OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 17 APRIL 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
BRISTON: 1986 0410 - Land to the north of Hall Farm, Mill Road
Request for release of section 52 Planning agreement
Report seeking Development Committee approval to release of section 52 Planning
agreement tying dwelling and agricultural holding – approval recommended
1.0
Introduction and background
1.1
This report relates to an application on behalf of a local farmer to release
certain land subject to a section 52 (now section 106) planning agreement, to enable
part of the holding to be transferred to his son.
1.2
The background to this matter is that in 1986 the Council granted planning
permission for a dwelling in Briston. The application reference was 19860410 and
approval followed the completion of an agreement under section 52 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1971. The purpose of the agreement was to tie ownership of
the new dwelling to the balance of the agricultural holding, as was the Council‟s
practice at that time.
1.3
The agreement was made with Mr David Lakey who has requested that the
agreement be cancelled, so as to “untie” the dwelling and farmland to enable part of
the land to be transferred to his son, Christopher. An application to release part of
the land could have been approved by Officers under delegated powers but as the
request is to cancel the agreement, the matter is being referred to the Committee for
determination. The request has been supported by a letter from Hayes & Storr, Mr
Lakey‟s solicitors and a copy of that letter is appended to this report (Appendix 1).
2.0
Legislation
2.1
The agreement was made under section 52 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1971 and the relevant legislation is now section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, as amended. Section 106A allows planning agreements
to be amended or cancelled where such agreements “no longer serve a useful
planning purpose.”
3.0
Appraisal
3.1
In the 1970s and 1980s it appears that when considering applications for new
agricultural dwellings, the Council‟s practice was to use planning agreements to tie
the new dwelling to the balance of the agricultural holding, presumably to reflect an
accepted need for an agricultural worker to live on the holding concerned. Current
government policy is generally permissive towards the release of such agreements,
reflecting changes in agriculture and that agricultural dwellings may now serve a
wider need rather than the needs of the holding subject to the agreement. Rather
Development Committee
1
17 April 2014
surprisingly in this case the bungalow constructed under the old permission,
19860410, is not subject to an agricultural occupancy condition.
3.2
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan (the
Council‟s Core Strategy) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Core Strategy sets out the Council‟s policy in relation to applications to lift agricultural
occupancy conditions but this is not applicable to this request to “untie” this nonrestricted dwelling from the holding. Current government policy as set out in the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is generally supportive of sustainable
development and it is considered that there is no sound planning reason to retain the
agreement. Accordingly the Committee is recommended to agree to the bungalow
and balance of the agricultural holding being released from the 1986 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Committee is recommended to agree to the cancellation of
the Planning agreement dated 12 December 1986 and made with Mr D E Lakey.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager ext 6016)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
HUNWORTH: NOS. 1 & 2 GREEN FARM BARN, THE GREEN
This report seeks the Committee‟s agreement to take no action in respect of fencing
erected between two residential properties, on the basis of it is not expedient to
take action due to the limited impact of the developments and the lack of a wider
public interest in doing so.
BACKGROUND
On 21 November 2012, a complaint was received from the occupier of No. 1 Green
Farm Barn that a boundary fence between nos. 1 and 2 Green Farm Barn had been
erected by the owners of No. 2 Green Farm Barn and that the fence in question
exceeded 2 metres in height.
The matter was investigated and an enforceable breach of planning control was
confirmed.
The owner of No. 2 Green Farm Barn was contacted and it was requested that the
fence be reduced to 2 metres in height. If reduced to this height, the fence would be
Permitted Development under Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town & Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
A response was received indicating that only part of the fence was over 2 metres in
height but that the property owner was having works carried out, including landscaping
which, when completed, would mean that the fence would be within the permitted
development height upon completion of those works.
It was also indicated at that time that the complainant had carried out works
(excavating part of her garden) which may have been a reason why she felt the fence
did not conform with the 2 metre height restriction. It was also suggested that the
lower section of fence was lower than the fencing that the complainant had installed a
number of years ago.
Development Committee
2
17 April 2014
In October 2013, the owner of No. 2 Green Farm Barn was again contacted raising
concerns that the fence had not been reduced in height. This was followed up by a
further letter in December 2013, with the added suggestion that if an application were
to be made to retain the fence, Officers were of the opinion that this would be
acceptable with a suggested amendment which sloped the fence back from the gate
for the first 1.5 metres.
In December 2013, the owner of No.2 Green Farm Barn registered a complaint with
the Authority that the owner of No. 1 Green Farm Barn had also erected a fence along
the same boundary exceeding 2 metres in height.
REPRESENTATIONS
The owner of No. 1 Green Farm Barn (the complainant) states that the fence which is
of concern is approximately 2.5 metres in height on her side and considers that it is
oppressive and should not be allowed. She has complained that; the situation has
been going on for a considerable period of time; that it has been confirmed that
planning permission is required; and considers that partiality appears to have been
shown to the owner of 2 Green Farm Barn. She considers that Officers favour the
neighbour and are reluctant to take action.
The owner at No. 2 Green Farm Barn has again indicated that when works are
complete on that side of the property the fence will not exceed 2 metres in height.
Surprise has been expressed that Officers have pursued this matter given that the
neighbour‟s fence (i.e. the original complainant) is also in excess of 2 metres in height
and in part higher than their recently installed fence.
The owner at No.2 considers that the fence is required to provide privacy between the
properties where there are a number of visitors to the premises.
The owner of No. 2 Green Farm Barn has welcomed a possible site meeting and
raised concerns in respect of previous conduct of the District Council, both Officers
and Members.
The representations from No.2 also go on to raise other enforcement issues relating to
other property in the area.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted September 2008)
Policy EN4: Design. This policy requires development not to have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers and to respect the
character of the surrounding area.
APPRAISAL
This is a situation where two fences have been erected side by side along a boundary
within an internal courtyard of a residential conversion barn development. In part, the
fencing in question exceeds 2.0 metres in height. (The height of a fence that can be
erected without the benefit of planning permission in a case such as this, is 2 metres).
Having considered the development and the impact on the amenities of the occupiers
of the properties on either side, Officers consider that the effects of retaining such
fencing would be limited and should applications be received to retain the fencing as
erected, would be likely to be recommended for approval.
In the light of the above, it is considered that it is not expedient to take enforcement
action in either case, and, furthermore, there is no wider public interest for doing so.
Development Committee
3
17 April 2014
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that these proposals will not have any significant impacts on the
human rights of the neighbouring property owners/occupiers.
RECOMMENDATION
That Committee agree that it is not expedient to take enforcement action in respect of
either of the fences erected, on the basis that, given the limited impact on either
neighbour, any subsequent applications would be likely to be considered acceptable,
Furthermore, there is no wider public interest in taking formal enforcement action.
Any applications submitted to retain the fencing as erected would be considered
acceptable under adopted Core Strategy EN4: Design.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager, ext 6149)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0237 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey side extension with attached garage; Stone Cutters Cottage, The
Fairstead for Mr S Young
Minor Development
Target Date: 18 April 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Brear
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Local Development Framework - Countryside
Conservation area - Glaven Valley and Cley
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/1317Date Received: 05/11/2013
Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey side extension with attached double
garage.
Decision- Withdrawn by applicant (24/12/2012) after discussion with Case officer and
C&D officer that a suggestion to revise the proposed design would be needed.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of an existing detached single garage and erection of a singlestorey side extension with an attached double garage.
The proposed extension to the single storey kitchen will measure (W) 5.3m x (D)
1.9m. The replacement garage will measure (W) 7.6m x (D) 6.7m. The proposed
materials for the scheme are red brick and flint to match the existing elevations, with
matching pantiles. Part of the eastern boundary wall which forms a ginnel running
behind the property will be partially altered, any rebuild or alteration work will be done
Development Committee
4
17 April 2014
in red brick and flint to match the existing. The windows will be uPVC casement style
and the doors will be wooden painted half glazed doors.
Amended plans have been submitted on 27 March, these were to amend mistakes in
elevations and measurements, to alter the roof style on recommendation from officers
and to address concerns from officers and representations that the proposal was too
high. These amended plans will need to be re-advertised and re-consulted upon.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor David Young having regard to overdevelopment of the
site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Have no objection or comment to the original proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
3 representations of objection have been received to the original proposal.
The key arguments of the objections are listed as follows:
 Proposed height
 Design is unsuitable
 Development is massing of the dwelling
 Not preserving the character of Cley conservation area
 Overbearing disproportionally large extension to original dwelling
 Proposal will affect the provision of parking and thus affect the neighbouring
property
 Lack of respect and impact on area
 Poor design and overbearing size
 Non-compliance with development plan policies
 Proposed flat roof section is uncharacteristic of Cley
 Spoil the public right of way and reduce light levels into the ginnel
 Proposal is in disagreement with paragraphs 58, 64 and 126 of the NPPF
 Length of the roof will produce a considerable mass of visible roof
 Over development of the site
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Environmental Health Officer requested information for the
clarification of how surface water will be disposed of. This was relayed onto the
applicant. The applicant provided suitable information showing water being disposed
in a proposed soakaway, measuring (W)1.3m x (L)1.3m x (D)1.4. The supplied plans
and information was deemed satisfactory and the Environmental Health officer would
not have any objections subject condition.
Conservation and Design - Comments are made on the most recent amended plans.
Although this latest scheme still has the kitchen extension stepping forward of the
main cottage, and has retained the unfortunate “leaded recess” on the rear elevation,
the overall design of the extension and garage has been considerably improved.
Therefore, on the basis that the new build would now be properly modelled, and would
be far more compatible addition to the existing, it is no longer considered that this
scheme would result in any harm being caused to the appearance and character of
the Cley Conservation Area.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions, Conservation & Design can have no
sustainable objections to this application.
Development Committee
5
17 April 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Scale of development and massing
 Impact on neighbours and Cley Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within an area of designated Countryside. Extensions to existing
residential dwellings are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The proposal is for the replacement of the existing single-storey element with a slightly
larger single-storey extension. Attached to this is a double garage that will replace the
existing single bay garage.
The dwelling is considered to be on a large enough site in principle to accommodate
the proposed amount of development, without it being classed as overdevelopment of
a site or producing a building that can be classed as disproportionate in respect of the
existing dwelling. It is considered that the proposed additions would not adversely
affect the character of the building or the surrounding Conservation Area.
Design
The proposed amendments to the design have been ongoing from the previous
application PF/13/1317 that was submitted at the start of November 2013. The
amendments made have been extensively discussed between the case officer and
Conservation & Design Officer. These were then relayed to the applicant who has
taken on board all the comments made and design ideas that would enhance the
proposal and help to improve the relationship with neighbouring properties. The
proposed extension and double garage are considered to be acceptable in respect of
design and materials.
The proposed single-storey extension will keep the existing width but project forwards
of the existing elevation by 1.9m. This will project past the principal (front) elevation by
0.7m. The proposed replacement garage is the largest addition of the proposal. It will
replace the existing garage by increasing its footprint to become attached to the main
dwelling. This will mean a width of 7.6m. The proposed double garage will extend
1.6m further than the existing garage giving it a depth of 6.7m.
A point of concern throughout the application has been the roof design. From the
previous application PF/13/1317 the roof was considered to be too high and would
have been a continuous mass of roof. After discussions with the applicant and then
the re submission with this application PF/14/0237 there have been alterations made
to reduce the impact. The garage section had been hipped on all elevations removing
Development Committee
6
17 April 2014
a considerable mass of roof. Another key design feature for the roof is the flat roof
section on top of the pitched roof. This is proposed for two key reasons, firstly if the
roof over the garage was lowered and keeping the standard hipped form, the roof
angle would become so shallow that it wouldn‟t support Norfolk pantiles and would
also contradict with the steep roof slopes of the original dwelling. Secondly having the
flat roof section means that the roof height can be lowered to reduce the impact on
neighbour amenity and yet still keep the steep roof angles of the original dwelling. An
added benefit is that from the ground, the flat roof element will not be visible as you
will perceive the top of the pitch to be the top of the roof.
The proposed developments would mean an increase of approx. 48.40% in footprint of
the dwelling. HO8 guidance states that it should not be a disproportionately large
increase in the footprint of the building. The scale of the proposal under Policy HO8 is
considered acceptable.
In regards to concerns in respect of overdevelopment of the site following the
proposed works, the site will be a total of approx. 34.84% developed. Officers consider
that there will still be enough amenity space to the front of the property for garden area
and also the provision of adequate parking.
It is considered that the proposed amendments to the original scheme are a significant
improvement and would ensure compliance with Policies EN2, EN4 and Policy HO8 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to no
material issues being raised following re-advertisement and re-consultation with the
amended plans and subject to conditions listed below:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (location and
site plans) received by the Local Planning Authority on 27 March 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, samples of the bricks and tiles to be
used on the approved extension and garage shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA. The new build shall then be constructed using only the
approved materials.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
7
17 April 2014
4. Prior to the installation of any doors into the front (west) elevation of the garage
hereby permitted, full details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The doors shall then be installed and retained only in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the doors are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5. Prior to its installation, full details of the approved rooflight shall be submitted to
and agreed in writing by the LPA. The rooflight shall then be installed only in strict
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
RECOMMENDED NOTES:
N43 - The applicant is advised that no person should begin demolition of any building
that has a cubic content of more than 49.55m3 (1750 cubic feet) unless the Local
Authority has first been given notice in accordance with Section 80 of the Building Act
1984, and, either the Local Authority has given notice under Section 81 of the Building
Act 1984 or the relevant period has expired. The details to be submitted with the
notice shall include a scheme for the method of demolition and means of controlling
noise and dust during demolition.
4.
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for Crematoria
Management Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 April 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Contaminated Land
Principal Route
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0116 PF
Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary buildings and vehicular access (on
adjacent land to west)
Delegated Approval (yet to be issued) subject to receipt of various further
surveys/reports including those relating to trees.
Development Committee
8
17 April 2014
THE APPLICATION
Proposes 1.71 hectares of development within the north/western section of the
existing Cromer Cemetery site including an area of existing allotments. The proposal
would comprise revised access/exist arrangements through the existing cemetery site
with the construction of a new spur road to the east of the existing chapel building.
This would lead up to a parking area for approximately 70 vehicles. A building with a
footprint of approximately 460sqm is proposed close to the northern boundary of the
site and would comprise a 90 seat chapel, entrance lobby, vestry, toilets, reception
and general office, managers office, cremator room and ancillary related rooms. The
front entrance to the building would include a covered porch approximately 75sqm in
size.
The grounds around the building and parking area would be landscaped and would
include a floral tribute area and remembrance gardens.
The agent has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment, Transport Statement,
Landscape/Visual Impact Assessment, Arboriculture Report, Bio-diversity Survey,
Statement of Community Involvement, Planning Statement, and Archaeological
Evaluation in support of the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE - At the request of the Head of
Planning in view of the number of representations received and in view of the range of
planning issues to consider.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Cromer Town Council - Supports the application
Adjacent Parishes:
Felbrigg Parish Council - Object - The development lies within the AONB; it would
overlook the coastal path; it would have adverse effect on the traffic situation within
the Parish of Felbrigg.
East & West Runton Parish Council - Object - This and the adjacent Woodland Burial
site would both have poor accesses which is unacceptable. Would hope that the
Woodland Burial Ground ceremonial Hall and the Crematorium could be considered to
be constructed alongside each other with a common entrance off a roundabout
thereby avoiding a crematorium on the lip of the high escarpment as proposed, which
would affect all the AONB and the East Runton conservation village below it to the
North as well as views from NT‟s Incleborough Hill, The Norfolk Coastal Path, the
camp sites.
Aylmerton Parish Council - Objection - Members of Aylmerton Parish Council have
agreed to support the responses from Felbrigg Parish Council, the Runtons Parish
Council, the AONB Action Group and the National Trust.
REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing the report 495 representations had been received, 466 objecting,
26 in support and 3 commenting
Summary of objections received:
A significant proportion of the letters of objection received include the following text:
'I object to the Crematorium at the back of the Cromer Cemetery on the very edge of
the high ridge of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which
Development Committee
9
17 April 2014
will affect all the AONB valley to the North with its many well used rights of way as well
as views from the NT's Incleborough Hill and the Norfolk Coast Path. The AONB is of
irreplaceable value to residents and serves as a magnet for the vital tourist trade.
There has been conditional planning for a Woodland Burial Ground, subject to various
stipulations being approved, in this AONB. It surely makes sense, if any development
in this AONB is under consideration, to use a common sense planning approach and
consider siting them alongside each other near where the Ceremonial Hall is
proposed, further back from the northern aspect of the AONB where the land falls
away steeply, with a proviso that they would need to be well screened by trees with a
common entrance off a roundabout eliminating the present dangerous junction of the
A148 at the B1436 Felbrigg/Roughton Cromer By-pass (or two mini roundabouts as
already installed at the Roughton end at the A140 junction).
This would provide a safer and more sensible entrance to the woodland Burial
Ground, If approved, rather than the dangerous turn opposite the accident black spot
at the Roman Camp pub and then through the residential lanes of Aylmerton. It would
mean the Cromer cemetery could continue to be used for local burials for many more
years. It would generally lessen the harmful effect of increased traffic generated on
this A148 tourist gateway, the engine of the local economy as well as the effect on the
AONB, on local residents in Aylmerton, Davey Hill and East Runton, on the allotment
holders etc. It could also diminish the number of problems that any development in
this AONB would cause.
In addition a number of letters have been received containing the following text:
'There has already been planning approval in principle for a Woodland Burial Ground
with a Ceremonial Hall complex in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It
surely makes sense if NNDC is going to allow the building of a crematorium in this
precious AONB to use a common sense planning approach and site them alongside
each other near where the Ceremonial Hall is proposed. They would then both be
further back from the road, well screened by trees, with a common entrance off a
roundabout, (or two mini-roundabouts as already in use at the Roughton A140 end),
eliminating the present dangerous junction of the A148 Cromer/Holt road and the
B1436 Felbrigg/Roughton Road. This would provide a safer and more sensible
entrance to the Woodland Burial Ground, if approved, rather than the dangerous turn
opposite the accident black spot at the Roman Camp pub and through the residential
lanes of Aylmerton. This would also mean that the Cromer cemetery could continue to
be used for local burials for many more years, the allotments could stay where they
are and it would generally lessen the harmful effect of increased traffic on this AONB.'
Please do not harm the area further by short-sighted planning considerations taken in
isolation from each other to the detriment of our area'.
Other comments in objection include:
1. Must not lose sight as to why the area was designated as an AONB;
2. The AONB adds great value to the area;
3. The area has been protected as a result of the considerable efforts of landowners
including the National Trust in concert with the conservation minded owner of most
of the rest of the area;
4. NNDC has a statutory duty to protect the AONB;
5. Location of the crematorium is not central for the District and will result in further
mileage;
6. There is a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the land by Cromer Town Council
to a cemetery and burial ground;
Development Committee
10
17 April 2014
7. The boundaries of the Parish of Felbrigg were amended by decree of parliament to
provide a cemetery for Cromer so residents of Cromer would be buried in their
own Parish;
8. The proposal would severely restrict the capacity of the existing cemetery;
9. Adjacent woodland is under separate ownership and has a license to be thinned
and should not be relied upon to screen the development;
10. Adjacent farming interests will be adversely affected;
11. There is an active shoot on neighbouring land and a crematorium would not be
appropriate nearby;
12. Existing allotments would have to be relocated;
13. Increased traffic and funeral corteges at this point would be unsuitable and the
sight of this would adversely affect tourism;
14. The proposal would present a danger to highway safety in the area;
15. The crematorium and woodland burial applications should be considered together
in a joined-up approach and located on a single site;
16. Water coming down Greens Lane is very bad and floods regularly which is very
dangerous and could be made worse by the proposal;
17. Concerned about possible smells;
18. Should not be in the AONB;
19. Lighting should be at ground level;
20. Would like a roundabout at the Junction of the B1436 and A148;
21. The crematorium will harm the peace and tranquillity of the cemetery and the
contemplative nature of the existing site;
22. The number of trees already removed in the area seems excessive;
23. Mini roundabouts would slow down traffic;
24. Agree in principle with the crematorium but have concerns about the location;
25. There will be too much traffic;
26. Concerned about air pollution from the crematorium and harmful emissions;
27. This will deter holidaymakers from visiting the area;
28. Will adversely affect wildlife;
29. Roads cannot cope with extra traffic, especially in the summer months;
30. Proposal should be outside of the AONB;
31. Davey Hill/Greens Lane cannot cope already with existing traffic - this proposal will
make things even worse;
32. Access from Sandy Lane would be a nightmare for local traffic;
33. Sandy Lane is already very congested;
34. The site is on the crest of the Cromer Ridge and will be highly visible;
35. The size of the site is unsuitable for a crematoria;
36. The proposal will restrict future burial space at the cemetery;
37. Strongly urge that a landscape plan be provided (in the event of approval) to
provide additional evergreen planting of suitable height to immediately screen the
new development so as to comply with Core Strategy Policy EN 2;
A detailed letter of objection has been submitted on behalf of a local group called
AONB Action. Please see Appendix 2 for a full copy of the response.
The National Trust have also objected to the proposal. Please see Appendix 2 for a
full copy of their response.
Comments in Support:
1. Do not agree with the content of the standard objection letters sent to local
residents by the AONB Action Group;
2. The applicant has considerable experience elsewhere and will provide a valuable
service to local residents;
Development Committee
11
17 April 2014
3. Existing facilities are nearly 45 minutes‟ drive away and have long waiting times at
busy times of the year;
4. I attended the consultation event in October 2013 and many concerns/issues
appear to have been taken on board;
5. I emphatically do not object to this proposal;
6. Many people would like to be cremated locally rather than having to have family
travel to other facilities;
7. As a local funeral directors we support this proposal and many families consider a
local facility is needed;
8. A new crematorium would resolve travel distance problems by providing more
choice and allowing people to have a more dignified event;
9. Seems well placed next to the cemetery;
10. Please ensure that we get the crematorium;
11. Long wait times for a cremation slot at existing facilities can be very distressing for
bereaved families and can prolong the period of distress;
12. Whilst there is never an ideal location for a crematorium, I believe Holt Road would
be the most suitable because of its easily accessible location;
13. I think most people recognise the need for the crematorium;
14. Why should we have to travel over 25 miles to the edge of Norwich to say goodbye
to or loved ones;
Other Comments:
1. The idea of two mini roundabouts on the A148 and revised proposals bring the
developments together on one site is very appealing;
2. We have been concerned by the amount of unsolicited information asking us to
object to the proposal;
3. A short trip to Cromer would use less fuel and cause less congestion than a trip to
St Faiths from Cromer;
4. The arguments of the AONB Action Group do not hold water.
A letter has been received from an Environmental Consultant querying the Council's
Screening Opinion.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection in principle subject to conditions - The crematorium will be sited to the north
west of the existing cemetery utilising the current access route. The site is
characterised by its dense woodland setting which will provide the backdrop to the
new development. The cemetery chapel which lies 100m south of the development
site whilst not being statutory „listed‟ does make an important contribution to the
prevailing character and appearance of the area with its gothic revival detailing and
spire.
