OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 17 JANUARY 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/1192 - Erection of one and a half storey side/front
extension; Carwood House, 59 The Street for Mr & Mrs Howard
- Target Date: 13 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land Buffer
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061354 PF - Alterations to roof and construction of chimneys and dormer
windows
Approved 20/10/2006
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a one and a half storey side and front extension to provide a
garage and garden room/gym at ground floor and a study and studio at first floor
level. The lean to garage on the eastern side of the dwelling is to be demolished to
make way for the proposed extension.
A side extension measuring 5m in width is proposed on the eastern gable. This
would sit flush with the front elevation of the property and project approx 4m from the
rear of the property. It would have a height to ridge of 7.4m (approximately 0.5m
lower than the ridge height of the main dwelling). It would be served by one dormer
window on the rear roof slope and a roof light in the front roof slope.
A cart shed style garage with first floor accommodation above is proposed to the
front (south) of the dwelling and would be connected to the proposed side extension
by a covered way.
The proposed cart shed garage would project approx 9m to the front of the house
and would have a height to ridge of 7m. It would have two dormer windows in the
western roof slope and an external staircase on the southern gable. Four roof lights
would be positioned along the eastern elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wright having regard to the following planning issue:
Scale of the proposed extension
Development Committee
1
17 January 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Loss of light to those dwellings to the south by virtue of the height and close
proximity of the extension.
2. Overbearing impact on those dwellings to the south.
3. Loss of privacy as a result of the external staircase.
4. Concern with potential future uses of the extension (holiday let or B&B).
5. Adverse visual impact in the street scene and to neighbouring properties.
6. Overdevelopment of the site.
7. The site has already seen a reduction in the number of trees and there is concern
that the applicant may in the future remove the sycamore tree between the proposal
and the dwellings to the south.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health Owing to the size and construction of the existing structure, the applicant is advised
that a Demolition Notice, under Section 80 of the Building Act will be required. This
will need to include hours of operation owing to the close proximity of residential
properties.
I note, with the demolishing of the existing structure, there will be a significant
amount of waste. I will require the submission of Waste Transfer Note as part of the
demolition works, ensuring the waste has been removed from site correctly, safely
and legally.
I cannot find any information on the attached plan relating to disposal of surface
water and as such, I would like to condition surface water disposal.
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 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Scale and design.
2. Impact on neighbouring amenity.
Development Committee
2
17 January 2013
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area, where the extension of dwellings is
acceptable subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
In this case, in respect of scale the proposed extension seeks an increase in the floor
area of approx. 63% (an additional 204sqm is proposed to the existing 320sqm
property). This, coupled with the subordinate design of the extension, stepping down
from the main ridge of the house and the fact that the property is set behind other
dwellings in the street scene and so is not highly prominent, would result in an
extension that would be neither disproportionately large in height or scale to the
original dwelling; nor would it materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
surrounding countryside. It is therefore considered to comply with the objectives of
Policy HO 8 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of design, the proposed extension would be constructed of a mix of
materials (render and timber cladding under a pantile roof) which would not compete
with the original property. The bulk and scale of the extension is considered
appropriate for the host dwelling. The existing house is set back from the road and
the proposed extension would to a large extent be screened to the street scene by
the two properties which sit in front of it. The appropriate design and positioning
ensures that the proposed extension would be suitable for its context on the property
and within the street scene.
With regard to neighbouring amenity to the dwellings to the south, the proposed one
and a half storey car port would be sited approximately 8m from the northern
boundary of those two dwellings which sit in front of the application site (nos. 59a and
60 The Street). The gable of the proposed garage would be blank but would have a
solid door at first floor level with an external staircase leading up to it. It is not
considered that the use of the external staircase would give rise to any undue
overlooking of those dwellings to the south. A first floor level roof light is proposed in
the front roof slope of the side extension which would serve the study. This would be
positioned approx. 17m from the northern boundary of those dwellings to the south.
This distance, although 1m short of the Council's Basic Amenity Criteria guideline, is
considered sufficient to ensure that no significantly detrimental loss of privacy would
result to those dwellings.
In other respects, whilst the proposed one and a half storey garage would be approx.
8m from the boundary of those dwellings and would have its gable facing those
dwellings, it is sited to their north. The relative orientation and sufficient distance
between them ensures that no significant loss of sunlight would result and
furthermore that the extension would not be significantly overbearing.
Dormer windows are proposed on the western roof slope of the proposed garage,
but, given their orientation in relation to the dwellings to the south, they would not
result in any significant overlooking of those properties. Furthermore the site is well
screened by mature hedge planting to the west and the proposed dormers would not
therefore result in any significantly adverse loss of privacy to the dwellings to the
west or south-west.
Roof lights are proposed in the eastern roof slope of the garage and these would
have the potential to result in overlooking to those neighbouring dwellings to the east.
However, subject to a condition requiring fixed obscure glazing in those roof lights it
is not considered that there would be any significantly adverse loss of privacy.
Development Committee
3
17 January 2013
Concern has been raised by neighbouring properties over potential future uses of the
extension being commercial in nature i.e. B&B or holiday let. The application
submitted is for ancillary residential accommodation for the existing dwelling and
would be conditioned as such. Any alternative use would have to be considered on
its merits, subject to planning permission being required.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including the removal of
permitted development rights for additional first floor windows, fixed obscure
glazing in those roof lights on the eastern roof slope and restricting the use of
the extension to be ancillary to that of the dwelling.
2.
HOLT - PF/12/1375 - Change of use of retail shop (A1) to tea-room (A3); 9C
Chapel Yard, Albert Street for Mrs C Howlett
- Target Date: 29 January 2013
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of the existing A1 clothes shop to a tea-room (A3).
Hours of opening are indicated as 8am to 8pm daily.
A waste and recycling area is proposed to the rear of the building although precise
details and its location are not indicated.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in respect of the following
planning issue:
Retail policy in the Town Centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
Originally commented no objection. Subsequently, given the amount of local
concern, they have advised they wish to re-consider their response at their next
meeting. Further comments are therefore awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
103 letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Consider that Holt does not want to lose another retail unit at the expense of
another food and drink establishment.
2. There are already sufficient food and drink establishments in Holt. A further tearoom will not help improve the vitality and viability of Holt.
3. There is limited parking in Holt which restricts extra visitors coming and this
change of use would mean more competition for the existing food and drink
establishments.
Development Committee
4
17 January 2013
4. There is already a cafe in Chapel Yard.
5. Impact on neighbouring amenity to the adjacent residential property by way of
noise and disturbance particularly if tables outside were ever proposed.
6. Long opening hours will cause noise and disturbance to the occupiers of 12a Mill
Street to the north.
7. Location of waste disposal area to the rear could result in odour nuisance to
residents of 12A Mill Street to the north.
8. Concern with potential future change of use from the cafe to a bar/chip shop and
impact on neighbouring amenity that would result.
9. Another supermarket would be more sensible than another cafe.
10. More parking is needed in Holt.
7 letters of support on the following grounds:
1. The applicant has a history with Holt, hence the reason to establish a tea-room in
the town.
2. A traditional English tea-room will not compete with the existing cafe in Chapel
Yard, but would complement it and other retail units in the yard.
3. There is sufficient capacity in Holt to accommodate a further tea-room.
4. Will help support the vitality and viability of Holt by attracting visitors.
5. There are no other truly traditional English tea-rooms in Holt.
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority - This proposed change of use is unlikely to affect the free
flow of traffic or generate additional vehicular movements, therefore, I am able to
comment that; Norfolk County Council do not wish to raise any objection nor restrict
the grant of consent.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions in respect of requiring the
submission of details of the proposed means of waste disposal and no extraction or
ventilation system to be installed unless a scheme has first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
5
17 January 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the proposed use
2. Parking and highway impact
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies within Chapel Yard and its current use is a clothes shop. The site is
located within an area designated as Town Centre, and Primary Shopping Area as
well as the Conservation Area.
Policy SS5 supports a broad range of uses including shopping, commercial and
cultural as well as others to support the role of the Town Centre. The site lies in the
designated Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area, where the proposed tea-room
use is considered to be acceptable.
Specific areas of the Town Centre are designated as Primary Retail Frontages which
are defined in order to concentrate retail development in central areas of the towns
and do not permit more than 30% of the defined frontage being used for non-A1
(retail). Chapel Yard is not a designated Primary Retail Frontage and this criterion
does not therefore apply to this area. The proposed tea-room use is considered
acceptable in the designated Primary Shopping Area.
The NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should promote competitive town
centres and should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and
pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. This is therefore a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
With regard to car parking there is no space on the site to provide car parking. The
last retail use of the building also had no car parking provision. It is not therefore
considered that this proposal would significantly alter the current parking situation
and the Highway Authority has raised no objection in relation to this matter. The site
is located within the town centre and adjacent to the public car park. It is not
considered that the lack of on site parking would be detrimental to highway safety.
