OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 17 MARCH 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
Weybourne Holiday Park – Application for a Licence to Fell Growing Trees
To consider a Felling Licence submitted to the Forestry Commission regarding the
felling of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order at Weybourne Holiday Park.
Background
A planning application (PF/10/0577) was submitted for the erection of 13 Holiday
Lodges in the woodland area on the site. A woodland management plan was
submitted with the application which recognised the mature nature of the woodland
and proposed felling and replanting to ensure continuous woodland cover.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advised that the removal of the
trees at the site was acceptable provided it accorded with the submitted woodland
management plan.
The Committee refused permission on the basis of the significant detrimental impact
on the character of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and local
distinctiveness of the woodland canopy.
A felling licence has been submitted to the Forestry Commission (FC) by the owners
of the holiday park in relation to the woodland. If more than 3m3 of timber is to be
felled then the FC is responsible for the application. The FC has consulted the
District Council on the felling licence as the woodland is covered by a TPO. The
Council can raise a formal objection to the felling licence and the matter can be
decided by an Inspector on behalf of the Secretary for State.
Summary of Felling Licence
The owner has applied to fell 16 Beech trees and replant with 50 Beech, 20
Hornbeam, 10 Holly, 10 Hawthorn and 12 Blackthorn. The works required have been
identified in a woodland management plan, a copy of which is attached as Appendix
1.
The primary objectives of the management plan are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
To maintain continuous woodland cover and manage the woodland on a fully
sustainable basis.
To maintain and enhance wildlife habitats especially for species listed in the
Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan as requiring special protection.
To ensure, as far as is reasonably practical, that trees within the wood do not
pose significant risks to residents or third parties.
To be good neighbours and manage edge trees to avoid nuisance.
To preserve the local landscape.
To enhance landscape amenity for the benefit of the residents of Weybourne
Holiday Park.
Development Control Committee
1
17 March 2011
Appraisal
It is considered that the proposed works contained in the Felling Licence Application
are based on sound woodland management principles and would meet the objectives
of the Management Plan, thus securing the long term survival of the woodland.
Recommendation:
That no objection be raised to the Felling Licence.
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer, Extn 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
HOVETON - NNDC TPO (HOVETON) 2010 No. 29
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
An application was received to fell a mature Beech at the above property. The
Beech tree is a significant feature along Stalham Road and contributes to the
amenity and biodiversity of the area and the neighbourhood. The Officer assessing
the application considered that tree had high amenity value and a TPO was served to
protect the tree on 6 December 2010.
Representations
A letter of objection to the Order has been received on the following grounds:
The tree sheds branches and these could cause harm making the owner liable for
damages.
The tree is not a landmark, the school sign, Community centre and Village Hall are
much more obvious landmarks on Stalham Road.
There are plenty of trees in the owners front garden so loss of habitat for wildlife is
ridiculous.
The maintenance costs are expensive.
Appraisal
In response to the objection the following points are made:
Appropriate maintenance to the tree would reduce any risk and validate any
insurance.
The Beech tree is the largest tree on that part of Stalham Road.
A mature tree has high biodiversity value and plays host to species that do not occur
on younger trees.
The cost of maintenance should not prevent a tree being subject of a TPO.
Human Rights Implication
The serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8 Human Rights Act:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Development Control Committee
2
17 March 2011
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
It is considered that the Beech tree has high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
CROMER - PF/10/1376 - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of
dormer window and introduction of gable end; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr
R Price
Target Date: 25 January 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
See also LA/10/1377 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the erection of a replacement rear extension and installation of
two dormer windows.
Amended plans have been received showing a reduction in the scale of the rear
dormer and a pitched roof to the side dormer.
Further amended plans have been received which show the introduction of a gable
end to the north elevation together with a gable window to the third floor and the
introduction of a side hung all bar glazed door with lower fielded panel in place of the
existing sash window to the east elevation. In addition a Heritage Statement has
been submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee
Development Control Committee
3
17 March 2011
TOWN COUNCIL
Object, supporting the concerns raised by Cromer Preservation Society.
