permission for a
replacement dwelling (Unit A) and a new dwelling (Unit C) and associated car ports.
Replacement dwellings in the Countryside are considered to be acceptable in
principle provided they would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the
height or scale of the original dwelling and would not materially increase the impact
of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. New permanent
residential development is not normally permitted in such a location. However, in this
case outline planning permission was granted in 2008 under previous North Norfolk
Local Plan policies for a single storey dwelling to the south of the site. That
permission is still extant and is therefore material to the determination of this
application.
The proposed replacement dwelling (unit A) would have a footprint similar to that of
the existing property, albeit in a slightly different position. Whilst the existing dwelling
has a first floor, the overall ridge height is currently very low at just under 5m. This
does not provide a very practical first floor living space. In order to provide an
acceptable level of living accommodation at first floor the eave height would be
raised by approximately 500mm, and the overall height increased by approximately
2m.
Given that the footprint of the replacement dwelling would not be significantly
different from that of the existing, and that there is already first floor accommodation
it is not considered that a 2m increase in the height of the roof of the proposed
dwelling would constitute a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of
the original dwelling. Furthermore, given the location of the site within the developed
area of Edgefield it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Development Control Committee
15
16 December 2010
No first floor windows are proposed in the western elevation. The amended plan
proposes removal one of the rooflights on the northern elevation and the first floor
elements would not give rise to a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring
properties in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy. The relationship to neighbouring
dwellings is therefore considered to be acceptable.
The proposed new dwelling (unit C) is located on the part of the site which benefits
from an extant outline planning permission for a single storey dwelling. The proposed
dwelling under the current application is for a one and half storey dwelling. However,
in this case it is considered that such a dwelling would be acceptable in this location.
There is a mix of types and styles of properties in the area. To the west of the site are
bungalows and to the north and east are two storey dwellings.
The ground level of the site is slightly higher than that to the east and the
neighbouring two storey dwelling of 'Fourways'. There is also a slight shortfall in the
Amenity Criteria of 1.5m between the proposed dwelling and 'Fourways'. There is
one small window in the first floor western elevation of 'Fourways' facing the site.
There are no first floor windows in the proposed dwelling facing east. There is also a
mature hedge on the boundary between the two properties. In view of this, despite
the slight shortfall in Amenity Criteria and difference in ground levels, the roof of the
proposed dwelling would slope away from 'Fourways', and the distance between the
properties is considered to be acceptable. It is not therefore considered that the
proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of
the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
There is a shortfall in the Amenity Criteria of approximately 3m between units A and
C. The northern elevation of unit C contains secondary windows to two bedrooms
and a dining room. However, between the two properties would be the driveway and
parking area to unit C, a new boundary treatment and a mature tree. It is considered
that this relationship would be acceptable.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection. It is considered that the proportions and design detailing of both
dwellings are acceptable in this location, and that the dwellings would sit comfortably
in this designated Conservation Area. The siting of Unit A would not have a
significant impact among the other buildings given that it would take the place of an
existing dwelling. It is therefore considered that the proposal would preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Elevations of the proposed car
ports have been requested and at the time of writing this report were still awaited.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application as has
a Protected Species survey. At the time of writing this report the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) were awaited. However,
subject to no objections being raised the proposal is considered to be acceptable in
terms of its impact on trees and protected species.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection.
It is therefore considered, subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, satisfactory plans of the car ports being submitted, and limiting
the commencement of development to the period covered by the outstanding
permission, that the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
Development Control Committee
16
16 December 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager satisfactory plans being received in respect of the car
ports and imposition of appropriate conditions, including a time limitation
reflecting the expiry of the outstanding permission.
6.
HOVETON - PO/10/1012 - Erection of 80 bed high dependency care home and 7
bed neurological unit; Tilia Business Centre, Tunstead Road for Tilia Business
Park Ltd
Major Development
Target Date: 23 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/09/1244 PO
Erection of C2 (care home), neurological unit and 24 residential with care apartments
Withdrawn by applicant 09/03/2010
THE APPLICATION
Details of access and landscaping are applied for at this stage. For illustrative
purposes only the application indicates the following:
1. An 80 bed-high dependency dementia care home. The building (two-storey) is
shown as two linked square blocks each built around a central enclosed garden area.
2. A 7 bed specialist neurological unit in the form of two detached single-storey
buildings. These would share facilities with the care home.
The site occupies a currently vacant area of land (1.5ha approximately) adjoining and
part of an established industrial estate. Access to the proposed facility is to be via
the existing unadopted road which serves the industrial estate from Tunstead Road
and the approximate route of an existing track (to be widened and partially realigned) which skirts around the eastern side of the industrial estate. Detailed plans
submitted with the application include the widening of the existing access road from
Tunstead Road to 6.0m and additional footway provision. Also proposed are
alterations to Tunstead Road in order improve visibility for vehicles exiting the site
access. This involves widening the footpath on the western (site access side) of
Tunstead Road by extending it into the carriageway. In order to retain the existing
width of the carriageway it is also proposed to reduce the combined width of the
grass verge / footpath on the opposite side of Tunstead Road (adjacent to Broadland
High School) which will result in a 2.5m wide footpath.
Accompanying the application are the following documents:
Supporting Statement.
Design and Access Statement.