The site lies within the designated Conservation Area where proposals should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. No
changes to the exterior of the building are proposed and the proposal would have a
neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In respect of neighbouring amenity, subject to the imposition of conditions which
include requiring submission and agreement of the waste storage area (there have
been no precise details submitted as to the type or position of waste storage
proposed); no extraction or ventilation equipment until a scheme has first been
submitted and agreed; and restricting the hours of use from 8am to 8pm, it is not
considered that the change of use to a tea-room would result in any significantly
adverse impact on the amenities of the adjacent residential dwellings and this view is
supported by Environmental Health.
The proposal is fully in accordance with Development Plan policies and approval is
therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those required by
the Environmental Health Officer and restricting hours of use from 8am to 8pm
daily.
Development Committee
6
17 January 2013
3.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 July 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Principal Route
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the creation of a public car park for up to four vehicles within Bretts (Lings)
Wood, in order to serve the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) Reserve, with access via an
existing forest track with the entrance off the A148 being upgraded to Norfolk County
Council Highways standards.
An amended plan has been received indicating a 5 metre wide steel hinged overhead
barrier, set some 14 metres back from the edge of the carriageway with a steel
barrier gate to the back edge of the visibility splay. Both structures would be painted
olive green. To the north of the car park would be a further gate which would be kept
locked during normal visitor use so as to prevent vehicular access further into the
wood.
Revised location plan submitted showing the full extent of the applicants' leasehold
land at Bretts (Lings) Wood and also their landholding at Thursford Wood.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
An e-mail has been received from NWT clarifying the situation regarding the closure
of the outer gate. This states that "the outer gate will be locked at night time between
5.00 pm and 9.00 am if we encounter antisocial problems over night. We had not
intended to enforce this on a regular basis since our small car park at the nearby
Thursford Wood further up the same road does not have any restriction re opening
times and we have not encountered any problems at this site regarding overnight
issues. If enforced on a regular basis this would prevent evening access to the wood
by normal visitors, a time when people may often wish to visit. However if it is felt that
this is a necessary constraint we have a system in place regarding regular closure
overnight (the site already has in place 2 volunteer wardens), but we would prefer to
retain the flexibility and instigate a process of locking/unlocking to curtail any
overnight antisocial behaviour if the need arises. The infrastructure will be there in
place to provide us with the ability to deal with this issue."
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the underlying freehold
owner of the land attached to which is a letter to the NWT, which raise a number of
concerns. The letter to the Local Planning Authority points to the fact that the owner
has sporting rights over Lings Wood which he periodically exercises, which poses a
very real threat to public safety. Also that the wood is a beautiful spot and carving a
car park out of it would ruin what is otherwise attractive woodland. The letter also
Development Committee
7
17 January 2013
raises issues regarding the presence of a car parking creating security risk to the
owner's property which adjoins the site. The letter to the NWT raises concerns in
respect of the terms of the lease and the fact that it is considered public access to the
woods is not in accordance with the user clause of the lease.
In addition a letter has also been received directly from the owner of the land which
points to the fact that when he was granted planning permission for his property it
was on the basis that the entrance be understated. The letter goes on to suggest that
the entrance to the car park would not be understated and if permission is granted
would become a stop for fly tipping and use a lavatory. The letter stresses that it is
important to keep this beautiful area unspoiled.
A further three letters of objection have been received which raise the following
concerns (summarised):1. This is an outstanding natural beauty spot and joy to drive past every day.
2. The car park will be used for people to go to the toilet and dump waste.
3. The car park will be used by teenagers, turning this beautiful wood into an
unsightly and possible crime ridden area.
4. There would be a real risk of fire through the irresponsible actions of teenagers
drinking and smoking.
5. There would be an adverse impact on wildlife.
6. This is a very dangerous stretch of road which has been subject to many
accidents and deaths.
A further letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the underlying
freehold owner of the land which raises the following additional concerns
(summarised):1. The justifications and assumption made in the Design and Access Statement are
inaccurate and misleading. Forestry operations are accessed from the airfield
and not the Holt Road. The freehold owner has direct experience and knowledge
that the land is not visited by the public at all and there is a sign at the entrance
which states “no public access”. The correct starting point should be to develop
an access point that is not used either by the public or Forestry Commission, who
ceased using it between 10 and 12 years ago.
2. It is misleading to state that the track will be subject to minimal change as
inevitably works would be required to the boundaries to the edge of the access
way running north to separate Forestry Commission activity from the public.
3. The development would adversely affect the visual amenities of the area with the
requirements for barriers, security features, fencing and loss of trees.
4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes no reference to seeking
to increase public access to countryside locations and therefore there is no
current policy support for development of this nature.
5. The NWT statement that there is little opportunity for public access east of
Fakenham is incorrect. There is public access to Thursford Wood to the east
along the Holt Road.
6. Reiterates that the proposal would significantly adversely affect the security,
safety and amenities of the neighbouring property.
7. The NNPF requires that the Council ensures that any development creates a safe
environment where quality of life is not undermined by concerns for safety. The
freehold owner has shooting rights over the land and this would be totally
inconsistent with the respect of public access.
8. Highlights concerns regarding highway safety, and points to the fact that there
have been five incidents between 1999 and 2008 in the area where five people
have died and a number injured.
Development Committee
8
17 January 2013
Following deferral of the application on 18 October 2012 additional information has
been received from the applicants and their solicitor as follows. The letter explains
the basis on which the Trust holds the property is leasehold for 999 years, which
started on 23 December 1929. The covenants and restrictions within the Lease are
very few and include the requirement to maintain the fences and not to erect any
buildings. There are no restrictions on inviting members of the Trust (or indeed the
public at larger) to visit the property. Furthermore it is suggested that the Forestry
Commission, the original tenant, more than likely allowed visitors from time to time.
They conclude that the Tenant is entitled to use the property in whatever way they
wish. Furthermore, they suggest that although sporting rights are reserved by the
Landlord in the lease this does not mean the Trust is not entitled to have visitors at
the property. They go on to suggest that in the case of the Landlord wishing to
exercise his sporting rights he would be obliged to do so in a proper and responsible
manner respecting health welfare and safety of any person found to be on the
property at the time.
In terms of visit numbers the applicants estimate current level of usage at Bretts
Wood to be similar to that for Thursford Wood nearby, approx. 500 visits per annum.
They have also indicated that they do not anticipate an increase in visitor usage
following the installation of the car park (Thursford Wood has a car park on a similar
scale). Visitors are very seasonal (peaking Spring/Summer). Volunteer groups
(approx. 6 volunteers) visit the site fortnightly throughout the year and staff
movements average some 50 visits a year (this will vary markedly depending on the
management underway at the site). They also suggest that to have a true
perspective on the scale of the car park Members of the Committee may wish to
visit Thursford Wood.
An e-mail to the NWT from the Area Forester for the Forestry Commission indicates
that the placement of the car park on Forestry Commission managed land off
Wallgate Lane is not an option as the land is used for production of timber and also is
very wet with waterlogging evident. It is not open to the public.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments in response to further consultation With consideration that the site already has an existing poorly constructed access
and gateway whereby cars are currently parking on the verge adjacent to that
gateway in order to access the woodland, it would be expected that these cars may
make u-turns upon re-entering the highway, would further deteriorate the access and
carriageway edges and would currently have a limited area adjacent to this principal
route in which to park.
The proposed improved access and car park, which is only small in size,
accommodating no more than four cars plus a turning facility, would provide an
improved arrangement which would mitigate any concerns regarding a potential
increase in visitor numbers.
It must be noted that there are no recorded Personal Injury Accidents (plans
provided) in the vicinity of the site, the proposed improvements are seen to be of
benefit providing a larger surfaced access suitable for all vehicles, a parking and
turning facility within the site rather that at the edge of this busy route and it is for
these reasons that the Highway Authority do not consider this proposal to be
detrimental to highway safety and do not raise any objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Development Committee
9
17 January 2013
Police Service Architectural Liaison Officer - There are a number of these small car
parks around the area, and in general there are very few crime and anti-social
behaviour problems associated with them. Occasionally there are thefts from
vehicles; however the same can occur on any car park. Further it is noted that a gate
is to be installed to curtail late night anti-social behaviour if this becomes an issue.
On that basis there is no objection to the proposal.
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
See Police Service Architectural Liaison Officer's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Impact on wildlife.
4. Impact on the residential amenities on neighbouring property.
5. Highway safety.
6. Crime and disorder.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 23 August 2012 in
order to allow Officers to seek the further views of the Highway Authority in respect of
the access and accident figures in the vicinity of the site and to consult with the
Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
The application was further deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 18 October
2012 in order to allow Officers to seek the following information:1. A copy of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust lease which allows unrestricted public access
to the site.