With regard to the proposal, the general scale, footprint and massing of the proposed
building raises no overriding concerns, however the proportions, form and detailing
would benefit from further consideration. The form of the development with its
rectangular plan and lack of articulation has a rather „bungalow‟ feel to it. The building
appears „boxy‟ and lacks elegance, refinement and subtlety of detailing - the
proportions of the roof pitch are dumpy which further compounds this issue. It would
have been beneficial if the eaves line of the building was finished with a properly
detailed brick dentil course.
In terms of materials, the use of flint as the principal elevation treatment adds visual
interest along with the brick quoins. A steeper roof pitch could be considered to help
Development Committee
12
17 April 2014
create a more traditional form and profile. Timber post rather than brick piers to
entrance canopy would also be beneficial to the scheme.
With regard to the widening of the entrance, the existing octagonal stone pillars and
curved brick wall are a significant feature of the street-scene and it is imperative they
are treated correctly with all materials being carefully reinstated and pointed using a
cement free lime mortar.
The main concern is the overriding dominance of car parking – the building appears to
be entirely centred on parking which is the hub of the development. The car park will
be the first thing you will see when arriving on the site and will run across the entire
front of the building. If the parking was re-sited on a vertical axis along the western
boundary and the entrance area landscaped it would make for a more pleasant
entranceway and approach to the development. In its current position the parking will
dominate the view to and from the site with the scheme being immediately
characterised by vehicular movement and hard surfacing.
In terms of visual impact, only long distance views of the crematorium will be gained
from Holt Road and the surrounding properties; however there will be visual impact
from the existing cemetery and on the setting of the chapel.
In the event of the application being approved the following conditions should be
attached:Prior to their use on site samples of the brick and slates shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be carried out only in strict
accordance with the approved details.
The flints to be used on the building shall have a diameter of less than 125mm when
measured in any direction.
In conclusion, C&D recommend reconsidering the siting and layout of the parking as
well as the building‟s pillar detailing and roof proportions; however that said these
alterations do not represent overriding grounds for objection to the application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) (Landscape) - No
objection subject to conditions - This development, by virtue of the proposed
landscape mitigation combined with natural screening afforded by surrounding
landform and existing vegetation, will not have a significant effect on the wider
landscape character and is therefore in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN 2:
Landscape Character.
Subject to an amended layout addressing revised parking proposals and amendments
to the floral tribute area, I am of the opinion that the proposal will be compliant with
Core Strategy Policies EN4: Design (See copy of full comments at Appendix 2).
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to conditions
Original comments - Thank you for the consultation received recently relating to the
above development proposal, which seeks the establishment of a crematorium within
the grounds of the existing cemetery, accessed via the existing access arrangements
proposed to be improved to cater for two way traffic.
In principle, the Highway Authority considers that the traffic generated by this proposal
(ranging from 54 vehicles (3 Services) to 144 vehicles (8 Services) would not
significantly affect the existing levels of traffic on the A148 Holt Road and could
Development Committee
13
17 April 2014
satisfactorily accommodated within the current traffic volumes. However, having
discussed the scheme and the proposed alterations to the A148 Holt road junction and
the access onto Greens Lane, with colleagues and the Project Engineer (Network
Analysis and Safety), there are a number of points which require revision, namely:




With regard to the A148 Holt Road junction, the proposed narrowing of the
junction mouth is welcomed. However, it is considered that the width should be
improved to measure 6.5m with kerb radii of 10m to control turning speeds
from the A148.
The proposed alterations to the cemetery access would provide an improved
arrangement, however, given the short distance between the A148 junction
and the proposed site exit of approximately 15m, it is felt that this would not be
an adequate visibility distance for drivers to make a safe decision regarding
emerging onto Greens Lane and that an increased use would potentially lead
to queuing across Greens Lane whilst waiting for other vehicles to enter the
traffic flows on Holt Road.
The Traffic Statement (TS) suggests that vehicle speeds are contained to
20mph or less on Greens Lane, however this is not evidenced. My site
appraisal and local knowledge suggests speeds are more likely to be around
30mph, including those within the narrow, sinuous, sloping derestricted section
to the north, which limits speeds due to the lack of forward visibility and nature
of the road.
Having discussed the proposal at the NCC Development Team, the consensus
was that a gyratory system would, with improvements to visibility at the exit
point further north along Greens lane, provide a satisfactory solution to our
concerns by removing the outbound movements close to the Holt Road
junction and allow queuing traffic to wait safely on Greens Lane without
obstructing the flow of inbound traffic.
Whilst the TS indicates a maximum number of 70 parking places being
provided in accordance with the FBCA guidance, I am aware of a number of
recent unusually well attended services (with well in excess of 250 attendees)
and with due consideration to the surrounding road network, where overspill
parking could potentially affect safety on a Principal Route and Corridor of
Movement, I would request that an overspill car park for this scenario, be
created to the east of the layby parking provision, to prevent any future impacts
upon the surrounding road network.
To underpin this requirement, I would also suggest the applicant be required to
commit to a post opening review with monies secured to implement potential waiting
restrictions to protect the adjacent public highway.
Further comments following receipt of additional information from applicant - Thank
you for the consultation received recently relating to the above development proposal,
which seeks the establishment of a crematorium within the grounds of the existing
cemetery, accessed via the existing access arrangements proposed to be improved to
cater for two-way traffic.
The County Council is required to assess development in accordance with National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). An increase in traffic is not a reason alone to
justify a highways objection as development invariably leads to traffic increases. To be
able to substantiate an objection to development, the traffic impacts must be severe
and unaddressed to comply with the NPPF.
Development Committee
14
17 April 2014
In relation to the specific issues raised by the proposed development, the traffic
generated by this proposal, ranging from 54 vehicles to 144 vehicles (3 to 8 Services,
respectively) cannot be considered material and would not significantly affect the
existing levels of traffic on the A148 Holt Road and its immediate junctions.
However, the proposals will be required to incorporate significant safety improvements
at the Greens Lane / A148 Holt road junction and the cemetery access onto Greens
Lane.
With regard to this, the NCC Development Team has further considered the
submissions and the following issues require attention:




It is agreed to revise the kerb radii at the A148/Greens Lane junction from 6 to
10m.
That a 'Keep Clear' marking at the improved cemetery junction would suffice,
in favour of the more urban 'Box Junction'.
The HA agrees that the Cemetery junction alterations would not be required, if
the exit movements are relocated to the north; however, this in light of the
applicants response and the subsequent review, it is evident that the proposed
access widening is not sufficient to accommodate two way movements, if there
are queued vehicles waiting at the access onto Green Lane. - additional
widening is necessary to accommodate, this will need to be supported by
additional track run data;
The matter of accommodating occasional larger scale services is not
considered to be resolved by simply reiterating that there are only 70 seats
within the chapel. It is likely that standing outside of the chapel would occur
when the chapel is full, whereby parking would be uncontrolled and take place
within the site and potentially overspill onto the adjacent highway, which
remains of concern. I would maintain my request that an overspill car park for
this scenario, be created to the east of the layby parking provision, to prevent
any future impacts upon the surrounding road network
To underpin this requirement, it remains the view of the County Council that
the applicant should be required to commit to a post opening review with
monies secured to implement potential waiting restrictions to protect the safety
of users of the adjacent public highway.
Environment Agency - Objection - We have reviewed the application as submitted
and we wish to raise a holding objection in the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA). Our detailed comments are below.
Flood Risk
The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out
in paragraph 9 the Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The submitted FRA does not, therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be
made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. In particular, the
submitted FRA fails to:
 Demonstrate that infiltration will be able to be used as the method of drainage,
through undertaking infiltration testing.
 Provide modelling to show the required volumes of attenuation storage based
on the infiltration rate obtained.
 Show that the required volumes of storage in the 1 in 30 year and 1 in 100 year
rainfall events including climate change can be provided on the site.
Development Committee
15
17 April 2014
Overcoming our objection
You can overcome our objection by submitting an FRA which covers the deficiencies
highlighted above and demonstrates that the development will not increase risk
elsewhere and where possible reduces flood risk overall. If this cannot be achieved we
are likely to maintain our objection to the application. Production of an FRA will not in
itself result in the removal of an objection. Our objection will be maintained until an
adequate FRA has been submitted.
Other EA advice provided in relation to ground water and contaminated land and
environmental permitting (foul sewerage, pollution prevention and waste)
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions Contaminated Land
I have no immediate contaminated land concerns in respect to the application, but due
to the proximity of the site to an existing burial ground I would advise attaching the
following advisory note (N31):
The applicant/developer is advised that land adjacent to this site has been/may have
been used as a cemetery or graveyard. As such it is recommended that the
applicant/developer seeks advice from the Health and Safety Executive based at Kiln
House, Pottergate, Norwich (telephone 01603 615711) regarding any potential risks to
construction workers. Advice regarding the previous use of the adjacent land can be
sought from the District Council‟s Pollution Control Team (telephone 01263 5161085).
External Lighting:
Please could you attach the following condition:
Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Nuisance/Air Quality:
In general I can confirm that the proposed opening times are acceptable and operation
within these times is unlikely to cause issue, however please note the proposed
development will be managed under Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010) and
additional environmental issues will be managed under permit.
Foul Sewage:
Please could you attach the following advisory note:
The applicant/developer is advised that the details required under condition number
PF/13/1521 should take account of the advice contained in DETR Circular 03/99
“Planning Requirement in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating
Septic Tanks in New Development” which specifies that only if it can be clearly
demonstrated that it is not feasible to connect foul drainage into, firstly, a public sewer,
or secondly, a private sewage treatment plant, should the use of septic tanks be
considered.
Surface Drainage:
Comments to be provided
Natural England - No objection subject to conditions - This application is in close
proximity to the Felbrigg Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).Natural
Development Committee
16
17 April 2014
England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict
accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or
destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise
your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this
application.
The development however, relates to the Norfolk Coast AONB. We therefore advise
you to seek the advice of the AONB partnership. Their knowledge of the location and
wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it
would impact significantly on the purposes of the designation. They will also be able to
advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the
AONB management plan.
Natural England has not assessed this application and associated documents for
impacts on protected species.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - No objection - We have
received and approved the report on the archaeological evaluation which was carried
out at the site in January. The evaluation was negative therefore we will not be asking
for any further archaeological work at this site.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Comment Only - Given the relatively low key, low rise
design (maximum building height of 7.5m, chimney height 8m) of this proposal,
existing screening to the north and its context to the south of Cromer cemetery, I think
that significant impact on the landscape of the AONB in its vicinity would be unlikely as
long as effective screening to the north is maintained.
However, some of the existing screening (the woodland to the north of the proposed
crematorium) is in different ownership and the screening it provides may change
through management or felling so given the sensitive position of this proposed
development at the edge of the ridge overlooking the AONB to the north, it would
require robust screening to the north of the building on cemetery land, boosting what
exists at present, and conditions on its suitability (species etc) and maintenance to
ensure that appropriate screening is maintained.
I am aware that proposals in principle are being put forward regarding this
development and the adjacent proposed woodland burial ground and ceremonial hall,
and agree that in principle a better planning outcome could be obtained by considering
these proposals together, although I am unsure how far this is feasible as the
woodland burial ground proposal has already been approved in principle (assuming
the conditions for the woodland burial ground are met).
If both developments are to be approved and go forward, I see several advantages in
combining the two facilities as far as possible in the location proposed for the
ceremonial hall for the woodland burial ground, including:




Potential shared access off the A148, with associated improvements in traffic
management for local residents. This would also avoid access off Tower Lane
to the woodland burial ground and reduce funeral traffic on the A148;
The potential for shared facilities (parking, power, water, sewerage etc) which
could also reduce the overall amount of development;
Location of the crematorium in a less sensitive position, further back from the
edge of the Cromer Ridge where potential screening by woodland is deeper;
The land at Cromer cemetery would continue to be available for burials,
Development Committee
17
17 April 2014
avoiding the need to relocate the allotments and/or find additional land for the
cemetery (possibly in the AONB).
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Environmental Impact Assessment
Development Committee
18
17 April 2014









Principle
Need
Design
Impact on residential Amenity including Noise/Fumes/Odour
Impact on the Landscape and AONB
Loss of Allotments
Highway Safety
Flood Risk
Cumulative Impacts in combination with adjacent Woodland Burial Site
APPRAISAL
The application has been the subject of a Committee site visit.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. Screening Opinions were produced at pre-application stage which advised the
applicant that the proposal was not considered to be EIA development and the
potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard
planning process. Having taken account of any possible 'in-combination' effects
resulting from the proposed Crematorium and the adjacent woodland burial site
subject of planning application ref: PF/13/0116 Officers remain of the opinion that the
proposal is not EIA development.
Principle
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where Policy SS2 would permit
the erection of community services and facilities meeting a proven local need subject
to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Need
Core Strategy Policy CT3 considers the provision and retention of local facilities and
services and states that 'New or improved community facilities or services will be
permitted within the Principal and Secondary Settlements, Service Villages and
Coastal Service Villages, or within the Countryside where they meet the identified
needs of the local community.'
Whilst the proposed crematorium facility would be a private commercial enterprise, in
planning terms it can be considered to be a community facility/service offering a
service which is not currently provided within the District. The applicant has set out
within their supporting planning statement an indication of need based on the age
profile of residents living in North Norfolk District and the proximity to existing facilities.
Currently the closest facilities are those in Norwich (St. Faiths or Earlham), Mintlyn
Crematorium at Kings Lynn or Great Yarmouth Crematorium at Oriel Avenue,
Gorleston, all of which the applicant states are very busy and travel to these facilities
from locations within North Norfolk often involve journey times of over 30 mins for the
funeral party. In identifying a suitable site on which to place a crematorium, the
applicant has indicated that the catchment area for North Norfolk would be best
served by a site between Cromer and Holt at a point close to the A148 and this has
ruled out other possible alternative sites that were considered by the applicant at
Kettlestone near Fakenham and Blickling near Aylsham. However, in identifying a site
the applicant contends that restrictions imposed by the Crematorium Act of 1902
severely limit the number of possible locations upon which to place a cremator, the Act
stating that: „No crematorium shall be constructed nearer to any dwelling house than
two hundred yards [182.88 metres] , except with the consent, in writing, of the owner,
Development Committee
19
17 April 2014
lessee, and occupier of such house, nor within fifty yards of any public highway, nor in
the consecrated part of the burial ground of any burial authority‟.
Whilst the Crematorium Act of 1902 is not strictly a planning matter, officer advice to
Committee is that it would be a material consideration to which appropriate weight
should be given as part of the decision making process.
The applicant has indicated that consideration was given to a number of sites
including a site to the east of 'Great Wood' at Felbrigg but this was ruled out due to the
visual impact/prominence of the site. The applicant therefore contends that the
proposed site at Cromer cemetery is an ideal location to serve the residents of North
Norfolk for which there is a clear need.
Officers consider it is a matter of fact that existing facilities in Norfolk are, in the main,
more than the accepted industry standard of 30 minute drive from many locations
within North Norfolk. This, together with data for the age profile of residents within
North Norfolk provides strong and compelling evidence to demonstrate need for the
facility. Therefore, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies, it
is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policy CT3.
Design
The physical design and layout of the building proposed has been heavily influenced
by other similar schemes built by the applicant elsewhere across the country. The
main elements tailored to each site are the external materials to be used, in this
instance the applicant has chosen a material pallete including brick and flint, brick,
slate and timber for the external elevations of the building. In design terms the building
is primarily of residential scale with eaves height of approximately 4m, the highest
point of the roof being 7.6m high and the chimney to the cremator being 8.1m tall. The
proposed building would sit below the height of surrounding trees and, as such, would
not appear as an overly dominant structure within its setting, the existing cemetery
chapel remaining the tallest structure on site. However, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (interim) has raised concerns that: 'The building appears „boxy‟
and lacks elegance, refinement and subtlety of detailing - the proportions of the roof
pitch are 'dumpy' which further compounds this issue. It would have been beneficial if
the eaves line of the building was finished with a properly detailed brick dentil course.
In terms of materials, the use of flint as the principal elevation treatment adds visual
interest along with the brick quoins. A steeper roof pitch rather could be considered to
help create a more traditional form and profile. Timber post rather than brick peers to
entrance canopy would also be beneficial to the scheme'. In addition the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) has made the following
observation in respect of the proposed parking area: '...the building appears to be
entirely centred on parking which is the hub of the development. The car park will be
the first thing you will see when arriving on the site and will run across the entire front
of the building. If the parking was re-sited on a vertical axis along the western
boundary and the entrance area landscaped it would make for a more pleasant
entranceway and approach to the development. In its current position the parking will
dominate the view to and from the site with the scheme being immediately
characterised by vehicular movement and hard surfacing'.
The applicant has been made aware of the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager (interim) and amended plans have been produced which
have sought to take account of those comments. Further comments have been sought
from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) and the Committee
will be updated orally once these further views are known.
Development Committee
20
17 April 2014
Concerns have also been expressed in relation to the design of the 'Floral Tribute'
area which the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) considers
'pays no regard to the existing landscape setting, specifically the backdrop of mature
woodland....This seems a missed opportunity to acknowledge and enhance the
natural vegetation with selective woodland edge planting, provide height from the
mature tree canopy and to create a much more uplifting environment in which to
congregate after a service. This approach would also be more in line with the
recommendations for planting laid out in the Biodiversity Survey'.
Officers are of the opinion that, in the main, the proposal would accord with the
general aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 4 and any issues concerning external
materials and detailing can be resolved through the imposition of conditions.
Impact on residential Amenity including Noise/Fumes/Odour
The proposed development would be sited within the existing cemetery site where the
closest residential properties are in excess of 180m from the proposed building. The
majority of the closest residential properties are situated on Davey Hill, Holt Road with
one property to the north known as Valley Farm within 300m of the site. Whilst it is
considered that the proposal would be unlikely to result in significant harm to the
amenity of surrounding residents, the main impact will arise from the coming and
going of vehicles when services are taking place at the building. However the
applicant has set out that they expect no more than 3-4 services to take place per day
and would be prepared to accept an upper limit on the number of services in respect
of which the Highway Authority have advised no more than eight services per day to
ensure that highway safety concerns do not arise.
External lighting could have an impact on residential amenity and Officers propose
that external lighting be the subject of a planning condition so as to ensure that details
of any lighting to be installed are first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
In respect of fumes/odour cremators are subject to a stringent Environmental
Permitting regime, which provides effective means of ensuring the equipment installed
is of the highest standard and includes the required abatement plant to prevent
release of unwanted gasses/odour/matter to the air. The applicant has indicated the
systems to be used result in a clean-air process using the latest technology, hence the
reason why a short chimney stack of 8.1m is proposed. As such, with the
Environmental Permitting regime in place there would be no need for the Development
Committee to impose planning conditions or restrictions in relation to the cremator
equipment to be installed.
Having regard to the development proposed, it is considered that the crematorium and
related activities would not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby residents.
Members will note the Environmental Health Officer has no objection.
Impact on the Landscape and AONB
Core Strategy Policy EN 2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and
Settlement Character) states:
„Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development Committee
21
17 April 2014
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:








the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map‟.
The site is located within Landscape Character type 'Wooded with Parkland' (WP2)
which is defined through a wide mix of woodland types 'jumbled' together to form a
fairly cohesive area stretching along the Cromer Ridge. The condition of this
landscape type varies between Fair and Good, the majority being Moderate due to
eroding elements of infill development and through the presence of the busy road
network which is constantly 'present'.
The site lies within the boundary of the mature Victorian cemetery which has the
gothic brick and stone chapel as its focal point at the end of an avenue of mature
horse chestnut trees. A lodge, stone entrance pillars and an attractive brick boundary
wall form an entrance statement to the cemetery and frame the views into the site.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is of the opinion that it is
important that the design of the new development complements this established
context.
The application was supported by a Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
compiled by Stride Treglown, dated Sep 2013 which the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers to have been carried out in accordance with accepted
methodologies. The assessment concludes that there would be no significant
landscape or visual effects as a result of the proposals. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager is of the view that the report's conclusions rely heavily on the
existing mature woodland around the site to provide screening and, as such, the
Committee needs to take into account that the woodland is outside the boundaries of
the site and therefore its continued existence, particularly given its age, cannot be
guaranteed. That said, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers
that the surrounding woodland does afford a high degree of enclosure and although
the site is located in a high level position on Cromer Ridge, impact on the wider
landscape beyond the site is confined to glimpsed views from the south including
views from the B1436 and A148.
Within the site the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had raised
concerns that little consideration appears to have been given to the effect of the
development on the existing cemetery and its established parkland setting. In
particular the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (interim) was concerned
about the dominance of the car parking and its resultant impact on the overall setting
of the proposed building and also had concerns about surrounding planting. The
applicant has agreed to amend the plans through, amongst other things, relocation of
Development Committee
22
17 April 2014
parts of the car park which will reduce glimpsed views of cars from outside the site,
through provision of additional screen planting and by increasing the size of the
garden of remembrance. Further comments from the Landscape Officer are awaited in
respect of amended plans but Officers are of the opinion that these matters can be
secured by way of planning conditions.
AONB
The site is located entirely within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB). The AONB was designated in 1968 in recognition of its scenic
beauty, remarkable landscape and cultural diversity and unique and special wildlife.
Core Strategy Policy EN 1 (Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & the
Broads) states:
„The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;



is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area
or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted‟.
In respect of national guidance, Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy
Framework states:
„Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of
wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and
should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads‟.
The proposed development would be relatively well screened from view, particularly
along its northern and western boundaries through the presence of existing woodland.
However, as has been pointed out by interested parties, the adjacent landowner
currently has the benefit of a license to thin the surrounding woodland by
approximately 30% and it has also been suggested that there is no guarantee that the
woodland will remain in place to screen the proposed building, the contention being
that the proposed building would likely be visible to the north and thus result in harm to
the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Given the steep topography and woodland cover north of the site, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers that the development would not be visible
Development Committee
23
17 April 2014
from within the AONB due north of the site and for this reason considers that the
impact on the Norfolk Coast AONB designated landscape could not be assessed as
significant.
In assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on the special qualities
of the AONB, Officers have considered the potential for surrounding woodland to be
thinned over and above the 30% currently permitted by the Forestry Commission
License. In the event that the adjacent landowner sought to thin the woodland further
or in the event of an application for a clear-fell of the woodland, the Local Planning
Authority would have the opportunity to comment on any license application. Unless
there was a genuine woodland management justification for doing so, it is likely that
the Local Planning Authority would object to any request to clear fell the woodland to
the north. Even if clear-fell were to occur it is likely that this would only be on the basis
of replacement planting taking place and this, over time, would mitigate for the loss of
existing tree cover.
