OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 17 FEBRUARY 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
NORTH WALSHAM - ENQ/10/0187- the material change of use of former
Anglian Water Sewage Works
A report seeking Committee’s confirmation of urgent action taken concerning this
enforcement case.
At the meeting on 21 October 2010 the Committee was appraised of the material
change of use of the former Anglian Water Sewage Works to HGV operating centre
in association with waste transport and the storage and distribution of portable toilets,
together with the stationing of portable buildings for offices in association with the
business.
The Committee resolved unanimously that the Head of Planning and Building Control
be authorised to serve an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and
Country Planning Act requiring the use of the site to cease within 9 months of the
effective date of the Notice. The Notice was served on 23 November 2010 with an
effective date of 31 December 2010.
An appeal against the Enforcement Notice has been made solely on ground (g), i.e.
that the time given to comply with the Notice is too short. The Council has been
given to understand that the company has identified a site to which it may relocate,
but has appealed because the planning permission, funding and construction
associated with the new development may not be completed within nine months.
In order to expedite this matter and avoid further delays in resolving this breach of
planning control, with the agreement of the local Members and the Chair of the
Committee, the Head of Planning and Building Control contacted the company on 27
January 2011 and advised that the Council is prepared to extend the period for
compliance with the Enforcement Notice to 31 December 2011 subject to the
withdrawal of the appeal. If successful, this would reduce the time to achieve
compliance with the Enforcement Notice compared with the time involved were an
appeal to be lodged.
Upon receipt of confirmation that the appeal has been withdrawn the Enforcement
Notice will be varied under Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 as amended to confirm that the compliance date will be 31 December 2011 and
all interested parties will be advised accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to confirm the urgent action taken by the Head of
Planning and Building Control.
(Source: Kate Steventon, Enforcement Officer, ext 6247)
Development Control Committee
1
17 February 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR INFORMATION
2.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly performance report covering the planning service for the period
from October to December 2010. It covers the turnround of planning applications,
workload and appeal outcomes.
Table 1A (Appendix 1) sets out performance for the third quarter of 2010/11. Of
particular significance is the large number of major applications determined, 12 in
total, and more than the two previous quarters combined. However, 10 of these
decisions were outside the 13-week target. Sixty more minor decisions were taken
than in the previous quarter, with just under 63% within the statutory period, a similar
performance to the previous quarter. 194 ‘other’ decisions were taken, 32 fewer than
in the previous quarter but with a slightly improved performance at almost 81%.
The clearing of many older major applications, often which are extremely complex
and controversial, has continued to be a priority for the service, but it is difficult to
process these cases and achieve satisfactory outcomes within the 13-week period,
particularly given the resources available to the service. Performance on minor and
other applications appears to be settling out in the region of 65% for the former and
80% for the latter and it is suggested that when performance targets are reviewed,
these may form a reasonable benchmark for service delivery targets.
Table 1B (Appendix 1) indicates a broader measure of workload and, with the
exception of applications to discharge planning conditions, shows a fall in submitted
workload in all categories. In particular, submitted applications fell by some 76
during the quarter and pre-application consultations and ‘Do I need planning
permission?’ queries were down by approximately one-third and one-half
respectively. These indicators run against the trend of previous quarters and may
either be as the result of the long Christmas break and poor weather in December or
a fall-off in development activity for economic reasons. The final quarter of the
financial year should enable conclusions to be drawn on this matter.
Table 1C (Appendix 1) indicates that delegated decisions remained at over 92% for
the quarter with a cumulative figure for the year being very similar to that for the
previous year. The system appears to be running without significant problems either
for Members or Officers.
Table 2 (Appendix 1) indicates planning appeal decisions and shows that during the
quarter, six of the appeals were dismissed and two were part allowed and part
dismissed. Following two disappointing quarters this outcome shows a restoration of
the normal high success rate for the Council in defending decisions. The cumulative
percentage of appeals allowed has therefore dropped from over 50% to some 27%
and is approaching the Council’s target of 20%.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and assess whether
it raises any issues for further consideration.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control, ext 6135)
Development Control Committee
2
17 February 2011
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.
BRISTON - PO/10/1216 - Erection of dwelling; Land adjoining Carefree,
Providence Place for Mr L Watts
Minor Development
Target Date: 23 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19891745 PO - One residential unit
Approved 25/08/1989
PLA/19921085 PO - Renewal of outline permission 01 891745 O - residential use
Approved 24/09/1992
PLA/19950918 PO - Erection of dwelling (renewal of 921085)
Approved 14/08/1995
PLA/19980758 PO - Erection of dwelling
Approved 27/07/1998
PLA/20011238 PO - Erection of dwelling
Approved 02/10/2001
PLA/20041694 PO - Erection of dwelling
Approved 11/11/2004
PLA/20071328 PO - Erection of dwelling
Approved 16/10/2007
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a dwelling on land which currently forms part of the garden to a
single storey dwelling known as 'Carefree'.
Only access is for detailed consideration at this stage, all other matters being
reserved.
The proposed plot is sited to the rear (west) of the existing dwelling and
access/egress to the site would be via an unmade private track which runs along the
north boundary of the site, which is a branch off Providence Place.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Condition requiring Code Level 3 would be required
should permission be granted.
Development Control Committee
3
17 February 2011
County Highways - This site has been the subject of numerous renewed planning
applications over a considerable period, the most recent being the now lapsed outline
consent 2007/1328 for a single additional dwelling in the gardens of Carefree.
The application site is situated on the unmade unadopted Providence Place, which
currently serves as access to around 25 dwellings. Access to Providence Place is
taken from the adopted public highway at the C468 Edgefield Road, which is subject
to a 30 Mph speed limit.
Neither the C468 Edgefield Road nor Providence Place have any formal pedestrian
provision in the vicinity of the application site or within 250m of the junction.
There are a number of small businesses which operate with the vicinity and the
existing properties along the C468 Edgefield Road, generally do not have driveways
and off street parking places, so residential parking is found along Edgefield Road,
within the Highway.
With a row of 6-7 terraced houses directly opposite the junction, there is on-street
parking occurring leading to westbound vehicles travelling on the opposite side of the
road, approaching a poorly defined unsurfaced junction with no road markings, in a
situation where pedestrians are also likely to be found, given the lack of pedestrian
provision.
Visibility guidance for a road of this nature is provided in the Department for
Transport’s Document "Manual for Streets". Extrapolation of table 7.1 (Page 91) of
"Manual for Streets" Volume 1 recommends access visibility requirements of 2.4
metres x 43 metres where 85 percentile speeds are contained to 30 miles per hour.
Visibility at the junction of the Providence Place and the C468 Edgefield Road is
severely restricted in the easterly directions, measuring just 13 metres from a 2.4m
setback.
Whilst Manual for Streets Volume 2 states that a reduction in visibility will
necessarily lead to a significant problem, taking into account the local context of
C468 Edgefield Road, where on-street parking leading to vehicles travelling on
opposing carriageway and pedestrian activity is found, a reduction in visibility of
magnitude available (i.e. just 33% of the requirement is clearly not acceptable.)
not
the
the
the
Manual for Streets states that an "X" distance of 2.4 metres should normally be used
in most scenarios as this represents a reasonable distance between the front of car
and the driver’s eye.
Manual for Streets Volume 2 does state that a minimum "X" distance of 2 metres
may be considered in some very lightly-trafficked and slow speed situations, but also
recognises that “this will mean the front of some vehicles will protrude slightly into the
running carriageway”. The ability of drivers and cyclists to see around this overhang
from a reasonable distance and to manoeuvre around it without undue difficulty,
should be considered.
Given the presence of on street parking leading to vehicles travelling on the opposing
carriageway, approaching the junction with Providence Place, which is shown to
have restricted visibility in that direction, it is therefore considered that an “X”
distance of 2.4metres is essential in this case and that protruding vehicles would not
be appropriate.
Development Control Committee
4
17 February 2011
Extrapolation of data from the TRICS database (Trip Rate Information Computer
Services) indicates that a residential dwelling, such as the one proposed, will typically
generate 8-10 vehicular trips per weekday.
It is evident that the existing access has severely sub-standard visibility onto the
C468 Edgefield Road, therefore any increase in usage must be prevented. In light of
this, I must therefore recommend refusal of the proposal for the following reasons;
1. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway. Contrary to North Norfolk Local Plan Policy CT5
2. As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does not
appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access. The
proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to
North Norfolk Local Plan Policy CT5
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.
Further consideration will be given to this issue at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Highway impact of development
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site following the recent site visit.
This site has been the subject of numerous renewed outline planning applications
since 1989, the most recent being the now lapsed outline permission 20071328 for a
single additional dwelling.
Nothing significant appears to have changed on the site since the time of the last
approval in 2007 and the site still remains in a designated residential area where the
principle of the development remains acceptable.
The Highway Authority has not objected to the use of Providence Place in respect of
the previous seven applications on the site, which remains served by a poorly
maintained private driveway. However the previous permission has now lapsed and
the Highway Authority has objected to the use of the access due to inadequate
visibility at the junction with the Highway (Edgefield Road) which would result in
danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway, to the detriment of
highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy CT5 of the
Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
5
17 February 2011
Clarification is being sought from the Highway Authority as to any change in
circumstances which has led to justification for a different recommendation being
made in respect of the current application.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
4.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0933 - Change of use and conversion of one
dwelling into two dwellings; Sunbeams, High Street for Mr A Taylor
Minor Development
Target Date: 07 October 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
Conservation Area
Flood Zone
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071559 PF- Conversion and extension of dwelling to provide four dwellings
Withdrawn 15/11/2007
20080352 PF - Conversion and extension of dwelling to provide three dwellings
Refused 25/04/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of Sunbeams, a six bedroom building into two, three bedroom
dwellings. Access would be via the existing entrance with parking within the existing
car parking area. To the rear there would be a large communal courtyard serving
both properties.
An amended plan has been received modifying the car parking layout and indicating
improved visibility from the entrance onto High Street.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control owing to concerns in respect
of potential flood risk.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of support from local residents.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – Objection on the grounds that the Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA) does not provide sufficient information for an informed decision to be made
and that the proposed mitigation measures do not appear to be supported with
evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness. In addition the development would
expose an increased number of people to dangerous flood hazards if the proposed
mitigation measures were not effective.