Awaiting comments in respect of the further amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society (comments received based on original and first set of
amended plans) - Supports the proposed maintenance and remedial work. Strongly
opposed to the insertion of two new dormer windows.
Strongly oppose the creation of a new dormer on the hipped roof elevation; proposed
scale is too large and would destroy the current architectural balance. The proposed
rear dormer does not reflect the scale of the existing dormer on Newstead House.
SAVE Britain's Heritage (comments received based on original and first set of
amended plans) - Concerns regarding the introduction of the dormer on the hipped
portion of the roof (north elevation).
These alterations would be detrimental to the nature of the house and its relationship
with the street. The installation of the large side dormer would be disruptive on both
the side and front elevations.
CONSULTATIONS
Georgian Group (comments received based on original and first set of amended
plans) The insertion of two dormers would be damaging to the building's structural
significance; register a strong objection to this aspect of the scheme.
The proposed dormer windows would be damaging to the appearance and special
interest of the listed building and could be potentially highly damaging to the historic
fabric. However a conservation roof light on the side or rear elevation maybe
considered acceptable.
Concerns regarding the amount of information received within the application and if it
is sufficient to fully assess all aspects of the proposals. As there is not full
justification, the Group does not offer comments on the interior work or replacement
of the rear extension.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (comments received based on
original and first set of amended plans)
Property dates from late 18th/early 19th century and holds an extremely prominent
position facing onto the iconic Gangway, which is also Grade II Listed.
Majority of the works would either enhance or have a neutral impact upon the
significance of the heritage asset. Replacement of the rear extension is considered
acceptable as the existing extension is in a dilapidated condition and includes block
work and perspex roofing. The insertion of two veluxes on the new extension is
considered acceptable.
Unfortunately there are two elements of the development requiring planning
permission that cause serious concerns and the benefits received from the
aforementioned do not out weigh the harm caused by these elements.
Development Control Committee
4
17 March 2011
The side elevation dormer, whether flat roofed or as a lean to, would not be
subservient to the rest of the roof, as would be expected by an attic dormer. Although
the amended version does improve the situation it would still be a disproportionately
large addition within the roofscape. It is understood that the dormer here is to allow
access to the attic space through a larger staircase than existing. It is noted that the
existing staircase is relatively small and this proposal would retain the original lower
section. However the upper section would be lost.
The other element that raises concern is the proposed rear dormer. Now the glazing
proportions appear to mirror those on Newstead it is the least substantial of the
objections. However the positioning still allows it to appear squeezed between the
chimney stack and hip, leading to it sitting awkwardly.
In conclusion objection upheld since despite several positives within the whole
scheme, these do not outweigh the fundamental objections.
In respect of the further amended plans, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager still reluctantly recommends refusal, notwithstanding several positive
aspects of the scheme in relation to the repairs proposed to the fabric of the building,
on the basis of the harm caused by the introduction of the gable feature and the
proposed egress on the elevation fronting The Gangway. His full comments are
attached at Appendix 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building and surrounding Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting in order to allow
Members to visit the site.
The property Cliffside is a Grade II Listed dwelling that lies at the northern end of the
row of attached properties along the southern section of The Gangway, Cromer.
They are all Grade II Listed. The Gangway itself is also Grade II Listed; from the
north of Cliffside to the sea. The site also falls within Cromer's Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
5
17 March 2011
The property falls within the designated Town Centre, where extensions to domestic
dwellings are considered acceptable in principle.
The proposed replacement rear extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of
the impact upon neighbouring residential amenities. As with the existing extension it
would mirror the extension at the adjacent property Newstead and be constructed
adjacent to Newstead's extension. There are no concerns regarding overlooking.
Neither dormer raises any significant concern regarding the effect on residential
amenity of any neighbour. Both dormers would sit opposite a blank section of a
neighbouring gable.
The replacement rear extension is considered to be of an appropriate design and
style for the dwelling. The existing extension is in a dilapidated state and there is little
historic material left to save - it is largely constructed from block work and has a
section of roof constructed using corrugated plastic.