In recognition of the fact that adjacent tree cover is located on third party land, the
Landscape Officer has requested, amongst other things, that the applicant provides
additional screen planting to help soften the visual impact in the event that the
adjacent woodland were to be removed. The applicant has agreed to provide this and,
at the time of writing this report, revised plans were being prepared.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised by objectors, Officers are of the opinion that
there are no substantive grounds to object to the proposal in regard to impact on the
wider landscape or impact on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Whilst objectors have suggested that the crematorium could be located elsewhere
outside of the AONB, the applicant has indicated that no alternative sites exist within
the catchment area, especially having regard to the constraints placed by the
Crematorium Act of 1902. The site is relatively well screened and Officers consider
that additional screen planting and other landscaping requirements can be secured by
way of planning conditions which would make the proposal acceptable.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, particularly those conditions required to secure
proposed landscape mitigation, Officers consider that the proposal would accord with
Core Strategy Policies EN 1 and EN 2.
Loss of Allotments
The proposed development would result in the loss of a number of existing allotments
to make way for the access to the crematorium. Whilst the loss of allotments is clearly
unfortunate for those whose plots are affected it is understood that under the 1925
Allotment Act, they are classified as „temporary‟ allotments and do not therefore
require Secretary of State approval for their release. The applicant has indicated that
an alternative location is to be provided by Cromer Town Council. There are therefore
no planning grounds to object to the loss of temporary allotments.
Highway Safety
The applicant has submitted a transport statement in support of their proposal which
concludes that there are no highway, traffic or transport grounds to withhold planning
permission. The statement concludes that when it becomes established the proposed
development would generate approximately 72 vehicle trips in each direction per day
(including staff and visitors). The applicant has proposed alterations to the access
from the A148 with Davey Hill including a narrowing of the width in order to provide a
widened entrance to the cemetery so as to enable two cars to pass. In addition that
applicant has proposed a 70 vehicle car park.
Development Committee
24
17 April 2014
In considering the proposal the Highway Authority has made clear that they are
required to assess development in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). As such, an increase in traffic is not a reason alone to justify a
highways objection as development invariably leads to traffic increases. To be able to
substantiate an objection to development, the traffic impacts must be severe and
unaddressed.
A significant number of public representations of objection to the proposal have been
received, many of which include highway concerns relating to traffic generation and
the safety of the existing road network, in particular the junction of the B1436 and the
A148.
In relation to the specific issues raised by the proposed development, the Highway
Authority have commented that the traffic generated by this proposal, ranging from 54
vehicles to 144 vehicles (3 to 8 Services, respectively) cannot be considered material
and would not significantly affect the existing levels of traffic on the A148 Holt Road
and its immediate junctions. However, the proposals will be required to incorporate
significant safety improvements at the Greens Lane / A148 Holt road junction and the
cemetery access onto Greens Lane. With regard to this, the NCC Development Team
has further considered the submissions from the applicant and has no objection to the
proposal subject to the imposition of conditions (the exact details of which are awaited
from the Highway Authority). The Committee will be updated orally in respect of the
requested conditions.
Notwithstanding the significant volume of public objection on highway safety grounds,
subject to securing appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with
the requirements of Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Flood Risk
The site is located within Flood Zone 1 at a height of approximately 70m AOD and
there is therefore no identified risk of fluvial or tidal flooding affecting the site.
However, proposals involving development of over 1ha require the submission of a
flood risk assessment (FRA) primarily to consider issues of surface water flooding.
The applicant submitted a flood risk assessment but the Environment Agency (EA)
have raised a number of concerns (as set out in their consultation reply above) and
have requested further details so as to enable their holding objection to be removed.
The applicant is aware of the EA's comments and, at the time of writing this report, are
in the process of preparing an amended FRA. Officers consider it likely that the
concerns raised by the EA can be reasonably addressed and this could be secured by
way of planning condition if necessary. Subject to the receipt of an acceptable FRA
and subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal would
accord with Core Strategy Policies EN 10 and EN 13.
Cumulative Impacts in combination with adjacent Woodland Burial Site
A high proportion of public representations have raised concerns about the cumulative
impact of both the crematorium application subject of this report and also a proposed
woodland burial ground at Holt Road, Aylmerton (planning ref: PF/13/0116) in respect
of which the Development Committee resolved to approve in April 2013 subject to a
number of issues being addressed including those matters relating to trees and
woodland management.
A plan has been submitted on behalf of the AONB Action group which suggests
joining the crematorium and woodland burial sites together on one site with the
provision of a new access and roundabouts on the A148 (see copy at Appendix 2). A
number of consultees have referred to this 'alternative' proposal and, in seeking to
Development Committee
25
17 April 2014
establish whether there was any merit or support from the applicants for this
'alternative' proposal Officers arranged a meeting involving the applicants behind the
crematorium proposal, the applicants behind the woodland burial scheme together
with representatives from the Highway Authority. At the meeting both applicants
indicated that they had considered and discussed the alternative proposal with each
other but for various commercial reasons the applicant behind the woodland burial site
was not supportive of relocating the crematorium onto their land and, in view of the
lack of substantive grounds to refuse the crematorium, the applicant behind the
crematorium scheme considered there was no justifiable reason to abandon their
current plans. In any event the Highway Authority had raised concerns about the
safety of the double roundabout solution proposed by the AONB Action Group.
Subsequently the Highway Authority has released a copy of a report which was
commissioned separately in relation to the safety of the junction of the A148/B1436
and a copy of this report is available at Appendix 2. The reports' summary is attached
below:

The existing junction form is no longer the most appropriate for current levels
of traffic; however it appears to be operating successfully in terms of both
safety and capacity. This is likely to be due in part to the unusually low
proportion of right turn movements from the minor road.

In the longer term upgrading the junction is likely to be desirable although the
current case for improvement is weak. Its performance should continue to be
monitored.

A compact roundabout is considered likely to offer the best balance between
safety, capacity, environmental impact and cost. It is the recommended option
when upgrading the junction of A148/B1436 is considered further. Subject to
preliminary design, the order of cost of such an upgrade is likely to be £300k £500k.

An assessment should be carried out to determine the wider network traffic
effects of an improvement to the junction, which may include an increase in
traffic using the B1436 turning right on to the A148 to access Cromer.
The Committee will be aware that there is considerable local pressure for the provision
of a roundabout at the A148/B1436 junction. However the traffic generation of the
proposed crematorium and woodland burial site (both individually and cumulatively) do
not justify a request for developer contributions to pay for junction improvements at the
A148/B1436, in both cases the Highway Authority concluding that the impacts are
acceptable in highway safety terms.
Turning now to the cumulative visual impact of the proposed crematorium and
woodland burial site, a letter has been received from Richard Buxton Environmental &
Public Law on behalf of the AONB Action group which suggests that the two
applications should be considered together in view of the potential cumulative impacts
on the AONB and also the potential cumulative highway/traffic issues. Reference in
the letter is also made to the EIA Regulations as they concern both the crematorium
and woodland burial applications and need to consider cumulative issues. The
Committee will be updated further in respect of this issues once further legal advice is
received.
Development Committee
26
17 April 2014
Summary
The proposal involves the erection of a crematorium on land within the existing
Cromer cemetery together with revised access arrangements, provision of 70 car
parking spaces and extensive landscaping. The site lies within the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Cromer Ridge and a significant volume of
representations has suggested, amongst other things, that this is the wrong location
for such development and will result in serious harm to the special qualities of the
AONB and will also result in the creation of unsafe highway conditions.
Notwithstanding the volume of representations of objection, the proposal is not in
significant conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan and it is considered
that there are no substantive planning grounds to refuse the proposal particularly as
the impacts of the proposal are or can be made acceptable through the imposition of
planning conditions. As such, in the absence of substantive grounds to refuse, the
Development Committee are recommended to approve the application as set out
below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
i. The receipt of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment;
ii. The inclusion of specific conditions to be set out by the Highway Authority
in relation to highway matters, Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (interim) in relation to design and landscape matters and
conditions proposed by Environmental Health and;
iii. Any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
5.
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
Major Development
- Target Date: 05 May 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/10/0401 ENQ - EIA Screening and Scoping Request - Relocation and
Redevelopment of Manor Caravan Park - 07/10/2010
PO/12/0423 PO - Erection of nine replacement dwellings and reinstatement of
former residential land to provide amenity land - Approved 03/04/2013 DE21/12/0321
ENQ - Relocation of Manor Caravan Park - 08/05/2013
PF/13/1220 PF - Change of use of land to caravan park for 134 static caravans, 60
touring caravans and camping area - Withdrawn by Applicant 29/11/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the relocation of Manor Caravan Park from its cliff top location to a site outside
Development Committee
27
17 April 2014
the coastal erosion zone.
The proposed caravan park, which would have an area of some 7.9 hectare, would
comprise pitches for 134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and an area for
camping.
Access to the site would be off the North Walsham Road which would lead to a
circulation road through the site which would be hard surfaced. Within the site close
to the entrance would be a site office and residential accommodation for the site
wardens. This building would have a footprint of 74 sq. metres and be finished in
horizontal weatherboarding under a concrete interlocking pantile roof. There would be
10 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the site office. Whilst further into the site a
contemporary style toilet shower block, having two mono pitched roofs of sedum with
timber clad walls is proposed. This building would have a total floor area of 108 sq.
metres.
As part of the scheme the layout plan shows an earth bund, 2.5 metres in height along
the length of the eastern boundary with landscaping throughout the site.
A Landscape Proposals Statement, Heritage Statement, Design and Access
Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Ecological Assessment, Socioeconomic appraisal and a Flood Risk Assessment have been submitted in support of
the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Walker having regard to the concerns of local residents in
respect of the proposed location of the caravan park and the effect on the village.
PARISH COUNCIL
Happisburgh Parish Council were split 50:50 whether to support or object to the
application with the Chairman choosing not to use his casting vote.
REPRESENTATIONS
Forty nine letters of objections have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The applicant has ignored the advice from the planning authority at pre-planning
enquiry stage, when he was told the site was inappropriate and that more suitable
alternatives should be investigated.
2. There are more suitable locations within the village which should be explored.
3. It would appear that the willingness of the landowner and the NNDC Pathfinder
team are driving the proposed site.
4. The site is totally unsuitable for a caravan site; please respect this beautiful little
village.
5. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the approach to
what is a conservation village.
6. The scale and design of the development would be out of keeping with the area
destroying the character and appearance of the village.
7. The proposed site is at least 45% larger than the present site.
8. The proposal would be a blot on the landscape.
9. The first views of the village would be a large scale touring caravan site rather than
the famous Happisburgh lighthouse and the historic St Mary‟s church.
10. The photographs supporting the application conveniently omit views from the
elevated Hill looking across the historic environment of the proposed site.
11. Why is the site significantly larger than the one it would replace?
Development Committee
28
17 April 2014
12. Questions the extent to which the future prosperity and amenities of Happisburgh
are dependent on the redevelopment of the caravan site.
13. Potential nuisance in respect of smells, noise and light pollution which would affect
the amenities of local residents.
14. Increased traffic movements during the summer months would place an
unacceptable burden on the capacity of the North Walsham Road.
15. Why haven‟t alternative sites with coastal views been properly explored?
16. A caravan park next to a school would have safeguarding implication for the
school; especially as many of the caravans are sublet there is no knowledge who
is on the site.
17. Extra pedestrians and traffic using Beach Road to access the beach would
increase issues of highway safety.
18. Local business would not benefit for the caravan site which would have its own
facilities.
19. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the buoyant holiday letting and
cottages businesses in the village.
20. The economic benefits to the village would be small with most visitors going to
supermarkets to shop.
21. The economic justification which identifies a figure of £45,000 created from tourism
as benefiting within a 20 mile radius of the site which should mean less
controversial sites outside Happisburgh need to be considered.
22. The extra waste water would over power the already fragile infrastructure and the
village would suffer more flooding and property damage.
23. The village has no real amenities to support the arrival of the extra volume of
people.
24. People come to the existing site due to its cliff top location.
25. Valuable arable land would be lost as well as historical land which is of
archaeological interest.
26. Why hasn‟t the pathfinder relocation budget been more wisely spent? The monies
could have been invested in coastal defences.
27. The proposed site is liable to flooding and adding concrete bases would only seek
to exacerbate the situation.
28. Will result in light pollution.
29. A possible solution would be to create a 30 metres landscape buffer zone around
the proposed site.
30. We do not agree with the assumption that the caravan site is an important
economically to Happisburgh and the surrounding area.
31. The site should be relocated to Cart Gap where sea views would still remain and
where it is only a short walk into Happisburgh.
Eleven letters of support have been received, some of which are from the owners of
caravan on the existing site which make the following comments (summarised):1. The move of site is not something we wish to see but is being forced on us by
circumstances beyond our control.
2. The site has co-existed peacefully with the village for 50 years.
3. As owner of a caravan on the site we have never experienced rowdy or
inappropriate behaviour.
4. Many caravan owners are older people who enjoy the peace and quiet.
5. As a caravan owner we feel part of the community and support local trade.
6. The impact on local roads would be no more than at present.
One letter of comment has been received which makes the following observations
(summarised):1. We suggest that the boundary onto the North Walsham Road and the western
boundary to at least half its length has the same treatment as the eastern
Development Committee
29
17 April 2014
boundary involving the 2.5m high mound with shrub planting. In this way the tops
of tents and a large proportion of touring caravans will be shielded from view on
approach to the village.
2. At the existing caravan site and to the perimeter of the camping field there are
extensive
underground
services
(drainage,
power,
water
and
communications). As the cliff erodes these protrude, are dangerous to those
below and are unsightly, as is currently the situation. Any planning permission
should include a condition for the complete removal of all such services and the
reinstatement of the whole area to agricultural, natural or amenity status.
3. A condition should be included to ensure that there is no increase in the number of
static caravans beyond the number currently located at the cliff top site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including an extension of the 30 MPH speed limit in a westerly direction so
as to include the site frontage and access through a Traffic Regulation Order.
Environment Agency – No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
requiring the submission of surface water drainage details, including infiltration testing,
and details of who will maintain the surface water features for the lifetime of the
development.
English Heritage – Considers that in the light of government policy and relevant
English Heritage guidance that the proposed development would result in harm to the
significance of the conservation area, the grade I listed parish church and the wider
setting of the grade II* listed Happisburgh Manor in terms of paragraphs 132 and 134
of the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition, it would also not preserve the
setting or better reveal significance of these assets in terms of paragraph 137 and
therefore would not achieve the NPPF‟s overarching objective of delivering
sustainable development. Furthermore, English Heritage suggests that the information
submitted with the application fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 128.
As far as the existing site is concerned English Heritage considers that any
enhancement resulting from the removal of the existing would be negated by the harm
resulting from the proposed development and so should not be held as a public benefit
to set against the harm. If the caravan site were to be relocated to a site where there
would be no or minimal harm to the historic environment the enhancement of the
existing site might well be a factor in determining its suitability.
In terms of the consideration of alternative sites, as outlined in the Heritage Statement
accompanying the application, which emerged during the Pathfinder project, English
Heritage indicates that they were not consulted on this project despite the impact on
nationally important historic sites. Furthermore, they suggest that it is not apparent
that the impact on the historic environment was considered during this process, and
that a number of other sites around the village could equally be developed with much
less impact on the historic settlement than that presently proposed. They suggest that
the area to the south east of the village, including site A, would have a much more
limited effect on the historic settlement.
English Heritage also points to the fact that the NPPF, paragraph 134, requires Local
Planning Authorities to weigh any public benefits deriving from the development
against the harm to the historic environment, but if a clear and convincing justification
for the harm in not found, (including the possibility of delivering the public economic
benefits at another site in north Norfolk) the Council should refuse the application.
They go on to suggest that in this particular case the “public” benefit derived from the
Development Committee
30
17 April 2014
caravan park are chiefly to be found in terms of employment and visitor spending. This
benefit could be derived for north Norfolk by a caravan park in any number of other
coastal locations so a public benefit justification does not need to focus on a handful of
sites in Happisburgh. Furthermore it is not clear why an enlargement of the site should
be considered.
Norfolk County Council - Flood and Water Management Team - Raises a concern that
the proposal would increase the hard standing area and contribute to any future
flooding event. The affected area contains a pond at Whimpwell Street and the
drainage from the field has an outlet to the pond. It is therefore suggested that one
possibility to mitigate against any future flooding would be to construct some kind of
attenuation feature, such a new pond in the field, or additional drainage ditches.
Norfolk County Council - Historic Environment Service – Raise a concern that as the
site lies immediately adjacent to the site of a Middle Saxon settlement and medieval
industrial site that there may potentially be significant heritage assets with
archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains) and that their significance
could be affected by the proposed development. They therefore recommend that
given the likely level of ground disturbance involved that the results of a programme of
archaeological evaluation (geophysical survey) should be submitted prior to
determination of the planning application.
Anglian Water - No response
Coastal Management Team - Supports the principle of the application due to the fact
that the existing site is located on an eroding cliff top and that on average between
June 2013 and November 2013 the average recession of the caravan park frontage
was 3.74 m. Furthermore, significant recession has occurred since November 2013
and the indications are that this is likely to continue as the sea defences in front of the
site have or are in the process of failing and there is no scheme to replace them. As
such without the relocation of the caravan park there will be continued unmanaged
loss of assets in this location, associated blight caused by cliff top losses and
degradation coupled with reducing economic benefits to local area.
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way – Raise concerns regarding the
proposed diversion of the footpath and suggest that the stated reason of „security‟ is
not in itself a valid reason to divert a public right of way.
Additionally, as there are no structures shown on the definitive map at this location,
the addition of a gate, as shown on the plan at the southern end of the definitive public
right of way, would be unlawful.
The Rights of Way Officer also points to the fact that should planning permission be
granted this does not entitle the developers to obstruct the public right of way.
Development, in so far as it affects a right of way, should not be started; and the right
of way should be kept open for public use until any necessary order for the diversion
of the right of way has come into effect. Nor should it be assumed that because
planning permission has been granted that an order will invariably be made or
confirmed.
Growth and Communities Team – Supports the proposal and makes the following
comments:In terms of employment opportunities there is no suggestion within Socio-economic
appraisal that more people would be employed as a result of relocation. For these
reasons it would appear that the net employment impact is probably negligible.
Development Committee
31
17 April 2014
As far as local procurement expenditure The Socio-economic appraisal suggests that
95% of the caravan parks procurement is spent in the district. Allowing for leakage
outside the district the net expenditure is estimated as £47,109pa. However there is
no evidence provided to confirm how much is procured from within Happisburgh itself,
but it is likely to form a small element of this expenditure.
Whilst in terms of visitor expenditure the same document estimates that visitors to the
park contribute in excess of half a million pounds to the local economy. Therefore
relocating outside Happisburgh, but within the District would mean that potentially
there would be little loss to the district in terms of generated revenue. However the
impact to the more localised economy should not be underestimated. Within
Happisburgh the main amenities are Fair Maiden Shellfish shop, the post office/
Convenience Store and Hill House inn. Collectively they employ between 9 and 16 full
time/part time staff. With a population of 380 (Census 2011) and 270 (71%) are of
working age (16-74), it is likely that the park plays a recognisable part in supporting
the local businesses. Moreover, it should not be overlooked that as the sole caravan
park in Happisburgh, it forms part of the tourism „ offering‟ that attracts people to the
area and therefore is complementary to other tourist accommodation such as nearby
bed and breakfasts. This is important to acknowledge, especially when considered in
the context of competing for generated tourism with other parts of the North Norfolk‟s
coastline.
In terms of the alternative sites which have been considered the proposed site is the
nearest to the village centre and is more likely to result in the village amenities being
utilised. It is also noted that the proposal does not include amenities which would
compete with those provided within the village.
Natural England – Raises no objection to the proposal and considers that the
application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are
beneficial to wildlife and enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the
surrounding natural and built environment through for example, green space provision
and access to and contact with nature.
Open Spaces Society - Objection to diversion of Happisburgh Footpath No. 9 as this
path would be diverted onto what would appear to be a circuitous route around the
edge of the proposed caravan site, taking it further away from the village, and make it
much less attractive to use. Currently, the path is quiet and is not crossed by any
corridors of vehicular movement.
Diverting the path in the manner proposed would make it less convenient and less
safe for the public to use.
Furthermore it is far from clear, in this case, why the diversion which the applicant is
proposing would be necessary to enable his proposed development to go ahead.
In addition, the Open Spaces Society has concerns about the proposed development,
even if it would not involve the diversion of any public path, because of its undoubtedly
significant visual impact upon the countryside, including views of the village and of the
Grade I listed church building of St. Mary the Virgin. They suggest that there would be
an impact from the main entrance into the village from the west, along the North
Walsham Road, and also from the network of paths and minor highways to the west
and south of the site where the impact would be greatest.
They also question the applicant‟s claim that the removal of caravans from the existing
Development Committee
32
17 April 2014
site, and the restoration of that land, would mitigate against the development of the
proposed new caravan site. They suggest that views of that site are not particularly
wide-ranging, and do not carry over a particularly great distance. The proposed
replacement site, however, is located at a very prominent - and currently unspoilt and
rural - entrance to the village from inland.
Ramblers Association - No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape - Whilst acknowledging that the existing
caravan park is a key part of the economic viability of the village and that an
alternative location close to the village is important this must be weighed against the
duty to protect the integral character of the historic village, its heritage assets and its
setting. The granting of permission for the temporary relocation of 12 mobile homes
(PF/13/0143) was intended to alleviate the urgency to relocate the whole business and
remove the need to select the first available site.
On the basis that the submitted proposal it is considered that these would not
preserve or enhance the character of Happisburgh Conservation Area, would
adversely impact key historic assets and would not protect or enhance the identified
„Coastal Plains‟ (CP1) Landscape Character.
Furthermore, alternative sites have previously been presented and assessed by this
Section to have less impact on landscape and heritage assets and are therefore
deemed to be more suitable.
Therefore on the basis of the submitted scheme Conservation, Design & Landscape
must therefore recommend refusal of the application, on the grounds that it does not
comply with Core Strategy Policy EN12 which clearly states that this type of relocated
or replacement development related to coastal erosion „should result in no detrimental
impact upon the landscape, townscape or biodiversity of the area, having regard to
any special designations‟. In this case the special designations adversely affected are
Happisburgh Conservation Area, its heritage assets and landscape character.
Whilst in consideration of paragraph 134 of the NPPF, Conservation Design &
Landscape concludes that cumulatively significant harm would be incurred by this
proposal and that this is not outweighed by the public benefits.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
requiring the submission of details for the implementation, maintenance and
management of a sustainable drainage scheme. Also details of the refuse storage
areas and refuse collection access.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service - No objection subject to the proposal meeting the
necessary requirements of the current Building Regulations 2000 – Approved
document B (volume 1 -2006 edition, amended 2007). In addition, they require fire
hydrants to be installed capable of delivering a minimum of 8 litres of water per
second or other means of providing a water supply for fire fighting operations.