Development Control Committee
6
17 February 2011
County Council (Highways) - No objection to the amended plan, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection to the change of use or to the physical alteration, for which listed building
consent has previously been granted. Furthermore considers that the scheme would
offer a form of enabling development which could help to secure the long term future
and good repair of this characterful Grade II listed building.
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 HO 9: Conversion and Re-use of Rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies
within an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling
may be permitted).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
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. Car parking and amenities
3. Highway safety
4. Impact on neighbouring properties
5. Flood risk issues
Development Control Committee
7
17 February 2011
APPRAISAL
Although Cley-next-the-Sea no longer has a development boundary, being
designated as Countryside as defined by the adopted Core Strategy, Saved North
Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29 would in principle allow the building’s conversion to an
alternative use. Also applicable is emerging Policy HO9, which although yet to be
formally adopted, is, following receipt of the Inspector’s binding report, being given
considerable weight in the determination of planning applications. When considered
against this policy the scheme would be unacceptable due to the fact that it would not
normally allow for the subdivision of existing residential properties and also there is a
requirement in the case of two or more dwellings that one should be affordable.
However at the meeting of the Development Control Committee in October 2010
Members resolved, in cases where rural building conversions to dwellings proposals
do not comply with proposed Policy HO9 but comply with existing Policy 29 and
which were submitted and registered prior to the Inspector’s report, that they be
determined against the provisions of Policy 29, notwithstanding that the final
determination of the application may occur following adoption of the revised policies.
It is therefore considered that in this case the application should be determined in
accordance with Policy 29.
Sunbeams is a large Grade II listed property dating from the C17 which was formally
The Fishmongers Arms Public House, and is situated in a prominent location fronting
High Street at the heart of the Cley-next-the-Sea Conservation Area. At the present
time the property, which is of painted, flint construction under a black glazed pantile
roof, is occupied as a single six bedroom dwelling. However due to the scale of the
dwelling and a lack of maintenance over a number of years the property is in need of
significant repairs and restoration. It is therefore being proposed, in order not only to
enable the funding of the works of repair but also to make the building more viable as
a whole, that the property be subdivided into two dwellings. The works would involve
subdividing the building vertically just to the right of the main front door in order to
create two, three bedroom dwellings. These works would have a minimal impact both
on the historic fabric of the building and also on the current internal layout. Whilst
there would be no elevational changes to the front of the property, to the rear it is
proposed that some less than sympathetic later additions would be removed. In
addition, it is proposed that the outbuildings would be repaired and used as a mix of
garages and storage buildings.
The Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has confirmed that he
has no objection to the change of use or to the physical alteration, for which listed
building consent has previously been granted. Furthermore it is considered that the
scheme would offer a form of enabling development which could help to secure the
long term future and good repair of this characterful Grade II listed building.
In respect of parking provision and access to the site, the scheme would provide for 4
parking spaces plus the existing garages which is in excess of the parking standards
contained in the Core Strategy. In addition the Highway Authority has confirmed that,
given the low traffic speeds in High Street, subject to modifying the existing access,
visibility from the site is acceptable.
As far as amenity space for the two properties is concerned this would be confined to
a large courtyard area to the rear of the properties which would act as a communal
space for both dwellings. Whilst this arguably falls short of the requirement for private
amenity space contained in the Core Strategy, given the dwelling's location and
close-knit nature of surrounding properties, many of which have fairly small gardens,
it is not considered that the lack of amenity space would justify refusal of the
application.
Development Control Committee
8
17 February 2011
In respect of the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, the only
potential for overlooking would be to those dwellings on the western side of High
Street, the separation distance from which is some 12m. Although this would fall
short of the window to window distance between properties, given that Sunbeams is
already in residential use and that no front windows are to be altered there would be
no potential increase in overlooking.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with the
requirements of Policy 29 and would be acceptable both in terms of parking and
amenity space available and would not give rise to issues of highway safety.
However a further area of concern is that of flood risk. The site is within Flood Risk
Zones 2 and 3, the latter being the highest risk of flooding. In this case, as the
scheme would involve a change of use and conversion of the dwelling it is not
considered that the Sequential and Exception Test as specified in Planning Policy
Statement 25 “Development and Flood Risk” is not applicable, since Annex A
confirms that such proposal should not be subject to the test. Nevertheless, as
required for all development which is prone to flooding, a FRA has been submitted.
Upon initial consultation the Environment Agency confirmed that whilst it had no
objection on the grounds of the Sequential Test in order to verify the information
submitted with the FRA it would require a topographical survey of the site along with
existing and proposed drawings showing the existing and proposed thresholds and
finished floor levels. However following receipt of further information from the
applicant the Environment Agency maintains an objection to the development as it
still does not provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. The
Agency has indicated that based on the information provided the development has
the potential to be affected by flooding in the 1 in 200 year return period event which
could increase the tidal flood levels in this area by just over 1m. In addition the
Environment Agency suggests that the proposed mitigation measures to keep people
safe do not appear to be supported with evidence to demonstrate that they would be
effective. Furthermore an increased number of people will be exposed to dangerous
flood hazards. It further suggests that the proposed mitigation measures relate to
issues that sit within the expertise of other organisations, such as the Emergency
Planners. In conclusion it suggests that it would withdraw its objection if as decision
maker the Local Planning Authority indicates it has sufficient information to make a
decision with the information already provided.
In view of the continuing concerns of the Environment agency further information has
been request from the applicant regarding flood mitigation measures and means of
escape from the property. Upon receipt of this information it is the intention to reconsult the Environment Agency and also consult the Emergency Planning team.
Given that the property is already in residential use and contains six bedrooms, four
of which are double rooms, the existing dwelling has the capacity to sleep some 10
people. When this is compared with the proposed scheme where the bedroom layout
is identical, albeit separated into two dwellings, there would be no net gain in the
overall residential capacity of the site as a whole. Furthermore a Flood Warning
system is available in Cley-next-the-Sea and the defences have been enhanced in
order to mitigate against potential rises in sea level. Therefore whilst it is accepted
that it is important to ensure that the development would not result in a significant
increase in risk to life and property, in principle it is not considered that refusal of the
application can be justified on flood risk grounds. Furthermore the potential risks
have to be balanced again securing the long term future and good repair of this
Grade II listed building and the overall enhancement of the Cley-next-the-Sea
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
9
17 February 2011
However it is considered necessary for further discussion to take place with the
applicant, Environment Agency and Emergency Planning Team to ensure that as far
as possible the risk from flooding is mitigated in converting the building and that
defined measures for escape from the dwellings are in place, including that the
residents of both properties sign up to the Environment Agency early warning
service, Floodline Warnings Direct.
Subject to the successful outcome of further consultations on flood risk investigation,
the development is considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to receipt of further information in
respect of the Flood Risk Assessment and further consultation with the
Environment Agency and Emergency Planning Team and to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
5.
CROMER - PF/10/1376 - Erection of replacement rear extension and installation
of dormer windows; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
Target Date: 25 January 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
See also LA/10/1377 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
The application is for two elements of the scheme submitted for alterations to this
building, the erection of replacement rear extension and installation of two dormer
windows.
Amended plans received showing altered proportions on the rear dormer and a
pitched roof on the side dormer.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
Object, supporting the concerns raised by Cromer Preservation Society.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society (comments received based on original plans) Supports the proposed maintenance and remedial work. Strongly opposed to the
insertion of two new dormer windows.
Strongly oppose the creation of a new dormer on the hipped roof elevation; proposed
scale is too large and would destroy the current architectural balance. The proposed
rear dormer does not reflect the scale of the existing dormer on Newstead House.
Development Control Committee
10
17 February 2011
SAVE Britain's Heritage (comments received based on original plans) - Concerns
regarding the introduction of the dormer on the hipped portion of the roof (north
elevation).
These alterations would be detrimental to the nature of the house and its relationship
with the street. The installation of the large side dormer would be disruptive on both
the side and front elevations.
Georgian Group (two comments received, one following the receipt of the amended
plans) The insertion of two dormers would be damaging to the building's structural
significance; register a strong objection to this aspect of the scheme.
The proposed dormer windows would be damaging to the appearance and special
interest of the listed building and could be potentially highly damaging to the historic
fabric. However a conservation roof light on the side or rear elevation maybe
considered acceptable.
Concerns regarding the amount of information received within the application and if it
is sufficient to fully assess all aspects of the proposals. As there is not full
justification, the Group does not offer comments on the interior work or replacement
of the rear extension.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (in respect of the amended plans)
Property dates from late 18th/early 19th century and holds an extremely prominent
position facing onto the iconic Gangway, which is also Grade II Listed.
Majority of the works would either enhance or have a neutral impact upon the
significance of the heritage asset. Replacement of the rear extension is considered
acceptable as the existing extension is in a dilapidated condition and includes block
work and perspex roofing. The insertion of two veluxes on the new extension is
considered acceptable.
Unfortunately there are two elements of the development requiring planning
permission that cause serious concerns and the benefits received from the
aforementioned do not out weigh the harm caused by these elements.
The side elevation dormer, whether flat roofed or as a lean to, would not be
subservient to the rest of the roof, as would be expected by an attic dormer. Although
the amended version does improve the situation it would still be a disproportionately
large addition within the roofscape. It is understood that the dormer here is to allow
access to the attic space through a larger staircase than existing. It is noted that the
existing staircase is relatively small and this proposal would retain the original lower
section. However the upper section would be lost.
The other element that raises concern is the proposed rear dormer. Now the glazing
proportions appear to mirror those on Newstead it is the least substantial of the
objections. However the positioning still allows it to appear squeezed between the
chimney stack and hip, leading to it sitting awkwardly.
In conclusion objection upheld since despite several positives within the whole
scheme, these do not outweigh the fundamental objections.
Development Control Committee
11
17 February 2011
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building and surrounding Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The property Cliffside is a Grade II Listed dwelling that lies at the northern end of the
row of attached properties along the southern section of The Gangway, Cromer.
They are all Grade II Listed. The Gangway itself is also Grade II Listed; from the
north of Cliffside to the sea. The site also falls within Cromer's Conservation Area.
The property falls within the designated Town Centre, where extensions to domestic
dwellings are considered acceptable in principle.