2. A site location plan which shows the full extent of the area leased by the Norfolk
Wildlife Trust, shown in blue, together with the area in hectares.
Development Committee
10
17 January 2013
3. An indication of current level of usage of the access by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust,
and an indication of the projected usage should the car park be approved.
4. Members also requested that the Norfolk Wildlife Trust make enquires of the
Forestry Commission to establish if it is possible that the nature reserve could be
accessed from Wallgate Lane, across Forestry Commission land.
In response to 1., a copy of the lease has been received and the Planning Legal
Manager will update the Committee on any issues raised.
In response to 2., the additional plan will be shown to the Committee at the meeting.
With regard to 3., Members will note the comments in the Representations section
above. It is not considered that significant additional numbers of visitors to the site
would result from the car park. Officers' assessment of the situation is therefore
unchanged.
As far as 4. is concerned, the Forestry Commission have explained that access via
Wallgate Lane would not be possible for operational reasons.
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy wherein the provision of a car park for visitors to the NWT Reserve would
accord with Policy SS2, which encourages recreation and tourism. Also relevant are
Core Strategy Policies EN4, EN9 and CT5.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, for the
context within which it is set and retain existing important landscaping and natural
features. In addition the policy requires the creation of safe environments, addressing
crime prevention and community safety and to ensure that any car parking is discreet
and accessible. A further requirement is that proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. Policy
EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse
effect to nationally designated sites or other designated areas, including Local Nature
Reserves, or to protected species will not be permitted. As far as highway safety is
concerned Policy CT5 requires that the proposal is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality. New direct access proposals onto Principal Routes will not be permitted
unless the type of development requires a Principal Route location.
At the present time the existing access onto the A148 serves as an entrance to Lings
Wood for timber lorries and machinery during forestry operations. In addition visitors
to the NWT Reserve park at the roadside entrance, which is considered by the NWT
to be unsatisfactory and potentially unsafe. They therefore consider that the creation
of a small car park for up to 4 vehicles set some 40 metres back into the woods from
the A148, which would be accessed via the existing entrance and forest road, would
improve the situation for those visiting the wood.
In terms of the landscape impact, due to the dense tree cover and distance back
from the A148 it is not considered that the car park itself would be discernible from
the public highway. In respect of the access, although the visibility splay would be
upgraded to Norfolk County Council standards, being finished in bitumen macadam,
the rest of the access driveway, which currently has a hoggin finish, would be
redressed with a granite topping. As such, with the exception of formalising the
access, overall the appearance would remain similar to that which exists, and once
established the development would naturalise and blend with the forest surroundings.
Development Committee
11
17 January 2013
However in order to retain a degree of security within the site it is the intention of the
NWT to introduce a steel barrier gate at the entrance which would be painted olive
green with a further barrier with overhead gantry, so as to prevent access by larger
vehicles, set back some 14 metres within the trees.
Overall it is considered that the impact of the development on the wider landscape
would be minimal and would not significantly detract from its character. Given the
limited intrusion into the woods, with the car park itself being finished with a
Geotextile membrane it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse
effect on trees within the site or wildlife interests, a view confirmed by the Council‟s
Landscape Officer.
As far as the impact on the residential amenities of the owners of the neighbouring
property to the east (who are also the freehold owners of Lings Wood) is concerned,
the boundary of this property would be some 160 metres from the car park through
dense woodland, whilst the dwelling would still be some 400 metres away. Given that
there is already access to the wood and that visitors currently park at the entrance it
is not considered that the proposed car park would have any significantly adverse
impact on residential amenity or security of that property. In respect of the other
issues raised such as shooting rights, the NWT has indicated that although these
rights are reserved by the Landlord in the lease this does not mean the Trust is not
entitled to have visitors at the property. Furthermore if the Landlord wished to
exercise his sporting rights he would be obliged to do so in a proper and responsible
manner respecting health welfare and safety of any person found to be on the
property at the time. In any case the issue of sporting rights is considered to be
primarily a civil matter between the parties involved and not a significant concern for
the Local Planning Authority.
As far as the access on the A148 is concerned and the issue of highway safety, the
Highway Authority has confirmed that a new car park accessed directly from a
corridor of movement would normally be contrary to its adopted policy. However in
this particular case, given the existence of the access and the fact that cars currently
park on the verge adjacent to the highway in order to access the wood, the Highway
Authority considers that the creation of a small car park with turning facilities would
not intensify the use of the access. However it has indicated that in accordance with
the submitted plan it would wish to see the access for the first 4 metres back from the
edge of the carriageway improved in accordance with highway standards.
Furthermore there are no recorded Personal Injury Accidents in the vicinity of the
site.
With regard to local concerns in respect of crime and disorder the Police Service's
Architectural Liaison Officer has confirmed that they would have no objection as
there are a number of these small car parks around the area, and in general there
are very few crime and anti-social behaviour problems associated with them.
Occasionally there are thefts from vehicles however the same can occur on any car
park. Further it is noted that a gate is to be installed to curtail late night anti-social
behaviour if this becomes an issue.
It is therefore considered that the creation of car park for four vehicles would facilitate
public access to the NWT Reserve without significantly affecting the landscape
character of the area or highway safety. As such the scheme is considered to be
acceptable and would accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
12
17 January 2013
4.
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1202 - Conversion of coastguard station to holiday
accommodation, insertion of dormer window and erection of side extension;
Coastguards, Beach Road for Mr M Lucas
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870819 GO
Extend the existing building to accommodate a w.c., washing facilities and a small
galley
Crown development - no objection raised (1987)
THE APPLICATION
Is to raise the roof of the former Coastguard Station and add a 6 m2 porch to facilitate
its conversion to a one bedroom holiday cottage.
The building has a footprint of 7.6m x 5m and it is proposed to add 1m to the height
of the building so that a bedroom and bathroom can be fitted into the roof space.
No private amenity space or parking facility are proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith having regard to the following planning issue:
The amount of extension proposed to convert a building to holiday accommodation
within an area identified as at risk from Coastal Erosion.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on grounds of
1. Parking
2. Substantial change of use
3. Lack of amenities - no garden/play area.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the following
grounds:
1. Overlooking from the dormer window; request that it is fixed closed and obscure
glazed.
2. Lack of parking.
3. Potential effects of moving electricity and telephone services.
CONSULTATIONS
Coast Protection Engineer - no comment
Highways - no objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the
permanent closure of the vehicular access to the site.
Development Committee
13
17 January 2013
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
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 the development in coastal erosion risk area
2. Design
3. Increase in size
4. Impact on neighbouring residential amenities
5. Parking/amenity space issues
APPRAISAL
The former Mundesley Coastguard Station is a small functional building on Beach
Road in the centre of Mundesley. It lies adjacent to the Conservation Area and within
the area identified as at risk from coastal erosion in the 100 year epoch (the lowest
category of risk) of the Shoreline Management Plan. In the area at risk from coastal
erosion the policy is to not permit development likely to increase the risk to life or
property.
The Development and Coastal Erosion Development Control Guidance provides
additional guidance on assessing proposals against Policy EN 11. For sites that are
in the 100 year epoch where the risk is not so immediate the advice is to allow uses
which would enable a building to serve a productive use so as not to blight an area
with derelict sites. The former coastguard station occupies a prominent place on
Mundesley sea front where a site if allowed to become derelict would have an
adverse impact on an important tourist village.
The Coastguard Station is an area behind the strong fortified sea defences in
Mundesley which have a life expectancy left of approximately 45 years. The risk is
therefore clearly not immediate, and in these circumstances it is considered that a
Development Committee
14
17 January 2013
holiday use which excluded permanent occupancy would be an appropriate interim
use for this building providing it was suitably conditioned with holiday restrictions
including limiting the maximum single period of occupancy to two months.
As for the alterations proposed to the building, they are considered to result in a
considerable improvement to this functional rather than attractive building. It is
proposed that the front gable is glazed with a full height feature window which would
provide most of the light to living room and bedroom. The hardwood fenestration is
timber stained black to contrast with the cream rendering to be applied to the walls.
The dormer and porch adds visual interest to the building. In all it is considered that
the alterations are an enhancement to the building and as a consequence to the
adjacent Conservation Area.
As regards the neighbour objection to the dormer window, this would face south
across an area occupied by stables in front of the objector's property, it is not
considered to raise significant issues of detriment to the amenities of that property.
No parking can be accommodated in the site, but the site is close to public car parks
for which season tickets can be purchased. As a larger village Mundesley is served
by buses and is a bike or taxi ride away from railway stations in Cromer and North
Walsham. Consequently, it is considered that the lack of parking should not be a
barrier to bringing this building back into a productive use. Furthermore, the Highway
Authority has raised no objections.
While the property is regarded as unsuitable for a permanent dwelling because of the
lack of parking and private amenity space, the lack of those facilities is considered to
be less of an issue for holiday cottages where a central location close the beach
makes it a desirable visitor location.