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
Development Committee
33
17 April 2014
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic 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 EN 12: Replacement of development affected by coastal erosion risk (specifies
the circumstances under which development affected by coastal erosion may be
relocated).
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for new
sites and extensions or intensification of existing 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. Principle of development.
2. Impact of the development on the setting of the Conservation Area and wider
landscape.
3. Socio-economic benefits.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties and school.
5. Highway safety.
6. Flood risk.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy and is also with the Undeveloped Coast and adjacent to the Happisburgh
Conservation Area where Policies SS2, SS5, EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN8 are applicable.
In addition, it is considered that Policies EN12, EC10, CT5 and CT6 are relevant.
Policy SS2 states that in areas designated as Countryside development will be limited
to that which requires a rural location and is for one or more of the following and
includes, new build community, commercial, business and residential development
where it replaces that which is at risk from coastal erosion, in accordance with Policy
EN 12 „Relocation and Replacement of Development Affected by Coastal Erosion
Risk‟; recreation and tourism.
Development Committee
34
17 April 2014
Policy SS5 states that the tourist industry will be supported by retaining a mix of
accommodation and encouraging new accommodation and attractions which help
diversify the offer and extend the season.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals be informed by, and be sympathetic
to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance”:
 the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character)
 gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
 distinctive settlement character
 the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of
wildlife
 visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
 nocturnal character
 the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
 the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map.
Policy EN3 states that “in the Undeveloped Coast only development that can be
demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly detrimental
to the open coastal character will be permitted”.
“Community facilities, commercial, business and residential development that is
considered important to the well-being of the coastal community will be permitted
where it replaces that which is threatened by coastal erosion”.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, is suitably designed for the context within which it is set and that
the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and
existing important landscaping and natural features are retained. In addition the policy
requires the creation of safe environments, addressing crime prevention and
community safety and to ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible. A
further requirement is that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals, preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of designated assets, in this case the Happisburgh Conservation
Area, listed buildings and their settings through high quality, sensitive design.
Development that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest will not be permitted.
In addition, the policy states that “the character and appearance of Conservation
Areas will be preserved, and where possible enhanced, and, in consultation with all
relevant stakeholders, area appraisals and management plans will be prepared and
used to assist this aim and to encourage the highest quality building design,
townscape creation and landscaping in keeping with the defined areas”.
Policy EN12 states that proposals for the relocation and replacement of community
facilities, commercial and business uses that are considered important to the well-
Development Committee
35
17 April 2014
being of a coastal community affected by coastal erosion will be permitted, provided
that:
 the development replaces that which is affected (or threatened) by erosion within
50 years of the date of the proposal;
 the new development is beyond the Coastal Erosion Constraint Area shown on the
Proposals Map and is in a location that is well related to the coastal community
from which it was displaced;
 the site of the development / use it replaces is either cleared and the site rendered
safe and managed for the benefit of the local environment, or put to a temporary
use that is beneficial to the well-being of the local community, as appropriate; and
 taken overall (considering both the new development and that which is being
replaced) the proposal should result in no detrimental impact upon the landscape,
townscape or biodiversity of the area, having regard to any special designations.
Policy EC10 states that proposals for new static caravan sites or woodland lodge
holiday accommodation will only be permitted where they result in:
 the removal of an existing cliff-top static caravan site; or
 the re-location of existing provision which is within the Coastal Erosion Constraint
Area or Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 3.
Proposals permitted under this exception should result in no significant intensification
of the use and, if appropriate, comply with the criteria in Policy EN11 „Coastal
Erosion‟. Proposals should seek to re-locate to the 'rural' and 'resorts and hinterland'
Tourism Asset Zones in preference to the 'coastal' or 'North Norfolk Broads' zones”.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality, and that there is adequate car parking to serve the needs of the development.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework which
was adopted in March 2012 are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 28 - states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural
areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to
sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and
neighbourhood plans should:
 support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well
designed new buildings;
 promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based
rural businesses;
 support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses
in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the
countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist
and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by
existing facilities in rural service centres; and
 promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities
in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings,
public houses and places of worship.
Development Committee
36
17 April 2014
Paragraph 70 - to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the
community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
 plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such
as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses
and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of
communities and residential environments;
 guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly
where this would reduce the community‟s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;
 ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and
modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the
community; and
 ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic
uses and community facilities and services.
Paragraph 106 - Local planning authorities should reduce risk from coastal change by
avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or adding to the impacts of
physical changes to the coast. They should identify as a Coastal Change
Management Area any area likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast,
and:
 be clear as to what development will be appropriate in such areas and in what
circumstances; and
 make provision for development and infrastructure that needs to be relocated away
from Coastal Change Management Areas.
Paragraph 128 - In determining applications, local planning authorities should require
an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any
contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the
assets‟ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of
the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment
record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using
appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is
proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological
interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate
desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the
asset‟s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of
a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I
and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Paragraph 137 - Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the
setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that
Development Committee
37
17 April 2014
preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better
reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
In terms of the principle of development the current cliff top location of Manor Caravan
Park is within an area affected (or threatened) by erosion within 50 years of the date of
the proposal. Whilst the proposed site is beyond the Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
shown on the Proposals Map and is in a location that is well related to the coastal
community from which it was displaced. Furthermore, the proposed development
would result in removal of an existing cliff-top static caravan site which is compliant
with Core Strategy Policy EC10. However Policy EN12 also requires that overall the
new development and that which is being replaced should result in no detrimental
impact upon the landscape, townscape or biodiversity of the area, having regard to
any special designations.
Therefore whilst the principle of relocated Manor Caravan Park from its current cliff top
location to an alternative site is policy compliant it is considered there are significant
landscape and heritage issues associated with the proposed site.
A key concern of the proposal is the potential impact of the development on the setting
of the Happisburgh Conservation Area, Happisburgh Lighthouse, a Grade II listed
building, St. Marys Parish Church a Grade I listed building and the wider landscape.
Happisburgh Conservation Area and Historic Assets
The core of the Conservation Area is, for the most part, confined to higher ground,
giving rise to long range views of the village from the surrounding lower landscape,
particularly when approaching from the west. The development, by virtue of its scale,
nature and location would effectively extend development westwards and the
definition between the built form and its open landscape setting, which is a notable
feature of the Conservation Area, would be weakened.
Furthermore, the prominent mature trees within the village envelope currently contrast
with the open rolling arable setting. The amount of vegetation proposed in order to
screen the development would significantly diminish this contrast which is another
prominent feature of the Conservation Area and its setting. Any „softening‟ of the „hard
edge lack of integration of the settlement‟ by way of tree and hedge planting is not
appropriate in this particular location
A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) dated October 2011 carried out by
Norfolk County Council for The Pathfinder Project concluded that the landscape effect
on the Conservation Area would be major, which is confirmed by the Landscape
Officer.
St Marys Church is a Grade I listed building and commands a prominent position
within the village and, given the topography and open arable setting also in the wider
rural landscape with which it is intrinsically linked. The proposed development by
virtue of its scale, nature and amount of screen planting would have an adverse effect
on this relationship. Views both from the church to the open landscape setting and
towards the church from within the wider landscape would be adversely affected. The
LVIA concludes a „moderate-major‟ significance of effect on this key asset and also on
the Grade II Hill House and this is a fair assessment.
The village hosts other heritage assets, notably Grade II* Happisburgh Manor and its
Grade II registered historic park and garden and several Grade II listed buildings
including Happisburgh Lighthouse. The impact on Happisburgh Manor and the
Development Committee
38
17 April 2014
gardens is not deemed to be significant by virtue of the mature tree cover within the
curtilage and the location of the building on the east side of the village.
Other listed buildings are also located to the east of the main street and will not incur
significant impact. The LVIA attributes a „moderate‟ significance of effect on the
following Grade II listed buildings; the Thrums, St Annes and the Monastery.
It is acknowledged that the reinstatement of the existing site back to cliff top grassland
would undoubtedly result in an improved setting of the Conservation Area and listed
buildings in this part of the village, albeit on a temporary basis given the location within
the identified 20 year Coastal Erosion Zone. However, this gain is not outweighed by
the harm that would be incurred to these assets by the relocation of the business to
the substantially larger, more prominent site. Furthermore, this particular benefit would
be gained by the relocation of the existing site to any other of the sites previously put
forward.
Landscape & Visual Impact
Given that the main driver for this development is as a replacement for the existing
site, the proposed site area is substantially larger than the existing. At 7.9 hectares it
is 3.5 times larger. Even though the caravans will be less densely positioned and
there would be more planting within the site, the overall effect of such a large
development is completely out of scale with the surrounding built form.
The site lies within the Coastal Plains (CP1) landscape type, as defined in the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). Dispersed settlement amongst an
open flat high-grade arable landscape, together with long uninterrupted views and a
prominent skyline are some of the key characteristics of this landscape type. Open
arable fields are divided by hedged and banked field boundaries and woodland is
infrequent. Individual built features within this setting such as churches, water towers
and Happisburgh lighthouse are very significant.
Topography is one of the main defining elements of this landscape whereby the ridges
and undulations are associated with settlement. Happisburgh is sited on a former
ridge on the only small cliff edge within the type. Consequently the village and its key
features, the church and the lighthouse are distinctive features on the skyline and
make up a defining characteristic of this landscape type. Within this Coastal Plains
Landscape Type, large caravan and chalet parks along the coastal fringe are also
cited as key characteristics. This is with regard to the area around Bacton and
Walcott which is very different from the historic landscape of Happisburgh and is no
justification for this proposal in this location.
The supporting Landscape Statement prepared by Camlin Lonsdale indicates that
substantial landscape mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact of the
development on „surrounding visual receptors and the setting of Happisburgh
Conservation Area‟. These include screening, layout, density and reinstatement of the
existing site. Enhancement of existing hedgerows, planting of new hedging, along
with substantial tree planting in the form of woodland belts particularly on the eastern
side of the site form the basis of the screening measures.
A 2.5m high mound with shrub planting is also proposed along the eastern boundary
to increase the screening. This would appear as a contrived landscape feature and is
not appropriate in this open setting. Planting on top of bunds is also rarely successful
due to dry conditions caused by the artificial profile.
Development Committee
39
17 April 2014
The Landscape Statement also indicates that the design intention with regard to the
planting is to „extend the influence of the well tree‟d properties within the Conservation
Area adjacent to the eastern site boundary and the mature trees within the grounds of
Happisburgh Manor‟. Hence the majority of the woodland belts are to the east of the
site and small copses and hedgerow enhancement feature to the west of the site.
When planting on this scale starts to mature it would dilute the contrast of the wooded
backdrop of the built settlement with its open arable setting and this key characteristic
of Happisburgh Conservation Area would be diminished. In this regard the proposal
would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and would
be contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN8.
Furthermore, while the LCA promotes the „reinstatement of existing hedged
boundaries and former woodland‟ as factors which may enhance the Coastal Plains
landscape character, in the case of the CP1 Bacton to Sea Palling Type it refers
specifically to linking with the Broads via watercourses around Walcott and Bacton.
The scale of the proposed planting in association with this development in this location
would not enhance „protect, conserve or enhance the special qualities and local
distinctiveness of this part of the Coastal Plains Landscape Type, as required in Core
Strategy Policy EN2.
The LVIA concludes that significant visual effects would be limited to the residents of
properties and visitors in the immediate vicinity of the site. In this prominent location
at the main gateway into the village, this would include a high proportion of all visitors.
There are also four public footpaths close to the site and the development would incur
significant visual impact on this receptor. Furthermore, it is intended that footpath
Happisburgh FP9 which currently runs north south through the centre of the site would
be diverted to the western boundary of the site joining the existing footpath
Happisburgh FP8. From here there are currently uninterrupted views of the
Conservation Area and parish church beyond which would totally be destroyed with
the development of a caravan site in this location. Similarly views of the village, church
and lighthouse from Grub Street to the west would also be significantly affected.
The visualisations contained within the supporting Landscape Statement fails to
address the first ten years of the development when the vegetation would be immature
and provide little screening.
Furthermore, low lying arable land surrounding Happisburgh is all Grade 1 agricultural
land which according to the NPPF is defined as „the best and most versatile
agricultural land‟. In accordance with paragraph 112 of the NPPF, Local Planning
Authority‟s must take into account the economic and other benefits of this high grade
land and consider whether poorer quality land could be a viable alternative. This must
therefore be a consideration in relation to this proposal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape conclude that whilst there are conservation
gains to be had with the removal of the static caravans from their existing cliff top
location the cumulative impact of this development on the Conservation Area, its
landscape setting and its listed buildings would be significant and contrary to Core
Strategy Policy EN8: Protecting & Enhancing the Historic Environment. Furthermore,
in consideration of paragraph 134 of the NPPF, Conservation Design & Landscape
concludes that cumulatively the proposal would result in significant harm and that this
is not outweighed by the public benefits.
This view is supported by English Heritage who consider that the benefits of removing
the existing caravan site would not be negated by the harm resulting from the
Development Committee
40
17 April 2014
proposed development and so should not be held as a public benefit to set against the
harm. If the caravan site were to be relocated to a site where there would be no or
minimal harm to the historic environment the enhancement of the existing site might
well be a factor in determining its suitability.
As far as the Socio-economic benefits the economic appraisal submitted as part of the
application suggests that visitors to the park contribute in excess of half a million
pounds to the local economy. Whilst 95% of the caravan parks procurement is spent
within the District, which allowing for leakage to outside of the District, but factoring in
the net additional impact on the wide economy, means the net expenditure was
estimated to be £47,109pa. In addition, the park currently employs the equivalent of
two full time employees.
The Council‟s Business Development Officer suggests that protecting and recognising
the needs of the rural economy is vital, particularly given the more peripheral locality
of the North Norfolk coastline. Furthermore the proposed site would provide the best
opportunity to access the amenities within the village including Fair Maiden Shellfish
shop, the Post Office / Convenience store and the Hill House Inn. He also suggests
that whilst a site further from the village centre would potentially result in little loss to
the District in terms of generated revenue, the impact to the more localised economy
should not be underestimated.
It is therefore recognised that at the Manor Caravan Park, which operates from 1 April
to 31 October for both the touring caravans and static caravans makes an important
contribution to the economy of north Norfolk and that businesses with the village of
Happisburgh benefit both directly and indirectly from the park and its visitors.
In terms of alternative sites, the Heritage Statement submitted with the application
identifies a number of sites in the Happisburgh area which were considered as part of
the Pathfinder project for the relocation of the Manor Park Caravan site. These are
attached at Appendix 3.
At the time of the Pre-application enquiry, Officer in addition to raising concerns
regarding the site currently proposed, indicated that Option C, west of Whimpwell
Street and south of the historic village core would be more appropriate. Although
closer to the listed Lighthouse it was not considered that the effect on the setting of
the building would be significant, given the limited number of public viewpoints and
surrounding road alignment. This site remains close to the village amenities but its
wider landscape impact would be significantly less than the site as proposed. The
Heritage Statement however suggests that this is not suitable due to inadequate
viability and the fact that the frontage of the site cuts through the conservation area
and the lighthouse can be seen on higher ground, over the single storey dwellings.
As far as the access and traffic movements to and from the site are concerned at the
present time vehicles accessing Manor Caravan Park either use the B1159 through
the village from the south east or approach from the North Walsham direction to the
west. Given that there would be no net increase in the number of static or touring
caravans it is not considered that there would be any significant increase in traffic
movements, as the proposal would displace existing traffic from the existing to the
proposed site. The Highway Authority has indicated that subject to the proposal
displacing existing traffic from the Manor Caravan Park to this site there is no
objection to the proposal.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties the nearest dwellings to the site
would be those to the north side of the North Walsham Road and properties in
Development Committee
41
17 April 2014
Whimpwell Street. The Master Plan plan, submitted as part of the application indicates
the access off the North Walsham Road, would be to the west of dwellings to the north
side of the road, whilst the frontage to the site would be screened by a new roadside
hedge. It is therefore considered that whilst the open aspect over fields to the south
from these dwellings would be lost as a result of the development it would not result
in any significant loss of amenities due to noise and disturbance. Whilst in terms of
the properties in Whimpwell Street which have rear gardens abutting the site given the
depth of these gardens at some 35 metres again it is not considered that the
occupiers of these dwellings would be unduly affect by the proposal.
Whilst in terms of the concerns raised in respect of the potential safeguarding
implications for the school, as part of the scheme a 2.5 metres high bund, together
with 1.8 high security fencing and landscaping is proposed to the boundary which
would screen the school playing field from the site.
Turning to the concerns around the potential increase in flooding, the site is within a
Flood Zone 1 area the lowest risk of flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted
as part of the application indicates that given the size of the site subject to the
employment of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUD‟s) techniques including soak ways
and permeable surfaces the risk of on/off site flood risk is considered to be low.
Notwithstanding this assessment the Norfolk County Council Flood Risk and Water
Management Team have raised some concerns that as a result of the increase in hard
standings there is a risk that water would feed into the existing pond in Whimpwell
Street result in a potential increase in off-site flooding in this area. As a result of these
concerns, following a meeting between the applicant‟s agent and Norfolk County
Council Flood Risk Engineer he suggested that the introduction of an earth bund in the
south east corner of the site would help prevent run off. In response the agent has
indicated that if required his client would be willing to consider this additional flood
mitigation measure for the benefit of all concerned.
In summary, it is generally accepted that an alternative site needs to be found for
Manor Caravan Park as it is in imminent threat of being lost to the sea. However, this
must be weighed against the duty to protect the integral character of the historic
village, its heritage assets and its setting. In addition the NPPF, paragraph 134,
requires Local Planning Authorities to weigh any public benefits deriving from the
development against the harm to the historic environment, but if a clear and
convincing justification for the harm in not found, (including the possibility of delivering
the public economic benefits at another site in north Norfolk) the Council should refuse
the application.
The impacts on the setting of the historic core of village and heritage assets should
not be underestimated, both, English Heritage and the Council‟s Conservation, Design
and Landscape Team consider that a caravan park in the location proposed would
cumulatively result in significant harm to both the setting of the Conservation Area and
nearby listed buildings, and the wider landscape, which is currently characterised by
open vista of the village. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have
detrimental impact upon the landscape. Furthermore, although the application as
submitted demonstrates that the park contributes to the economy of north Norfolk and
the village of Happisburgh both directly and indirectly, albeit primarily for a period of
seven months, in each year when the site is operational, it is not considered that this
outweighs the harm to the historic environment.
Development Committee
42
17 April 2014
Finally, the Pathfinder project identified a number of other sites in the Happisburgh
area outside the Coastal Erosion Zone, which whilst arguably not related as well to the
centre of the village as the proposed site, would it is considered still comply with Policy
EN12, and have less impact on the designated heritage assets.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse – The cumulative impact of the proposed
development would result in significant harm to the setting of the Happisburgh
Conservation Area, wider landscape and listed buildings, contrary to Core
Strategy Policy EN2 and EN8. Furthermore, insufficient justification in respect of
the “public benefits ” derived from the scheme have put forward which
outweigh the harm to the historic environment, as required by the NPPF,
paragraph 134.
6.
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871946 PF - Convert barn forming lettable accommodation in conjunction
with public house
Approved 23/11/1987
PLA/20000137
PF - Removal of occupancy restriction (condition 3 of planning
permission reference 871946)
Approved 10/03/2000
PLA/20020690 PF - Demolition of toilet block and temporary office and erection of
single-storey dining room extension
Approved 05/12/2002
PLA/19791347 PF - Erection of bungalow
Approved 07/01/1980
PLA/20080555 PF - Change of use from public house to residential dwelling
Refused 23/05/2008 Appeal dismissed 18/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of The Hare and Hounds from a public house to a residential
dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for Officers to
seek independent information on the cost of a cesspool drainage solution.
PARISH COUNCIL
Hempstead Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
 Many of the arguments offered by the applicant are inaccurate.
 The way the pub has been run gives the reasonable impression that the true aim
of the owners has been to run down the business. In doing so they have deprived
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe a valued and valuable social amenity.
Development Committee
43
17 April 2014




Opening hours were erratic
The suggestion that the local village halls have competed with and deprived the
pub of business is absurd and disingenuous.
The pub has been successful in the past and could be again if run in a competent
and business-like way.
There is good reason to believe that the pub has not been sold as a going concern
because the asking price has been unrealistically high.
Comments following submission of additional information:
The Parish Council maintains its objections on the same grounds as previously stated.
In addition it is felt that the applicants statement is misleading (for example the
assertion that Hempstead Village Hall has an alcohol licence). Furthermore it is not at
all clear why problems with sewerage are raised now when the papers show that the
matter was first brought to the applicants attention in 2002 (on application 20020690)
Baconsthorpe Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
 The loss of the pub is very sad. It has always played a part in the life of this
village.
 The owners of the pub made it fairly clear over a period of time that they intended
to shut the pub down eventually.
 Opening times of the pub were erratic.
 The applicant suggests parking is restricted on the site. This is inaccurate there is
a large car park at the pub.
 Reasons given by the applicant as to why the business was not successful include
the rural location, lack of footpaths and lack of tourist accommodation in the area.
These were facts that the applicant knew when originally purchasing the pub and
are unchanged from when the pub was run successfully.
 The Parish Council have never been aware of any drainage problems at the pub.
There is surely no difference with drainage for a pub or a dwelling and if there are
drainage problems surely the conversion of the little pub barn at the front of the
site is an issue for the applicant.
Comments following submission of additional information (summarised):
Objects to the amended application and maintains its position as previously offered.
 There is no new information that makes a difference in assessing the situation.
 The question of drainage poses a problem, but as the applicants indicate they
need to address this with their solicitor and should be settled legally before any
further action is taken.
 Should the ombudsman find the applicants complaint upheld she will have the
right to sue for the cost of the drainage to be put right.
 Questions the accuracy of the some of the statements offered by the applicant in
her submission.
 Permission has recently been given for a campsite in the village and this will help
the vitality of the village, as would the retention of the pub.
REPRESENTATIONS
21 letters of representation received. These include 20 letters of objection and 1 letter
of comment.
Letters of objection citing the following grounds:
1. This is the last pub in the village and in fact in the four surrounding villages.
2. The village of Baconsthorpe is in need of a well run local pub.
Development Committee
44
17 April 2014
3. The pub serves not only Hempstead and Baconsthorpe but Plumstead and
Matlaske.
4. Many other pubs in the area have had new owners in the same period as the Hare
and Hounds and are still successful.
5. The current owners took over a thriving business and mismanaged it.
6. The owners have deliberately run the business in to the ground. When the pub was
still open it had erratic opening times, the owners had no interest in developing the
trade and turned customers away.