The proposed replacement rear extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of
the impact upon neighbouring residential amenities. As with the existing extension it
would mirror the extension at the adjacent property Newstead and be constructed
adjacent to Newstead's extension. There are no concerns regarding overlooking.
Neither dormer raises any significant concern regarding the effect on residential
amenity of any neighbour. Both dormers would sit opposite a blank section of a
neighbouring gable.
The replacement rear extension is considered to be of an appropriate design and
style for the dwelling. The existing extension is in a dilapidated state and there is little
historic material left to save - it is largely constructed from block work and has a
section of roof constructed using corrugated plastic.
However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is of the opinion that
the benefits to be gained from this application, namely from the replacement of the
rear extension, do not outweigh the areas of concern in respect of the proposed
dormer windows. Other consultees and representations share similar opinions in that
whilst there are considered to be many positive elements of the scheme, they would
object to the dormer windows.
Development Control Committee
12
17 February 2011
Policy EN 8 is not considered to be complied with since the proposed dormers do not
preserve or enhance either the building itself or the wider Conservation Area. The
insertion of dormers would lead to a loss of historic fabric and ultimately have an
adverse impact upon Cliffside's special historic and architectural interest, and to the
character and quality of the Conservation Area. The application is therefore
recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the basis of damage to the special interest of the listed building
and the failure of the proposed dormer windows to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.
CROMER - LA/10/1377 - Internal alterations, erection of replacement rear
extension and installation of dormer windows; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr
R Price
Target Date: 25 January 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/10/1376 above and LA/10/1484 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970504 LA - Replacement roof
Approved 28/08/1997
THE APPLICATION
The application is for several elements relating to renovation of the property.
Externally these include the insertion of two dormers, re-opening of a side door,
replacement of an existing side door with a window, replacement of a front window
with doors and a replacement rear extension. In addition work would be carried out to
remove the existing cement render, exposing the original brick work, re-point and
course the flint work and carry out minor repairs to the ashlars and other features.
Internally it is proposed to remove the tongue and groove panelling, the secondary
double glazing and defective plaster work. New partitions are also proposed.
Amended plans received showing altered proportions on the rear dormer and a
pitched roof on the side dormer.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the District Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object, supporting the concerns raised by Cromer Preservation Society.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society (comments received based on original plans) Supports the proposed maintenance and remedial work. Strongly opposed to both
the removal of the ground floor sash and insertion of French Doors, in addition to the
insertion of two new dormer windows.
Development Control Committee
13
17 February 2011
The removal of the sash window would result in an irretrievable loss of flint work.
Insertion of French Doors would permanently destroy the current architectural
relationship of Cliffside and Newstead House, which were original one building.
French Doors are also historically incorrect with this style of late eighteenth century
properties.
Strongly oppose the creation of a new dormer on the hipped roof elevation; proposed
scale is too large and would destroy the current architectural balance. The proposed
rear dormer does not reflect the scale of the existing dormer on Newstead House.
SAVE Britain's Heritage (comments received based on original plans) - Concerns
regarding the proposed replacement of the original ground floor sash window and the
introduction of the dormer on the hipped portion of the roof (north elevation).
These alterations would be detrimental to the nature of the house and its relationship
with the street. The replacement of the ground floor sash window, which currently
helps to define the special interest of the building, would disrupt the harmony of this
facade. The installation of the large dormer would similarly be disruptive on both the
side and front elevations.
CONSULTATIONS
Georgian Group (two comments received, one following the receipt of the amended
plans) The insertion of two dormers and replacement of a sash window on the principal
facade with French Doors would be damaging to the building's structural significance;
register a strong objection to these aspects of the scheme.
The proposed dormer windows would be damaging to the appearance and special
interest of the listed building and could be potentially highly damaging to the historic
fabric. However a conservation roof light on the side or rear elevation maybe
considered acceptable.
The Georgian Group is not aware of any precedents for French or casement doors in
street elevations of late Georgian town houses, except to provide access to first floor
balconies in upper middle class and aristocratic residences. Very occasionally halfglazed double doors can be found in garden elevations; however it is possible that a
significant proportion of these were designed to provide access to now demolished
conservatories. Walk in casement windows are more common in early nineteenth
century high-status suburban and rural dwellings. The introduction of such a
prominent alien feature into the principal facade of Cliffside would be highly
damaging to its special interest. Strongly object to the principle of enlarging the
existing window opening.
Concerns regarding the amount of information received within the application and if it
is sufficient to fully assess all aspects of the proposals. As there is not full
justification, the group does not offer comments on the interior work or replacement
of the rear extension.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (in respect of the amended plans) Property dates from late 18th/early 19th century and holds an extremely prominent
position facing onto the iconic Gangway, which is also Grade II Listed.
Development Control Committee
14
17 February 2011
Majority of the works would either enhance or have a neutral impact upon the
significance of the heritage asset. On the principal elevation these include; repointing and coursing the flint (welcomed due to the current state of the flint),
proposal to remove the earth and rubble from the front garden (should reduce
dampness) and reconstruction of the bay window (existing bay does not reflect the
original). On the side elevation these works are; re-opening of the arch doorway and
in-filling of the 60's doorway, and replacement with sash window to match existing.
On the rear elevation the removal of the cement render and repair work would
enhance this elevation. Replacement of the rear extension is considered equally
acceptable as the existing extension is in a dilapidated condition and includes block
work and perspex roofing. The insertion of two veluxes on the new extension is
considered acceptable. Internal work is also considered to be acceptable as they
either remove later additions or cause no lasting damage to the historic fabric.
Unfortunately there are three elements of the development that cause serious
concerns and the benefits received from the aforementioned do not out weigh the
harm caused by these elements.
The removal of the ground floor window on the principal facade and replacement with
French Doors raises three main concerns; the intrinsic loss of historic fabric, the
impact upon the appearance of Cliffside, and Newstead, and the historic
appropriateness of the doors. Any alternative to French Doors would still result in
upsetting the existing balance of the two properties and result in a loss of historic
fabric.
The side elevation dormer, whether flat roofed or as a lean to, would not be
subservient to the rest of the roof, as would be expected by an attic dormer. Although
the amended version does improve the situation it would still be a disproportionately
large addition within the roofscape. It is understood that the dormer here is to allow
access to the attic space through a larger staircase than existing. It is noted that the
existing staircase is relatively small and this proposal would retain the original lower
section. However the upper section would be lost.
The final element that raises concern is the proposed rear dormer. Now the glazing
proportions appear to mirror those on Newstead it is the least substantial of the
objections. However the positioning still allows it to appear squeezed between the
chimney stack and hip, leading to it sitting awkwardly.
In conclusion the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager objection upheld
since despite several positives within the scheme these do not outweigh the
fundamental objections.
Ancient Monuments Society - comments awaited.
Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings - comments awaited.
Victorian Society - comments awaited.
Council for British Archaeology - comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
15
17 February 2011
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
The property Cliffside is a Grade II Listed dwelling that lies at the northern end of the
row of attached properties along the southern section of The Gangway, Cromer.
They are all Grade II Listed. The Gangway itself is also Grade II Listed; from the
north of Cliffside to the sea. The site also falls within Cromer's Conservation Area.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is of the opinion that the benefits
to be gained from this application do not outweigh three particular areas of concern;
other consultees and representatives share similar opinions in that whilst there are
many positive elements of the scheme, there are objections to the dormers and
installation of French doors, for the reasons given above.
Policy EN 8 is not considered to be complied with as the proposal, as a whole, does
not preserve or enhance the character of the building since the insertion of dormers
and French doors would lead to a loss of historic fabric and ultimately have an
adverse impact upon Cliffside's special historic and architectural interest. Refusal is
therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the basis of the loss of historic fabric and the resulting damage to
the special interest of the listed building.
7.
CROMER - LA/10/1484 - Renovation of rear elevation including removal of
render; Newstead House, 7 The Gangway for Mrs B Price
Target Date: 07 March 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Listed Building Alterations
See also application LA/10/1377 above
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
To renovate the rear elevation of Newstead House, to include the removal of render.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The agent for the application is a Member of the District Council.
Development Control Committee
16
17 February 2011
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) Newstead House holds an extremely prominent position facing onto the historic
Gangway, which is also Grade II Listed. By virtue of the building's age, form,
detailing, materials and construction it makes a significant contribution to the
character and appearance of the area.
The works represent a significant opportunity for enhancement; removing the existing
hard render will allow the building to breathe more effectively whilst also revealing the
building’s original fabric. The existing render makes little contribution to the historic
significance of Newstead House therefore its removal makes sense both in terms of
the buildings physical embodiment and aesthetic appearance.
By virtue that the proposal will enhance the Listed Building and wider Conservation
Area, C&D raise no objection to the application under Policy EN8 of the Local
Development Framework. Whilst C&D are aware this application relates solely to
Newstead House, it is hoped the render will also be removed at Cliffside, the
adjoining property.
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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact upon historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
The proposal is to renovate the rear of the property, involving removal of the existing
cement render to expose the original brick work. In addition the existing ashlars
would be repaired together with the openings, and flashings provided to all
abutments.
The proposal would allow the original fabric on the rear elevation to be exposed and
remove the unsympathetic addition of cement render. Details of the remedial work
would be requested and agreed upon once the render has been removed and the
original fabric revealed. The proposed development is considered to improve and
enhance the existing Grade II property, complying with Policy EN 8.
Development Control Committee
17
17 February 2011
Newstead and the adjacent property, Cliffside, are thought to have once been one
building. Application LA/101377 has been submitted for Cliffside which includes
removing the cement render also found on this property. As with this application, it is
also proposed to repair the existing ashlars, the openings, and provide flashings to all
abutments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, with conditions relating to the time limit and requiring more details
of the remedial work once the existing render has been removed.
8.