Statement of Community Involvement.
Need Case.
Development Control Committee
17
16 December 2010
Commercial Viability Report.
Transportation and Highway Appraisal.
Interim Travel Plan
Flood Risk Assessment.
Land Contamination Report.
Tree Report.
Comparative height drawings/plans of development with adjoining buildings
(illustrative).
Site marketing details.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Dixon for the following planning reasons:
Access arrangements, planning policy issues in relation to the site's employment
designation and the unsuitability of the site for the proposed use. (See e-mail in
Appendix 2).
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on grounds that the site is unsuitable for this type of use and
highway/pedestrian safety. Not against this type of facility in the village but not on this
site.
REPRESENTATIONS
16 letters of objection received from local residents of properties in Tunstead Road
and Two Saints Close raising the following concerns:
- noise and disturbance
- unsuitable access and adverse impact upon highway safety
- inappropriate location for care home and vulnerable people
- proximity of industrial and warehousing buildings and shared access
- contrary to development plan designation
- if use is to be approved access should be via Two Saints Close (resident of
Tunstead Road
- adequate care home provision elsewhere
- height in relation to neighbouring properties
- loss of privacy / light pollution
- presence of bats in trees
Letter received from Headteacher of Broadland High School objecting on grounds of
the increased use of the access opposite the entrance to the high school and
subsequent potential for traffic conflict. Also objects to the proposal to take away the
grass verge adjacent to the existing footpath outside the school entrance. Over half
the schools 700 pupils use this entrance. Disputes figures given in the applicants
traffic survey which records only one PSV between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm on the day
of the survey. 10-14 buses and taxis collect pupils daily during these times.
Letter received from Hoveton and Wroxham Medical Centre concerned that the
primary and community health care services in the area are taken into account prior
to the development taking place.
Letter of support received from private individual on grounds of need for facility in
area. Questions objection raised by Highway Authority.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Objects on grounds that the proposed alterations to the
alignment of Tunstead Road would be detrimental to highway safety and "would
result in increased conditions of danger and inconvenience to vulnerable road users,
Development Control Committee
18
16 December 2010
in this case schoolchildren." Objects also to the combined use of the site access road
by industrial traffic and domestic vehicles associated with the proposed care home.
For full response refer to Appendix 2.
Environmental Health - No objection to the principle of a care home on the site
subject to conditions regarding land contamination and noise/odour control. A noise
survey would be required to inform the need for noise mitigation measures at a future
design stage.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions in respect of surface water
drainage and land contamination.
Anglian Water - No objection subject to conditions regarding surface water and foul
water drainage.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Supports the application on grounds
of health care provision, investment, job creation, local procurement, learning and
research. Accepts the applicants’ commercial analysis regarding the marginal
likelihood of the site being developed for Class B1, B2 or B8 uses. See extracts of
the response in Appendix 2.
Norfolk County Council (Adult Social Services) - Concludes that the proposal
exceeds current and future demand, and has concerns regarding the
appropriateness of the site adjoining industrial uses and sharing the same access.
Considers that it is difficult to support this proposal. See full response in Appendix 2.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions regarding renewable
energy provision and sustainable construction.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Comments that the site lies adjacent to an area of
cropmarks of a late prehistoric to Roman field system. There is the possibility that
associated archaeological features are present on the site. Recommends a condition
relating to archaeological investigation in the event of planning permission being
granted.
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 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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Control Committee
19
16 December 2010
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Departure from Core Strategy (Employment land) Policy.
2. Employment generation.
3. Need for the facility.
4. Suitability of site for proposed use.
5. Residential amenity.
6. Access/highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application follows on from a similar application withdrawn in March of this year.
Members of the Committee visited the site in February prior to application being
withdrawn.
The application site comprises land at the northern end of an established industrial
estate. The estate, formerly known as the Norfolk Fruitgrowers site (a previous
longstanding business for the storage, processing and packaging of soft fruits), is
now used primarily for warehousing and by a boat building company. A small garden
centre also occupies the estate.
The area proposed for the new residential care facility occupies a plateau of land at a
slightly higher level than the remaining industrial estate. Now mostly cleared, it has
been previously used for a variety of uses including the storage of fruit boxes (some
still temporarily stored on part of site), an aggregates business, boat storage and
sales.
The site forms part of a larger area of land (in differing ownerships) designated in the
Core Strategy as an Employment Area. This designation is longstanding and was
carried forward from the previous Local Plan. A small part of the application site is on
adjacent garden land which is part of a designated residential area. The employment
designation has a southern boundary onto Horning Road, the Norwich - Sheringham
railway line forms the western boundary and residential properties border its northern
and eastern boundaries. The principal (northern) boundary of the application site
backs on to the rear gardens to a row of bungalows (Two Saints Close).
Policy SS 5 states that in Employment Areas only employment generating proposals
falling within Use Classes B1 (Light Industry/Offices), B2 (Industry) and B8
(Warehousing) will be permitted. The proposal is clearly contrary to this policy and as
such represents a departure from the Development Plan. In accordance with Section
70(2) of the Town and Country Act 1990, the application should be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
The case put forward on behalf of the applicants in support of the proposal can be
summarised in that there is a need for a care facility of this type; it would potentially
Development Control Committee
20
16 December 2010
create more employment than B1, B2 or B8 uses (predicted at almost 100 skilled and
unskilled jobs); that previous marketing of the site has failed to attract commercial
interest; and that the proposed use would be a better 'neighbour' to adjacent
residential properties than B1, B2 or B8 uses.