7. The marketing exercise was a fait accompli as the owners did not want to sell the
business. Marketing was only done to tick the box for the planning application - for
example prospective purchasers of the pub were turned away, not being allowed to
view the pub.
8. The pub is a valuable commodity to a village in rural Norfolk which allows people in
the village to meet and converse to avoid isolation.
9. The only people who will benefit from the change of use is the applicant, to the
detriment to the community.
10. Baconsthorpe and Hempstead have already lost the post office and shop and the
loss of the pub would represent the final nail in our village's coffin.
1 letter of comment as follows:
Shame to lose the chance that the Hare and Hounds might once again flourish as a
public house.
The applicant has submitted information in support of their application detailing the
viability issues with retaining the public house in addition to details of the problems
encountered with adequately resolving the drainage problems on the site. This is
attached as Appendix 4. She has commented that the premises have not been open
to the public since 2010.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - (summarised) With consideration of the current use of the
building, I find that I have no objection to the proposed development, in principle. The
proposed use would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic above that currently
permissible, I do however have concerns regarding parking provision as none is
indicated on the submitted plans. Further information in respect of proposed parking
layout and the number of bedrooms proposed in the dwelling (to ascertain the
required parking spaces) would need to be provided to enable the Highway Authority
to further consider the application.
Building Control Original comments:
I refer to the drainage consultation. It appears that the premises was a pub initially
with a septic tank drainage system. The restaurant use was then added and the
discharge consent should then have been varied with the Environment Agency. This
presumably would have started a chain of events involving alterations to the drainage
system which would have then required consent under Building Regulations. This
would not have been required without the Environment Agency input however as the
introduction of trade waste would not have impacted on the drainage from a building
control aspect.
As far as satisfactory drainage is concerned, we have advised the applicant that
adequate provision may be possible but would involve the use of a specialist
consultant to design a system suitable for the use of the premises, the likely output
and the site conditions. This would apply equally to the current public house use or
any subsequent change of use.
Development Committee
45
17 April 2014
Comments following submission of additional information:
The applicants would appear to have obtained specialist advice on the feasibility of a
suitable drainage system as was previously suggested. Percolation tests have been
undertaken and the results of these discussed with the Environment Agency and
which would appear to preclude the use of a septic tank or sewage treatment plant to
serve a commercial development. The only other alternative would be a cesspool and
again this would appear to be prohibitive in terms of the cost of the plant, installation
and on-going emptying. I would therefore conclude that from the details now submitted
by the applicant the use of this property as a commercial enterprise would appear to
be compromised by the apparently insurmountable drainage problems.
Environmental Health – Comments as follows:
In general terms I agree with the applicants comments on the suitability of soil in the
locality having poor porosity. Without site of the previous planning application I would
normally question whether it was possible to connect to a main public sewer. Parts of
Baconsthorpe are connected to an Anglia Water sewage treatment works located
approximately 1km away and does have very limited capacity available. I would
however suggest that the cost of connection to it is uneconomical given the distance.
For this reason I am discounting the need to question connection to the main public
sewer. As such I have no reasons to object to the conversion to a dwelling on the
grounds of poor drainage, but do require that details of the actual disposal route for
sewage is submitted and approved.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of the public house as an important local facility
APPRAISAL
Background
At the meeting on 19 December 2013, Development Committee deferred the
application for Officers to seek further independent information on viability in relation
to the cost of a drainage system.
Development Committee
46
17 April 2014
Members will recall that the key issue for consideration was the loss of the public
house and the requirements of Policy CT3 which seeks to retain important local
facilities. This requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is no reasonable
prospect of retention of the pub at its current site; and that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months.
Officers had reported at that time, that whilst it was clear that there had been a
reasonable attempt to sell the property, given the lack of information regarding the
precise duration of the marketing or that a realistic price which might achieve a sale
has been sought for a whole 12 month period it was considered that the applicant had
failed to demonstrate that the property has been satisfactorily marketed for sale or to
let at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.
However the applicant had indicated that the poor drainage at the site is a significant
factor in why she is unable to run the public house. The second key consideration
was therefore whether the adequacy of the foul drainage for the site makes the
retention of the pub an unreasonable prospect and financially unviable. At that time,
based on the quotes submitted by the applicant for the costs of the plant, installation
and on-going emptying of a cesspool, Officers considered this to be prohibitive to the
continued running of a public house on the site. Officers therefore considered that the
applicant had adequately demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the
retention of the pub at the site and the cesspool drainage system required makes the
continued running of the pub unviable.
Verification of drainage needs and quotes
Since the Committee resolution to defer, Officers have verified the site drainage
problems with the Environment Agency, who confirm that the only sewage option for
the site is a cesspool.
The sewage could be discharged via a drainage field on the adjacent farmers land (as
was the situation previously), however the applicant has advised that this has since
been disconnected at the withdrawal of permission from the land owner. The
Committee will note that the Planning Authority cannot require the drainage to be
accommodated on third party land.
Therefore, to resolve the drainage within land controlled by the applicant, the only
solution, for both a residential property and a public house, appears to be a cesspool.
The applicant had submitted a quote for a cesspool for the public house which was
£140K based on a cesspool of approx. 300,000 litre capacity (based on cesspool
having a 45 day holding capacity, installation in clay soils, sloping site and need to
install in a trafficked area).
Following the Committee resolution Officers have verified this quote with the drainage
company who confirm the figures quoted are correct.
The applicant has also since submitted a further quote with similar figures for
equipment and installation of £120K. Again Officers have verified this with the
company who confirm the figures are correct, based on the storage requirements
indicated by the applicant and are a rough estimate.
Development Committee
47
17 April 2014
Officers have also obtained an independent quote from a drainage consultant. There
are two cost factors to be considered for a cesspool system: 1: The equipment
(cesspool) and their installation costs; 2: ongoing emptying costs.
1. Costs for plant and installation:
Firstly looking at the cost of the cesspool tanks and their installation. Whilst the
applicants quote has costed for a cesspool large enough to hold a 45 day load, both
the Environment Agency and the drainage consultant advise that there is no statutory
requirement for a tank to have a 45 day holding capacity. Instead the key determining
factor for the size of the cesspool should be taken from the capacity of the tankers
used to empty the cesspool. Since these are very large vehicles, the largest tanker
that could practicably access the site for emptying is 18,000 litres. As such whilst it
would be useful to store a greater capacity of waste on the site (to reduce frequency of
emptying) in reality only 18,000 litres can be emptied at any one time.
The cesspool of approx. 300,000 litres capacity detailed in the applicants quote is
therefore not considered necessary.
However, officers have calculated the flows from the pub (running at maximum
capacity). The combined discharge of the pub and ancillary residential would be 5280
litres per day. As such it is reasonable for more than 1no. 18,000 litre tank to be
installed since each 18,000 litre cesspool tank would be full in only 3.4 days.
Based on 3no. 18,000 litres tanks (54,000 litre capacity equating to 10 days storage
capacity for the property), the Local Planning Authority has been quoted £24K for the
tanks and their installation.
This is a significantly lower figure than the two quotes obtained by the applicant,
however these are very broad quotes and are not specifically tailored to the site
constraints. As such there could be further installation costs.
Whilst the installation/equipment costs could therefore be significantly less than the
£140K quote submitted by the applicant, both the Environment Agency and the
drainage consultant have advised the Local Planning Authority that emptying costs are
often prohibitive to the installation of a cesspool.
2. Emptying costs:
Moving on to costs of emptying, the industry standard costs for emptying cesspools
are approx. £150 per 4500litres of waste emptied. As such the annual cost for the
emptying of a cesspool for the pub/ancillary residential would be £65,000 (or £1250
per week).
Officers therefore consider that the emptying costs alone are prohibitive and render
the continued running of the pub unviable.
Drainage for a residential use
Whether retained as a pub, or converted to a dwelling, there are clearly drainage
issues on the site and an appropriate solution would still need to be installed for a
residential property. The Environment Agency has indicated that a cesspool would still
be a requirement for a residential property. Costs for this (based on quotes obtained
by the Local Planning Authority) would be approx. £16K for two cesspools and their
installation (which would give approx. two weeks capacity) and an annual emptying
cost of approx. £29K (or £560/week).
Development Committee
48
17 April 2014
In the event that planning permission is granted for the change of use to a dwelling, a
condition would need to be imposed to agree precise details of the sewage disposal
method for the residential property prior to its first use.
Summary
Officer‟s recommendation remains unchanged to that of the report on the December
2013 committee agenda.
Whilst it is possible that the public house could re-open it would require a very
substantial investment and it is not considered that such a level of investment could be
justified on the basis of the very small catchment area in the immediate area which is
very rural. In that respect Officers consider that the applicant has adequately
demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the retention of the pub at its
current site and the costs of installing and maintaining the necessary foul drainage
makes the continued running of the pub unviable. On this basis, the application, as
amended, is considered to comply with Policy CT3 of the Core Strategy.
Subject to conditions, it is also considered that the proposal would accord with all
other Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
- Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, precise details of
the proposed parking and turning areas including number of parking spaces, layout
and surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be completed in accordance
with the approved plan prior to the first use of the property and shall be retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
-Prior to the first use of the premises as a dwelling, details of sewage disposal for the
dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
7.
HOLT - PO/13/1306 - Residential and employment (A3,A4,B1,B2,B8,C1,C2,D1 and
D2 Class Uses) development including provision of public open space,
roundabout and vehicular link road; Heath Farm, Hempstead Road for Brown
Brothers and Bullen Investments Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 31 January 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Mixed Use Allocation
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
A Road
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Landfill Gas Site Buffer
Development Committee
49
17 April 2014
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline application seeking permission for up to 215 dwellings together with
a range of employment related uses and public open space. The only physical details
being applied for at this stage relate to access. The application does however seek
approval at this stage for the proportion of affordable housing to be provided
(proposed at 24%).
The employment related uses applied for under their planning uses class headings are
as follows are as follows:
 A3 - Food and drink establishments
 A4 - Drinking establishments
 C1 - Hotels
 C2 - Residential institutions
 B1 - Offices / research and development / light industry
 B2 - General industry
 B8 - Storage & distribution
 D1 - Non-Residential institutions
 D2 - Assembly and leisure
In terms of the access details these relate to the construction of a roundabout on the
A148 which borders the northern boundary of the site, together with a link road which
would extend from the roundabout, through the site to connect with Heath Drive (a cul
de sac which serves an existing industrial estate) and onto Hempstead Road. The link
road would serve the whole of the proposed development and the submitted plans
indicate the positions of where various secondary roads / accesses would join onto it.
Submitted with the application are the following documents and plans:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Transport Assessment and Travel Plans
Flood Risk Assessment
Utilities Assessment
Land Contamination Report
Arboricultural Report
Protected Species and Ecology Appraisal
Section 106 - Draft Heads of Terms
Archaeological Survey
Viability Statement (Confidential)
Masterplan
Site Areas Plan
Indicative Landscaping Masterplan
Highway Access Plan
A draft S.106 Planning Obligation has recently been submitted by the applicants. It
covers the following issues:
Affordable Housing
Transfer of allotments
Bus service contribution
Education contribution
Travel planning contribution
Healthcare contribution
Library contribution
Development Committee
50
17 April 2014
Marketing plan for commercial land
Public open space maintenance contribution
Visitor pressure contribution
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection subject to the following comments:
 Very concerned about the allocation of affordable housing which is a very real
issue for Holt. Would like to see 45% of the houses to be affordable. The
developers stated this percentage when carrying out their consultation. Would be
very disappointed not to see as near to this figure as possible.
 Note that provision of a play area is listed. Would want a range of equipment for
different ages. The Town Council would like a management role of the play area,
but seeks clarification that any financial implications are met by the developer /
NNDC or the County Council.
 The Town Council were always very clear that they would require a hopper bus to
be operated, however are concerned that some of the allocated money would be
used for a feasibility study. It is essential that there are enough funds allocated for
running this service for a substantial period of time.
 Would like to see a new petrol station and garage in this respect do not accept the
comments made in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement.
 Request provision of bus stops, grit bins and a post box. It is essential that this
basic infrastructure is in place.
 Would not wish to see Class A1 (retail) uses on the site to protect the future vitality
and viability of the town centre.
 Given the rural fringe of the site it is desirable that the housing density range does
not exceed the range of 30-40 dwellings per hectare (as stated in the development
brief) and that the infrastructure capacity is not compromised.
 Would like assurances that measures will be enforced to ensure car parking will be
contained within the curtilage of individual properties or communal parking areas.
 Assurance that full consultation with interested stakeholders will be undertaken at
every stage of the development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received raising concern regarding the lack of any detail regarding bus provision
to serve the development and questioning the provision of adequate walking / cycling
provision from to and from the site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 Obligation:
£652,064 for education (Holt Primary School)
£4,342 for 4 fire hydrants
£12,900 for library provision (£60 per dwelling).
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions and a S.106
Obligation to secure a travel plan bond and contribution towards a hopper bus service.
Commenting on the access proposals, advises that whilst there may be the need for
fine tuning on the detailed design of the roundabout (site junction with A149) and
further details will be required for the construction of the link road, the submitted
details are acceptable in principle. The form of junction where the proposed link road
will meet Hempstead Road currently remains unresolved and needs to be informed by
Development Committee
51
17 April 2014
means of a traffic calming study. Similarly a traffic calming study is required to inform
the exact nature of works necessary to introduce an HGV restriction on Hempstead
Road. The applicants will need to pay for waiting restrictions but this can be dealt with
by condition.
Recommends conditions to include the requirement for more detailed plans (in relation
to the new roundabout design, junction design with Hempstead Road, traffic calming
measures / footway improvements to Hempstead Road), promotion of a Traffic
Regulation Order and submission of a travel plan.
County Council (Minerals & Waste) - No objection based on the information
contained in a geotechnical report prepared by the applicant for this site. The mineral
underlying the site is unlikely to be economically viable.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions requiring detailed surface
water drainage proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters applications
for each phase of development, and a requirement to demonstrate that there is
sewage treatment capacity for each phase of development, and if necessary the
submission of a scheme of works to address any capacity shortfall.
Anglian Water - Comments that Holt sewage treatment works has sufficient capacity
to accommodate the additional flows from the development.
Advises investigations have shown that a connection into the local sewerage
infrastructure will result in an unacceptable risk of flooding and pollution. Anglian
Water has worked with the developer to produce a foul drainage strategy which will
mitigate the risk of downstream flooding. Anglian Water are satisfied that, subject to
mitigation measures being implemented, there is a feasible drainage solution which
will allow the proposed development to discharge foul flows without having a
detrimental effect on the existing sewerage network.
Recommends a condition requiring the submission and approval of a foul water
strategy prior to the commencement of any development on the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) Comments that the outline scheme largely follows the themes and concepts
established by the Design Brief.
The submitted Design & Access Statement highlights the importance of creating
“distinct neighbourhoods” and a “sense of place”. This statement is especially
welcome and should form the basis for any future detailed application. Other
noteworthy areas will be the treatment of the link road through the site, the roundabout
and “landmark” buildings forming the new eastern approach to Holt, and the
connectivity through and beyond the site into the town centre. It is on these issues,
and on the overall legibility and quality of the proposals, that the scheme will ultimately
stand or fall.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Commenting on
the submitted indicative masterplan, suggests alternative methods of landscape
treatment to the link road through the site and increased tree planting throughout the
development.
Natural England - No comments.
Strategic Housing - Comments as follows:
There is a need for affordable housing in Holt and this development would assist in
meeting some of the proven housing need. The application was accompanied by a
viability assessment which stated that it would only be possible to provide 20% of the
proposed dwellings as affordable.
Development Committee
52
17 April 2014
Following an assessment of the viability assessment it was concluded that whilst it
would not be viable to require that 45% of the approved dwellings were affordable, it is
viable to provide more than 20% of the dwellings as affordable dwellings. These
conclusions were shared with the applicant who subsequently offered to provide 24%
of the proposed dwellings as affordable. This offer of 24% is appropriate and reflects
the viability of the proposed scheme which has significant infrastructure requirements
and Section 106 Agreement contributions including contributions for education and
health facilities.
The applicant‟s submitted Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement which is
required to require the affordable housing provision and financial contributions for
education and health, etc. includes provision for an Affordable Housing Uplift. This is
welcomed as the Affordable Housing Uplift will allow a financial contribution for
affordable housing to be made if the viability of the proposed development improves.
On the above basis Housing Strategy supports this application.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of the surface water
condition recommended by the Environment Agency.
Satisfied with the conclusions of the submitted investigation report that in the absence
of any elevated contaminants, further investigation or remediation will be unnecessary
prior to construction. However in the absence of any assessment and monitoring of
ground gas and the proximity of filled land to the west of the site, recommends a
condition requiring such an assessment prior to construction works commencing.
NHS England (NHSE) - Raises a 'holding objection'.
Comments that: "a residential development of up to 215 dwellings is likely to have a
significant impact on the NHS funding programme for the delivery of healthcare
provision within the local area, and specifically within the health catchment area of the
development. NHSE would therefore expect these impacts to be fully assessed and
mitigated by way of a developer contribution secured through a Section 106 planning
obligation. The planning application does not include an assessment of the likely
healthcare impacts arising from the proposed development. A Healthcare Impact
Assessment (HIA) has therefore been prepared by NHSE to provide the basis for a
developer contribution towards capital funding to increase capacity within the GP
Catchment Area".
On the above basis NHSE request that a developer contribution of £67,600 should be
secured by a S.106 Planning Obligation. This calculation is based on an optimum
capacity of 1800 patients per GP. There are currently 8 GPs at the Holt practice
equating to an overall optimum capacity of 14,400 patients. This number is currently
exceeded by 176 patients and the additional estimated number arising from 215 new
homes is a further 473 patients. The sum of £67,600 equates to the addition of 0.23 of
a GP and 33.8 sqm floorspace to respond to this additional demand.
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.
Development Committee
53
17 April 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy HO9 Land at Heath Farm / Hempstead Road:
Land amounting to approximately 15 hectares is allocated for a mixed use
development including approximately 200 dwellings, not less than 5 hectares of land
in employment generating uses of which not less than 3.5 hectares shall comprise
serviced industrial land, public open space, and community facilities. Development will
be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies including on-site
provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently 45%) and
contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other community needs as required
and:
a. The prior approval of a Development Brief to address access (to be from the A148)
and sustainable transport, layout, phasing, including the phased provision of serviced
employment land, and conceptual appearance;
b. retention and enhancement of perimeter hedgerows and trees;
c. provision of significant internal open spaces, hedgerow and tree planting within the
site and a landscape buffer to the A148 and the adjacent County Wildlife Site;
d. prior approval of an agreement to secure contributions towards management of the
adjacent County Wildlife Site;
e. investigation and remediation of any land contamination;
f. provision of a direct pedestrian / cycleway connection to Hempstead Road
underpass;
g. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SPA / SAC and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor
pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures; and,
h. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and the
foul sewerage network and that proposals have regard to Water Framework Directive
objectives.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development,
will not be permitted.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN10: 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 CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Development Committee
54
17 April 2014
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
THE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
Policy HO9 of the Site Allocations DPD requires a development brief to be prepared
for the allocation at Heath Farm / Hempstead Road, Holt . A development brief was
approved by the Council's Cabinet in July 2013. The brief includes the following main
details / requirements:






A masterplan which indicates the locational distribution of land uses on the site
(e.g. the residential areas, the employment / commercial areas and open space.
A maximum of between 275 - 290 dwellings.
Vehicle access to be provided from the A148 and linking through to Hempstead
Road, and a subsequent restriction on heavy goods vehicles using Hempstead
Road.
Provision of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists between the site and the town
centre, schools etc.
More neighbourly employment uses nearby the residential area.
A mix of two, two-and-a -half and three storey development.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway and pedestrian safety
3. Development viability / provision of affordable housing
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The application site (14.2 ha.) comprises approximately three quarters of the total land
allocated for mixed use development subject to Policy HO9 of the adopted Site
Allocations DPD.
Whilst Policy HO9 refers to "approximately 200 dwellings" the subsequently approved
development brief accepts the allocation can accommodate between 275 - 290
dwellings (in view of the overall site being larger than referred to in Site Allocations
DPD). The amount of housing development proposed as part of this application (up to
215 dwellings) complies with the respective phased areas indicated in the
development brief.
In addition the masterplan which accompanies the application broadly reflects the
development brief in terms of the location and amount of the different land uses
across the application site.
In terms of access, the detail which is applied for at this stage (the provision of a
roundabout on the A148 and the alignment of the principal road serving the site and
connecting through to Hempstead Road) accords with the development brief.
In principle therefore the development proposals put forward at this stage are
considered acceptable.
Highway and Pedestrian Safety
The principal components of accessing the site are the proposed roundabout on the
A148 and a main 'link' road served off it, connecting through to Hempstead Road via
the existing industrial estate (Heath Drive). As referred to above the Highway Authority
has confirmed its acceptance to these proposals subject to more detailed plans being
Development Committee
55
17 April 2014
secured by planning conditions.
The Development Brief for the site emphasises the importance of providing safe
access routes for pedestrians and cyclists from the site leading to the existing A148
underpass at the northern end of Hempstead Road, which in turn leads towards the
town centre and most of the Holt's main services and facilities. The Brief indicates a
preferred route via the proposed area of open space and adjoining open land beyond
the allocation. However it is recognised that this route is not guaranteed because of
land ownership constraints. A second route is therefore indicated connecting further
south onto Hempstead Road. As the current application site does not include the
whole allocation it cannot provide pedestrian / cycling access via the open space
route. The only available option therefore is a connection onto Hempstead Road.
Hempstead Road in its present form does not provide adequate safe passage for
pedestrians and cyclists. This is primarily because it is used by heavy goods vehicles
(HGVs) and other commercial traffic travelling to the existing industrial estate.
Furthermore Hempstead Road is lacking in continuous footway provision on both of its
sides. In addition nearby Charles Road provides a short through route between
Hempstead Road and the B1149 (Holt to Norwich road). Charles Road serves
residential properties along its entire route and is similarly inappropriate to cater for
HGV traffic.
When it is completed the new link road will provide improved access for HGVs from
the enlarged industrial estate onto the A148, thus avoiding the need for these vehicles
to use Hempstead Road. However to ensure this, there is the need for traffic
management measures to be introduced to prevent the continued use by HGVs of
Hempstead Road and Charles Road. The Highway Authority has now agreed that this
can be achieved by means of traffic calming measures, and is content that the precise
details of these measures can be secured by planning conditions. The Highway
Authority is also content for a condition to be imposed to establish the precise type of
junction to be formed where the new link road will adjoin Hempstead Road.
In order to make the development safe for residents, it is important that the traffic
calming measures and footway improvements to Hempstead Road / Charles Road
together with the link road connection, are in place before any of the new dwellings
are occupied. This can be secured by planning conditions.
There is an existing issue of on-street parking along Heath Drive, and whilst this does
not pose such a problem at present, it would do once the new link road is complete.