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1349 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension
and single-storey/two-storey front extension; 163 Holt Road for Mr I Kendle
Target Date: 18 January 2011
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090842 - Erection of Front Boundary Wall, Retention of Pony Shelter and
Tree House
Approved 14/12/2009
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and single storey/two
storey front extension. This would allow some ground floor layout alterations and
provide a wet room, study and conservatory. At first floor level an existing front
bedroom would be extended to create a master bedroom with en-suite. The proposal
would involve the removal of an attached garage at the west of the property (along
the boundary) and the existing garden room and utility room. The existing external
brickwork is to have masonry paint finish with the rear extension painted brickwork or
render finish with facing brick detail. Pantiles to match existing and the front
extensions are proposed painted brickwork with coursed flintwork panels.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor John Lisher having regard to the following planning
issue:
Loss of light and amenity to the neighbouring property.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds (summarised):
1. No damage should be caused to the boundary wall which the garage to be
demolished is part of.
2. The extension to the front will seriously contravene the building line.
3. The flint work finish is not in keeping with neighbouring properties.
Development Control Committee
18
17 February 2011
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 3 - Housing (strategic approach to housing issues)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area where the proposals are
acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant Development Plan
policies.
The property is a two storey detached dwelling, red brick with red/brown pantiles,
with bay windows at ground and first floor level to the east side of the front elevation.
There is an attached garage to the western boundary with garden and utility rooms to
the rear. The site lies to the north of the old Holt Road set back off a private slip road
in a row of mixed property types. Neighbouring properties to the east and west are
single storey. There is 1.8m high (approx.) fencing to majority of boundaries.
Property to the east has a side extension the end wall forming part of the boundary,
with some hedging to the east boundary and a 1.8m high red brick wall to front
boundary.
The proposal would remove the attached garage from the south west side, the outer
wall of which forms part of the boundary treatment. The neighbour has raised
concerns regarding the loss of this section of his boundary wall. The agent has
confirmed that the wall and attached piers would be retained and after removal of the
garage, the wall would be finished with protective capping stones. Demolition of this
garage does not require planning permission. An open space to the side of the
dwelling would be created which would improve the appearance of the siting of the
dwelling on the plot.
The existing rear extensions would also be demolished and replaced with a single
storey extension with a shaped gable parapet. This would extend approx 7.2m from
the rear, a metre reduction from the existing extensions. A conservatory is also
proposed to extend across the rear. These proposals are considered to be
compatible with the original building and would not have a detrimental impact on any
neighbouring properties.
At the front of the property a single storey 'lean to' extension and a two storey gable
extension are proposed. The use of flintwork and painted brickwork would alter the
appearance of the dwelling but this is considered to add character and interest to it.
Development Control Committee
19
17 February 2011
The two storey section does not have windows proposed to the side elevations and
would not, therefore, introduce any overlooking of neighbouring properties. This
section is 5m from the south west boundary of the nearest neighbour and it is
considered that the proposal would not result in any significant loss of light or create
any overshadowing or overbearing effects. The letter of objection raised the concern
that the front extension would 'seriously contravene the building line'; there is
however, no building line restriction to consider. The dwelling sits within a large plot
and the proposals would not have any detrimental impact on the amenity space of
the dwelling.
Overall, the proposals are considered to comply with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to a condition removing permitted development rights in
relation to the insertion of windows on the north east elevation of the two
storey extension.
9.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1427 - Erection of 2 one and half storey dwellings;
Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
Minor Development
Target Date: 07 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Tree Preservation Order
Contaminated Land
Wensum Valley Project Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091037 PO - Erection of two-storey dwelling and single-storey dwelling
Approved 30/11/2009
PLA/10/0898 PO - Erection of two detached one and a half storey dwellings
Refused 10/11/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two detached one and a half storey dwellings, with only means
of access to be considered at this stage.
The existing dwelling would be retained as would the vehicular access into the site
from Heath Lane. That vehicular access would serve the existing dwelling, proposed
dwelling (Plot 2) and two other dwellings (not yet constructed) previously approved
under outline planning permission 09/1037. A new vehicular access would be
created off Heath Lane to serve Plot 1 only.
The proposed plots are to the east and west of the existing dwelling. High boundary
walls on the east, north and west boundaries are shown to be retained, and a Lime
and a Horse Chestnut tree are also to be retained.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Gloria and John Lisher having regard to the following
planning issues:
Development Control Committee
20
17 February 2011
1. Impact upon trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order
2. Landscape impact
3. Highway safety
4. Density
5. Site contamination & subsidence
6. Compliance with Core Strategy policies
TOWN COUNCIL
Object. It contravenes Planning Policies CT5 and EN4. All previous objections listed
on observations and contained in the statement to North Norfolk District Council
stand.
Town Council's statement as follows:
Fakenham Town Council received the original Planning Application Ref PO/09/1037
dated 23 October 2009 for the erection of a two-storey dwelling and a single-storey
dwelling (Applicants: Executors of J Hall Deceased). No objections were raised, as
the proposed application was reasonable as there was space available for two
dwellings and the trees in the surrounding land on the property were protected. If an
application had been received initially for 4 dwellings, the Council would have
objected, as this would have been over-development of the site.
The second application is a step too far and is excessive over-development of
garden land. Despite falling within the guidelines of Policy HO7, a development of the
proposed density within this area totally destroys the character of this part of Town
and is adding to the on-going erosion of the diversity of the housing stock, which is
so important to the character of Fakenham.
The Council wishes to emphasise the following points: there appears to be
inadequate parking space within the grounds of the proposed development, which
will lead to inconvenience to the neighbouring properties from vehicles parking in
Heath Lane itself, bearing in mind there may be more changes to the existing area;
one of the properties has already been converted in a Nursing Home.
The Council also wishes to state that while there are two entrances to Heath Lane
(one from Norwich Road and one from Barbers Lane) the Barbers Lane end is rarely
used, as it is an overgrown Lane and will not be used by construction traffic. 99% of
the residents exit at the Norwich Road junction. It has come to the attention of this
Council that North Norfolk District Council’s policy is for a maximum of 8 dwellings
permitted off a private road. If so, this guideline has already been broken by consent
to build two new dwellings at Copper Beech Lodge, Heath Lane.
Current Government thinking has turned against development on garden land and is
against high density and in favour of more diversity and a better quality of life. Finally,
Fakenham Town Council requests that a site meeting be held before any decision is
made.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eighteen letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the
following points:
1. Overdevelopment
2. Highway safety
3. Increase in traffic
4. Adverse impact upon unadopted lane
5. Loss of privacy
6. Site is contaminated
Development Control Committee
21
17 February 2011
7. Impact upon trees
8 Condition of surface on lane is poor
9. Inappropriate access to site
10. Contrary to Policies EN2, EN4, EN13, CT5, CT6
11. Detrimental effect on residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings
12. Lack of car parking
13. Vehicles will park on Heath Lane, blocking access to other properties and
obstructing vehicles passing on Heath Lane, preventing access by any emergency
vehicles
14. This development would not have been the wishes of the late Mr Hall who was
the previous owner
15. Lane not suitable for construction traffic
16. Inappropriate development
17. Will set a precedent
18. Health and safety issues
19. Impact upon protected species
20. Out of character with the design and housing density in area
21. Detrimental impact upon the environment
22. Loss of further trees on site
23. Previous application refused on grounds of poor access. This still remains an
unacceptable issue.
An Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Design and Access statement have
been submitted by the agent in relation to this application. The Design and Access
Statement sets out the applicant’s proposal and a copy is contained in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Heath Lane is a wide surfaced private road with
footpath provision, accessed from north Norwich Road and Warren Avenue. Visibility
at the junction with the Norwich Road (C551) from Heath Lane is acceptable in both
directions.
There are currently approximately 38 dwellings which are accessed via Heath Lane,
which is well above the maximum number of 8 dwellings, now permitted to be served
from a private road.
Given this existing situation it would be considered that the proposed increase in
dwelling numbers accessed via Heath Lane would not adversely impact highway
safety; given the level of visibility available I am unable to raise a sustainable
highways objection.
If permission were granted a condition regarding details of parking provision and
turning areas in accordance with adopted standards for the new dwellings and
existing would be required.
For information, if this were an application served directly off the adopted highway
the access serving a single dwelling would be required to be 3.2m in width to cater
for both vehicular and pedestrian access. For an access serving multiple dwellings,
the width would increase to 4.5m for at least 5m into the site. This enables two
vehicles to pass, off-highway without causing obstruction or interference to other
road users. Any gates, bollards or chains should be site at least 5m back from the
carriageway edge, to allow a car to stop and open any obstruction without causing
obstruction or interference to other road users. As this site is located on a private
road, I find I am unable to insist upon these dimensions, but consider they may be of
assistance in consideration of this application.
Development Control Committee
22
17 February 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Officer (Landscape) - This application for
outline planning permission is for the consideration of access only. A previous
similar application (ref. 10/0898) was recently refused by the Development Control
Committee due to restrictions placed by the existing vehicular access to the site.
This current application proposes a new access off Heath Lane through an existing
wall. The site has a number of trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation
Order, including a mature Horse Chestnut which is situated adjacent to the proposed
new access. As part of the application an Arboricultural Implications Assessment
(AIA), Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Method Statement for the construction of the
new access has been submitted. The impact of the layout, design and construction
of the proposed dwellings on the protected trees is not covered by the submitted AIA.
Concern has previously been raised regarding the excess tree removal on the site
(which subsequently resulted in the serving of the TPO) and the lack of information
with the previous planning application to adequately assess the impact of the
proposals on the remaining protected trees. However, it was considered that the
provision of further information could be supplied at the reserved matters stage.
With the receipt of the additional information contained in the AIA it is now
considered that the proposed new access, in combination with other perceived
pressures resulting from the construction on Plot 1, will have a considerable harmful
effect on the protected trees and is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application
under Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
The main area of concern is the combined effects of the development on the trees,
particularly the Horse Chestnut (marked T2 on the plan). The AIA and Method
Statement seek to identify and address the impact of the removal of a section of wall,
the provision of a driveway and the implications of this construction on the roots and
canopy of the Horse Chestnut, the result of which is to require a significant amount of
manual labour to demolish the wall, the construction of a ‘no-dig’ driveway with
permeable paving (and potentially a working surface during construction), new gates
and railings, crown lifting to facilitate access, as well as having secure Construction
Exclusion Zones around the remaining trees. Whilst these methods may be
acceptable in some circumstances it is considered that the requirements of the new
access and the additional constraints of the site, such as the restricted working area
of Plot 1 and the existing and potential environmental characteristics of the site, will
place significant stress on the trees.