In conclusion it is considered the development would not conflict to any significant
degree with Development Plan policies and would result in a welcomed re-use of the
building with improvements to its appearance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the
materials, restricting the occupancy to holiday accommodation with any one
occupancy limited to two months, and closure of the access as requested by
the Highway Authority.
5.
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable energy
facility with associated landscaping and vehicular access; North Creake
Airfield, Holkham Estate, Egmere for Egmere Energy Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 05 February 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Development Committee
15
17 January 2013
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/1318 Construction of 20 mw solar photovoltaic farm and associated works
including inverter housing, landscaping and security measures
Land at North Creake Airfield, Egmere, Walsingham - Awaiting determination
THE APPLICATION
Comprises the construction of a biomass fuelled renewable energy facility on a 3.3
hectare site to the west of a grain facility on the former North Creake airfield.
The proposal would involve "break crops" such as maize, grass silage, sugar beet,
triticale, ryegrass and fodder beet grown on surrounding fields being used to feed an
anaerobic digester to create biogas. The proposed facility would convert
approximately 35,000 tonnes of locally sourced biomass into biogas, which would be
transferred into the gas network via an adjacent gas utility sub-station. In addition,
approximately 25,000 tonnes of liquid and solid organic bio-fertiliser would be
produced from the digestion process, which would be returned to local farms as a
replacement for artificial fertilisers.
The buildings and infrastructure to be constructed would comprise plant and
structures for the storage of feedstock material and bio-fertiliser, a biogas digester,
biogas holder, leachate storage tank, gas to grid processing unit and ancillary
structures and buildings for the renewable energy process and site management.
The proposed facility would consist primarily of a silage clamp of earth bund design
covering approximately 9,000 sq.m of land. This would be accompanied by three
main tanks - a fermentation tank, with an external diameter of 23m and a maximum
height of approximately 9.6m, and two liquid digestate storage tanks, one with an
external diameter of 34m and a maximum height of approximately 12.8m and the
other with an external diameter of 37m and a maximum height of approximately
12.8m.
Other structures of note include a Combined Heat and Power unit with gas engine,
which would have a height of approximately 10m to the top of the exhaust stack.
Access is proposed to be from the B1105 via the adjacent access to the ABN grain
facility with egress made via an existing farm track running northwards before turning
east onto the B1105.
Amongst other things, an ecological report, an archaeological desk-based
assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment,
noise, odour and air pollution reports and Flood Risk Assessment and Contamination
Report have been submitted with the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
This application should be considered by the Development Committee alongside
other proposals and plans for the airfield. There are a large number of concerns
raised by residents at Egmere, including overdevelopment, impact on landscape and
loss of amenity and habitat as well as grave concerns about traffic and the danger
this poses in particular to school children.
REPRESENTATIONS - Nine representations have been received all objecting to the
proposal.
Development Committee
16
17 January 2013
Summary of objections:1. Totally object to the proposal;
2. The historical nature of North Creake airfield needs to be taken into account;
3. Traffic impact in addition to the windfarm facilities soon to be opened will be
significant;
4. Traffic poses a risk to children waiting for the school bus and slow traffic may
result in impatient drivers;
5. Will increase slow moving traffic on the roads;
6. Traffic regularly exceeds the speed limit along this stretch;
7. The proposal affects a public right of way which is not only used by residents but
also those interested in the former airfield;
8. Concerned about noise smell and dust
9. Should be located in a safer location;
10. Will extend the amount of built development at Egmere;
11. Seems to run contrary to Development Plans;
12. This in combination with other proposed developments will adversely affect the
historical context of the former airfield;
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Objection - As currently designed, the Highway
Authority considers the proposed development would be detrimental to highway
safety. Therefore, I find that I must recommend refusal for the following reasons:The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of its
non-standard arrangement which may lead to conflicting vehicle movements within
the site access, which would give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT5
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 Core Strategy Policy CT5.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
subject to conditions - The Landscape Section considers that although the proposed
development will have some impact at the local level, the wider impacts are not
deemed to be significant. With the proposed additional element to the north-west of
the site, the proposed landscape mitigation is sufficiently substantial that it will reduce
impacts at a local and wider level. The proposal is therefore in accordance with
Policies EN2 and EN 7 (See full copy of comments at Appendix 1).
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) – No
objections in principle; recommends off-site planting if possible (see full comment at
Appendix 1) and conditions concerning external colouring of structures.
English Heritage - Awaiting comments
Environment Agency - Original Comments - Objection - We object to the proposed
development as submitted as the application fails to provide assurance that the risks
of pollution to controlled waters are understood. No preliminary risk assessment
(including a desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk) has been
provided. The proposed development requires an assessment whenever there may
be a risk, not only when the risk is known.
The site is located on a former airfield this could have caused contamination of the
site for example the release of fuels into the subsurface. No preliminary risk
assessment has been provided to satisfy us that the risks to controlled water
Development Committee
17
17 January 2013
receptors associated with the site (the Sands and Gravels Secondary A Aquifer
directly underlying the site, and the Chalk Principal Aquifer at depth) are appreciated
and understood. The risk is considered unacceptable as there is no evidence to
indicate otherwise.
National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 states the planning system
should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing
both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable
risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution.
Paragraph 120 states that local policies and decisions should ensure new
development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on
health or the natural environment, taking into account the potential sensitivity of the
area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. Government policy
states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site
investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF,
paragraph 121).
Additional Comments - In response to further reports prepared by the applicant in
respect of the concerns raised about risk to controlled water the Environment Agency
have removed their objection, subject to the imposition of conditions
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions.
Noise
The noise assessment was completed using BS 4142:1997 which is the standard
method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The
methodology is designed to assess the likelihood of complaints from residential
properties as a result from industrial noise. It uses a baseline of the existing
background noise levels.
The background noise levels were measured between the 1st Sept 2012 and 4th
Sept 2012 and included nighttime monitoring. The monitoring was conducted to be
representative of the nearest properties to the site.
The noise levels that are predicted to be experienced at the representative locations
were below the noise rating criteria limit of 35dB(A).
Environmental Health have assessed the noise report and consider the methodology
to be robust. The conclusions reached, indicate the noise levels should not cause a
disturbance to residential properties and these are supported by the data. Should
complaints occur then Environmental Health will look to assess the complaints
through the Statutory Nuisance process laid down under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
Air Pollution
The process is designed to achieve as close to complete combustion as possible and
so minimise any emissions to the atmosphere. The prevailing winds would assist in
the dilution and dispersion of any emissions further reducing any pollutant
concentration.
The Local Authority is expected to monitor developments and assess the likely
cumulative impact of multiple sources (eg the development combined with local traffic
and other sources) Should complaint regarding air quality be raised then these would
be assessed by Environmental Health through its air quality assessment process.
Development Committee
18
17 January 2013
Conditions
1. No loading of the activity (Silage clamps and feed hopper) other than between
07.00am and 19.00pm
2. No external lighting on site, other than small pedestrian security lights adjacent to
doors to the site office and control building
3. Prior to the installation of any additional external lighting, details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting
shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Noise levels at the receptor locations will not exceed the adopted noise rating
criteria level of 35dB LAr as stated in the Noise Assessment.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services - The proposed development has been the
subject of an archaeological desk-based assessment, submitted with the planning
application. This deals adequately with the potential for below-ground heritage
assets. However, it does not address the impact of this development on the setting of
the former airfield.
RAF North Creake was unusual as an airfield - it was built as a decoy site for RAF
Docking, then converted into a Heavy Bomber Station. 171 Squadron and 199
Squadron were based at the airfield. Both squadrons were involved in electronic
counter measures, and operated both "Mandrel" radar jamming equipment, and
dropping "Window" (an early form of anti-radar chaff). Over 1600 staff were
employed at the base at its peak between mid-1944 and mid-1945. Following the end
of the war, the site was used to store and scrap de Havilland Mosquitoes.
Although the base was only operational for a year, it is significant for the work carried
out there on electronic counter measures (modern derivatives of which are carried on
most modern military aircraft), and for the fact that the airfield was converted from a
decoy site to a heavy bomber station.
Surviving buildings include the watch office/control tower (now converted to a private
house), two T.2 hangars, one B.1 hangar and a number of Romney and Nissen huts
on both sides of the B1105. Despite the addition of a number of agricultural buildings,
the site maintains its integrity and character as a former airbase.
The proposed development sits directly between the airfield technical area and the
former flying area. While the Historic Environment Service have no objection to the
principle of development on the former airfield, we would like the relationship
between the technical area and the former flying field preserved. We would
recommend that the site of the plant be moved, to preserve that relationship. This
should be informed by a heritage statement, to discuss the impact of the
development on the setting of the former airfield. The Historic Environment Service
will be happy to advise on the scope of the Heritage Statement and any revised
locations of the plant.