To address this a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to impose waiting restrictions will be
necessary. The Highway Authority have recommended a condition requiring the
promotion of a TRO to this effect.
In addition to the above, the applicants have agreed to make financial contributions
towards a local 'hopper' bus service (£75,000) and travel planning (£500 per dwelling
and £50,000 resulting from the employment development).
Development Viability / Provision of Affordable Housing
A (confidential) development viability statement has been submitted with the
application. The statement includes an assessment of the total costs of developing the
site (including construction, highway works and S.106 contributions) together with a
developer profit, and these are compared with the predicted sale revenues of the
development. The conclusions of the statement were that in order to allow a
reasonable return for the landowners (taking into account market conditions along with
evidence of comparable land transactions in the local area), a maximum of 20%
Development Committee
56
17 April 2014
affordable housing was possible. In addition the application seeks a relaxation of the
on-site renewable energy requirement (Policy EN6) from 20% to 10% on grounds of
development viability.
Policy H02 requires on sites such as this that 45% of the proposed dwellings should
be affordable dwellings, subject to it being viable to do so. In the case of this
application it is recognised that there are some significant infrastructure costs (in
particular the various highway works) and S.106 contributions, and as such it was
never anticipated to deliver the full policy requirement of affordable dwellings.
Pertinent to this is the following advice contained in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) with regard to the issue of development viability:
Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in
plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites
and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a
scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is
threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any affordable housing, standards,
infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the
normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing
land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.
Notwithstanding the above, following detailed scrutiny of the development viability
provided by the applicants, and certain aspects of this being challenged, subsequent
negotiations have resulted in the applicants agreeing to an increase in the amount of
affordable housing proposed to 24%. On the basis of 215 dwellings this would meant
that 51 would be affordable. The Committee will note that the Council's Housing
Strategy Officer supports the application on this basis, subject to an 'uplift' clause
being incorporated in the S.106 Obligation which would provide for the addition of a
financial contribution towards affordable housing in the event of the viability improving
as the development progresses.
Conclusions
This application represents a significant step forward in the delivery of new housing
and employment provision in Holt. The entire allocation to which it relates to is the
third largest of its kind in the district.
The application conforms with the Site Allocations Plan policy as well as the related
development brief. Satisfactory arrangements have now been agreed in respect of
highway issues and the negotiated increase in affordable housing provision to 24% is
considered to be a fair and reasonable outcome given the costs associated with
developing the site.
Prior to approval of the application a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed. The
submitted draft S.106 includes all of the financial contributions referred to in this report
(i.e. towards education, libraries, local healthcare, public open space, visitor pressure
mitigation, local bus service and travel planning), together with affordable housing
provision (including a financial 'uplift' clause). The S.106 will also require that provision
is made for the possibility of road access from that part of the allocated site which
does not form part of the current application.
On the above basis the application accords with the development plan and is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning
Obligation and imposition of the following conditions:
1
Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the
Development Committee
57
17 April 2014
expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Approval of
these reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the Local
Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two
years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on
different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance, landscaping, layout and
scale of the proposed development and this condition shall apply notwithstanding
any indication as to these matters which have been given in the current application.
Reason:
The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are
pursuant to the provisions of Article 4(1) to the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.
3
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications
insofar as they relate to the details approved pursuant to this outline planning
permission.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The residential element of this approved development shall be for a maximum of
215 dwellings.
Reason:
In accordance with the details submitted with the application and in order to avoid
an inappropriately high density of development on the site in accordance with the
approved development brief and Policy HO7 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
5
No development shall commence until details of the proposed arrangements for
future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. (The streets shall thereafter be
maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details
until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the
Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been
established).
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are
managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable and safe standard. in accordance
with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
58
17 April 2014
6
No works shall commence on the site until such time as detailed plans of the roads,
footways, cycleways, foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and a satisfactory standard of
highway design and construction, in accordance with Policy CT5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
No works shall be carried out on roads, footways, cycleways, foul and surface
water sewers otherwise than in accordance with the specifications of the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are
constructed to a standard suitable for adoption as public highway, in accordance
with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Before any dwelling or commercial unit is first occupied the respective road(s),
footway(s) and cycleway(s) shall be constructed to binder course surfacing level
from the dwelling or commercial unit to the adjoining County road in accordance
with the details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy CT5 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall
commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement
works comprising a new roundabout; junction improvements to Hempstead Road;
traffic calming measures; and pedestrian footway improvements along Hempstead
Road, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interests of highway safety and to protect the environment of the
local highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
10
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the link road
connecting the A148 with Hempstead Road together with the off-site highway
improvement works referred to in condition number 9 shall be completed to the
written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local
Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development
proposed, in accordance with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
59
17 April 2014
11
No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for
construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with
Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction
of the development permitted will use the Approved Wheel Cleaning facilities
provided referred to in condition number 11.
Reason:
To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with
Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
Prior to the commencement of any works a Construction Traffic Management Plan
and Access Route which shall incorporate adequate provision for addressing any
abnormal wear and tear to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk County Council
Highway Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction
traffic using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local
roads are used by construction traffic.
Reason:
In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with
Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, in accordance with Policy
CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
14
For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction
of the development will comply with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and
use only the Construction Traffic Access Route and no other local roads unless
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority
Reason:
In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with
Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
15
No works shall commence on the site until the Traffic Regulation Order for waiting
restrictions has been promoted by the Local Highway Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
16
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an Overarching
Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, such Travel Plan shall accord
with Norfolk County Council document 'Guidance Notes for the Submission of
Travel Plan' together with a timetable for their implementation
Reason:
To ensure that the development is as sustainable as possible, in accordance with
Development Committee
60
17 April 2014
Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
17
In association with the requirements of Condition number 2, a scheme for
landscaping and site treatment to include grass seeding, planting of new trees and
shrubs, together with the specification of materials for all hard surfaced areas, shall
be submitted to and approved as part of the application for reserved matters.
The scheme shall also include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on
the land, and details of any to be retained (which shall include details of species
and canopy spread), together with measures for their protection during the course
of development.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further
period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
18
As part of each reserved matters application for each phase of development a
comprehensive infiltration based surface water drainage strategy shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Environment Agency. (See Note 2).
Reason:
To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and of disposal of surface
water from the site for the lifetime of the development and to prevent contamination
of surface and ground waters.in accordance with Policies EN10 and EN13 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
19
No development shall be commence until a foul water strategy to cater for the
approved development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority (or in the case of a phased development a foul water strategy
has been submitted and approved for each phase). The strategy(s) shall include a
scheme(s) for the improvement / extension of the existing sewerage system where
appropriate. No dwellings or premises shall be occupied until the scheme(s) for
improvement / extension of the existing sewage system has been completed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure that there is sufficient capacity to cater for foul water disposal from the
site and to protect the water environment.in accordance with Policies EN13 and
CT2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
20
Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of the visual amenities and residential amenities of the area to avoid
light pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.3.70 of the explanatory text.
Development Committee
61
17 April 2014
21
Prior to the commencement of development an assessment into the presence of
ground gas should be carried out in accordance with proposals set out in section
9.2 of the submitted GEMCO investigation report (Ref-283 R01). The findings and
recommendations of this assessment shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. If necessary a scheme shall be prepared to incorporate all
the measures shown to be necessary to prevent the exposure of future users or
occupiers of the site or any buildings or services, to the hazards associated with the
presence of ground gas. The scheme shall then be implemented in full before the
occupation of the site. In the event of suspicious or onerous substances/materials
being encountered during ground works, construction activity should cease and
adequate measures should be implemented to sample and assess ground
conditions prior to continuation of works. Any subsequent reports (if any) should
then be submitted to the Local Authority for further approval.
Reason:
In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policy EN13 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
22
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the dwellings
hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating in accordance with the
requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such
national measure of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme).
The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued
and submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that the Code Level has
been achieved.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
23
Prior to the commencement of development, details of how at least 10% of its
energy supply is to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon
energy sources (including the proposed physical works on the site and a timetable
for implementation), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved timetable and retained operational thereafter, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8.
HOLT - PF/14/0203 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; Green Banks, Peacock Lane for Bliss Space
Design Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 15 April 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Development Committee
62
17 April 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19750062 HR - Bungalow and garage
Approved 28/02/1975
DE21/12/0289 ENQ - Residential Development
03/06/2013
DE21/13/0144 ENQ - Erection of replacement dwelling
02/01/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single-storey replacement dwelling.
The external materials proposed for the dwelling are timber cladding, flint and render
and single ply/EPDM roofing system.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker, to enable Members to consider the impact and
merits of a modern design in the Georgian town.
TOWN COUNCIL - No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
13 representations have been received (6 objections and 7 supports from 5
supporters), raising the following representations (summarised):
Objections (summarised):
 Development lacks style and would look like a public toilet/commercial building
and would be an eyesore. Flat roof not appropriate;
 Development not appropriate for immediate surrounding area or for Holt
generally;
 Not in keeping with adjacent buildings and vernacular. Insensitive design to
North Norfolk. There is a prominent style within Peacock Lane (traditional style
and materials, mainly brick, render, slated or tiled pitched roofs, wooden or
PVCU windows and doors. The considerable use of flat roofing system and
modern building materials (powder coated aluminium window frames and door
frames and timber cladding) fails to reflect or harmonise with the characteristics
of the local vernacular;
 Existing building is sympathetic and in-keeping with the local area. No
justification for destruction of existing building, existing dwelling should be refurbished;
 Design would not comply with Core Strategy „to provide for the most efficient use
of land without detriment to local character and distinctiveness', „to ensure high
quality design that reflects local distinctiveness'. Accepts that Council recognises
that „modern innovative design‟ can have a positive impact in the right location,
but the proposal is not innovative and is not in the right location;
 Does not conform to Design Guide for New Residential Developments, in
particular 3.3.2 „the site analysis will have revealed the defining characteristics of
the surrounding area. Whether it constitutes of a close-knit, informal mix of
vernacular cottages or a more regimented arrangement of classically
proportioned terraces, the established form and character should provide a
strong steer to any new development.‟;
 Excessive size proposed within the site;
 Peacock Lane is a very well-used pedestrian footway. The property would
occupy a prominent position immediately adjacent to this footway with no
Development Committee
63
17 April 2014


opportunity to for screening as access will need to remain clear at all times to
negotiate vehicles to and from the site at one of the narrowest un-made sections
of Peacock Lane;
If approved, would suggest areas of flint are traditionally laid;
Concerns regarding another site Bliss has been the developer for in Blakeney
(concerns regarding use, tree damage, incomplete building works, large
advertising hoardings).
Support (summarised):
 Something different and attractive. High quality contemporary design which the
town of Holt should be please to promote. Would be well-built, economic and
innovative. Would not be out of place as there is no one predominant style to any
side of the property. Would improve the look of the area;
 Appropriate size for street;
 Materials would be of good quality and there will be considerable ecological
advantages;
 Has been good public consultation from the developer;
 Will not overlook The peacocks as they are on higher level that those on the
other side of Peacock Lane;
 Quite clear that off-road car parking would occupy the front and the majority of
the „garden‟ use would be at the back of the property;
 To increase privacy, a hedge could be planted;
 Renovation of building long overdue;
 Innovative design and sustainable building methods are excellent forward
thinking ideas and are good for Holt;
 The location is a good distance from the historic town centre and, like the striking
new annexe to the Church would add an interesting break to the traditional
vernacular architecture as one wanders the back streets of this town;
 The dwelling would respect the height of the existing dwelling and would make
considered use of the site size, creating private outside space which would not
overlook any other residential dwelling in the area;
 Would be single-storey set in good sized, well surrounded garden.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies on the eastern edge of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. This particular part
of the Conservation Area is detached from the historic core of Holt and has a more
suburban character and architectural setting. In terms of the immediate context, the
surrounding buildings are relatively low key in terms of their design but do still adhere
to the precedent for pastiche development using red brick, render and pantiles. The
site also adjoins King Georges Field an important public green space and amenity
area.
The existing bungalow „Green Banks‟ is in a poor state of repair - in terms of
architecture and design significance it makes little contribution to the prevailing
character or appearance of the area. With this in mind, the Conservation & Design
team have no objection to its demolition.
With regard to the proposal, the new dwelling would be a striking contemporary
development and would be dominated by strong horizontal lines and bold blocks of
massing. The principal elevations would be dominated by flat-roof construction and
differing plains of articulation. The very method of construction means it will be a
fundamental move away from the vernacular architecture of the locality and would
immediately be read as a 21st Century addition.
Development Committee
64
17 April 2014
The dwelling would remain single-storey and in fact the majority of the building would
be lower than the existing bungalow ridge height which is important in reducing visual
impact from the street-scene and playing field. The footprint of the building is
significantly larger than the existing bungalow and therefore will be much closer to the
peripheries of the plot. The proposal can almost be considered modular in
construction with differing rooms equating to differing blocks in the external design and
elevational treatment of the building. These blocks whilst on an individual basis appear
cumbersome and utilitarian once pieced together break up the massing of the building
and provide depth and height variation. That said, the overall effect does still appear
somewhat „boxy‟ and institutional in character.
The large expanse of membrane roofing and interlocking tiles is a concern – the
scheme would benefit from a sedum roof or more natural covering. Furthermore, the
overriding horizontal emphasis of the building does appear rather over powering, it
would have been visually more appealing if there was a more vertical emphasis to the
openings. The long horizontal windows on front elevation and the windows on the
monopitch roof are particularly unappealing.
The changes in material and elevational treatments along with the depth at eaves
level and plinth level are a strength and will help to break-up the large elevations and
create some much needed shadow lines to the development. These features when
combined will stop the building appearing stark and featureless and will add visual
interest. That said, these aspects still do not address the buildings relationship to the
surrounding architecture or create local distinctiveness. The token flint panels whilst
being a welcome addition alone do not ground the building as being „North Norfolk‟.
The landscaping on the site and the boundary treatments need to be carefully
considered. It is important the landscaping helps to knit the building into the streetscene and also to mitigate visual impact from the public domain and the playing field.
The current close board fencing proposed and low boundary wall would need to be
considered further.
To summarise, the existing bungalow offers little design merit - whilst the new dwelling
fails to portray any local distinctiveness, the locality is relatively modest in terms of
architectural quality. The development will be low-lying and will not dominate the
surrounding context or impose itself on the setting of the Conservation Area. Subject
to further consideration being given to the landscaping and boundary treatments to the
site, Conservation & Design have no overriding objection to the application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) The submitted elevations now demonstrate variety in roof height which more
successfully breaks up the two-dimensional mass of the single-storey structure. The
floorplan indicates that the main living area will be to the north of the site where there
is less sunlight and the sleeping areas are positioned in the more favourable southern
end of the site. This is perhaps not the optimal layout.
The Arboricultural Report prepared by Treecare Consultants dated 6 Feb 2014
assesses that 6 trees will require removal to facilitate the development. The majority of
these are Category C1 and are small garden trees such as crab apple and plum with a
low retention category. However one is a Walnut, classed as B1 and is recommended
for removal due to its proximity to the new dwelling. It is most unfortunate that the
building footprint could not have been realigned to accommodate this mature tree
which is not a common species. The Report advocates a replacement tree as
Development Committee
65
17 April 2014
mitigation for this loss to be positioned in the north-west corner of the site and
reluctantly this is acceptable. However this has not been incorporated into the
submitted landscape scheme (Finch Garden Design) and should be included to the
recommended specification.
The landscape scheme submitted by Finch Garden Design proposes a detailed mix of
shrubs and perennials. Only 6 trees are proposed (including the replacement for the
Walnut). Given the amount of tree removal that has recently occurred on this site, an
increased number of trees would provide more proportionate mitigation.
The front eastern boundary is somewhat stark. 2 rowan trees are proposed which are
very late coming into leaf and the boundary enclosure is minimal. The photomontage
indicates that the parking will be very visible due to a low boundary edge, possibly in
timber sleepers. Consideration should be given to softening this boundary with more
planting and finding a more fitting boundary edge treatment which would help to bed
the scheme more successfully into its surroundings. Brick and flint walls and hedges
are typical front boundaries along Peacock Lane.
The south, west and north boundaries appear from the photomontage images to be
defined by close board fencing which is not acceptable in this location and, in my
opinion, is not a boundary that befits the contemporary design of the dwelling. The
existing elm and hawthorn hedge along the southern boundary should be retained as
the external site boundary and gapped up with appropriate mixed native species. If
some type of fencing is deemed essential, it should be positioned on the north side of
the existing boundary hedge.
The west boundary is already defined by a mature belt of leylandii which are within the
neighbouring property. The Arb Report advises that these trees have suffered from
lack of management and as a consequence do not form a solid visual barrier.
Removal of these trees is recommended and a more suitable shade tolerant species
planted such as Yew or Beech. While removal is obviously outside the remit of this
proposal, a new hedge could be planted within the Greenbanks boundary anticipating
the short life expectancy of this belt of vegetation.
The replacement of close board fencing with hedging as advised above would make a
significant additional contribution to biodiversity and habitat creation and would go
some way to compensating for the loss of so much vegetation to facilitate this
development.
Aurum Ecology, dated Feb 2014 concluded that the site is of very low ecological value
and has put forward a set of mitigation measures which are proportionate to the
biodiversity and habitat status of the site. These include timing of the works outside of
the bird breeding season, installation of bat and bird boxes and additional planting to
encourage biodiversity, particularly berry bearing bushes.
The amendments advised above including more appropriate boundary solutions, the
inclusion of the replacement tree as recommended in the Arboricultural Report and
amended landscape details incorporating the points raised are all issues that can be
addressed via condition.
Since there are no further issues of landscape concern, the application is
recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
(landscaping scheme, replacement of trees/shrubs within 5 years, compliance with the
recommendations in the Arboricultural Report, compliance with the protected species
Development Committee
66
17 April 2014
mitigation and enhancement measures) and an informative note regarding trees in a
Conservation Area.
Environmental Health - note required in respect of demolition of dwelling.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design, height and scale of development
3. Impact on the conservation area
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Holt Settlement Boundary and Residential Area, where
replacement dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they
comply with other relevant Core Strategy policies. The site is also located within the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area, where development proposals are expected to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.
The existing dwelling is of traditional form with a pitched roof, and is of brick and
concrete tile construction. The existing dwelling is not considered to be of any special
architectural interest or merit and it makes little contribution to either the area or the
Development Committee
67
17 April 2014
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, there is no objection to
its demolition and re-development.
The intention is to erect a single-storey dwelling with a footprint of circa 235sqm and a
maximum height of 5.2m. This equates to an increase in footprint of approximately
55% and a maximum height that would be approximately 0.4m lower than the ridgeline of the existing dwelling.
There is no objection to a contemporary design in this location, nor to a dwelling that is
larger in scale than the existing. In fact Policy EN4 positively encourages innovative
design which reinforces local distinctiveness.
The site is located within an already developed area of Holt where there is some
variety in terms of the sizes, scale, styles, form of buildings and materials used.
Directly to the north is a single-storey brick built dwelling, whilst to the north is a pair of
semi-detached two-storey brick dwellings and, behind some fence and tree screening,
is the small development of The Peacocks, where dwellings are two-storey, flint and
brick with pantile roofs. Adjacent to the south is the open space of King George's
Field. Whilst the majority of dwellings in the immediate area are of a traditional form,
there is a variety of materials used with flint, brick, render and even cladding being
used.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Conservation and Design) has acknowledged that the new dwelling would be a
striking contemporary development, dominated by strong horizontal lines and bold
blocks of massing and that the very method of construction means it would be a
fundamental move away from the vernacular architecture of the locality and would
immediately be read as a 21st Century addition. It is also considered, however, that
the changes in material and elevational treatments along with the depth at eaves level
and plinth level would help to break-up the large elevations and would create some
much needed shadow lines to the development. The scale and proportions of the
dwelling are, therefore, considered to be acceptable.
It is considered that the use of timber cladding in a natural finish which would weather
to a recessive colour would help the proposed dwelling to be in-keeping with its
surroundings. The use of timber cladding in a Conservation Area is considered to be
appropriate occasionally in accordance with the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the adopted Design Guide provides some guiding principles for
producing contemporary, locally distinctive buildings, explaining that successful
architecture is less to do with a particular style and more to do with the successful coordination of proportions, materials, colour and detail and that whilst successful
elevations should respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings, that this
does not imply slavishly copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating
interesting contrasts and textures between complimentary materials. Paragraph 2.3.3
also states that local distinctiveness of not about sameness and uniformity and that it
is perfectly possible for things to be compatible and yet very different. The brick and
render aspects reflect the more traditional architectural materials used in the area.
There does remain concern in respect of the membrane roofing, the interlocking tiles,
and the overall horizontal emphasis of the elevations, however, on balance, this is not
considered to be sufficient grounds to warrant a refusal.
Given the modest height of the dwelling and subject to an appropriate landscaping, it
is not considered that the proposed development would significantly harm the
Development Committee
68
17 April 2014
character or appearance of the Conservation Area and is not refusable on these
grounds.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, sufficient private garden
areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended purpose would be achieved
on the proposed plot and, in line with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations,
the area of the plot given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint
of the dwelling, although it is recognised that some of the garden area would be
shaded by trees.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
Summary
In conclusion the replacement of the existing dwelling along with the contemporary
design proposed and its relationship with neighbouring dwellings is considered to be
acceptable. Whilst the proposed dwelling would fail to portray local distinctiveness,
given the height of the dwelling and given that the immediate vicinity is relatively
modest in terms of architectural quality, it is considered that, on balance, and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions (including a landscaping plan) that the
proposed development would be acceptable and in accordance with the Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Details of the external colour finish to the render shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Details of the external colour finish to the joinery shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
Development Committee
69
17 April 2014
development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the cladding
shall be left to weather naturally.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed onsite car parking and turning area shall be laid out in accordance with the approved
plan and retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application and prior to the
commencement of the development hereby approved, further hard and soft
landscape proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and shall include the following details:
a) the location, species, number and size of new trees, hedges, shrubs and
perennials at the time of their planting with measures for their protection during
establishment;
b) accurate plotting of existing trees and hedgerows on the site including species;
c) details of all boundary treatments;
d) details of all proposed surfaces
The approved landscape scheme shall be implemented no later than the next
available planting season following the commencement of development or such
further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Any new tree or shrub which within a period of five years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced
during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the
Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written agreement is given to
any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
Development Committee
70
17 April 2014
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the
recommendations laid out in the Arboricultural Report, dated 6 Feb 2014 carried out
by Treecare Consultants Ltd. This shall include facilitative tree pruning and
removal, tree protection measures in accordance with Appendix 5, Tree Protection
Plan, and adherence to the timetable of work laid out in Section 5.