Given the amount of paving and impermeable surfacing surrounding T2, it is likely
that the roots (particularly the fine feeding roots) of the tree will extend into the
existing lawn area of Lavengro, therefore extending beyond the designated RPA as
illustrated on the Tree Protection Plan. The impact of the impermeable ground
surface surrounding the tree, the new access and the likely distortion of the RPA has
not been fully assessed in the AIA. It is possible that the combination of these
impacts could have a negative impact on the tree/trees. A 2m. high wall is also
shown on the plans, extending around the southern perimeter of the site and through
the RPA of the Horse Chestnut, which again will have significant negative
implications for the tree.
Furthermore, the AIA suggests that replacement planting opportunities exist to
mitigate the removal of three trees on Plot 1 (section 3.1.1); however it is unclear
where these opportunities exist on Plot 1. The new planting areas have not been
identified on the plan and protection areas not set up to protect the soil from
compaction (as required in BS5837:2005).
Development Control Committee
23
17 February 2011
The British Standard 5837 (BSI, 2005) states that when selecting trees for retention
on development sites it is vital that the implementation of protection for each tree is
practically feasible and can be realistically achieved by contractors. It is considered
in this case that the proposed tree protection requirements are not practically
achievable and will place significant constraints on the building contractors which
may to lead to mistakes happening and subsequent damage to the trees.
In addition, particular care should be taken when enclosing large mature trees in new
development. Such trees are likely to be less resilient and more likely to die or
become unsafe as a result of the pressures associated with development.
Given the significant amenity value of the protected trees within the Heath Lane area,
their retention is essential, which places them in direct conflict with the proposed
development at Lavengro.
Based on the preceding analysis of the application and the applicant’s failure to
demonstrate satisfactorily that the development would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the protected trees, CDL recommend refusal of the application.
Environmental Health - It is believed that this site may have been associated with
sand and gravel extraction between the approximate dates of 1881 - 1887. On this
basis there is potential for unknown filled ground to be present so a condition
requiring a site investigation into possible contaminants is required.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order for the application to comply with Policy EN6 a
condition is required on any approval that the dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 3
rating or above in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable
Homes.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
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).
Development Control Committee
24
17 February 2011
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. Highway safety
3. Contaminated land
4. Subsidence
5. Impact on protected trees
APPRAISAL
Some Members may be familiar with this site following the consideration of
application reference 10/0898 for the same development, which was subject to a site
visit last year. The resolution of the Committee regarding that application was one of
refusal on the grounds that "the vehicular access into the site is unsuitable to cater
for the development proposed, by reason of its construction width, to the detriment of
highway safety".
Under that application one access off the unadopted Heath Lane was proposed to
serve the site for the proposed two dwellings, the existing dwelling and two dwellings
approved under outline permission 09/1037. The current application has been
amended to create an additional access off Heath Lane, to serve Plot 1 only. The
remaining dwellings are proposed to be served via the existing access.
The site is located within the development boundary for Fakenham where Core
Strategy Policies SS1 and SS8 permit residential development providing it complies
with other Development Plan policies.
Only the principle of the development of the site for the erection of two one and half
storey dwellings and means of access are for consideration at this stage.
Fakenham is designated as a Principal Settlement, within which Policy HO7 requires
that there should be not less than 40 dwellings per hectare. In view of the site area
this would result in 8.9 dwellings on the site. This would result in a development
which would not be in keeping with the character of the area. There is a mix of
development in the immediate area with a lower density of some 4 dwellings per
hectare to the east along Heath Way and higher density of some 26 dwellings per
hectare to the west. To the north of the site the density ranges between some 9.5
and 19 dwellings per hectare. The density of the proposed development itself for 3
dwellings would be some 14 dwellings per hectare. It is not therefore considered that
the addition of two more dwellings on this site would be out of keeping with the
density or character of the area. It is considered that the proposal complies with
Policy HO7 of the Core Strategy.
The existing access off Heath Lane would continue to provide the vehicular access
into the site, but a new a new vehicular access would be created off Heath Lane to
serve Plot 1 only. Heath Lane itself is an unadopted road, the upkeep of which is the
responsibility of residents. One of the objections raised by local residents is that the
development would have an adverse impact on the condition of the unadopted road.
However, this is a civil matter not a planning matter. The Committee will note that the
Highway Authority is not raising an objection to the application, subject to a condition
requiring that parking and turning provision is in accordance with adopted standards.
Development Control Committee
25
17 February 2011
A further area of concern raised by local residents is that the site is contaminated
having once been used as a municipal waste dump for the disposal of commercial,
residential and hazardous waste. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has
requested the imposition of a condition requiring an investigation into the possible
presence of contamination affecting the site prior to the commencement of any
development.
With regard to concerns raised over subsidence on the site, this matter was
addressed on the previous application reference 10/0898. Advice was sought from
the Building Control Manager who confirmed that any matters concerning suspect
ground conditions in this area will be dealt with under any future Building Regulation
submission. The agent had also confirmed that the applicant had sought advice from
a local engineer on this matter who had advised that there is no subsidence at the
site. It is not considered that there has been any significant change in circumstances
which would alter this previous advice given. Therefore, it is considered that this
matter has been satisfactorily addressed and were anything to be discovered on site
that it would be dealt with under Building Regulations.
Two trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders on the western boundary of the
site, which are to be retained. Three trees are proposed to be felled on the western
boundary in the position of the new vehicular access. The Arboricultural Implications
Assessment submitted with the application states that these trees proposed for
removal are a Liquidambar, Cherry and a Holly, none of which is covered by the Tree
Preservation Order. The Arboricultural Implications Assessment states that these
trees are classified as either C (low amenity value) or R (lifespan of less than 10
years and/or likely to be removed due to condition). The Committee will note the
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who objects to the
application. It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily
that the creation of the new vehicular access and associated works would not have a
significant detrimental impact on the protected trees, which are of significant amenity
value. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers their retention
to be essential.
Whilst scale, layout and appearance of the dwellings are not for determination, it is
considered that two one and a half storey dwellings could be designed in such a way
that they would comply with the Amenity Criteria in the North Norfolk Design Guide,
and would be acceptable in this location.
It is considered that the site is capable of accommodating two one and a half storey
dwellings without causing significant detriment to the character of the area. The
Highway Authority has confirmed that the access is suitable for such a development.
However, in view of the objection from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager in relation to trees on the site subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is not
considered that the proposal is acceptable or in accordance with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the following grounds:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the application has failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that the proposed development would not have a
significant detrimental impact on trees on the site which are of significant amenity
value and subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy EN4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
26
17 February 2011
10.
KELLING - PF/10/1211 - Erection of two semi-detached replacement dwellings;
1 & 2 Brookside, The Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Minor Development
Target Date: 28 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also LE/10/1284 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two replacement dwellings on the eastern side of The Street,
just south of the junction with the Coast Road (A149) in Kelling.
The replacement dwellings proposed would be sited parallel to the highway and be
constructed largely of flint (with some horizontal boarding), red brick, and would reuse the existing pantiles.
The proposed dwellings would have a combined footprint of approx 274sq.m, would
consist of two gables facing the street scene separated with single storey sedum roof
link elements, but the overall building would be set back from the highway. The
height to ridge would be 6.5m and to eaves approx 3.9m.
The existing conifers along the site frontage would be removed and replaced with a
new flint wall.
The scheme has been amended, adding more flint, replacing the originally proposed
inverted dormers with more traditionally expressed dormers and reducing the amount
of glazing proposed on the east elevation of unit 1.
The existing vehicular access would be utilised as a shared access for both dwellings
and on site parking and turning areas would be provided.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objected to the original plans for the following reasons:
Our position is that in a Conservation village, two sound, charming early 19th Century
flint-faced cottages should not be demolished, particularly as they are situated
opposite a Queen Anne Grade II Listed house. We are concerned that an
unwelcome precedent would be set for approval to demolish further original houses
in the village.
Our reserve position is that, if these fully flint-faced buildings cannot be restored, they
should be replaced with similar flint-faced buildings.
Development Control Committee
27
17 February 2011
Instead of 1st floor velux windows, we would have expected to see dormer windows
which are more in keeping with the surrounding architecture. There are large
expanses of glass shown in the plans that would cause light pollution in an area that
is used and valued as an astronomical 'dark area'.
Further comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application, attached as
Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - A condition requiring compliance with Code level 3 of the
Code for sustainable homes is required in order for the proposal to comply with
Policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
County Council Highways - Given this planning application is for the replacement of
the two existing dwellings currently occupying the site, I would not wish to raise a
highway objection to the proposed development subject to conditions including
visibility splays sufficient for cars travelling 25mph, provision of on site parking and
turning and the provision of a vehicular crossing over the ditch/watercourse.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) No objection to the proposal subject to the provision of conditions to safeguard the
trees to be retained during the construction and to protect and enhance biodiversity
in accordance with Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) For the reasons outlined in Conservation Area consent for demolition, LE/10/1284, it
is not considered that the demolition of these cottages can be resisted at all costs.
This said, there is a clear expectation that any redevelopment scheme would need to
enhance the character and appearance of the Kelling Conservation Area if it is to
comply with the aims laid out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and 5 (PPS1 & PPS5.)
In terms of the scheme submitted, the design approach adopted essentially mixes a
vernacular veneer on its public side with more contemporary detailing within the
confines of the site. This marriage of local distinctiveness and innovative freshness is
very much in the spirit of the new North Norfolk Design Guide.
The vernacular Street elevation should help ensure important continuity within the
street scene. This would be further reinforced through the compatible scale and
proportions of the two units. With their coved first floors and relatively narrow gables,
the dwellings would sit comfortably within their setting, and would in fact make better
use of the site through their perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a
striking rhythm and dialogue between the two units with their balancing gables and
chimney stacks.
Elsewhere, it is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a
significant planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found
elsewhere in the village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within
the village. If one also considers the welcome removal of the existing conifers, which
currently detract from the existing cottages, the aspect of the site should be
considerably improved.