A document submitted with the application addresses the need case for the proposed
facility. It explains issues around dementia and design considerations for a facility of
this type. It refers to the above average and increasing elderly population in Norfolk
and the resulting predicted increase in people suffering from dementia. Reference is
made to discussions with representatives of Social Services and the Health
Authorities and the implied support for a facility of this type.
Whilst 'need' would not normally be a planning consideration in determining a
planning application for such a facility, it is relevant in this case in order to take a
view on the degree of weight which should be attached to it as a material
consideration given that the proposal is a departure from Development Plan policy.
Members will note that differing opinions have been expressed on this issue by
relevant consultees. The Council's Economic and Tourism Development Manager
supports the application on the basis of North Norfolk's above average elderly
population and statistical evidence of an increase in dementia, whereas Norfolk
County Council (Adult Social Services) do not support the proposal in that the
scheme would exceed current and future demand in the Hoveton area together with
concerns about the actual site.
The issue surrounding dementia can be an emotive one. However in view of the
responses received the need for a facility of this particular type and in this location
remains inconclusive, and accordingly is not considered to be a sufficient reason in
itself to outweigh Development Plan land use policy in this case.
A more persuasive case in support of the proposal, (contrary to the land use
designation) is that it would result in the generation of around 100 full and part time
jobs. PPS 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) states that local planning
authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning
applications for economic development and that applications which secure
sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. Where applications for
economic development are not in accordance with an up to date Development Plan
(as in this case) local planning authorities should weigh market and other economic
information alongside environmental and social information; take full account of any
longer term benefits; and consider whether the proposals meet the wider objectives
of the Development Plan.
It can be argued that the policy advice in PPS 4 gives weight in favour of allowing a
development of this type on the site in view of the jobs which would be created.
Furthermore the Economic and Tourism Development Manager agrees with the
applicants' case, that the site has marginal attraction in the current economic climate
for Class B1, B2, B8 use. It is for these reasons that it is not considered that the
application should be refused on policy grounds relating to the site's employment
designation (Core Strategy Policy SS 5).
Putting aside the land use policy issue, the proposal still needs to be considered in
terms of the site's suitability for this type of residential care use, bearing in mind the
proximity of the industrial / warehousing buildings and the shared access. Many of
the representations received, as well as the responses from the Parish Council and
Norfolk County Council Adult Social Services, question the suitability of the site in
these respects.
Development Control Committee
21
16 December 2010
It is a reasonable assertion that if a care home operator were seeking to find a
suitable location for a facility of this type in the Hoveton area, this site would be
unlikely to score very highly, given its immediate surroundings. (In this case of this
proposal the applicants are the landowners and in the event of planning permission
being granted a willing operator would need to be found). However the issue to be
considered is whether the characteristics of the site and its immediate surroundings
are such to justify a refusal of planning permission on amenity grounds. In its favour
the site is separated from the existing commercial premises by its raised level and a
degree of landscaping (which could be added to). It also borders housing
development on two sides. In addition the Council's Environmental Health Manager
is satisfied that any issues of noise disturbance could be addressed at a detailed
design stage. In view of these factors it is concluded, on balance, that considering
the siting of the proposed care home alone, there is insufficient reason to refuse the
application on amenity grounds. Less satisfactory is the fact that the facility would
share an access with the industrial estate.
Although concerns have been expressed by adjoining residents of Two Saints Close
regarding the physical impact of the development upon their amenities (including
scale, overlooking, lighting and disturbance), subject to a suitable layout and design,
an acceptable development in respect of these issues could be achieved.
Furthermore an existing earth bund, together with existing and proposed landscaping
along the dividing boundary would mitigate any significant impacts. The applicants
have also submitted illustrative viewpoints from Two Saints Close which appear to
demonstrate the acceptability of this relationship.
Access to the site is proposed via the existing roadway which serves the northern
part of the employment allocation. By current standards the access, and in particular
its junction with Tunstead Road, is clearly sub-standard. In 1997 a Development Brief
for the whole of the Employment designation was approved by the former District
Council Development Committee. The brief referred to this access in the following
terms: "The accessway meets Tunstead Road directly opposite a school causing
potential conflict with school users. It also passes through a group of private
residential dwellings giving rise to potentially adverse environmental impact for the
occupiers. It is not suitable to cater for significant additional development. Minor
developments that did not increase traffic on the access may be acceptable".
The brief went on to say that "in order for the whole site to be developed to its full
potential it will be essential to provide suitable safe and environmentally acceptable
access into the site from the public highway. The only opportunity available for
achieving this access is through the frontage of the site onto Horning Road". Whilst
the brief is now some 13 years old, the access constraints that it refers to are still
pertinent today.
The application proposes to overcome the substandard visibility at the junction with
Tunstead Road by building out the footpath on the western side and reducing the
footpath/grass verge on the eastern (school) side.