It is worth mentioning that there is considerable potential for artefactual material in
the topsoil (especially in the light of the airfield's post war use as a breaking yard for
de Havilland Mosquitoes), and that a programme of archaeological works is likely to
be necessary. This could be secured by a condition, once a revised location is
finalised.
Development Committee
19
17 January 2013
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection subject to conditions - I have confined my
comments to the potential impacts on the landscape setting of the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but this should not necessarily be taken
to imply that there are no other potential impacts, which I anticipate other consultees
will address if necessary.
The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for this application is a wellprepared and informative document and viewpoints from the AONB appear to be
sensible, although there is no assessment of in-combination effects with the adjoining
proposal for a solar photovoltaic farm, which would have been helpful. Of the two
proposed developments, I consider this one has greater potential for impact on views
from the AONB, being both closer and higher, with some elements of the proposal
being about 13m high.
Although there would be some minor visual impact from the AONB during and in the
short term after development, I agree with the conclusion of the LVIA that in the
longer term this would be negligible because of the development of landscaping,
which could also provide some enhancement of landscape character overall.
There are some opportunities to further mitigate the impacts and improve the gains
from this development, however, as follows:
Principally, the LVIA (p72) correctly notes that the existing industrial buildings have a
major impact on character. Achievement of some taller tree planting to the north of
the existing buildings in association with the proposed development would help to
reduce this impact.
The initial impact of the taller structures (gas/liquid storage tanks and fermentation
tank) could be reduced by painting them a suitable colour.
The proposed planting mix could be simpler. Although this might be decorative and
suitable in a more urban setting, a more restricted range of locally appropriate
species that would still provide all-year structure and screening is likely to be more
suitable in this very rural location – perhaps just Scots pine, hawthorn, blackthorn
and holly, for example.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions - I support the
proposal which will deliver a contribution to the generation of renewable energy in the
District. I recommend that the application be approved subject to Conservation,
Design and Landscape and Environmental Health Officers confirming no significant
adverse effects as outlined in Core Strategy Policy EN 7.
Barsham Parish Council - The proposal will significantly increase the number of
slow moving traffic in the area on a road which is the main route from Fakenham to
Wells and heavily used all year round for tourist traffic. This is an unacceptable
increase and will cause frustration for drivers leading to them possibly performing
dangerous manoeuvres. Access and egress needs to be looked at very carefully.
The proposal will also have a significant visual impact in the landscape and
appropriate planting/landscaping must be included to reduce this as far as possible.
Holkham Parish Council - Supports the application and believe it could bring
employment opportunities to the area.
Warham Parish Council - No objection.
Wells Town Council - Supports the application.
Development Committee
20
17 January 2013
Wighton Parish Council - No objection or comment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2. Planning Policy Context
3. Principle of Development
4. Landscape Impact
5. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
6. Impact on Biodiversity
7. Residential Amenity (including Noise and Air Quality)
8. Light Pollution
9. Highway Safety
10. Impact on Footpaths
11. Flood Risk & Contamination
12. Archaeology & Setting of Holkham Hall
13. Renewable Energy
14. Cumulative Impacts
Development Committee
21
17 January 2013
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at a previous meeting for a site visit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. The proposed development would involve the construction/erection of a
number of large structures on site which would be likely to have a visual impact on
the landscape. In addition, the proposal would involve a significant number of vehicle
movements to/from the site. Nonetheless, whilst the proposal would have some
impacts it is not considered that those impacts would be significantly adverse on the
receiving environment to justify the proposal being EIA development. In any event,
the impacts of the proposal can be properly considered through the normal planning
application process including consideration of any necessary mitigation.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). At regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May
2008) no longer remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke
the EEP being laid before Parliament on the 11 December 2012 and which took
effect on 3 January 2013.
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS
2 would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on
amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;



the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not
be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are
not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Development Committee
22
17 January 2013
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, Officers have taken account of
advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within
Policy EN 2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character)
which states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:

the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
 gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
 distinctive settlement character
 the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
 visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
 nocturnal character
 the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
National Policy Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy,
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of
the previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework,
the wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has
been retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 –
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy (CS) and other current Development
Plan documents. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious
conflict between the Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as
matters relevant to the determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
Development Committee
23
17 January 2013
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:





have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed
satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:


not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for
commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the
proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, Officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
Development Committee
24
17 January 2013

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
‘Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance.
The continuing production of ‘greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims
of sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation’.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
‘The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach
to site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type
of development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development, availability of feedstock to power the plant and
availability of and distance from electrical and/or gas grid connection. The principle of
the proposed development in this location is considered acceptable subject to
compliance with relevant Government advice and other Core Strategy policies.
LANDSCAPE IMPACT
The structures required for the development are of a considerable scale and
industrial in nature. Therefore successful integration into the rural setting is a factor
which needs to be properly addressed. It is understood that the structures would be
constructed in a plain, grey concrete finish and the silage clamps would be of a
concrete-lined earth bund design with tapering ends. Some landscaping and
mitigation planting is proposed, which includes new hedgerow planting at the
northern and southern ends of the site together with some hedge planting along the
western boundary adjacent to the proposed silage clamps.
A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted which is
considered to be a thorough document which has been prepared in accordance with
recommended good practice guidelines.
Development Committee
25
17 January 2013
The Landscape Officer has provided a full assessment of the proposal, a copy of
which is available at Appendix 1. In summary the Landscape Officer considers that
this development will undoubtedly result in a permanent change in the character of
the landscape of the site, changing it from an open arable field to an industrial
operation. The agricultural land is classified as Grade 3. The submitted information
does not confirm whether this is Grade 3a within the Agricultural Land Classification
and would therefore constitute‟ best and most versatile agricultural land‟ as defined in
Clause 112 of the NPPF. Given the size of the site, it is not deemed to be a
significant amount of agricultural land that will be lost as a result of this development.
However, the substitution of arable land for food production in order to provide the
required biomass should be a consideration.
The submitted LVIA concludes that although the site lies in an elevated and open
good quality landscape, the visual impact will be limited by the existing topography
and the existing adjacent industrial complex and the impact on the overall landscape
character will be Minor. The main impacts are receptors to the north and north-west
of the site and the proposed mitigation addresses these impacts, such that they are
reduced to Minor Beneficial within 5-8 years.
The Conservation Design & Landscape Section agrees with this assessment and
finds that the landscape mitigation is, for the most part, appropriate for the scale of
the operation.
Subject to the changes outlined below the mitigation scheme is
acceptable:
a) an additional planting belt north-west of the site as described above to further
mitigate the visual effects for users of the minor road to Holkham and walkers
using the footpath; and
b) Substitution of Alder for Field Maple
Conservation Design & Landscape concludes that the landscape and visual effects
that would be incurred by this development would not be substantial and that with the
proposed mitigation the proposal is in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN2:
Protection & Enhancement of Landscape & Settlement Character.
On the basis of the above advice, subject to the imposition of conditions, including
agreement as to the actual external colour of the tanks and other equipment to be
installed on site, the proposal is considered to accord with relevant Development
Plan policies.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
The site lies approximately 670m south of the southern boundary of the North Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a statutory designated
landscape. The AONB was designated in 1968 in recognition of its scenic beauty,
remarkable landscape and cultural diversity and unique and special wildlife. The
Landscape Officer considers that although resulting in a significant change in land
use from arable to industrial, given the proximity of the site to the adjacent
commercial operation and associated large scale structures, the impact of the
proposal on the „special qualities‟ of the AONB...could not be assessed as significant.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the impact on the AONB would be „negligible‟ due
to existing local screening and proposed landscape mitigation and the Landscape
section concur with this.
The Norfolk Coast Partnership has concluded that the proposal would have negligible
impacts on the AONB, particularly as a result of proposed landscaping, which could
also provide some enhancement of landscape character overall.
Development Committee
26
17 January 2013
Subject to the imposition of conditions, particularly those conditions required to
secure proposed landscape mitigation, the proposal is considered to accord with
Core Strategy Policy EN 1.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The Landscape Officer has commented that the Phase One Habitat Survey
undertaken in May 2012 by Wild Frontier Ecology has been carried out in accordance
with recognised...standards. A great crested newt survey was also carried out
focusing on the three existing ponds located within 500m of the site.
The existing arable field was assessed as having a low ecological value. Two pairs
of breeding skylark were observed. These are classed as Birds of Conservation
Concern and would clearly be displaced by the development. The survey notes that
ample alternative habitat exists on surrounding land and therefore concludes that the
impact on this species would not be significant, so long as clearance work occurs
outside of the breeding season (1st March – 1st August). This is a fair judgement.