Development Control Committee
28
17 February 2011
The amended scheme has satisfactorily addressed previous concerns with materials
and the appearance of the windows on the southern elevation and therefore subject
to conditions including submission of samples of materials, details of verges and
eaves, sections of doors and windows and the use of an appropriate mortar mix the
scheme is acceptable and raises no C&D objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Design and scale
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Highway impact
5. Impact on biodiversity
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where the principle of replacement
dwellings is acceptable, subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Development Control Committee
29
17 February 2011
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance
of the surrounding countryside.
Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 require that proposals for development should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant
settlement character studies. Development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the character and appearance of area, in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 requires that all development will be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness, whilst innovative and
energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have
regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of
an area, in this case the Conservation Area, will not be acceptable. In addition
Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) states
that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated
heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater
the presumption in favour of its conservation should be.
In respect of Policy HO8 outlined above, the proposed height of the dwellings would
be similar to that of the existing dwellings (proposed ridge approx 400mm above the
height of the original dwellings), whilst the proposal would have a larger footprint than
existing (approx 274sq.m proposed footprint compared to that of the existing of
88sq.m); the similar height coupled with the combination of single and two storey
elements would help to mitigate against an increase in the overall footprint.
Furthermore the choice of material with flint, red brick and re-used pantiles to the
street elevations and some cedar boarding facing within the application site, would
help to plant the building within its landscape setting and reduce its visual impact in
the wider landscape. It is therefore considered that although the proposed dwellings
would result in an increase in the scale compared with the original dwellings they
would not result in a material increase in impact on the surrounding countryside, with
the dwellings only being seen from close proximity, in terms of the wider landscape.
In terms of impact on the Conservation Area, whilst the existing pair of semi
detached dwellings contribute to the character of the Conservation Area through their
vernacular materials and detailing, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager advises that the buildings have no special architectural or historic interest to
qualify for listed status and subject to an appropriate replacement scheme which
would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, there is no
objection to the demolition of the buildings. In terms of the replacement scheme, the
proposal has been amended to increase the amount of flint, to add dormers to the
southern elevation, instead of the originally proposed inverted dormers, and to soften
the angle of the wall which delineates the parking area of unit 1 within the site.
The scheme proposed would have a front elevation which includes vernacular
detailing and this should help ensure important continuity within the street scene,
which would be further reinforced through the compatible scale and proportions of
the two units. With their coved first floors and relatively narrow gables, the dwellings
would sit comfortably within their setting, and would make better use of the site
through their perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a striking rhythm
and dialogue between the two units with their balancing gables and chimney stacks.
Elsewhere, it is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a
Development Control Committee
30
17 February 2011
significant planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found
elsewhere in the village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within
the village. The proposed dwellings are therefore considered to be of an appropriate
design for their setting and to enhance the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area.
In respect of the relationship with neighbouring properties, due to the separation
distance there would be no amenity issues either in terms of overlooking or loss of
light.
In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority has advised no objection to the
proposed replacement dwellings subject to conditions. Furthermore sufficient on-site
parking and turning areas are proposed in accordance with the Council's parking
standards.
With regard to biodiversity, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
advised that no trees of any amenity value are proposed to be removed and
protected species should not be affected. Therefore, subject to conditions ensuring
protection of the trees to be retained on the site and replacement of those to be
removed, and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the species
report submitted, the proposal would have no adverse impact on biodiversity.
It is considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
the Parish Council and the imposition of conditions including submission of
samples of materials, details of verges and eaves, sections of doors and
windows and the use of an appropriate mortar mix, black painted metal
rainwater goods, provision of vehicular access and visibility splays, provision
of parking areas, provision of a vehicular crossing over the ditch/watercourse,
submission of a landscaping scheme, implementation in accordance with the
protected species survey, arboricultural implications assessment, method
statement and tree protection plan and implementation in accordance with
amended plans.
11.
KELLING - LE/10/1284 - Demolition of two dwellings; 1 & 2 Brookside, The
Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Target Date: 30 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Conservation Area Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
See also PF/10/1211 above.
Development Control Committee
31
17 February 2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of a pair of semi-detached two storey flint cottages on the
eastern side of The Street, just south of the junction with Coast Road (A149) in
Kelling, in the designated Conservation Area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, for the following reasons:
Our position is that in a Conservation village, two sound, charming early 19th Century
flint-faced cottages should not be demolished, particularly as they are situated
opposite a Queen Anne Grade II Listed house. We are concerned that an
unwelcome precedent would be set for approval to demolish further original houses
in the village.
Our reserve position is that, if these fully flint-faced buildings cannot be restored, they
should be replaced with similar flint-faced buildings.
REPRESENTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service The application involves the demolition of a pair of historic cottages within the Kelling
Conservation Area which are shown on the Kelling title map of c.1840. Although the
properties are not listed buildings in their own right they form an important
component of the Conservation Area, which itself is a designated asset. The
demolition of these historic properties would have a negative impact on the
significance of the designated heritage asset. PPS5 (Planning for the historic
environment) states that 'loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require
clear and convincing justification. The application does not provide sufficient
justification for the loss of significance to the designated heritage asset that will result
from the proposed demolition and consequently we recommend that it is refused.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) By virtue of their mellowed vernacular materials and traditional detailing, the buildings
in question blend seamlessly with other properties along The Street. They appear to
date from the mid 19th century and have therefore contributed to the quintessential
Kelling village scene for over 150 years. Their demolition is therefore not something
to be approached lightly.
This said if one looks closely at the two buildings, they display fairly standard
detailing which is far from exceptional. Certainly they do not have the special
architectural and historic interest to qualify for listed status. Rather than 'stand out'
structures, they are part of the supporting cast locally and therefore cannot be
considered 'critical capital' in conservation terms. This notwithstanding, it is
considered that their demolition should only ever be countenanced in the event of a
redevelopment scheme being proposed which would enhance the character and
appearance of this part of Kelling's Conservation Area.
In terms of the replacement dwellings proposed, the vernacular Street elevation
should help ensure important continuity within the street scene. This would be further
reinforced through the compatible scale and proportions of the two units. With their
coved first floors and relatively narrow gables, the dwellings would sit comfortably
within their setting, and would in fact make better use of the site through their
perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a striking rhythm and dialogue
Development Control Committee
32
17 February 2011
between the two units with their balancing gables and chimney stacks. Elsewhere, it
is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a significant
planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found elsewhere in the
village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within the village. If one
also considers the welcome removal of the existing conifers, which currently detract
from the existing cottages, the aspect of the site should be considerably improved.
Overall, therefore, the loss of the existing cottages is certainly not something which
can be unequivocally welcomed. However, because the proposed development
offers sufficient compensation and enhancements to outweigh the conservation loss,
it is not considered that a recommendation of refusal can be substantiated in this
instance. With appropriate materials, the scheme should not harm the significance of
the designated Conservation Area.
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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The existing dwellings are of a traditional flint, red brick and red clay pantile
construction and are sited perpendicular to The Street, with the western gable hard
up to the highway.
The buildings are traditional in their vernacular and detailing and appear to date from
the 19th Century and contribute to the appearance and character of Kelling Village
and the designated Conservation Area, although do not have the special architectural
and historic interest to qualify for listed status.
The site is located within the village of Kelling which lies within the designated
Conservation Area and Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies EN4 and EN8 are
applicable. These require that all development will be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. In the case where the proposal would involve the
demolition of non-listed buildings these will be assessed against the contribution to
the architectural or historic interest of the area made by that building. Buildings which
make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of an area should be
retained. Where a building makes little contribution to the area, consent for
demolition will be given provided that, in appropriate cases, there are acceptable and
detailed plans for any redevelopment or after-use.
Development Control Committee
33
17 February 2011
In this particular case the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that as the building is of no particular architectural merit and or historic
value that there is no conservation objection to its demolition, subject to an
appropriate redevelopment scheme being proposed which would enhance the
character and appearance of this part of Kelling's Conservation Area. The
redevelopment of the site, as proposed under planning application 10/1211, is
considered to be acceptable in principle.
The Conservation and Design Manager has indicated that whilst the justification for
the proposed demolition is not as detailed as it might be, the issue is fundamentally
about the net impact of the proposals upon the significance of the Kelling
Conservation Area. In this respect there are a number of clearly outlined and readily
apparent benefits which, it is considered, would outweigh the modest interest and
qualities of the existing cottages and these include:
1. The two dwellings, through their conjoined form and orientation would create a far
more interesting and layered street scene than the existing in-line pair;
2. The proposed dwellings would offer more animated elevations through the
fenestration and mix of materials/textures - the existing are rather bland by
comparison;
3. The development as a whole would make much better use of the site in terms if
curtilage arrangements and residential amenity;
4. The new boundary wall would strengthen and reinforce the existing enclosure
through the village and would also help to reduce the existing vehicular dominance of
the curtilage.
Overall therefore, the demolition of the existing buildings in the Conservation Area is
considered acceptable as the proposals outlined in parallel application 10/1211 for
the replacement dwellings would enhance the character and appearance of this part
of Kelling's Conservation Area. A condition would be required to ensure that the
demolition is not undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of
redevelopment of the site has been let.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including a condition
requiring that the demolition shall not be undertaken before a contract for the
carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been let and
planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the
contract provides.
12.
SUSTEAD - PF/10/1317 - Erection of general purpose agricultural building;
Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
Minor Development
Target Date: 18 January 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Setting of the Conservation Area
Development Control Committee
34
17 February 2011
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071516
NP - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural storage
building
Approved 09/11/2007
PLA/20090437 PF - Erection of agricultural storage building
Withdrawn 09/06/2009
PLA/20090974 PF - Erection of Agricultural Storage Building
Withdrawn by Applicant 13/01/2010
PF/10/0699 PF - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
Withdrawn by Applicant 11/08/2010
PF/10/0197 PF - Proposed general purpose agricultural building
Refused 22/4/2010
Appeal Allowed 28/9/2010
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building
measuring approximately 36.5m long, 13.7m wide and 5.3m high to the ridge.
The building is to be constructed with a steel frame and timber vertical Yorkshire
boarding on three elevations. Its roof would be constructed from corrugated fibre
cement boarding. The building would be open to the southern elevation and would
have 8 equally spaced bays.
The internal arrangement of the building indicates one large area of approximately
500sq.m.