The case put forward by the applicants (elaborated in their Transportation and
Highway Appraisal) is that the amended plan would overcome visibility problems and
by virtue of the nature of the proposed use and shift patterns, the amount of
increased traffic caused by the development would be relatively low and dispersed at
different times of the day. The agent also refers to the fact that the County Council
has previously accepted as satisfactory the submitted 'Interim' Travel Plan. This
Interim Plan essentially explains the broad measures which will be taken forward in a
Development Control Committee
22
16 December 2010
Full Travel Plan should permission be granted. The measures would involve the
encouragement of a range of alternative means of travel to and from the facility
(essentially for staff) as opposed to individual use of the private car.
Members will however note the objections raised by the Highway Authority regarding
the proposed alterations to Tunstead Road as well as the shared use of the industrial
estate access. The applicants’ proposals to alter the alignment of Tunstead Road,
whilst overcoming an earlier objection by the Highway Authority regarding visibility at
the junction of the access, raise alternative objections in respect of reducing the
width of the footpath and grass verge adjacent to the entrance to Broadland High
School which is directly opposite the site access. (Members are referred to the
comprehensive response from the Highway Authority in Appendix 2). Given the
views of the Highway Authority there are clearly substantive reasons against
approving the application on grounds of highway safety. Furthermore the Highway
Authority has indicated that it would not accept such works being undertaken to the
carriageway, given that they have failed a safety audit.
In conclusion, this application raises a number of different planning issues. These
revolve mainly around the fact that the proposal represents a departure from its
employment designation as well as the question over the sites suitability for the
proposed use. Members will note from this report why, on balance, it is considered
that these do not constitute sufficient reasons in their own right to merit refusal of the
application. It is important however that if the proposal is to be agreed as a departure
from Development Plan policy, then it should be acceptable in all other respects. The
principal issue of concern relates to the use of the existing access to serve the
development. For a development of this type to share an access with an industrial is
far from ideal but more importantly there are specific objections raised by the
Highway Authority on grounds of highway and pedestrian safety, and for these
reasons the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on the 24th September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statement is considered relevant
to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5 : The transport impact on new development
The proposed development is considered to be contrary to the objectives of this
policy and to the interests of highway and pedestrian convenience and safety in the
following respects:
The proposed carriageway realignment works to the C396-Tunstead Road would
encroach upon the existing Highway verge and the demarcated ‘hazard’ waiting area
on the eastern side of the C396 - Tunstead Road, which forms the waiting area
adjacent the access to Broadland High School. This area of highway verge is
currently utilised by schoolchildren, whilst waiting clear of the highway carriageway,
at school collection times. The proposal, if permitted, would result in increased
conditions of danger and inconvenience to vulnerable road users, in this case
schoolchildren.
The vehicular movements engendered by the proposal would result in additional
vehicular conflict in close proximity to the access to Broadland High School at a
position where there are increased levels of pedestrian activity, on-street parking,
and traffic congestion at certain times of the day. In addition, the proposed
Development Control Committee
23
16 December 2010
realignment would have the effect of bringing HGV vehicles closer to the boundaries
of the school, whilst egressing the industrial estate. The proposal, if permitted, would
result in increased conditions of hazard and inconvenience to vulnerable road users
and would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
The application proposal would necessitate the combined use of the site access road
by industrial traffic and domestic vehicles associated with the proposed care home,
resulting in increased hazard and inconvenience to users of the private access road.
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
Target Date: 06 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0551 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached outbuilding
Refused 08/07/2010
THE APPLICATION
Proposes a single storey rear extension to a terraced dwelling dating from 1970s.
The proposed alterations would add an additional room and a conservatory. This is
an amended proposal following the refusal of PF/10/0551, which was for a larger
extension of a different design. The extra room would be the full width of the property
and extend 3.5m from the rear wall, with a conservatory attached to the rear of this
room measuring 2.6m deep by 3m wide.
Amended plan received repositioning eastern wall of extension off boundary.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee
TOWN COUNCIL
Support
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from three local residents raising the
following concerns:
1. Extension would be higher than the existing boundary treatments
2. Extension would take up 35% of the garden
3. Scale of development inappropriate for the location
4. Restrict light and view for neighbours, both within gardens and properties
5. No similar extension in immediate area
6. Intrude upon number 11's land
7. Hedge within the garden of number 15 would possibly need trimming
8. De-value neighbour's properties
CONSULTATIONS
National Grid UK Transmission - no response
Development Control Committee
24
16 December 2010
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties
2. Design
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the previous meeting for a
Committee site visit.
The site is located within the development boundary for North Walsham. In principle
a residential extension is acceptable, subject to complying with Policy EN 4. Policy
EN 4 requires all development to be designed to a high quality, having regard to the
local character and distinctiveness. In addition proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Planning application PF/10/0551 was for a similar development; a single storey rear
extension with a conservatory and detached outbuilding. This was refused following
concerns regarding its overbearing and overshadowing impact upon neighbours due
to the extension's size, scale and immediate proximity with the boundaries. Concern
was also raised in relation to the amount of garden lost due to the outbuilding and
extension proposed. The revised scheme submitted is for a smaller outbuilding and
smaller extension.
The previously proposed extension was approximately 0.5m
deeper and had gable walls facing the neighbours.