However, in respect of the original and first set of amended plans the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager was of the opinion that the benefits to be gained
from this application, namely from the replacement of the rear extension, do not
outweigh the areas of concern in respect of the proposed dormer windows. Other
consultees and representations share similar opinions in that whilst there are
considered to be many positive elements of the scheme, they would object to the
dormer windows.
Following receipt of the further amended plans the application has been readvertised and the further comments of consultees sought. Any further comments
will be reported orally.
In the light of the further views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
on the further amendments the application is recommended for refusal, based on the
harm caused to the historic fabric of the building from the introduction of the gable
feature and the egress fronting The Gangway.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the basis of the harm caused to the historic fabric of the building
from the introduction of the gable feature and the egress fronting The
Gangway and conflict with national and adopted Development Plan policy in
relation to listed buildings and Conservation Areas.
4.
CROMER - LA/10/1377 - Internal alterations, door and window alterations,
erection of replacement rear extension, installation of dormer window and
introduction of gable end; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
Target Date: 25 January 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/10/1376 above
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Development Control Committee
6
17 March 2011
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970504 LA - Replacement roof
Approved 28/08/1997
THE APPLICATION
The application is for several elements relating to renovation of the property.
Externally these include the insertion of two dormers, re-opening of a side door,
replacement of an existing side door with a window, replacement of a front window
with doors and a replacement rear extension. In addition work would be carried out to
remove the existing cement render, exposing the original brick work, re-point and
course the flint work and carry out minor repairs to the ashlars and other features.
Internally it is proposed to remove the tongue and groove panelling, the secondary
double glazing and defective plaster work. New partitions are also proposed.
Amended plans have been received showing a reduction in the scale of the rear
dormer and a pitched roof to the side dormer.
Further amended plans have been received which show the introduction of a gable
end to the north elevation together with a gable window to the third floor and the
introduction of a side hung all bar glazed door with lower fielded panel in place of the
existing sash window to the east elevation. In addition a Heritage Statement has
been submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object, supporting the concerns raised by Cromer Preservation Society.
Awaiting comments in respect of the further amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society (comments received based on original and first set of
amended plans) - Supports the proposed maintenance and remedial work. Strongly
opposed to both the removal of the ground floor sash and insertion of French Doors,
in addition to the insertion of two new dormer windows.
The removal of the sash window would result in an irretrievable loss of flint work.
Insertion of French Doors would permanently destroy the current architectural
relationship of Cliffside and Newstead House, which were original one building.
French Doors are also historically incorrect with this style of late eighteenth century
properties.
Strongly oppose the creation of a new dormer on the hipped roof elevation; proposed
scale is too large and would destroy the current architectural balance. The proposed
rear dormer does not reflect the scale of the existing dormer on Newstead House.
SAVE Britain's Heritage (comments received based on original and first set of
amended plans) - Concerns regarding the proposed replacement of the original
ground floor sash window and the introduction of the dormer on the hipped portion of
the roof (north elevation).
Development Control Committee
7
17 March 2011
These alterations would be detrimental to the nature of the house and its relationship
with the street. The replacement of the ground floor sash window, which currently
helps to define the special interest of the building, would disrupt the harmony of this
façade. The installation of the large dormer would similarly be disruptive on both the
side and front elevations.
CONSULTATIONS
Georgian Group (comments received based on original and first set of amended
plans) The insertion of two dormers and replacement of a sash window on the principal
facade with French Doors would be damaging to the building's structural significance;
register a strong objection to these aspects of the scheme.
The proposed dormer windows would be damaging to the appearance and special
interest of the listed building and could be potentially highly damaging to the historic
fabric. However a conservation roof light on the side or rear elevation maybe
considered acceptable.