No other bird species were recorded on the development site. The surrounding
habitat was noted as being suitable for foraging, nesting and breeding by a range of
woodland and farmland birds, which would most likely include Red and Amber List
species. Given the small size of the development and so long as the mitigation
proposals are followed, the impact on bird species will be negligible, not „nil‟ as the
survey professes, given the displaced skylark habitat.
There is no evidence that the site contains any potential bat roost sites, although
records show that they are in the vicinity.
The survey revealed no evidence of badgers, although acknowledged that the habitat
within 500m of the site was suitable for badger. The survey recommended that the
site should be re-surveyed for badgers, should the development not commence for
another 12 months.
The [great crested newt] GCN survey found no evidence of the use of the ponds
close to the site.
It is not known whether any boundary security fencing will be an aspect of the
proposal. This may impact on the movement of local fauna and [details] should be
conditioned.
Best practice construction works are proposed as mitigation along with the timing of
clearance work outside the breeding bird season and this is appropriate.
Subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY (INCLUDING NOISE, ODOUR AND AIR QUALITY)
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest residential properties to the
site are located to the south at Bunkers Hill. There are seven properties at Bunkers
Hill, the closest property being in excess of 150m away from the boundary of the
application site.
Development Committee
27
17 January 2013
Representations have raised concerns about the potential impact of noise, impact on
air quality and the impact of odour as a result of the proposal. Reports have been
submitted assessing the potential impacts of noise, odour and air pollution, which the
Council's Environmental Protection Team has considered in detail (See Appendix
1).
Noise
The Environmental Protection Team conclude that the noise levels that are predicted
to be experienced at the representative locations would be below the noise rating
criteria of 35 dB(A). The noise assessment was completed using BS 4142:1997
which is the standard method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential
and industrial areas. The methodology is designed to assess the likelihood of
complaints from residential properties as a result from industrial noise. It uses a
baseline of the existing background noise levels.
Environmental Health have assessed the noise report and consider the methodology
to be robust. The conclusions reached, indicate noise levels should not cause
disturbance to residential properties and these are supported by the data. Should
complaints occur then Environmental Health would assess the complaints through
the Statutory Nuisance process laid down under the Environmental Protection Act
1990.
Air Pollution
The Environmental Protection Officer has indicated that the prevailing winds would
assist in the dilution and dispersion of any emissions further reducing any pollutant
concentration.
The Local Authority is expected to monitor developments and assess the likely
cumulative impact of multiple sources (eg the development combined with local traffic
and other sources) Should complaints regarding air quality be raised then these
would be assessed by Environmental Health through its air quality assessment
process.
Having considered the available evidence, it is considered that the proposed
development would not give rise to any significant adverse impacts on residential
amenity and would comply with Core Strategy Policy EN 13.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants are
not proposing to erect external lighting, except for a small security (pedestrian) light
at the doors to the site office and control building. The Environmental Protection
Team has raised no objection to this limited lighting and, in any event, were the
Committee minded to approve the application, conditions could be imposed which
would prevent further external lights being installed without the prior approval of the
Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
A Transport Assessment has been submitted setting out the likely trip numbers
associated with the proposed development and seeking to assess the likely impact
on the existing highway network. The report indicates that the 35,000 tonnes of
biomass required to power the plant will be sourced from 40,243 acres
(approximately 16,000 ha) of surrounding farm land. The actual amount of land
required each year to produce the biomass crop is likely to be 1,700 acres
(approximately 700 ha) (based on a crop yield of 19 tonnes per acre) which is about
4.6% of the total farm land being used to produce biomass crop.
Development Committee
28
17 January 2013
In respect of trips associated with the delivery of the feedstock to the application site,
the Transport Assessment indicates that this would be by tractor and trailer, likely to
be in the region of 15 tonne loads. Simply dividing the 35,000 tonnes of feedstock
required to power the plant by 15 tonne loads gives a vehicle trip number of 2,333
entering the site during the harvesting period. The applicant has suggested a two
month harvesting period and indicated there would be 1,167 deliveries per month
during that period. The applicant has indicated that this equates to 39 movements
per day assuming a 30 day month. Generally the working day could be 10 to 16
hours long during harvest time which the applicant suggests would result in an
average of 2-4 deliveries to the site every hour. Obviously these numbers need to be
doubled to take account of trips in and trips out.
In respect of trips associated with the output of bio-fertiliser (solid and liquid) the
applicants have indicated that 25,000 tonnes would be produced, of which
approximately 8,500 tonnes of liquid would be removed/distributed via an existing
irrigation network around the site with the remainder of solid matter being removed
by vehicle annually. The applicants have indicated that collection of bio-fertiliser
would occur outside the harvest time at a rate of approximately 4 trips per day
assuming a 5-day working week.
The applicants have indicated that staff trips associated with the proposal would be
1-2 per day, given that 1-2 members of staff would be based on-site and would be
likely to remain on-site throughout the day.
In summary, the proposal would create approximately 4,666 vehicle movements in
relation to the delivery of feedstock to the site (over a two month harvesting period),
2,222 vehicle movements in relation to the removal of bio fertiliser (over a 12-month
period) and approximately 1,040 staff vehicle movements each year based on a five
day working week.
At the time of writing the report the Highway Authority position is one of objection on
the grounds that:
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of its
non-standard arrangement which may lead to conflicting vehicle movements within
the site access, which would give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety
contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT5; and that
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 Core Strategy Policy CT5.
Since receiving the response from the Highway Authority a meeting has taken place
involving the applicant, representatives of ABN animal feeds, a representative of
Holkham Estate and representatives from North Norfolk District Council to discuss
possible ways to resolve the Highway Authority concerns. This is likely to involve
amended access arrangements which are understood to include new entrance/exit
arrangements for the proposed development and existing ABN site. Committee will
be updated orally in relation to the proposed amended access arrangements together
with the further views of the Highway Authority in respect of those amendments when
they are received.
Development Committee
29
17 January 2013
Subject to the satisfactory resolution of the access concerns raised by the Highway
Authority and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that
the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, Great Walsingham
Footpath 9 runs through the northern part of the site and currently footpath users
have to pass through a busy ABN grain site. The applicant has indicated on their
submitted plans that the route of the footpath will remain in place and will not be
affected by the development. Plans within the Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment indicate a belt of landscaping through which the footpath would run and
it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the existing footpath
network. A temporary diversion may be required during the construction phase.
FLOOD RISK & CONTAMINATION
The proposed development would result in a large area of the site being hard
surfaced and this would affect the rate at which water would drain through the site,
particularly in high rainfall events. Given that the application site is over 1 hectare in
area, the applicant was required to submit a flood risk assessment, which has been
considered by the Environment Agency. The applicant proposes, amongst other
things, to construct an infiltration pond, which would accommodate surface water in a
storm event before it infiltrates into the ground below.
Whilst the Environment Agency had raised some concerns about submitted reports,
no objections were received in relation to flood risk and concerns were in relation to
risks to controlled waters. The applicant has submitted additional reports and, based
on this additional information the Environment Agency has now removed its
objection. Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal is considered to
comply with Development Plan policy.
ARCHAEOLOGY & SETTING OF HOLKHAM HALL
The site is located on the former North Creake airfield and the Committee will note
the historical context of the site as set out within the consultation reply received from
Norfolk Historic Environment Services. Whilst it is understood that the airbase was
only operational for a limited period of time, a number of representations received
have raised concern about the impact of the proposal and wider development of the
area on the historical context of the site.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services have suggested that the location of the AD
plant be moved in order to preserve the relationship between the technical area and
the former flying field and the new location should be informed by a heritage
statement. Whilst this request is noted, the impact of the request would likely be to
move the proposed development to the north or south of existing development at
Egmere. This would be likely to increase significantly the visual impact of the
proposal in the landscape and, whereas development at the proposed location would
be viewed in the most part against the backdrop of existing development at Egmere,
moving to the north or the south would increase the visual prominence of the
development and would take it closer to the Area or Outstanding Natural Beauty if
moved to the north, potentially leading to unacceptable impacts.
Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement for the Committee in weighing the
benefits of the proposal against the dis-benefits but, from the evidence available,
Officers would advise against re-siting the development for the reasons highlighted
above.
Development Committee
30
17 January 2013
Officers consider it unlikely that the proposed development would have an adverse
impact on archaeology associated with the site of the medieval village of Egmere and
no objections have been raised by Norfolk Historic Environment Services in this
regard.
It is not considered that the proposal would have any adverse impact on the setting
of Holkham Hall or its parkland.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and notwithstanding the comments of Norfolk
Historic Environment Services, on balance the proposal would accord with Policy EN
8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area. The
applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this element
of Policy EN 7. In respect of economic benefits, the applicants have referred to their
submitted Economic Supporting Statement and have raised issues in relation to the
economic aspects of purchasing feedstock locally, the direct employment
requirements from the facility and the indirect employment/service requirements. In
respect of environmental benefits the Committee might consider these to be
principally two-fold: those accruing from the sustainable production of renewable
energy/reduction in CO2 emissions; and those from the production and application of
digestate, which would provide an organic fertiliser to the land and would reduce the
amount of artificial chemical fertilisers required. In addition, the planting and
landscaping proposed would also create new and improved habitat and biodiversity.
Subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal would
comply with these further requirements of Policy EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND
PROJECTS AT EGMERE
A number of representations have been received in relation to the other possible
developments in the area referred to below, raising concerns about the cumulative
impact of proposed development in and around Egmere. In addition to the anaerobic
digester, an application has been received for the construction of a 20 mw solar
photovoltaic farm and associated works including inverter housing, landscaping and
security measures on land at North Creake Airfield, Egmere, Walsingham under
planning ref: PF/12/1318. In addition, on 13 December 2012 the Council's Cabinet
agreed to conduct public consultation in respect of the designation of approximately
30 hectares of land at Egmere for future development in support of offshore wind
energy developments off the North Norfolk coast through the use of Local
Development Order (LDO) powers. This would directly support the Council‟s
Corporate Plan objectives of seeking to attract new jobs and investment associated
with offshore wind energy developments to the district.
Whist the views of consultees are still awaited in relation to the proposed solar farm
and whilst the public consultation in respect of the LDO is not due to commence until
Jan/Feb 2013, based on the available evidence and subject to satisfactory resolution
of issues raised by consultees, there is no reason to suggest that the Committee is
unable to determine this anaerobic digester application on its own, particularly as it is
the smallest of the proposed developments at Egmere and is likely to have the least
impact.
Development Committee
31
17 January 2013
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of an anaerobic digestion plant would, amongst other things,
have some visual impact on the surrounding landscape and would result in an
increase in traffic on the local network, it is considered that the proposal would not
have a significant impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
In respect of highway considerations, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the
access concerns raised by the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposal would accord with Core
Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of concerns
raised by the Highway Authority, no objection from the outstanding consultee
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
application. The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
STALHAM – PF/12/1427 – Mixed use development comprising 150 dwellings,
B1 (a - c) employment buildings (3150sqm), public open space, landscaping
and associated highways and drainage infrastructure; land off Yarmouth Road
for Hopkins Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in order to expedite the
processing of the application and to enable Members to appreciate fully this major
development proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
7.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2012, covering the turnround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes. It will be considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and
Development Committee at their meetings on 16 and 17 January respectively.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the third quarter of 2012/13.
Development Committee
32
17 January 2013
Seven major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 95 minor and
214 other applications, a total of 316 applications, an increase of 70 compared with
the previous quarter. This is largely accounted for by the arrival in post of the
replacement Student Planning Officer and the end of the main summer holiday
period.
In terms of speed of determination, figures for minor applications were down by some
3% and for other applications were down by almost 5%. It is hoped that the
recruitment of two temporary Planning Assistants will address this continuing decline
in performance.
As far as major applications are concerned, 7 were determined, of which four were
within the 13 week determination period. The cumulative figure for 2013 shows a
significant improvement from 25% after the first two quarters to 40% by the end of
the third quarter.
Members will appreciate the significance of this change in the light of the
Government‟s recent consultation paper concerning “Planning Performance and the
Planning Guarantee”, which was discussed by Members following the meeting of
Development Committee on 13 December 2012. In considering the period for which
measurement is likely to be made for the purposes of determining whether an
Authority enters „special measures‟, i.e. from April 2011 to March 2013, the Council‟s
current cumulative performance on major applications is that 12 out of 34 have been
determined within the statutory 13 week period i.e. 35.29%.
As at 1st January 2013 19 major applications were in process of which 13 were
already out of time and 6 were within the statutory 13 week period. Of the former it is
anticipated that up to 6 may be withdrawn in due course as amended schemes come
forward, whilst the other 7 are likely to be determined over the coming weeks and
months. In order to maintain performance levels it is therefore vital that the
applications which remain in time are determined within the statutory period.
Members will be aware of the strenuous efforts being made to determine major
applications more quickly having regard to the Government‟s proposed sanctions.
Amongst other measures which are being taken, Development Committee will be
asked to visit key major sites at an early stage in the processing of applications in
order to minimise the risks of delays in determination.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service during the quarter, which shows that 340
applications were submitted, i.e. some 24 more than the number determined. At the
present time the service is still failing to keep pace with incoming work for planning
applications, but the shortfall was significantly less than in the previous quarter. Preapplication enquiries fell by 3 during the quarter but there were 18 more “Do I Need
Planning Permission” enquiries. Duty Officer queries amounted to some 474,
compared with 580 during the previous quarter, although this will have been in part
accounted for by the closure of the Council offices between Christmas and the New
Year. This matter is the subject of a separate report to Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 16 January 2013.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the figure remained at just over 93%; this has
been remarkably consistent over the past three years.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 10
decisions were made of which 7 were dismissed, 2 were allowed and 1 appeal was
the subject of a mixed decision. The success rate for appellants was therefore 25%
and the cumulative figure for 2012/13 stands at just over 31%.
Development Committee
33
17 January 2013
In summary, the figures indicate that the service has continued to struggle to cope
with its workload, but in recognition of these difficulties two Planning Assistants on
twelve month contracts have been offered appointments and it is hoped that both
may be able to start work later this month. This should assist the team in terms of
dealing with minor and other applications, but the benefits are likely to be realised
later during the new quarter in view of the time taken for new staff to adjust to the
Council‟s policies and systems.
In terms of major applications efforts will continue to be made to focus attention on
performance. However, the loss of one Senior Planning Officer who has secured a
similar post with another Norfolk Local Authority, will have an impact on service
delivery. Steps are being taken to replace her at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, Members may be aware that the service has participated in the National
Planning Benchmarking exercise which will enable the costs and performance of the
service to be compared with a large number of other Local Authorities, the results of
which will inform the forthcoming Peer Review. This will be undertaken by a team
from the Local Government Association in February 2013. Further information on this
will be given to Members once the final arrangements have been confirmed.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management, ext 6135)
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PF/12/1350 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Moat Farm,
The Hill for Mr G Roper
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0909 - Erection of two timber-framed units of holiday
accommodation; Felbrigg Lodge, School Road for Mr P Lomax
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/12/1083 - Conversion of storage area to residential flat; Former
amusement arcade, Coast Road for Mrs P Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1007 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
detached garage; Beeston Spinney, Church Close, West Runton for Mr and Mrs
A Fletcher
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/11/1218 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window and ridge coping; Old Garden Cottage, 8 The Quay for Andrew Morton
Associates
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - LA/12/1244 - Installation of replacement windows; Quay Barn, 6
The Quay for Mrs C Comber
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/12/1250 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
former coastguard building; Ladyholme, Hilltop for Fleur Developments Limited
(Conservation Area Demolition)
Development Committee
34
17 January 2013
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1182 - Replacement of dormer window with two
additional dormer windows and raising of roof and parapets; Rocket House,
High Street for Mr B Goodson
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1183 - Replacement dormer of window with two
dormer windows, roof lights, raising of roof and parapets and internal
alterations and refurbishment; Rocket House, High Street for Mr B Goodson
(Listed Building Alterations)
COLBY - PF/12/1272 - Formation of additional vehicular access; Highview, North
Walsham Road, Banningham for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1034 - Erection of enlarged balcony and fire escape staircase,
and retention of additional roof lights; 113 Compit Hills for Mr & Mrs Dewberry
(Householder application)
CROMER - DP/12/1370 - Prior notification of intention to demolish former
Tourist Information Office building; Cromer Bus Station, Prince of Wales Road
for Norfolk County Council
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
CROMER - NMA1/11/0245 - Non-material amendment request for removal of rear
parapet wall; 47 Hillside for Mr C Durrant
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - AI/12/1289 - Continued display of advertisements with illumination;
The Grove, 95 Overstrand Road for The Grove Cromer LLP
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/12/1139 - Erection of replacement side extension; 14 Compit Hills
for Mr G Kimberley
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1144 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and first floor
side extension; 3 Charles Close for Mr & Mrs D Bailey
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1153 - Removal of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 10/0671 to omit solar panels; Land at Jubilee Lane for Priory Homes
(Norfolk) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/1170 - Erection of front and rear extensions to shop and post
office and erection of first floor extension to provide 2 flats; 50 Mill Road for
Suffield Park Convenience Stores & Post Office
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/1308 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 6 High Hill
Road for Mr & Mrs Bale
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/1204 - Erection of side extension to home office; Poplar
Farm House, Chequers Street for Mr J Stares
(Householder application)
Development Committee
35
17 January 2013
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/1152 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 19 Jubilee
Close for Mr & Mrs A Knight
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1194 - Retention of hut for storage of canoes; Wensum
Osprey Canoe Club, Hempton Road for Wensum Osprey Canoe Club
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1211 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
12/0526 to permit the reduction of depth of one and a storey extension; 100
Wells Road for Mr P Gravelling
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0672 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear
extension; Corner Cottage, Church Road for Mr C Turner
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/1174 - Erection of single-storey front extension to garage,