The extension would be the full width of the property and extend 3.5m from the rear
elevation, which faces south. This initial section would have a hipped roof on both
sides, extending away from the boundaries with the two neighbours. The bricks, roof
tiles and window would all match the existing property. A pitched roof conservatory is
proposed adjacent to this, extending further south by approximately 2.7m. The
maximum overall depth of the proposed extension will be approximately 6.3m. This
would have a glazed roof with glazing on the south and east elevations. The brick
plinth and brick wall on the west elevation are all to match the existing property, as is
the glazing. The conservatory would sit along the western boundary. The outbuilding
alterations no longer require planning permission.
The amended plan received addresses a concern of residents of number 11. The
external wall on the east elevation is no longer proposed directly on this boundary,
removing encroachment on the neighbouring property.
Development Control Committee
25
16 December 2010
The alignment and design of the terraces means that both the applicant and its
neighbour to the east (number 11) are sited at the same distance from the road, with
the properties either side set back from the road. This ensures that the rear elevation
of numbers 9 and 15 is 1.4m further south than number 11 and 13. As such the
proposed extension would sit along the western boundary for 2.1m, with an additional
2.6m of conservatory, whereas along the eastern boundary the extension would run
for 3.5m.
The proposed new hipped roof would reduce the impact on neighbours on either
side, reducing the bulk. The eastern boundary is treated with a 1.8m fence whereas
the western boundary is treated with two 1.8m tall fence panels, followed by a thick
conifer hedge, measuring approx 2m tall. The height to the eaves is 2.4m. As such a
degree of overshadowing is expected, but due to the orientation of the properties, the
roof design and the existing boundary treatments, the impact on residential amenity
is not considered to be significantly detrimental.
It is therefore considered that, on balance, the scheme as amended would accord
with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0957 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension and car port; 18 Litester Close for Mr S Fairweather
Target Date: 13 October 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19811055 PF - Alterations and lounge extension
Approved 19/06/1981
PLA/19820543 PF - Concrete sectional garage
Refused
PLA/19950340 PF - Single storey front extension and alterations to dormer roof
Approved 21/04/1995
PLA/19860444 PF - Continued use of bedroom as dental studio
Temporary Approval 25/04/1986
PLA/19800153 PF - Use of existing ground floor bedroom as dental studio, not
surgery
Approved 25/02/1980
PLA/19830267 PF - Continued use of bedroom as dental studio
Approved 31/03/1983
THE APPLICATION
Is for a one and a half storey side extension and car port.
The side extension is to enable a lift to be installed on the north gable. In addition to
the lift a single storey store is proposed adjacent to the lift shaft. The car port would
be attached to the existing detached garage sited behind the house to the east side
of the plot. That garage is shown to be converted to a workshop/gym ancillary to the
use of the site as a dwellinghouse.
Development Control Committee
26
16 December 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support the application
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection received from six different objectors, raising the following
points;
1. Concern that the workshop will be used for commercial activities and/or noisy or
noxious activities.
2. Concern regarding over development.
3. Development could lead to the beginnings of Care Home being established.
4. Rendering inappropriate.
5. Store room too close to the boundary causing the neighbours to feel 'intruded
upon'.
6. Potential damage to the Lleylandii tree belonging to number 12.
7. Inappropriate location of the lift, should be on the south gable.
8. Impact upon car parking.
9. Inconsistencies within application.
10. Overshadowing/overbearing impact from the lift extension.
11. Whether a lift to the first floor is required when there are two bedrooms on the
ground floor, a wet room, shower room and bathroom.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection if a
condition is added requesting an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is produced
and agreed with the Landscape Officers prior to the start of any development on the
site.
The submitted application form was incorrectly completed in regard to trees and
hedges. If this section of the application had been completed then Conservation,
Design and Landscape (C,D & L) would have requested more information including
an Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) so that the impact upon the tree from
the proposed development could be considered.
The tree is a semi mature Lleylandii with limited landscape value as it is only visible
from limited public view points. However a meeting with the owner of the tree
confirmed that it provided a natural barrier, visually screening the applicant's property
from her own and therefore has a visual amenity value. The neighbour also
confirmed the tree supports song thrushes and therefore has biodiversity value.
C,D & L therefore considers that an AMS is required detailing the construction
method to be used to protect the roots of the tree and protect it during construction.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
27
16 December 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbours' amenities.
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee
site visit.
This application seeks a side extension to accommodate a lift and a car port attached
to an existing garage. Several other proposals are planned but only these require
planning permission. The property is sited within a designated Residential Area, and
under Policy SS 3 residential development is acceptable in principle. The dwelling is
a detached one and half storey dwelling on a corner plot. The new owner is disabled
and as part of the proposed alterations a 1½ storey side extension is planned, to be
located on the north gable, in addition to a car port.
The car port is an addition to the existing detached double garage, sited along the
southern boundary behind the dwelling. The car port would extend from the front of
the garage, east, towards the road. Both the garage and car port would sit close to
the southern boundary, which is treated with an approximate 2.5m solid hedge. Only
the roof of the car port would be visible from the neighbouring property to the south.
The car port would have a pitched roof with a total height of 3.2m, compared to the
garage at 4m. It would be visible from the highway but would be situated about 30m
away.
The side extension is to incorporate a lift within the 1½ storey section and a store
room in an attached single storey section. This single storey section could be built
without the benefit of planning permission if it were not attached to the taller section.