The Georgian Group is not aware of any precedents for French or casement doors in
street elevations of late Georgian town houses, except to provide access to first floor
balconies in upper middle class and aristocratic residences. Very occasionally halfglazed double doors can be found in garden elevations; however it is possible that a
significant proportion of these were designed to provide access to now demolished
conservatories. Walk in casement windows are more common in early nineteenth
century high-status suburban and rural dwellings. The introduction of such a
prominent alien feature into the principal façade of Cliffside would be highly
damaging to its special interest. Strongly object to the principle of enlarging the
existing window opening.
Concerns regarding the amount of information received within the application and if it
is sufficient to fully assess all aspects of the proposals. As there is not full
justification, the group does not offer comments on the interior work or replacement
of the rear extension.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (comments received based on
original and first set of amended plans) –
Property dates from late 18th/early 19th century and holds an extremely prominent
position facing onto the iconic Gangway, which is also Grade II Listed.
Majority of the works would either enhance or have a neutral impact upon the
significance of the heritage asset. On the principal elevation these include; repointing and coursing the flint (welcomed due to the current state of the flint),
proposal to remove the earth and rubble from the front garden (should reduce
dampness) and reconstruction of the bay window (existing bay does not reflect the
original). On the side elevation these works are; re-opening of the arch doorway and
in-filling of the 60's doorway, and replacement with sash window to match existing.
On the rear elevation the removal of the cement render and repair work would
enhance this elevation. Replacement of the rear extension is considered equally
acceptable as the existing extension is in a dilapidated condition and includes block
work and perspex roofing. The insertion of two veluxes on the new extension is
considered acceptable. Internal work is also considered to be acceptable as they
either remove later additions or cause no lasting damage to the historic fabric.
Development Control Committee
8
17 March 2011
Unfortunately there are three elements of the development that cause serious
concerns and the benefits received from the aforementioned do not out weigh the
harm caused by these elements.
The removal of the ground floor window on the principal facade and replacement with
French Doors raises three main concerns; the intrinsic loss of historic fabric, the
impact upon the appearance of Cliffside, and Newstead, and the historic
appropriateness of the doors. Any alternative to French Doors would still result in
upsetting the existing balance of the two properties and result in a loss of historic
fabric.
The side elevation dormer, whether flat roofed or as a lean to, would not be
subservient to the rest of the roof, as would be expected by an attic dormer. Although
the amended version does improve the situation it would still be a disproportionately
large addition within the roofscape. It is understood that the dormer here is to allow
access to the attic space through a larger staircase than existing. It is noted that the
existing staircase is relatively small and this proposal would retain the original lower
section. However the upper section would be lost.
The final element that raises concern is the proposed rear dormer. Now the glazing
proportions appear to mirror those on Newstead it is the least substantial of the
objections. However the positioning still allows it to appear squeezed between the
chimney stack and hip, leading to it sitting awkwardly.
In conclusion the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager objection upheld
since despite several positives within the scheme these do not outweigh the
fundamental objections.
In respect of the further amended plans, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager still reluctantly recommends refusal, notwithstanding several positive
aspects of the scheme in relation to the repairs proposed to the fabric of the building,
on the basis of the harm caused by the introduction of the gable feature and the
proposed egress on the elevation fronting The Gangway. His full comments are
attached at Appendix 2.
Ancient Monuments Society - comments awaited
Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings - comments awaited
Victorian Society - comments awaited
Council for British Archaeology - comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
9
17 March 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting in order to allow
Members to visit the site.
The property Cliffside is a Grade II Listed dwelling that lies at the northern end of the
row of attached properties along the southern section of The Gangway, Cromer.
They are all Grade II Listed. The Gangway itself is also Grade II Listed; from the
north of Cliffside to the sea. The site also falls within Cromer's Conservation Area.
In respect of the original and first set of amended plans the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager was of the opinion that whilst there are many positive
elements to the scheme, there are objections to the installation of the dormers
windows and French doors. As a result the proposal would not preserve or enhance
the character of the building leading to a loss of historic fabric and ultimately have an
adverse impact upon Cliffside's special historic and architectural interest.
Following receipt of the further amended plans the application has been readvertised and the further comments of consultees sought. Any further comments
will be reported orally.