single-storey rear extension and first floor extension and construction of lean-to
roof in place of flat roof; Uplands, Field Dalling Road, Bale for Mr M Chapman
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/1177 - Erection of first floor side extension; 2 Pit Cottages,
Hindringham Road, Bale for Albanwise Ltd
(Householder application)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/1226 - Erection of detached garage; Pine Farm, Marlpit
Lane for Mr D Youngs
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - AN/12/0976 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Fisher &
Sons (Fakenham) Ltd, 7 Dereham Road for Builders Equipment Norwich
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HEMPTON - AN/12/0813 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 7 Dereham
Road for Builders Equipment Norwich
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HICKLING - NMA1/11/1436 - Non material amendment request for insertion of
dormer window in side extension; Broad Dykes, Staithe Road for Mr & Mrs
Deane
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/1003 - Erection of detached garage and variation of
Condition 5 of planning permission reference 20041687 PF to vary the position
of the access and parking area; Land at Wincliff Drive for Mr D Cockaday
(Householder application)
HOLT - AI/12/1191 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 1-5 High Street for
Lloyds Banking Group
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - LA/12/1214 - Installation of advertisements; 1-5 High Street for Lloyds
Banking Group
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
36
17 January 2013
HOLT - PA/12/1275 - Prior notification of intention to erect telecommunications
cabinet; Land near 1 Cley Road for Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
HOVETON - PF/12/1128 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (extension of period
for commencement of planning permission reference 09/0742); Land adjacent
32 Stalham Road for Mr J Bygrave
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/12/1169 - Erection of two-storey office building; Financial House,
Tilia Business Park, Tunstead Road for Vantage Property Capital
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1236 - Variation of Conditions 2, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of
planning permission reference: 11/1333 to permit hipped roof to garage for Barn
4, revised access to Barn 2 and Barn 4 and revised boundary arrangement;
Manor Farm Barns, The Street for Mr B Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1243 - Installation of two flues and boundary fences;
Whitehouse Barn, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Mrs K Hattrell
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - NMA1/12/0107 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window design and materials; High House, Mundesley Road for Mr M Cushing
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/12/0983 - Erection of workshop; Dale Head Barn,
Itteringham Road for Mr P Spelman
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/1133 - Use of land for siting replacement modular
classroom; Little Snoring Pre-school, Stevens Road for Little Snoring Parish
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - NP/12/1361 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension
to agricultural building; Alethorpe Hall, Holt Road, Alethorpe for Mr P Hancock
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
LUDHAM - PF/12/1255 - Erection of two-storey side and conservatory
extensions and alterations to garage; Fritton Cottage, Fritton Lane for Mr M
Monk
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/12/1206 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 50 Whitegates
for Mr & Mrs Crook
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/1337 - Installation of glazed door; Barn 1, Culpits
Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr & Mrs J Barnes
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/12/1338 - Installation of glazed door; Barn 1, Culpits
Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr & Mrs J Barnes
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
37
17 January 2013
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/1321 - Erection of replacement outbuilding to
provide guest annexe; Coach House, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr &
Mrs J Barnes
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/12/1322 - Removal of outbuilding to facilitate
erection of replacement building; Coach House, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston
Road for Mr & Mrs J Barnes
(Listed Building Alterations)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0963 - Erection of detached garage; Land between 16A and
18 Beach Road for Mrs S Warnes
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1273 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0946 to permit installation of roller door to garage; Blue Bell
Cottage, 28 Paston Road for Mr Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1193 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 5
Church Lane for Mr I Chettleburgh
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1215 - Erection of side extension; The Sidings, 21
Hawthorn Rise for Mr & Mrs D Hart
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1216 - Erection of single-storey extension to detached
annexe and installation of roof lights; 16 High Street for Mr I Pilcher
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - AI/12/1119 - Display of illuminated of gantry sign; Rays Stores,
25 Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1123 - Installation of air conditioning and condenser units;
Rays Stores, 25 Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/12/1168 - Erection of rear extension; The Old School, School
Road, Neatishead for Mr B Wigglesworth
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/12/1253 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Ketts
House, Irstead Road for Mr J Kelf
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/1240 - Conversion and extension of buildings to
provide 12 units of holiday accommodation (extension of period for
commencement of planning permission reference: 05/1482); Ebridge Mill,
Whitehorse Common for Mr T Briscoe
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
38
17 January 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1238 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
67 Lynfield Road for Mr C Potter
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1117 - Erection of front garden room; 7 St Benets
Avenue for Mrs S Woodhouse
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/1279 - Erection of front extension; 8 Arden Close for Mr
Storey & Mrs Craig-Jarrold
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1171 - Erection of side & rear extensions; Old Carr,
Chapel Lane for Ms Curl
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - LA/12/1306 - Installation of flue; Grove Barn, Back Lane for Mr C
Bedford
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/1311 - Installation of flue; Grove Barn, Back Lane for Mr C
Bedford
(Householder application)
RUNTON - AN/12/0140 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Ceres, 16
High Street, East Runton for Mrs McKnespiey
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
RUNTON - NMA1/11/0770 - Non-material amendment request for revised access
ramp and entrance gateway; Land at Beach Road Car Park, East Runton for Mr
M Darbyshire
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - PF/12/1266 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference PF/12/1025 to permit installation of all weather surface to revised
pitches; Ingleborough Fields Caravan Site, Station Close, West Runton for The
Caravan Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/1190 - Installation of front dormer windows and timber
cladding to garage and erection of raised platform; 6 Bloomstiles for Mrs G
Harwood
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0830 - Erection of single storey regimes building; HMP Bure,
Jaguar Drive, Badersfield for MoJ Estate Directorate
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0972 - Erection of 1.2 metre high boundary fence; 13
Nelson Road for Mr T Thompson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1118 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2
Common Lane for Mr A Wormington
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
17 January 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1189 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0709 to permit revisions to store room and omission of garden
room, removal of Condition 4 and variation of Condition 5; Myrtle House, 27-29
Nelson Road for Mrs D Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1126 - Erection of rear first floor extension and
conservatory; 2, Old Bakery Mews, Co-operative Street for Mrs J Gardiner
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1227 - Erection of part two-storey and first floor side
extension and extension to garage; 3 Churchill Crescent for Mr Jennings
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0074 - Non material amendment request to re-position
access and drive; 23 Holt Road for Mrs Graham-Cameron
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0947 - Erection of boundary fencing; 15 Nelson Road for
Mr B Farrow
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0889 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling;
Adjacent Honeysuckle Cottage, Long Lane for Tredwell Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/1209 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 4 West End Farm,
Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr J Willis
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/1280 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Little Orchard,
Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr S Bale
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/1130 - Erection of replacement gates; The Old Hall, Church
Street for Mr N Cosgrove
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/1218 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 78 Wells Road
for Mr J Hiscocks
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/12/1145 - Conversion of garage to habitable
accommodation and erection of link extension and single-storey rear
extensions; Carpenter Cottage, 3 The Oaks for Mr C Stapley
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/12/1125 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and
replacement detached double garage/workshop; Wheelgates, Aylsham Road for
Mr S Billham
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
17 January 2013
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/12/1173 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
equestrian and erection of stables; Land at Old Hall Farm for Mr J Walton
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/12/0930 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension and
insertion of windows on first floor side elevations; Farm Cottage, Hindringham
Road for Mr and Mrs Stagg
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/1185 - Erection of greenhouse; Ivy Farmhouse, Mundesley
Road for Mr & Mrs R Binney
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/1246 - Erection of replacement porch; 18 Amis Close for Mr &
Mrs G Thomas
(Householder application)
WARHAM - PF/12/1286 - Erection of replacement gates and side wall; White
House Manor, Chapel Street for Mr J Hadley
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1291 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (
financial and professional services); Westwood Heath, 67 Staithe Street for
Norfolk Hideaways Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - NMA1/12/0967 - Non material amendment request to reposition
cart shed garage, change all roof cladding materials to hand crafted clay
pantiles and open up and glaze slit windows in east and west elevations;
Chestnut Barn, School Lane, Thurgarton for Aldborough Farm Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1088 - Erection of post and rail fencing; Land rear of
Myrtle House, 27-29 Nelson Road for Mrs D Evans
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
WITTON - PF/12/0434 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference
05/0820 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Barn, Happisburgh
Road, Ridlington for Mr R Ward
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
41
17 January 2013
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 29 January 2013
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0298 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Curlew, Mallard, Cottage Loke, Wayford
Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0297 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Avocet, Bittern, Coot, Cottage Loke,
Wayford Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items.
Development Committee
42
17 January 2013