The taller section would accommodate a lift and a small hallway area to facilitate
access from the house. Dimensions of the 1½ storey section would be 3.5m by 1.5m,
with the store room measuring 2.9m by 2.2m. An external door is proposed from the
hallway, to provide easy access to the store from outside. A small window is
proposed in the store room, facing the north east boundary.
The north-eastern boundary adjoins two neighbours. The whole length is treated with
a 1.8m boarded fence, with varying amounts of vegetation on the neighbour's side.
The store room window is not anticipated to create any undue overlooking, but it
could be conditioned to be obscure glazed due to its close proximity with the
boundary (1m). The mass of the single storey element is not considered to be an
issue in relation to neighbours' amenities. The 1½ storey section would bring the
gable wall closer to both neighbours by 1.5m. This is not anticipated to alter
significantly the impact the property already has upon both neighbours.
Development Control Committee
28
16 December 2010
One of the neighbours to the north east owns a Lleylandii hedge/tree that is
positioned close the proposed side extension. Unfortunately this was not addressed
when the application was submitted. Following consultation with the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager any development should only proceed once an
Arboricultural Method Statement has been produced and agreed with the LPA.
Compliance with Policy EN 9 would be achieved through this process.
Conversion of the garage to a workshop (referred to in the representations section)
does not need planning permission.
It is understood that the applicant intends to render the whole dwelling following the
alterations. This does not require permission, although it is recommended that a
condition be imposed controlling the external finish of the proposed side extension.
On balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accords with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1235 – Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1235 – Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to expedite
processing of the planning applications.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PM/10/1091 - Construction of agricultural reservoir; Land off
Church Road for East Beckham Produce Co
(Reserved Matters)
Development Control Committee
29
16 December 2010
AYLMERTON - NMA2/09/1222 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
doors and windows; Rodavia, Church Road for Mr & Mrs D Wilson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACTON - PF/10/1102 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
91/0943 to permit all year occupancy of caravans and chalets; Red House
Chalet & Caravan Park, Paston Road for Mr G Westgate
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/1132 - Variation of condition 9 of planning permission
reference PF/10/0086 to allow dwellings to be occupied without the need to have
a Final Code Certificate to confirm achievement of a Code Level 2 rating under
the Code for Sustainable Homes; Hill Top, Mill Lane for East Anglian Property
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/1171 - Erection of conservatory; White House Farm, Church
Lane, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Cooper
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/10/1141 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, detached
double garage and formation of vehicular access; Walnut Tree Cottage, 47
Warham Road for Mr and Mrs J Van Ree
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/10/1173 - Erection of first floor side extensions and boundary wall;
12 Front Street for Messrs Macarthur & Murphy
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/10/1147 - Demolition of 4 dwellings and erection of 9 dwellings;
125 - 131 Fakenham Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/10/1072 - Installation of three sunpipes; The Old
Dairy, 7 Old Hall Farm Barns, Coast Road for Miss S Howarth
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/1078 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear
extensions, infilling of archway and installation of shop-front; 53-55 Church
Street for Monument Group Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/10/1079 - Demolition of rear extension, erection of single-storey
and two-storey rear extension, infilling of archway and installation of shop
front; 53-55 Church Street for Monument Group Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/1172 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land rear of
43 & 45 Norwich Road for Mr Holbrook
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/10/1084 - Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings
to two units of holiday accommodation; Hall Farm, Church Road, West
Beckham for Mr Batt
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
30
16 December 2010
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1142 - Erection of first floor extension; Jacobs Cottage,
Norwich Road for Mr J Hardiment
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/10/1177 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
dwelling, one unit of holiday accommodation and workshop; Lowes Farm,
Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1230 - Installation of first floor side window; The Old Post
Office, The Green for Mr & Mrs N Harrison
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NP/10/1249 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural building; Land at Green Farm, The Green for Mr D Sands
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1087 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey side extensions
and rear conservatory; 86 Lancaster Avenue for Mr Frary
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1159 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey side extension; 7
Wigg Road for Mr N Hudson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/10/0074 - Non-material amendment request for change of
wall material, colour of cladding and installation of 8 roof lights; Land at Cattle
Market Street for Mr J Beck
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/1066 - Erection of detached garden room; 10 Sharon
Close for Ms Stanforth
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1105 - Erection of first floor side extension; 15 Stibbard
Road for Mr & Mrs Walpole
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1108 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings and one
single-storey dwelling; Land at The Street for Broadland Housing Association
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1165 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension;
11-13 Barney Road for Mr M Taylor
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/1114 - Erection of rear conservatory; St. Ninians Close,
Field Dalling Road, Bale for Mr Blackiston
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - NMA1/09/0670 - Non-material amendment request for revised
doors and windows and re-positioning of chimney stack to outhouse; Bluetile
Cottages, Sharrington Road for Mr D Worsley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Control Committee
31
16 December 2010
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/1154 - Erection of single-storey front and rear
extensions and infill extension; Pershore, 17 Doggetts Lane for Mr Riley
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/10/1133 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Old Golf
House Cottage, 3 Raynham Road for Mr D O'Brien
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/10/0878 - Conversion of community hall to dwelling; Community
Centre, The Street for Mr G Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/10/1060 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Eastfield Farm,