Access to the building would be along the recently formed track which runs along the
boundary to the east with the Manor House.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issue:
Scale of the proposed building in relation to that allowed at appeal and potential
impact on the Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from occupiers of The Old Coach House to the north
of the site on the following grounds:
1. Don’t feel that a larger building than that allowed at appeal should be permitted.
2. Location of the building extends further east than the existing building and it will
therefore have more impact on the Conservation Area and their property.
3. Would only want indigenous planting if permission were to be granted.
4. Would not want this and the one allowed at appeal to be built – should be one or
the other.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition ensuring that no extractor
or ventilation system is installed unless details have first been approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
County Highways - Subject to the use of these buildings being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use whatsoever
being carried out from the site - no objection.
Development Control Committee
35
17 February 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - There are no
fundamental landscape objections to this proposal.
Whilst relatively large in scale, the proposed new agricultural building is in keeping
with the existing modern building on the site. The location adjacent to the existing
unit is appropriate.
Materials, namely brick plinth and Yorkshire boarding are acceptable. The colour
finish to the proposed Eternit Farmscape Profile 6 cement roof sheeting has not been
specified. I would suggest that the ‘Bracken’ option would be most appropriate to
give the new building some reference to the pantiled roofs of the adjacent traditional
farm buildings making up The Old Coach House and Manor House Farm.
It must be said that concerns still remain relating to the impact of these modern
functional buildings on the Conservation Area and the setting of the Manor House
situated within the Conservation Area. However, having explored many options for
siting and scale of this second modern unit, this does appear to be the least intrusive
solution. The planting proposals in the form of 3 groups of trees will provide an
amount of screening and are suitable given the pastoral parkland setting.
Therefore subject to conditions including samples of materials, tree protection and a
landscaping scheme, Conservation, Design and Landscape raise no objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Scale
3. Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area
Development Control Committee
36
17 February 2011
APPRAISAL
The building would be located adjacent (to the south) of an existing agricultural
building of approximately 300sq.m. and is immediately south of Bessingham
Conservation Area. The site consists of traditional parkland characterised by open
meadow and copses of mature trees. Formerly within the curtilage of the adjacent
Manor House, approximately 25m to the east of the site, the parkland is now under
separate ownership.
A building of a footprint of approx 400sq.m was allowed at appeal (planning
permission reference 10/0197). This would be located to the east of the existing
building on the site and would be constructed with a steel frame and timber vertical
Yorkshire boarding on three elevations. Its roof would be constructed from
corrugated fibre cement boarding. This permission has not yet been implemented
and the applicant has been advised and has accepted that should the current
application be approved, it would be necessary to ensure that either the building
allowed at appeal or the current proposal be erected but not both, owing to the
cumulative negative impact that both would have on the setting of the Conservation
Area.
Since the appeal decision for 10/0197, permission has been granted to re-locate the
Manor House some 80m to the east.
The site is located in the village of Bessingham which is designated as Countryside
in the Core Strategy. The principle of the erection of new buildings for agricultural
purposes in the countryside is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies including Policy EN4 which has regard to design and setting, and
Policy EN2 which seeks to protect and enhance landscape and settlement character.
Previous applications for agricultural buildings (of a smaller footprint to that
proposed) have been refused, based on their scale, massing and design. However,
planning application 10/0197 which had a footprint of 400sq.m was allowed on
appeal in September 2010. In terms of the scale of the proposed building, the
building is larger than that allowed at appeal (some 500sqm compared to that
allowed on appeal at 400sqm). However, the Inspector advised in his decision that
‘the proposed building’s dimensions, steel portal construction and Yorkshire boarding
finish would not reflect the local traditional form of agricultural buildings. However, I
consider it most unlikely that modern farming methods and economics would support
new buildings in traditional scale and materials, and I am unaware of any such local
examples. The adjoining building is similarly modern in appearance …’. Therefore
given that the Inspector did not support that the scale of the building would result in
any harm to the countryside or setting of the Conservation Area, it is not considered
that a refusal based on the increased scale of this building by an additional 100sq.m
could be substantiated.
In addition the Inspector did not accept that the siting of the allowed building
(10/0197) adjacent to the existing farm building, to the south of the Conservation
Area would adversely affect the Conservation Area or setting of the Manor House
within the Conservation Area as it would not be highly visible from public vantage
points. The proposal now for determination would be positioned to the south of the
existing building (rather than the west as allowed at appeal). Given that the
proposed siting would not be any closer to the Conservation Area and again would
not be highly visible from public vantage points, it is not considered that the proposed
building would result in any harm to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area;
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is raising no objection to the
scheme. Therefore it is not considered that any significant harm would result in
respect of the setting of the Manor House or of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
37
17 February 2011
However, it is not considered acceptable for the building subject to this application to
be built in addition to that allowed on appeal, given the cumulative negative impact
they would have on the Conservation Area and surrounding countryside.
It is therefore considered necessary to require by a S106 Obligation, that either this
building is implemented or the building allowed on appeal (planning ref 10/0197), but
not both.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including the submission of
samples of facing materials, details of any ventilation or extraction prior to its
installation, a soft landscaping scheme, tree protection of all trees within 30m
of the proposed building, and a S106 Obligation as appropriate to ensure that
only this building or that allowed at appeal is erected, but not both.
13.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
LETHERINGSETT - PF/10/1428 – Erection of two-storey extension; The Glebe,
Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Markham
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the
potential impact on the village, the Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 – Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway Triangle
site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given that it is
major development on an LDF allocation site.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0484 – Formation of public vehicle park with
associated pedestrian and vehicular accesses and landscaping for Holkham
Estate
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to expedite the
processing of the application and to allow the Committee to appreciate the site and
its surroundings.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Control Committee
38
17 February 2011
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/10/1368 - Erection of single-storey front extension;
Merrywinds, Church Road for Mr & Mrs Benns
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - NMA1/10/0374 - Non material amendment request to revise
windows to front and rear elevations; The Thatched Cottage, Church Lane for
Ms Reynolds
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/1471 - Removal of conditions 7, 8 and 9 of planning ref:
10/0743 to allow permanent residential occupation; The Granary, Adjacent to
Park Farm for Mr & Mrs Howes
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/1473 - Removal of conditions 4, 5 and 6 of planning ref:
10/0741 to allow permanent residential occupation; The Courtyard, adjacent to
Park Farm for Mr Williams & Miss West
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/1350 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to four units of
holiday accommodation (extension of period for commencement of planning
permission reference 07/1753); Dairy Cottage, The Green, Barchams Lane,
Edingthorpe, North Walsham, NR28 9SR for Mr and Mrs M Sidebotham
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/10/1382 - Change of use of agricultural building to B2 brewery;
The Old Store, West Barsham Estate, West Barsham for Mrs J Coubrough
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1302 - Widening of vehicular access and construction
of egress; Land at Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1326 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 14
Hillside Road for Mr C Goodwin
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/1307 - Alterations and erection of single-storey rear
extension; Corner Cottage, 9 High Street for Mrs Luckhoo
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1308 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Corner
Cottage, 9 High Street for Mrs Luckhoo
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1329 - Alterations to external staircase and rear dormer and
installation of roof light; First Floor Flat, 3 The Granary, High Street for Mr & Mrs
N Bennett
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
39
17 February 2011
BLAKENEY - LA/10/1330 - Alterations to external staircase and rear dormer,
internal alterations and installation of roof light; First Floor Flat, 3 The Granary,
High Street for Mr & Mrs N Bennett
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1351 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 44 Morston
Road for Bullen Developments Limited
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1440 - Demolition of existing single-storey dwelling and
erection of replacement two-storey dwelling; 59 New Road for Novus Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LE/10/1441 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling; 59 New Road for
Novus Homes
(Conservation Area Demolition)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1454 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 10/0897 to
permit change of window material to cream coloured PVCu; Moonrakers, Back
Lane for Mrs S Rogerson
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/10/0763 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
materials; Plot 5, 59 New Road for Mr Wells
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA1/07/0586 - Non-material amendment request for
application of lime render to east and west facing walls; The Lodge, The
Fairstead for Trustees of the Miss H D Knott Will Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/10/1052 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 10/0150 to
permit variations to vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access arrangements and
Condition 15 to allow alternative timing of submission of hard and soft
landscaping details.; Cromer & District Hospital, Mill Road for Norfolk &
Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1295 - Conversion of former public conveniences to A1
(retail)/D1 (education facility); Former Public Conveniences, Promenade for
North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1309 - Formation of single bay cricket practice facility; Land at
Cromer Cricket Club, Overstrand Road for Cromer Cricket Club
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1312 - Demolition of garage and erection of detached annexe;
Ilex Cottage, 39 Cliff Drive for Mr & Mrs Mayes
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/1319 - Conversion of B1 (offices) to a mixed use of B1 (offices)
and residential (4 two-storey dwellings and 4 flats); Upton House, 2 St
Margarets Road for Yodude Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
40
17 February 2011
CROMER - PF/10/1352 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Fairholt, 22 Clifton
Park for Mr and Mrs Redhead
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/1378 - Use of land for siting 2 stacked portable buildings;
Cromer Crab Factory, 33 Holt Road for The Seafood Company
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1392 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 8 Links Avenue for Mr R West
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PM/10/1180 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Jordans Yard,
Norwich Road for Mr J Longe
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1346 - Formation of vehicular access; 75 Norwich Road for
MR B Andrews
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - AI/10/1366 - Display of illuminated advertisements; The Running
Horse, Clipbush Lane for Marston's PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/1463 - Erection of single-storey detached annexe (revised
siting); Rear garden of Chusan, Metton Road for Mr R Walker
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/10/1279 - Variation of Conditions 2, 3 & 18 of planning ref:
09/1155 to re-position fence, revise car parking arrangements and omit window
in north elevation of Unit 8; Land off Holt Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1335 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; Field End, Croxton Road for Mr and Mrs A Lee
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1348 - Formation of vehicular access; The Poplars,
Croxton Road for Picken Holdings
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/10/1391 - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony
above; Barn 1, Old Hall Farm House, 64 The Street, Barney for Armstrong
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/1267 - Erection of single-storey extension; Horseshoe
Cottage, Church Street for Mrs J George