Reason:
To protect nearby trees, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the
protected species mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in Section 8 of
the Biodiversity and European Protected Species Survey carried out by Aurum
Ecology dated Feb 2014 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The mitigation and enhancement measures shall include
specific timing of works to avoid the bird nesting season, particular working
practices during the construction period and the provision of at least one external
bat box and two bird nesting boxes. The specific details of the bat and bird boxes,
including the dimensions, location and construction methodology, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
commencement of development. The boxes shall then be erected according to the
approved details and thereafter maintained in a suitable condition to serve the
intended purpose.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is appropriately
mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
11
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the dwelling
hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating in accordance with the
requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such
national measure of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme).
The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued
and submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that the Code Level has
been achieved.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0193 - Erection of single-storey side/rear, twostorey/first floor rear and single-storey front extensions and raising height of
roof; 6 Thursford Road for Mr & Mrs S Amos
- Target Date: 11 April 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Residential Area
Development Committee
71
17 April 2014
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/0475 HOU
Erection of single-storey side/rear extension, two-storey front extension and first floor
extension
Withdrawn 20/02/2013
PF/13/0207 HOU
Erection of first floor extension, including raising height of roof, one and a half storey
rear extension, single-storey front extension and single-storey side/rear extension
Approved 27/09/2013
THE APPLICATION
This proposal is seeking to provide a first floor extension, including raising the height
of the roof, a one and a half storey rear extension, a single-storey front extension and
a single-storey side/rear extension. This latest proposal follows the withdrawal of an
earlier proposal under PF/12/0475 and the approval of PF/13/0207 for an alternative
scheme.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Green having regard to the following planning matter:
Overdevelopment.
PARISH COUNCIL - objects to the application for the following reasons:
 Local Context: overdevelopment of the site
 This proposal changes a 3-bedroom bungalow (with one reception room) into
a 4-bedroom house with 6 reception rooms (and also reduces the size of the
parking area at the front and of the garden at the rear)
 The proposed changes would have a detrimental impact on the character of
the estate which is predominantly small bungalows with moderate-sized
gardens.
 Other extensions on this estate, which have been acceptable, have been for a
single ground floor room only.
 Invasion of privacy. The impact of extending the property and raising the roof will
have an adverse effect on the neighbouring properties, particularly those at the
rear. These properties will now be over-looked and their privacy compromised.
 Permission has already been granted for development on a more appropriate
scale PF/13/0207 amended (although the Parish Council maintains that even that
proposal was too large for the site).
REPRESENTATIONS
One objection received raising the below objections (summarised):
 Objects to any further development;
 Previous objections were ignored;
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 Committee
72
17 April 2014
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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
aims of Policy SS1 of the adopted Core Strategy, where the principle of extending an
existing dwelling is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies
which in this case includes policy EN4.
Design
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
aims of Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The proposal seeks to raise the roof of the bungalow to provide first floor
accommodation and would incorporate dormer windows and rooflights. The height of
the eaves is to remain as existing, with the ridge height increased by approximately
1.15m to approximately 6.35m (this is an additional height of approximately 0.1m from
as approved under the previous application reference PF/13/0207). The adjacent
dwelling to the north has a ridge height of approx 6.5m and it is therefore considered
that the proposal is in keeping with the form and character of the area, there already
being a mix of single storey and one and a half storey dwellings.
A single storey front facing gable extension to replace the existing porch and would
project approx. 2.6m from the front elevation (approximately 0.3m further than as
approved under the previous application).
To the side and rear it is proposed to erect a single storey extension which
incorporates the existing flat roof garage which runs along the southern boundary.
This extension would, at the side, have a gable facing the neighbour approximately
4.5m in height (approximately 0.7m higher than as approved under the previous
application), followed by pitched roof with the gable rear facing so that the majority of
the roof line along this boundary would be sloping away from the neighbour to the
south with the eaves at a height of approx. 2.35m and a ridge height of approximately
3.9m (approx. 0.35m higher than the previous application). The existing flat roof
garage height is approximately 2.65m. Whilst it would result in a relatively long and
narrow rear extension it is not considered to be harmful to the character and
appearance of the original dwelling.
A further gabled extension is proposed at the rear which would be approx. 6.6m in
width with the proposed ridge sitting as high as the ridge height of the main dwelling.
Development Committee
73
17 April 2014
This extension would extend approx 4.15 (approximately 0.75m further than as
approved under the previous application).
The scale, form, design and materials of the proposed development is considered to
be acceptable and in keeping with the character of the area.
Impact upon neighbouring amenities
In respect of the residential amenities of adjacent dwellings, window-to-window
distances between the proposed extensions and neighbouring dwellings are
considered to be acceptable and compliant with the recommended Basic Amenity
Criteria distances.
Windows and rooflights to the south-east rear would serve a family room at ground
floor level and two bedrooms at first floor level. Taking into account the additional
floor, the greatest distance recommended between primary-to-primary windows is
21m. Even adding an additional 3m for the additional floor, the Basic Amenity Criteria
recommendations are exceeded. Further, it is recognised that windows on number 5
already face towards dwellings on Manor Close.
To the South-west, windows at first floor would be restricted to a bedroom window and
would not directly face any neighbouring windows.
Dormer windows and a rooflight to the north-west front elevation would primarily
overlook the front garden area of the application site.
No new windows have been proposed to the north-east side elevation.
Summary
In summary, it is considered that the amended design is acceptable and would not
have a significantly detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings in
respect of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. It is therefore considered
that the proposed development would accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Materials to be used on the permitted extensions shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
74
17 April 2014
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
4
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows or rooflights
shall be inserted in the north-east, south-east or south-west elevations or
roofslopes of the extensions hereby permitted unless planning permission has been
first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
10.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1335 - Continued use of land for hand car wash and
valeting services and retention of canopy and two containers; Land at 29 New
Road for Mr M Meizeraitis
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 January 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19771596 PF - Erection of double arcon to form stores
Approved 18/11/1977
PLA/19790407 PF - Installation of underground petrol storage tank
Approved 27/04/1979
PLA/19840715 PF - Underground petrol storage tank
Approved 22/06/1984
PLA/19860947 PF - Erection of exterior spraybooth, spraying or motor vehicles
Approved 25/07/1986
PLA/19891294 PF - Extensions & alteration to garage premises, including new
canopy
Approved 03/11/1989
PLA/19910559 PF - Change of use of part building from commercial garage to fish &
chip take away
Approved 04/07/1991
THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application for the continued use of land for a hand car wash
and valeting service including the retention of a canopy under which the vacuuming
and polishing of vehicles is undertaken and the siting of two containers. One of which
is used as a waiting area for customers and the other which houses equipment and
has containers of car wash liquids atop. This land formed part of the curtilage of a
garage/petrol station but in recent years the site has been sub-divided and this
proposal is a stand-alone business unconnected with the main building/use on the
Development Committee
75
17 April 2014
site.
The proposal is situated at the rear of the site adjacent the boundaries of two
residential properties and in close proximity to others. The proposal although
commonly described as 'hand car wash' utilises pressure washing equipment and
vacuum cleaners. Hours of operation proposed are 8am-6pm Monday to Friday, 9am5pm Saturdays and 10am - 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning given the potential impact of refusal on the
business and employment
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects - Recommends the application be called into Committee and recommends
refusal on the grounds of amenity and lack of information. Also asks that follow up
action by appropriate enforcement authorities is taken as soon as possible and
requests details of such action to be taken and timescales
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection received on the following grounds (summarised):
 Business is unpleasantly close to the fences of our homes
 neighbours have no protection from excessive noise
 noise from business can be heard inside my house through closed double glazing
and down the chimney
 noise can be heard in both my front and back garden as well as inside my house
 drainage system is inadequate for the disposal of car waste, detergent, dust and
wax etc.
 odour pollution from wax
 have not been able to sit in our gardens for two whole summers
 should be relocated to the surrounding industrial areas where it will not bother
residents and can still serve the towns requirements
 continuous noise nuisance from pressure washers, vacuum cleaners and loud
music
 jet washes are used throughout the day and late into the evening including
weekends
 noise causes lack of sleep during periods of shift work
 dumping of waste over fence into my garden
 business has been operating for 18 months without planning permission
 business seriously impairs the standard of living of many of my elderly neighbours
who are not in a state of health to object and defend themselves
 problems with the application:
 moving car wash area will bring it closer to my property (No. 54 Hall Lane)
 no plans to properly store or collect waste or for disposal of trade waste
 does not state how foul sewage is to be removed, which will be necessary
when they have staff working 7 days a week
 does not consider how the waste water could increase flooding elsewhere
 does not state how surface water will be disposed of
 states there are no trees or hedges on neighbouring properties when there
clearly are many
 states only 2 part-time employees but operate 67 hrs a week. There is more
than 1 person working there at any one time
 states hazardous materials are not applicable but presumably are using car
shampoo, wax, polish, wheel cleaner, window clear, air freshener and interior
Development Committee
76
17 April 2014











cleaner
long term noise nuisance has caused me to suffer panic when I hear it start up
site is unsuitable as it is near to residential properties
previous planning applications at the site have considered the proximity to
residential properties and noise impact
proposal contravenes our basic right to enjoy our home and garden in peace
approval would contravene NNDC's health Strategy 2011-2015
previous use of the area was second hand car sales with no noise issues
business also offer 'engine cleaning' as shown on their flyer
the 'canopy' where main vacuuming takes place is approx. 30ft from our dining
room and kitchen and can be seen from every aspect of our garden
light pollution
no toilet facilities
we can no longer invite friends to our home because of the impact of this business
CONSULTATIONS
Highways: No objection. Initial response - The present layout of the site with other
commercial uses results in ad-hoc parking arrangements which potentially could lead
to vehicles parking or manoeuvring on the busy C502 to the detriment of highway
safety. Would ask that if the application was approved a dedicated parking layout for
the overall site should be produced providing dedicated space for the
car/wash/valeting use sufficient to overcome highway concerns.
Response to amended proposal - It is noted that the additional information received
does not clearly show how dedicated on-site parking is to be provided for the
proposal. It is unfortunate that the applicant is unable to provide a satisfactory
dedicated on-site parking layout, however, this is not unusual for this type of business
which appears to share the available parking areas with the adjacent business. It
appears from the Highway records that there have been no recorded highway
incidents that could be related to this business which I also understand has operated
from the site for some time. Accordingly, I have no sustainable grounds for objection.
Environment Agency: Original response - Request a drainage scheme including a
plan of the drainage system for consideration.
Response to amended proposal - The application has not supplied sufficient or
adequate information to demonstrate that the risks of pollution posed to the water
environment can be safely managed. Car wash liquid is classed as trade effluent.
Before discharging to a sewer the applicant must secure a trade effluent consent or
enter into a trade effluent agreement with their water and sewerage company or
authority. If they are not able to discharge effluent to the foul sewer it will be classed
as waste and they must then comply with their duty of care responsibilities.
The development does not require an environmental permit. However the
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 make it an offence to cause or knowingly
permit any discharge that will result in the pollution of the water environment.
Following receipt of this consultation and a complaint from a member of the public a
member of the Environment Management Team has visited the premises. Advice and
guidance has been given to the landlord, tenant and sub-tenant and they are cooperating with us to resolve the issues of concern. They have been advised to contact
Anglian Water. If foul sewer is not available they have been advised to install a sealed
sump to collect the water from the site. At this time no enforcement is envisaged.
No objection subject to imposition of a condition requiring the submission and
approval of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water. The scheme should
Development Committee
77
17 April 2014
address; disposal of foul drainage and surface water, installation of oil and petrol
separators, installation of trapped gullies, roof drainage (sealed at ground level) and
disposal of trade effluent. Should the condition not be imposed we would wish to
object
Environmental Health: Objects - Original response - Noise complaints have been
received regarding the use of the site as a car wash. Relocation of the car wash to the
forecourt of Rapid Image at the weekends has been proposed as a way of reducing
the noise impact to the residential properties which boundary the site. Applicants have
discussed erecting acoustic fence panels to the side of Rapid Image to shield
residents from noise, this is not marked on the site. The applicant needs to supply
further information on the drainage of the site, and where water shall be drained to
and any grease traps or sumps that are in place. I recommend a surface water
condition is attached to address this.
Response to amended proposal: Objects - recommends refusal. I still have concerns
regarding the effect of this proposal on residential amenity.
The positioning of the canopy is too close to the boundary of the neighbouring
properties creating unacceptable noise and disturbance, and the whole process of
vehicle engines, jet washing, vacuuming cars along with radios and voices all
contribute to noise levels that affect the amenity of the surrounding residential
properties. This activity during the working week of the other businesses on this site is
tolerable, though the weekend and evening working associated with the car wash
gives rise to noise levels that cause disturbance to the neighbours, and has led to
significant complaints to Environmental Health.
The proposal to move the process to Rapid Image forecourt at weekends shall move
the process away from the fence line, though with the current weekend activity on the
site, with the details that have been submitted I am not satisfied that this business will
not create a noise nuisance to the neighbouring properties.
If the committee are minded to approve then I would like to see the hours of the
proposal limited to Monday to Friday 8am until 6pm and Saturday 9am until 1pm and
no Sunday and Bank Holiday working.
Also, a condition should be attached to require a scheme of noise control to be
submitted to prevent noise disturbance to the neighbouring properties.
Anglian Water: Awaiting response.
Business Development Officer: We are not presently aware of an alternative
location for a car wash that is likely to be suitable within North Walsham. A forecourt
with drainage would probably be the most desirable type of premise. Whilst these
sorts of operations are often popular, particularly at weekends, this is in part a
reflection of the low cost of the service. Nevertheless, there are alternative car wash
and valeting services within the area and former customers would likely find
alternative means relatively quickly.
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
Development Committee
78
17 April 2014
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
2. Drainage
APPRAISAL
The application seeks the continued use of land for hand car wash and valeting
services and the retention of canopy and two containers. The site lies within a
designated residential area where policy SS3 permits compatible non-residential
development which can include small-scale business. The site is located to the north
western corner of a larger site which accommodates a number of small businesses,
the majority of which are vehicle repair related. Unlike the proposal the other
businesses are largely contained within buildings on the site.
The Town Council have raised objection to the proposal as has the Council's
Environmental Health Officer on the grounds of detrimental impact on the amenities of
neighbouring residential properties and inadequate drainage information. Seven
letters of objection from local residents have also been received mostly raising
concerns relating to noise pollution.
The Highway Authority whilst having some concerns about the lack of information
provided in relation to site layout/parking have no objection to the proposal.
The Environment Agency have stated that they would not object provided that a
condition be imposed on any approval in respect of drainage details being submitted
and approved. Without this they would object on the grounds that they could not be
satisfied that the proposal would not detrimentally affect water quality. The applicant
had previously been requested to submit, as part of the application, details of the
drainage systems at the site. The information submitted in response to the request is
inadequate for Officer's to be satisfied that policy EN13 has been complied with in
respect of health and safety of the public, surface and ground water quality and the
need for compliance with statutory environmental quality standards. Therefore in this
instance it is not considered that the imposition of a condition in respect of drainage
details would result in the submission of details that would satisfactorily address the
concerns of the Environment Agency and the Council's Environmental Health Officer.
Further it is considered that the proposal has not demonstrated adequate measures to
minimise noise pollution to the neighbouring residential properties. Whilst
Development Committee
79
17 April 2014
consideration has been given to limiting the hours of business and requiring a scheme
of noise control to be submitted, it is considered that the reduction in hours would be
unlikely to be acceptable to the applicant, given the nature of the proposal and the
hours proposed, and there are no guarantees that a noise study would result in a
workable solution to the noise nuisance.
Given the above it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal is compatible with the residential area within which it is situated. The
proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies SS3, EN13 and EN4 and
refusal is recommended.
If Members are minded to refuse the application, authority for enforcement action (if
necessary) will also be sought.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
(1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that the use of the site would not result in significant detrimental noise
pollution to the occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity of the site.
In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is suitable drainage
systems at the site to ensure that the use of the site would not have an unacceptable
impact on the health and safety of the public, surface and groundwater quality and the
need for compliance with statutory environmental quality standards.
.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to serve an enforcement notice requiring
the unauthorised use to cease and the structures to be removed from the site within 3
months of the effective date of the notice.
11.
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1464 - Demolition of hall building and erection of two
semi-detached two-storey dwellings; British Red Cross Society, Swan Entry for
Mrs S Davey
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 February 2014 Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892640 PF - Demolish existing building and replace with new building and
ancillary works
Approved 19/03/1990
PLA/19900282 LD - Demolition of existing building
Approved 28/03/1990
PLA/20071378 LE - Demolition of hall
Approved 12/10/2007
PLA/20071377 PF - Erection of two two-storey dwellings
Withdrawn 09/10/2007
PLA/20080419 PF - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling
Development Committee
80
17 April 2014
Approved 12/05/2008
PF/11/0567 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling (extension of period for
commencement of permission reference 08/0419)
Approved 09/07/2011
PF/13/1053 PF - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
Withdrawn 28/10/2013
LE/13/1054 LE - Demolition of hall building
Withdrawn by Applicant 28/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of hall building and the erection of two semi-detached two storey
dwellings. The proposal follows withdrawal of earlier applications in 2013 because of
design issues. The current proposal has been further amended to address concerns
relating to design and impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Tom FitzPatrick having regard to the following planning
issues:
 Neighbour impact
 Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Walsingham Parish Council objects to the amended proposal and requests that the
Development Committee visits the site as well as considers the points raised by Seb
Moore who has written separately.
This application has not changed significantly from the previous application
PF/13/1053 and LE/13/1053 and the matters of concern remain the same.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objection have been received, with one being signed by 4 different owners
of neighbouring properties.
The key points of the objections are listed as below:
 2 dwellings is inappropriate for Swan Entry
 Proposal is too large for site and would look at odds with the surrounding
properties and character of Swan Entry
 Proposed development is too high in height and too large in scale
 Change the character of Swan Entry and is a detriment to the visual quality of the
lane in the historic core of the village
 Proposed development does not meet Council's recommended minimum window
to window distances
 Overlooking onto garden of no.7 from first floor windows
 Proposed cottages would be higher than most of the surrounding dwellings
 Increase in traffic from two cottages
 Proposed development would exceed minimum indicative density for Service
Villages and Coastal Service Villages
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway): object (amended plans) - Previously highlighted that I
have severe reservations around any development which would intensify the use of
severely restricted Swan Entry, which is a narrow dead end road, without any
pedestrian provision and suffers with severely restricted access visibility onto narrow
Coker's Hill due to high roadside walls at its junction.
Development Committee
81
17 April 2014
I am mindful that the site was subject to previous application 07/1377/F where the
Highway Authority Commented; "Notwithstanding the inadequacies of Swan Entry and
its junction with Cokers Hill it must be acknowledged that this site has engendered a
degree of vehicular movement in the past. Accordingly, I have no objection to this
proposed residential re-use of the site"
However, the amended design removes the second parking place from the layout,
resulting in only one parking place being available for each dwelling, which would be
considered to be a shortfall and likely lead to additional parking in this narrow road,
possibly within the overrun areas, which were mitigation for the development.
As such, I would not be in a position to support the current proposal and I would
request that this response is considered to be a holding objection until such time that
two parking places are available for each unit together with the required frontage
overrun area for use by other road users.
Conservation and Design: No objection - The existing pre-fab building makes little
contribution to the prevailing character of the area, therefore no objection to its
demolition and redevelopment. The amended plans represent a significant
enhancement on the original scheme submitted.
The exclusion of the dormer windows along with the reduction in footprint, ridge height
and change in gable proportions have reduced impact on the neighbouring dwellings
and the wider Conservation Area. In terms of detailing, the additional flint work,
quoin's, parapet coping and chimney detailing all help to knit the building into its
context and provide much needed local distinctiveness.
The lean-to extensions on either end of the building add some variation to the building
form and create some sense of the buildings architectural development.
Subject to the inclusion of requested conditions in respect of materials and joinery
details C&D raise no objection to the application.
Environmental Health: Comment - Contaminated Land: I have examined our
records and I am unable to identify any specific activities that would suggest the
presence of historic contamination.
However given the location and age of the site and the likely presence of made
ground from mixed historic activity, I would recommend caution, especially given the
proposed sensitive end use. In view of this I would recommend attaching E31 to the
application.
In addition I would also add that due to the proximity of the site to a former Leper
hospital (which has an undefined boundary) there is a potential for pathogens to be
present in the soil which may consequently be disturbed by development. I would
recommend that any subsequent site investigation should take this into consideration
when undertaking works.
Waste Storage and Collection & Foul Drainage - details provided satisfactory
Demolition - Standard note requested
Historic Environment Service: No objection subject to programme of archaeological
work being carried out prior to the commencement of development.
Development Committee
82
17 April 2014
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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 HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Neighbour Impact
2. Parking Provision
APPRAISAL
The site lies to the north of Swan Entry, between residential properties which have a
mix of traditional styles. Currently the site accommodates a single storey prefabricated building used for British Red Cross. The site is within a designated
residential area and within the Walsingham Conservation Area. The site has the
benefit of an extant consent for one one and a half storey dwelling. It is therefore
considered that the principle of residential redevelopment of the site is established.
The amended proposal follows withdrawal of an earlier application for a pair of two
storey dwellings which were considered to have too great a scale and massing for the
site. The applicant then further amended the current application following officer's
concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring dwellings.
The amended proposal seeks the erection of a pair of cottages which Officer's
consider represents a significant enhancement on the original scheme.
Redevelopment of the site requires the demolition of the existing hall. There are no
objections to the demolition.
Development Committee
83
17 April 2014
It is considered that the proposal is a significant improvement on the extant permission
in design terms and would make more efficient use of the land and more closely
reflect the close knit form and character of the area.
With respect to neighbouring residential properties the proposal would not deliver the
minimum recommended separation distances between windows in respect of No's 8
and 7. There would be a blank staggered gable facing the gable end of No. 8. No. 8
has one window at first floor and at ground floor has a fence (approx 1.3m high) within
approx. 1.2m of that elevation. It is therefore considered that the relationship with No.8
would not result in significant detriment to the amenities of the occupiers. In respect of
the proposed relationship with No.7 the accommodation proposed would result in
secondary rooms facing the public facing elevation of that dwelling which sits hard up
against the edge of the highway (the smaller windows proposed at first floor are to
bathrooms and would be obscure glazed). A shortfall in the recommended distances
would range between 0.7m to 10m. However these are recommended distances that
apply particularly in respect of modern developments. In this instance it is considered
that strict adherence to the recommended distances would be harmful to the design
quality and the form and character of the area. It is acknowledged that the shortfall in
separation distances would have a level of negative impact on the privacy of No.7 but
this is not considered of such significance as to justify a recommendation of refusal.
The Highway Authority have raised objection to the amended plans as only one
parking space would be available per unit. Car parking standards normally require
two spaces per unit. In addition the Highway Authority were keen to preserve an open
frontage to the site to allow for informal passing area on this narrow lane. Despite the
shortfall it is considered that due the sites location within the Conservation Area, it is
acceptable in this instance to accept the shortfall in spaces in order to achieve a high
quality locally distinctive design that reflects the form and character of the area. The
open frontage has been retained and would be available as an informal passing
space.