Eastfield Road for Mr S Ellis
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/1013 - Erection of bus shelter; Land at Cromer Road, for
High Kelling Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - LA/10/0946 - Installation of replacement door and windows and
wood burning stove; Crossfield Farm House, The Street for Mr P Nixon
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/1080 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension; Coldham House, 94-96 Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Green
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - NP/10/1166 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
grain store; Land at Branthill Farm, Branthill for Mr E Maufe
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HOLT - PF/10/1068 - Removal of porch and erection of single-storey front
extension; 49 New Street for Mr & Mrs Upward
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/1128 - Change of use from retail (A1) to chiropractic clinic (D1);
Unit 6 Lyles Court, Lees Yard, Bull Street for Creative Chiropractive
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/1139 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached
garage; 1 The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs Oldfield
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/1150 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extension;
Frogshall Barn, Kelling Road for Mr & Mrs M Robertson
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/1232 - Siting of portable building; Greshams School, Cromer Road
for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/10/0960 - Non-material amendment request for revised door and
window arrangements; Greshams Preparatory School, Cromer Road for
Greshams School
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
32
16 December 2010
HONING - PF/10/1160 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 1
Fairview for Flagship Housing
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/10/1122 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Ash Cottage,
Upper Street for Mr & Mrs Baldwin
(Householder application)
HORSEY - PF/10/1168 - Alterations to boundary wall; Kerrison House, All Saints
Lane for Horsey Estate
(Householder application)
HORSEY - LA/10/1169 - Alterations to boundary wall; Kerrison House, All Saints
Lane for Horsey Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOVETON - PF/10/1007 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Carisbrook,
Brimbelow Road for Mr J Mooney
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/1134 - Erection of front extension; Westbury Travers,
Tunstead Road for Mr D Lisbon
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/1178 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and pitched
roof; 71 Two Saints Close for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1073 - Conversion of gallery to dwelling (amended
design); Old Barn, 45 The Street for Mr & Mrs Hollier
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - LA/10/1074 - Alterations to gallery to facilitate conversion to
dwelling; Old Barn, 45 The Street for Mr & Mrs Hollier
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1088 - Erection of storage shed; Land adjacent 7, The
Street for Mr G Evennett
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1110 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
detached double garage; 8 Pensthorpe Hall Cottages, Fakenham Road,
Pensthorpe for Mr Kilbourn
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - NMA1/05/1224 - Non-material amendment request for construction
of pitched roof to rear extension and link extension and installation of roof light
and revised escape window; 2 School Close for Mr & Mrs Myhill
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/10/0085 - Conversion of all buildings
on the site to form 8 number two and three bedroom dwellings excluding the
malt kilns which are to be secured as a permanent bat roost including
associated hard and soft landscaping.; Letheringsett Maltings, Holt Road for
Gainsborough Construction
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
33
16 December 2010
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/10/1136 - Erection of six two-storey dwellings and
two single-storey dwellings; Land at Parva Close for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/10/1157 - Continued siting of portable buildings; Little
Snoring Pre-school, Stevens Road for Little Snoring Parish Council
(Reserved Matters)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/10/1189 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref: 09/0408
to permit installation of side window and of condition 16 to permit a satisfactory
form of sustainable construction to be signed off within 12 months of
occupation; 11 & 12 Holt Road for Flagship Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LE/10/0996 - Demolition of former railway works
entrance gate to facilitate re-erection in new position; Land at Hindolveston
Road for Melton Constable Parish Council
(Conservation Area Demolition)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/1085 - Conversion of stables to residential
dwelling; Stables at Burgh Parva Barns for Mr A Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/10/1086 - Alterations to stables to facilitate
conversion to dwelling; Stables at Burgh Parva Barns for Mr A Jones
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/1121 - Erection of detached garage/garden store;
Lark Rise, Craymere Road, Briston for Mr Glasspoole
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1093 - Erection of front conservatory; 26 Sea View Road
for Mr B Hollis
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/10/0871 - Erection of one dwelling; 45 Happisburgh
Road for Mrs Y Bullimore
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/10/0923 - Conversion and extension of buildings to
provide 12 units of holiday accommodation (landscaping details); Ebridge Mill,
Happisburgh Road for Mr Briscoe
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1069 - Erection of single-storey and first floor side
extensions; 16 Kingsway for Mr & Mrs Kingsmill
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1099 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning
permission ref: 08/1170 to permit revised car park layout; Sainsburys, Bacton
Road for Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1129 - Erection of side and rear extension to garage;
15 Williams Way for Mr and Mrs Rushen
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
34
16 December 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1148 - Erection of single-store front extension; 22
Mayfield Way for Mr & Mrs Engledow
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1161 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 2
Meeting House Cottages, Mundesley Road for Ms C Farrow
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1162 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage
(extension of time limit for commencement of previous planning permission
reference 07/1673); Land adjacent 17 Aylsham Road for Mr J Cranmer
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - AN/09/0944 - Continued Display of two Non-Illuminated
Advertisements; Wensum Pools, The Hatchery, Swaffham Road, South
Raynham for Wensum Pools Limited
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
RUNTON - PF/10/1061 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with accommodation
in roofspace; Land adjacent 'Ambleside', Broomhill, East Runton for Mr & Mrs
Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/1115 - Erection of rear conservatory; 110 Cromer Road, West
Runton for Mr Duff & Mrs Lawson
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/1179 - Change of use of first floor residential flat to retail (A1)