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/1420 - Erection of 15m wind turbine; Hall Farm Barn, Field
Dalling Road, Bale for Mr H Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
41
17 February 2011
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/1356 - Erection of detached pre-fabricated workshop
building; DLH Autorecyclers, Grub Street for Mr D Horsnell
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/1414 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 10/0180
to extend time period for painting of building; DLH Autorecyclers, Grubb Street
for Mr D Horsnell
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/1311 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension
and raising roof of single-storey extension to provide accommodation in
roofspace; 69 The Street for Mr Martin
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/10/1320 - Erection of 2 garages and 1 workshop; 8 Dereham
Road for Mr Wood
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - LE/10/1321 - Demolition of 3 garages; 8 Dereham Road for Mr Wood
(Conservation Area Demolition)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/1363 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension,
conservatory and detached garage; Renwood, Vale Road for Woodland
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/1210 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land at Princess Court
for Flagship Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/1451 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Kings Head,
19 High Street for Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/10/1139 - Non-material amendment request for change of roof
profile; 1 The Fairstead for Mrs K Oldfield
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LANGHAM - PF/10/1338 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Astley Cottage,
Binham Road for Mr R Jones
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/10/1374 - Erection of dwelling (revised design utilising garage
as habitable accommodation); 19 North Street for Fleur Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/1336 - Erection of single-storey extensions; Unit 5 Moat
Farm Barns, East Ruston Road for Mr & Mrs Hart
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - LA/10/1387 - Erection of single-storey extensions; Unit 5 Moat
Farm Barns, East Ruston Road for Mr & Mrs Hart
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
42
17 February 2011
MATLASKE - PF/10/1283 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
one unit of holiday accommodation, annexe and formation of vehicular access;
Garden Cottage, Watery Lane for Mr G Salmond and Miss M Hodgkinson
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - PF/10/1442 - Erection of two and a half storey extension; North
Barningham Hall, Barningham Road, North Barningham for Mr R Palmer
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - LA/10/1443 - Alterations to facilitate erection of two and a half
storey extension; North Barningham Hall, Barningham Road, North Barningham
for Mr R Palmer
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/1408 - Erection of porch; The North Wing, Burgh
Parva Hall, Holt Road for Mr M Chamley & Mr M Davies
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/10/1409 - Internal alterations and erection of porch;
The North Wing, Burgh Parva Hall, Holt Road for Mr M Chamley & Mr M Davies
(Listed Building Alterations)
MORSTON - PF/10/1327 - Installation of external cladding and replacement
windows and doors; Parish Hall, Quay Lane for Morston Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - PF/10/1331 - Erection of two agricultural grain storage buildings;
Land at Langham Airfield for Ralph Harrison & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - PF/10/1415 - Erection of replacement dwelling (extension of period
for commencement of planning ref: 07/1815); North Down, Blakeney Road for Mr
& Mrs Burton
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1281 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling with
basement; Land adjacent 3 Norwich Street for Coburn Garner Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1282 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling with
basement; Land adjacent 4 Norwich Street for Coburn Garner Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1404 - Continued siting of storage container; Mundesley
Medical Centre, Munhaven Close for Mundesley Medical Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/10/1240 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration; Low Lawns, 21 Beckmeadow Way for Mr & Mrs Crawshaw
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0862 - Change of use from residential and showroom
to bed and breakfast accommodation, showroom, tea-room and
conference/function rooms; Melbourne House, Bacton Road for Mr Fleming &
Mrs Hipperson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
43
17 February 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1256 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 39
Yarmouth Road for Mr & Mrs B Dyer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/10/1344 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements (part retrospective); Sainsburys, Bacton Road for Sainsburys
Supermarkets Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1347 - Erection of rear extension; 43 Thirlby Road for
Mr & Mrs Juffs
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1364 - Erection of one and two-storey ancillary
residential outbuilding; Grammar School Farm, Lyngate Road for Ditch
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1397 - Installation of replacement shop front; 16A
Church Street for Mrs Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - HZ/10/0654 - Storage of 226 tonnes natural gas and 142 tonnes
unstabilised condensate; ENI Hewett Gas Terminal, Paston Road for ENI Hewett
Ltd (SCO90159)
(Hazardous Substance)
PASTON - PF/10/1362 - Erection of 2 no. 75 m vent masts; Bacton Gas Terminal,
Paston Road for Perenco UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PM/10/0734 - Erection of two-storey agricultural dwelling;
Glebe Farm, Marsh Road for Mr & Mrs Hall
(Reserved Matters)
RAYNHAM - LA/10/1277 - Installation of solar panels; The Old Post Office, The
Street, West Raynham for Rev R Massingberd-Mundy
(Listed Building Alterations)
RUNTON - PF/10/1201 - To re-roof agricultural storage building; Brick Kiln
Farm, Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr R Matthews
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/1381 - Erection of detached car port; Beechwood, Shawcross
Road, West Runton for Mr D Chenery
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/1386 - Change of use of former day nursery to residential
dwelling; Grove Farm Day Nursery, Creake Road for Miss J Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - LA/10/1421 - Installation of replacement windows and
conservatory and internal alterations; Gardeners Cottage, Cranmer Hall, Creake
Road, Cranmer for Mr & Mrs Allen
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
44
17 February 2011
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1324 - Erection of side extension; 18 Holt Road for Mr &
Mrs Hudson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1332 - Erection of two-storey side extension, singlestorey rear extension and re-location of porch; 6 St Josephs Road for Mr S
Roberts
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1367 - Erection of detached double garage with storage in
roof space; 15 St Austins Grove for Welch
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1407 - Erection of 1.8m high boundary fence; 44 Nelson
Road for Mr D Lingard
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1433 - Removal of two dormer windows and installation
of one replacement dormer window and replacement balcony balustrade; 43
Morris Street for Mr W A Boddy
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - PF/10/1430 - Construction of footpath, blocking up gateways and
formation of 2 gate openings; St Michael Church, Cromer Road for Director of
Environment, Transport and Development
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0874 - Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Ref: 08/0588 to
allow under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 the erection of buildings, structures or means of enclosure within
the curtilage of the dwelling without the need for further planning permission
(amended description); Whitethorn Cottage, Sandy Lane for Mr N Godden
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/10/1125 - Erection of two two-and-a-half-storey detached
dwellings; 46 Wells Road for Mr Weston
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/10/1405 - Erection of two-storey side extension and single-storey
rear extension; 32 Goose Lane for Mr & Mrs Woods
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/10/1334 - Erection of rear conservatory; 5 Meadow View, Trunch
Road for Mr & Mrs Hicks
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/10/1361 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 04/2000 to
permit changes to windows and addition of roof lights to Unit 2; Pond Farm,
Pond Road, Bradfield for Mr Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/1182 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation including re-instatement of original roof; Pitt Farm, The Hill for
Mr R Fielding
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
45
17 February 2011
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/1298 - Erection of porch; The Bungalow, Long
Common Lane for Mrs Jay
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/10/1459 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Huntsmans Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs Beswick
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PM/10/1120 - Erection of one pair of two-storey semi-detached
dwellings; Land adjacent No 3, Wellington Crescent, Sculthorpe for Ms M White
(Reserved Matters)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1395 - Variation of Condition 2 and 4 of planning ref:
08/0055 to permit revised access layout/proposals and corresponding vehicular
parking and turning area; Primrose Cottage, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Tweddle
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/10/1425 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Patience,
Church Street for Mr M Edwards
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/10/1158 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 2 Paynes
Cottages, Chapel Road for Mr R Parrott
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1328 - Erection of 60m high wind monitoring mast; Land off
Church Street, Sco Ruston for Airvolution Energy Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1355 - Variation of condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit full residential occupancy of Unit 11; 11 Laurel Farm Barns, Market
Street for Mrs C Eccles
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1373 - Variation of Conditions 3 & 4 of planning ref: 07/1717
and Condition 1 of planning ref: 10/0812 to permit increase in front eaves
height, recessed entrance porch and installation of solar panels; Land at Hall
Farm Cottage, Market Street for Ms C Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/1318 - Erection of portable office building; Unit 2 North
Creake Airfield Bus Pk, Bunkers Hill, Wells Road, Egmere for Statoil ASA
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0922 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to mixed
use A1 (retail) and A3 (restaurant/cafe); 57 Staithe Street for Miss H Nott
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1188 - Erection of 2 staff cottages (revised
siting), formation of veranda, installation of first floor window and erection of
outbuilding/shed; Blenheim House, Theatre Road for Mr & Mrs H Lewthwaite
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
46
17 February 2011
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1403 - Installation of glazed doors; 17 Mainsail
Yard Freeman Street for Mr H Duxbury
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/1412 - Installation of rooflight and replacement
windows (retrospective); Hollybank House & Gooseye, Standard Road for Ms T
Sowerby
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1359 - Installation of air source heat pump; 28 Springfield
Close for Mrs C O'Connor
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1393 - Demolition of garage and erection of games room;
Home Farm, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Middleton
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1400 - Erection of single-storey extension and detached
studio building; South Cottage, The Street for Norwood Homes Ltd. & Mr & Mrs
P Barrett
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1077 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions
and detached workshop; White House, Meeting Hill for Mr and Mrs Holland
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1322 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 07/1976 to
permit erection of smaller dwelling; Laurel Farmhouse, Front Street for
Worstead Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/10/1370 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 1 Queensway for Mr & Mrs Burton-Pye
(Outline Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - NMA1/08/1739 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
lobby and windows (Plot 2); Holly Bush Lodge, Station Road, Great Ryburgh for
Mr & Mrs George
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1152 - Erection of A1 (retail) unit, A5 (hot-food take-away)
unit, 2 offices and 4 flats; 10, Station Approach for Mr & Mrs S P Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - LE/10/1250 - Demolition of one and a half storey building; 10,
Station Approach for Mr & Mrs S P Lee
(Conservation Area Demolition)
APPEALS SECTION
Development Control Committee
47
17 February 2011
16.
NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0786 - Variation of Condition 2 of 08/1690 to increase
opening hours to 8.00 am to 1.00 am each day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
17.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 01 December 2010
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0936 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1
(retail)/residential to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence
Place, The Street for Mr A Cannon
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Use of site for HGV Operating Centre and
storage of Portaloos; The Old Works, Marshgate
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/0906 - Use of Land for Siting Timber
Dwelling for Supervisor of Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr Den Engelse
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
Development Control Committee
48
17 February 2011