Proposals for two or more dwellings in a service village would normally require 50% to
be affordable, however the applicant has advised that they wish the proposal to be
considered under the Council's Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme in respect of
affordable housing requirements and would accept a short time limit for
commencement of development as set out in the scheme. This is considered
acceptable.
Given the above, on balance the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of
the development plan and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific conditions
listed below:
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 30/01 and 30/02) received by the Local Planning Authority on 11 February
2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan in accordance
with the highway specification Drawing Number TRAD 4. Arrangement shall be
Development Committee
84
17 April 2014
made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so
that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a 2.4m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site‟s roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained at all times free
from any obstruction exceeding 0.225m above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access, on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled,
surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter
available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation and assessment into
the presence of possible contaminants affecting the site shall be carried out in
accordance with details which shall have first been approved in consultation with
the Local Planning Authority. The findings of the assessment shall then be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing. Unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place on those
areas of the site which have been identified as potentially containing contaminants
until a scheme to protect the exposure of future users of the site from hazards
associated with the contaminants has firstly been approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, and secondly implemented in full.
Reason:
In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy EN 13 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.71-3.3.72
of the explanatory text.
Prior to the commencement of development brick and tile samples shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
85
17 April 2014
Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved detailed horizontal
and vertical sections through the joinery at a scale of no less than 1:20 shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The joinery shall
then be constructed and installed and thereafter retained in full accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The flints to be used on the development hereby approved shall have a diameter of
less than 125mm when measured in any direction.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
A) No development shall take place within the site until a Written Scheme of
Investigation for a programme of archaeological works has been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall include:
1. An assessment of the significance and research questions.
2. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.
3. The programme for post investigation assessment.
4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.
5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation.
6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the
site investigation.
7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written
Scheme of Investigation approved under part (A) of this condition.
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post
investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme
set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under part (A) of this
condition and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination
of results and archive deposition has been secured.
In this case the programme of mitigatory work will comprise an archaeological
excavation in accordance with a brief that can be obtained from Norfolk County
Council Historic Environment Service.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
86
17 April 2014
12.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HOLT – PO/14/0283 – Residential development for a maximum of 126 dwellings;
Land south of Cromer Road and east of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates
Strategic Land Ltd and Gresham’s School
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning as this is a significant major development which
represents a departure from current policy.
HOLT – PO/14/0284 – Residential development for a maximum of 19 dwellings;
land south of Cromer Road and west of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates
Strategic Land Ltd and Gresham’s School
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning as this is a significant major development which
represents a departure from current policy.
HOLT – PO/14/0274 – Residential development for a maximum of eight
dwellings; land north of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd
and Gresham’s School
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning as this is a significant major development which
represents a departure from current policy.
SHERINGHAM – PF/14/0143 – erection of two two-storey dwellings, plots 4 & 5,
20 Abbey Road for Mr A Clark
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in
context, due to the variation of levels through the site and the relationship with
neighbouring residential properties, in order to expedite the processing of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Committee
87
17 April 2014
13.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
January to March 2014, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 5) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the fourth quarter of 2013/14.
Seven major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 120 minor
applications and 165 other applications, a total of 292 applications, a decrease of 20
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January 2013 Development
Committee meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine planning
applications more quickly in the light of the possibility of „special measures‟ sanctions
being introduced by the Government under its open „Planning Performance and
Planning Guarantee‟ proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of
2012.
The most recent quarter saw 6 of the 7 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, ie 85.71%. The cumulative figure for 2013/14 is 76.92%
comfortably above the 30% figures originally mooted for special measures in the
consultation paper.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance increased by 1.7% to 55.83% over the
previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 72%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 3.48% to
75.76%, again below the Council‟s target of 80%.
Although performance continued to remain below the Council‟s targets over the
quarter, members will appreciate that performance has improved significantly over
the last 2 quarters.
Pre-application enquiries increased during the quarter, as did Discharge of Condition
applications, „Do I Need Planning Permission” and Duty Officer Enquiries.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went down to 92.8%; however
it remains above the Council‟s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 8
decisions were made, 4 dismissed and 4 allowed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 518 were submitted and handled during
the quarter, a reduction of 93 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the fourth quarter of the year has again seen an improvement in
performance, as the Service continues to see the benefits of the investment the
Council has made with the additional temporary planning officer posts. As the
experience of these temporary staff continues to grow the service will continue to be
Development Committee
88
17 April 2014
better placed to move closer to achieving the Council‟s performance targets across
all of the application types.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - LA/14/0032 - Erection of single-storey extension and internal
alterations; Thurgarton Hall, Thurgarton Hall Road, Thurgarton for Mrs F Neill
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/0072 - Erection of replacement single-storey side/rear
extension; Summertime, The Street for Mr & Mrs E Hutchinson
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0059 - Erection of replacement garage/carports;
Bramble Cottage, Sheringwood for Mr J Leake
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0386 - Use of land for holding of car boot sales; Land
off Britons Lane, Cromer Road, Beeston Regis for Mrs S Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/0033 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 39 Warham Road
for Mr J Pastor
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0172 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
replace cladding to first floor timber infill link with weatherboarding; Boat
House, 1 Westgate Street for Mr J Flanagan
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0117 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (revised design
incorporating rear dormer window and conservatory); Plot 2, Arterial
Engineering, Morston Road for Swan Homes Nottingham Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0147 - Erection of rear conservatory; Old Garden Cottage, 8
The Quay for Mr R Goodison
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0145 - Erection of rear conservatories; Arterial Engineering,
Morston Road for Swan Homes
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0256 - Internal alterations to ground floor; Bank Cottage, 4749 High Street for Mr & Ms East & Songhurst
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/14/0129 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side/rear
extensions incorporating residential annexe and erection of front porch; Silver
Cottage, 120 Hall Street for Mrs M Ayres
(Householder application)
Development Committee
89
17 April 2014
BRISTON - NMA1/13/1425 - Non material amendment request to permit insertion
of French doors and windows on the south east elevation and changes to the
fenestration on the north east elevation; Beck Farm, Hell Pit Lane for Mrs P
Chamberlain
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRISTON - PF/14/0244 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension;
Cobwebs, 4 Oaklands for Mr A Hill
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - DP/14/0233 - Prior notification of intention to demolish derelict
agricultural unit; Wyndhurst, Elderbush Lane for Mr T Harris
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0188 - Installation of cladding and front porch and
erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Kimberley, The Fairstead for Dr M
Abrahams
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/14/0126 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference:
13/1109 to permit revised siting of stables; Land at The Old Rectory, Colby
Road, Banningham for Mrs S Woolliams
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/14/0213 - Installation of air source heat pump; Holmlea, Colby
Road, Banningham for Mrs S Howarth
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0081 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; North Lodge,
Hall Road for Mr Allbrook
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/13/1515 - Formation of opening in wall and installation of gate;
Wall Seaward Side of North Lodge, 21 Overstrand Road for Cromer Town
Council
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/0093 - Change of use of second floor from D1 (beauty salon) to
residential flat and construction of rear deck with staircase; 31 Church Street
for Mr S Morris
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/14/0094 - Internal alterations and replacement windows and door
on rear elevation to second floor to facilitate conversion to residential flat and
construction of external deck/staircase; 31 Church Street for Mr S Morris
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/0132 - Formation of opening in wall and installation of gate;
Wall Seaward side of North Lodge, 21 Overstrand Road for Cromer Town
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0161 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension and
construction of replacement roof; 14 Whitehouse Estate, Jubilee Lane for Mr D
Cartwright
(Householder application)
Development Committee
90
17 April 2014
CROMER - AN/14/0142 - Display of non-illuminated notice boards; St Martins
Church, Mill Road, Cromer for Cromer Parish Church with St Martins
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
DUNTON - PF/13/1414 - Erection of grain store; Land at Fakenham Road, Dunton
for Abington Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - LA/14/0186 - Remedial works to corner of barn; Duck Pond
Cottage, Holt Road for Mr R Window
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0202 - Installation of two front dormer windows; Street
Farm, Ramsgate Street for Mrs J Pointen
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/0261 - Erection of single-storey front and side/rear
extensions and construction of replacement roof; By The Way, Eagle Road,
Ingworth for Ms S Adams and Mr N Payne
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0052 - Erection of detached garage; 4 Seppings Road for Mr
B Towers
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0104 - Erection of replacement porch/canopy; 2 Gwyn
Crescent for Mr & Mrs D Miles
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0114 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 13/1431 to permit revised access dimensions; 8 Greenway Lane for
Mr S Lake
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0414 - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to provide
two residential dwellings; Barons Hall Farm, Barons Hall Lane for Mr A
Herculson
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1511 - Conversion and extension of stable/garage building
to residential annexe; 9 Nelson Road for Mr & Mrs Harrison
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0183 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 14 Fisher
Road for Mr & Mrs A Cornwall
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0017 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 101
Rudham Stile Lane for Mr A Daly
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0240 - Erection of storage building; Fakenham Cricket Club,
Field Lane for Fakenham Cricket Club
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
91
17 April 2014
FELBRIGG - LA/14/0060 - Installation of replacement restaurant entrance doors;
Felbrigg Hall, Felbrigg Park for National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0134 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 05/1544 to permit full residential occupation; The Old Stables,
Hyltons Crossways, Suffield Road for Dr P Barber
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0139 - Erection of single-storey front, side and rear
extensions; 1 Forge Cottages, Church Street for Mr C Gentle
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0230 - Variation of Condition 10 of planning permission
reference: 05/1634 to permit permanent residential occupancy; The Stables, 7
Hall Farm Barns, Hall Road for Mr M Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/13/1532 - Change of use of land to residential garden and
erection of outbuilding with housing for biomass boiler; Lancaster Barn,
Dilldash Lane for Mrs J Notman and S Roberts
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - PF/14/0016 - Retention of 2.5m high support fence; Oakfield,
Sharrington Road, Bale for Mr S Stetter-Brooks
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/13/1493 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide
detached annexe; Touchwood, White Post Road for Ms M Darter
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/14/0125 - Installation of replacement cladding to rear dormer
windows; 6 The Common, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11 7HP for Dr J Morris
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0084 - Siting of portable building for use as a coastal
surveillance station; Land at Beach Road, Cart Gap, Happisburgh for
Happisburgh Coast Watch
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/0148 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden;
Land adjacent Lodge Bungalow, The Street for Mr A Collier
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - NP/14/0309 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Red House Farm, Kelling Road for Mousehold Estates
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HICKLING - PF/14/0151 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 13/0686 to permit installation of roof light, replacement chimney and
revised position and design of dormer windows; Oak Fen, Stubb Road for Mr J
Perry
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
92
17 April 2014
HICKLING - PF/14/0013 - Conversion and extension of barns to provide
residential dwelling.; Heath Farm, Sutton Road for Mr & Mrs K Elliott
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1478 - Installation of front and rear dormer windows and
erection of replacement side porch and double garage; 22 Pineheath Road, High
Kelling, Holt, NR25 6QF for Mr T Lish
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/0119 - Erection of replacement cart shed/log store;
Woodland Cottage, 174 Nethergate, Guestwick, Dereham, NR20 5QP for Mr L
Hogg
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0098 - Conversion of barn and store with link extension
to provide residential dwelling; 9 The Street, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21
0AA for Mr J Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0112 - Conversion of cart-shed garage to ancillary
residential accommodation; Dames Cottage, Bale Road, Hindringham,
Fakenham, NR21 0QE for Mrs R Waters
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0152 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension,
detached garage and formation of vehicular access; Sheepwash Cottage, Wells
Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PH for Mr & Mrs Dickens
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0149 - Extension and conversion of barn to residential
annexe or one unit of holiday accommodation; Primrose Farmhouse, The Street,
Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PR for Mr R Girling
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0192 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; The
Old Vicarage, Blacksmiths Lane, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0QA for Mr J
Jamieson
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/14/0124 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 8 Oaklands
Crescent, Holt, NR25 6UD for Ms L Nadel
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/14/0040 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension; Church
Farm, Upper Street, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8NL for Mr & Mrs Thurlow
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/14/0194 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 4 Church
Cottages, Upper Street, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8NN for Mr R Kittle
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/14/0115 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions and
car-port to front of garage; Cobblestone Cott, Calthorpe Street, Ingham,
Norwich, NR12 9TF for Mr M Conrathe
(Householder application)
Development Committee
93
17 April 2014
INGHAM - PF/13/1149 - Erection of vehicle storage building; North End Farm,
Long Lane, Ingham Corner, Ingham for Dr M Newstead
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/14/0118 - Extension and conversion of garage to provide
residential annexe; Kettlestone House, Holt Road for Mrs F Henderson
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/13/0432 - Conversion of barns to two residential dwellings & two
units of holiday accommodation; East Farm Barns, Holt Road for Mr E Ewing
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - NMA1/10/0351 - Non material amendment request to
change external finish to facing brick, insertion of floating mullion sage green
Georgian bar UPV windows and enclosure of porch; Richmond Cottage, The
Green, Little Barningham, Norwich, NR11 7LW for Mr K Feistner
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0085 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 02/0840 to permit permanent residential occupation; Jex Farm Barn,
Thursford Road, Little Snoring, FAKENHAM, NR21 0JJ for Mr S Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - PF/14/0100 - Erection of two storey side extension; Gardeners
Cottage, Watery Lane, Matlaske, Norwich, NR11 7JD for Mr G Hodgkinson
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0175 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 03/1325 to permit full residential occupation; Lavender
Cottage, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Oakmoor Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0079 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 88 Cromer
Road, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DD for Mr & Mrs P Davis
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0164 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6 Meadow
Drive, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8LL for Mr R Fisher
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - NMA1/13/0943 - Non-material amendment request for change of
colour for bi-fold doors and omission of side window; Glen View, 77 The Street,
Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8AD for Mr A Little
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NEATISHEAD - PF/14/0137 - Demolition of garage and erection of two storey
side extension and front porch; Homestead, Cangate Road, Cangate,
Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8YH for Mr & Ms Handley & Seaton
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1440 - Alterations to rear extension to provide
pitched roof with side facing dormer windows, erection of covered way,
insertion of side windows and detached garage; 108 Mundesley Road, North
Walsham, NR28 0DD for Mr J Dyke and Miss J Inch
(Householder application)
Development Committee
94
17 April 2014
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1461 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference:10/1162 to permit retention of gable wall as constructed;
The Rookery, Aylsham Road, North Walsham, NR28 0BH for Mr P Horth
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0282 - Erection of single-storey extension to
detached outbuilding; 2 Station Road, North Walsham, NR28 0EA for Mr & Mrs
Knee
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0088 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 17
Station Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DZ for Mr P Davidson
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - NMA2/12/0816 - Non material amendment request to permit
variations to solar farm layout and design of inverter cabins; Power Soloutions,
Crossdale Street, Northrepps for Hazel Capital LLP
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/13/0972 - Non material amendment request to permit
variation to number, type and location of CCTV; Power Soloutions, Crossdale
Street, Northrepps for Hazel Capital LLP
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
PASTON - PF/14/0218 - Formation of vehicular access; Well Cottage, The Green,
Paston, North Walsham, NR28 9SZ for Mrs E Purdy
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - DP/14/0234 - Prior notification of intention to demolish former
garage buildings; Roughton Motor Co, Chapel Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11
8AF for Tooley Investments
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
RUNTON - PF/14/0201 - Erection of extension to garage with replacement
pitched roof; Cleveland, Broomhill, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PF for Mr R F
Williamson
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/14/0166 - Demolition of attached garage and erection of
detached garage; 45 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham, NR21 7AW for
Mr C Dennis
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/0068 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey front extension,
conversion of outbuilding to habitable accommodation and erection of singlestorey rear extension with balcony above; Sunnycroft, Cross Street, Salthouse,
Holt, NR25 7XH for Dr M Jezierski
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/0110 - Erection of porch; Haddon Barn, Manor Farm Barns,
Cross Street, Salthouse, HOLT, NR25 7XH for Mr A Newton
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - NMA1/12/0830 - Non material amendment request to permit
increase in size of mechanical ventilation louvres to plant room, installation of
Development Committee
95
17 April 2014
flue and three fans to roof and installation of roller shutter to south west wall.;
HMP Bure, Jaguar Drive, Badersfield, Scottow, NR10 5AS for MOJ Estates
Directorate
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0087 - Erection of storage shed; Farm View, Stalham
Road, Sea Palling, Norwich, NR12 0TX for Mr D Anastasiou
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0014 - Relaxation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 12/0568 to allow construction of the dwellings without complying
with level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Land adjacent 25a Cremers
Drift, Sheringham for Mr S Pigott
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0140 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 10/1478 to permit revisions to layout, roofs, fenestration and wall
finishes and erection of additional car-ports/storage building; Baptist Church,
Holway Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HW for Nilaus Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0165 - Erection of 1 metre high boundary fence; 12
Laburnum Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8NY for Mr K Simms
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0199 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; 43
Beeston Road, Sheringham, NR26 8EJ for Mr J Gilbert
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/0136 - Erection of nine dwellings; Land rear of 15
Weybourne Road, Sheringham for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - PF/13/1366 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension; Pippins
End, Frankfort, Sloley, Norwich, NR12 8HG for Mr and Mrs M Stringer
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0167 - Erection of extension; Southrepps Village Hall,
Chapel Street, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NW for Southrepps Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/1399 - Change of use from storage to A1(retail post
office) and installation of shop front (retrospective); Post Office, High Street,
Southrepps for Mr D Geary
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0082 - Alterations to outbuilding to provide residential
annexe and installation of air source heat pump (revised scheme following
PF/06/1228); Ham House, 1 High Street, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8AH for Mr
G McCabe
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - LA/14/0083 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion
to habitable accommodation (revised scheme following LA/06/1229); Ham
House, 1 High Street, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8AH for Mr G McCabe
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
96
17 April 2014
STIBBARD - PF/14/0184 - Conversion of garage to residential annexe; Kings
Cottage, Fakenham Road, Stibbard, Fakenham, NR21 0EN for Mr T Thornley
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/14/0056 - Erection of storage shed; The Old Pump House,
Cromer Road, Metton, NORWICH, NR11 8QX for R J Bacon Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/14/0128 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension; 8
Goose Lane, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SE for Mr A Brooks
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/14/0154 - Erection of store room extension; Swanton
Novers Village Hall, St Giles Road, Melton Constable, NR24 2RB for Swanton
Novers Village Hall & Amenities Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/14/0146 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings; Land
adjacent 3 Wellington Crescent, Sculthorpe for Mr K Missin
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/1249 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
Adjacent to Burntwood, Sandpit Lane, Thorpe Market, NR11 8TJ for Mr D
Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/0130 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential
annexe; Dairy Farm, Gunton Park, Thorpe Market for Mr & Mrs C HarbordHamond
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - LA/14/0131 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate
conversion to residential annexe; Dairy Farm, Gunton Park, Thorpe Market for
Mr & Mrs C Harbord-Hamond
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/14/0163 - Erection of conservatory/garden room; Mulberry
Cottage, 3 Green Farm Lane, Thursford, Fakenham, NR21 0RX for Mr P Markwell
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0111 - Erection of single-storey side extension with room in
roof space; 3 Chapel Road, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0QG for Mrs M
Howarth
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0089 - Conversion of barn to dwelling (amended scheme
incorporating rear extension) and revised carport/storage building; The Old
Barn, Brick Kiln Road, Trunch NR28 0PY for Mr M Pardon
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/0133 - Installation of replacement render; 12 Knight
Street, Walsingham, NR22 6DA for Mr C Hobart
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
97
17 April 2014
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0054 - Alterations to public house/hotel and conversion
of part of the building to three residential flats; Black Lion Hotel, Friday Market
Place, Walsingham, NR22 6DB for The Black Lion Hotel Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/0055 - Internal and external alterations to public
house/hotel to facilitate conversion of part of the building to three residential
flats; Black Lion Hotel, Friday Market Place, Walsingham, NR22 6DB for The
Black Lion Hotel Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/13/1358 - Non material amendment request to
relocate proposed outbuilding by 750mm away from western boundary wall; 14
Shop Lane, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AW for Ms K Cleaver
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0080 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
sub-division into two separate dwellings; 1 Mill Court, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23
1HF for Hodgkinson Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0038 - Erection of pitched roof to garage;
Northfield Lodge, Standard Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EB for Mr N Hamer
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - NMA1/13/1022 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of 2 rooflights to proposed side extension; White Cottage, Lower
Street, Wickmere, Norwich, NR11 7JE for Mr B Higham
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WOOD NORTON - NMA1/13/1144 - Non material amendment request to permit
the use of 9" concrete blocks in place of compressed tyres; The Old Fire
Station, Foulsham Airfield Site, Foulsham Road for G R Thomas & Son
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WOOD NORTON - PF/14/0003 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home;
Old Fire Station Site, Foulsham Airfield, Foulsham Road, Wood Norton for G R
Thomas & Son
(Full Planning Permission)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/14/0018 - Conversion of agricultural building to three units of
holiday accommodation; Boundary Farm, Reepham Road, Briston, Melton
Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0158 - Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings; 14 Melton Street, Melton Constable, NR24 2DB for Melbobby Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0159 - Erection of four semi-detached two-storey
dwellings; 12 Astley Terrace, Melton Constable, NR24 2BS for Melbobby Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
98
17 April 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1508 - Retention of sun deck; The Two Lifeboats, High
Street, Sheringham, NR26 8JR for Stella Inns Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
16.
NEW APPEALS
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane, Dilham for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
FAKENHAM - PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, 1 Hayes
Lane, Fakenham, NR21 9EP for Mr & Mrs R Gordon
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House, Happisburgh for Miss L
Hughes & Mr P James
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/1296 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Woodside, 24 Danish House Gardens,
Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PD for Mr R Porter
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street, Sheringham, NR26 8JY for Ms H Wheelen
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road, Southrepps for Mr M Goss
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1235 - Erection of first floor extension; 49
Waveney Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HU for Mrs L Garratt
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
17.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road,
Cromer, NR27 9EB for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
Development Committee
99
17 April 2014
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road, Cromer,
NR27 9EB for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane, Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TP for Mr T Field
SITE VISIT:- 12 March 2014
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place, Briston, Melton Constable,
NR24 2LD for Mr K Graves
SITE VISIT:- 11 March 2014
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House, Happisburgh for Miss L
Hughes & Mr P James
HOVETON - PO/13/1385 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Rose Villa, Horning Road West, Hoveton,
Norwich, NR12 8QH for Mrs Joyce
SITE VISIT:- 08 April 2014
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road, Southrepps for Mr M Goss
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1235 - Erection of first floor extension; 49
Waveney Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HU for Mrs L Garratt
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
None
20.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
Development Committee
100
17 April 2014