and erection of first floor extension, single-storey rear extension and covered
side access; Caravan, Camping & Leisure, West Runton for Caravan, Camping
& Leisure
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/1146 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 14
Bloomstiles for Mr D Golds
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/1197 - Erection of single-storey outbuilding; 4 Manor Farm
Barns, Cross Street for D & M Hickling Property Ltd
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/1149 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 2 Ivy
Cottages, Fakenham Road for Mr E Stubbings
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - NMA1/07/1296 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of door and windows; Bramble Oaks, Fakenham Road for Mrs R
Allum
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1113 - Installation of bow window and erection of pitched
roof and detached single garage; 5c Weybourne Road for Miss Shepherd
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
35
16 December 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1143 - Erection of front porch; 2 Meadow Way for Mr D
Bishop
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1145 - Construction of two pitched roofs and glazed roof
over courtyard and installation of two windows and roof lights; 7 Lifeboat Plain
for Mr A Platt
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1263 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 5 St
Josephs Road for Mr K Bharj
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/1123 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Bywater,
Lower Street for Mr Beauchamp
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/1016 - Erection of 6m high play tower; Stalham Recreation
Ground, Recreation Road for Stalham Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/1090 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey rear
extensions; 18 Millside for Mr Buchanan
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/1119 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 27 Calthorpe
Close for Mr and Mrs M Williams
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - NP/10/1219 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; The Old Military Camp, Greenway for Mr M Harrison
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
TATTERSETT - PF/10/1082 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 31 Lancaster
Road, Sculthorpe for Mr Jickells
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/10/1138 - Erection of replacement dwelling; The Bungalow,
Letheringsett Road for Mr and Mrs R Newton
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - LE/10/1175 - Demolition of dwelling; The Bungalow, Letheringsett
Road for Mr and Mrs R Newton
(Conservation Area Demolition)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0876 - Erection of two-storey rear, side and front
extensions and reconstruction of existing access; 2 Hall Farm, Station Road for
Mr and Mrs S Laws
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1031 - Erection of cart-shed garage with storage
above; Manorwood, Church Road for Mr & Mrs D Reid
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
36
16 December 2010
THURNING - PF/10/1035 - Erection of 18m high wind turbine; Rosewood Farm,
Craymere Beck Road for Mr C Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - NMA1/09/0062 - Non-material amendment request for revised
access drive; Land at Church Farmhouse, Church Street for Mr & Mrs R Turner
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1083 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation;
Barn 13, Laurel Farm, Market Street for Mr Johnston
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1140 - Erection of replacement accommodation for seasonal
agricultural workers; Church Farm for Place UK
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1153 - Proposed erection of detached garage; Church Farm
House, Church Road for Mr and Mrs T Place
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/10/1155 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions and
front porch; Rehoboth, Coast Road for Mrs Enticott
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/10/0785 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling;
Partners, Northfield Lane for Novus Construction (Norfolk) Ltd
(Conservation Area Demolition)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/09/0276 - Non-material amendment request for
re-alignment of approved boundary wall; 54 Mill Road for Mr G Warren
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0486 - Non-material amendment request for
reduction in width and ridge height of extension; Westend House, 26 Dogger
Lane for Mr & Mrs A Dixon
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1127 - Variation of planning condition number 2 of planning
reference: 07/0503 to allow variation of design details, single-storey link
extension and amended siting of shelter building; Manor Farm Barns, School
Road for Mr Coaley
(Full Planning Permission)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARSHAM - PF/10/1106 - Erection of two-storey, first floor and single-storey
rear extensions; Gatehouse, Fakenham Road, East Barsham for Mrs C
Williamson
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for Saw-Milling
and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
37
16 December 2010
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0529 - Erection of double garage; Land at The
Fairstead for Mrs C Young
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
(Outline Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1046 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 57 Sea View Road for Mr V Somers
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/0906 - Use of Land for Siting Timber
Dwelling for Supervisor of Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr Den Engelse
INFORMAL HEARING
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 01 December 2010
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/0906 - Use of Land for Siting Timber
Dwelling for Supervisor of Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr Den Engelse
INFORMAL HEARING
BEESTON REGIS - ENF/09/0011 - Development not in accordance with approved
plans; Heath Barn, Britons Lane
INFORMAL HEARING 14 December 2010
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - ENQ/10/0098 - Without Planning Permission the
Material Change of use of the land from Agricultural to a Mixed Use of
Agricultural and the Stationing of a Motorhome for Residential Purposes;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road
INFORMAL HEARING
Development Control Committee
38
16 December 2010
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0023 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road for Norfolk County
Council
SITE VISIT:- 06 December 2010
SEA PALLING - ENF/09/0151 - Material change of use of the land for the
stationing of a caravan, tents, motorhome and erection of a building
constructed of timber, for residential purposes; land at The Marrams, Clink
Road
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0432 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension; Rose
Cottage, 82A Wells Road for Mr Hickey
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/0566 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage and
stable block; Eagle Farm, The Street for Mr Wright
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road Wood Norton for Mr C Jeffrey
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
CROMER - ENF/10/0002 - Installation of replacement shop front, roller shutter
and air conditioning without the benefit of planning permission; 57 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
39
16 December 2010