In the light of the further views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
on the further amendments the application is recommended for refusal, based on the
harm caused to the historic fabric of the building from the introduction of the gable
feature and the egress fronting The Gangway.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the basis of the harm caused to the historic fabric of the building
from the introduction of the gable feature and the egress fronting The
Gangway and conflict with national and adopted Development Plan policy in
relation to listed buildings and Conservation Areas.
5.
KELLING - PF/10/1211 - Erection of two semi-detached replacement dwellings;
1 & 2 Brookside, The Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Minor Development
Target Date: 28 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also LE/10/1284 below.
Development Control Committee
10
17 March 2011
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two replacement dwellings on the eastern side of The Street,
just south of the junction with the Coast Road (A149) in Kelling.
The replacement dwellings proposed would be sited parallel to the highway and be
constructed largely of flint (with some horizontal boarding), red brick, and would reuse the existing pantiles.
The proposed dwellings would have a combined footprint of approx 274sq.m, would
consist of two gables facing the street scene separated with single storey sedum roof
link elements, but the overall building would be set back from the highway. The
height to ridge would be 6.5m and to eaves approx 3.9m.
The existing conifers along the site frontage would be removed and replaced with a
new flint wall.
The scheme has been amended, adding more flint, replacing the originally proposed
inverted dormers with more traditionally expressed dormers and reducing the amount
of glazing proposed on the east elevation of unit 1.
The existing vehicular access would be utilised as a shared access for both dwellings
and on site parking and turning areas would be provided.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objected to the original plans for the following reasons:
Our position is that in a Conservation village, two sound, charming early 19th Century
flint-faced cottages should not be demolished, particularly as they are situated
opposite a Queen Anne Grade II Listed house. We are concerned that an
unwelcome precedent would be set for approval to demolish further original houses
in the village.
Our reserve position is that, if these fully flint-faced buildings cannot be restored, they
should be replaced with similar flint-faced buildings.
Instead of 1st floor velux windows, we would have expected to see dormer windows
which are more in keeping with the surrounding architecture. There are large
expanses of glass shown in the plans that would cause light pollution in an area that
is used and valued as an astronomical 'dark area'.
In respect of the amended plans, these are an improvement in that they are closer to
reflecting the design of the existing buildings, although our position remains that we
would prefer these cottages to be preserved in this Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application, attached as
Appendix 3.
Development Control Committee
11
17 March 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - A condition requiring compliance with Code level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes is required in order for the proposal to comply with
Policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
County Council Highways - Given this planning application is for the replacement of
the two existing dwellings currently occupying the site, I would not wish to raise a
highway objection to the proposed development subject to conditions including
visibility splays sufficient for cars travelling 25mph, provision of on site parking and
turning and the provision of a vehicular crossing over the ditch/watercourse.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) No objection to the proposal subject to the provision of conditions to safeguard the
trees to be retained during the construction and to protect and enhance biodiversity
in accordance with Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) For the reasons outlined in Conservation Area consent for demolition, LE/10/1284, it
is not considered that the demolition of these cottages can be resisted at all costs.
This said, there is a clear expectation that any redevelopment scheme would need to
enhance the character and appearance of the Kelling Conservation Area if it is to
comply with the aims laid out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and 5 (PPS1 & PPS5.)
In terms of the scheme submitted, the design approach adopted essentially mixes a
vernacular veneer on its public side with more contemporary detailing within the
confines of the site. This marriage of local distinctiveness and innovative freshness is
very much in the spirit of the new North Norfolk Design Guide.
The vernacular Street elevation should help ensure important continuity within the
street scene. This would be further reinforced through the compatible scale and
proportions of the two units. With their coved first floors and relatively narrow gables,
the dwellings would sit comfortably within their setting, and would in fact make better
use of the site through their perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a
striking rhythm and dialogue between the two units with their balancing gables and
chimney stacks.
Elsewhere, it is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a
significant planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found
elsewhere in the village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within
the village. If one also considers the welcome removal of the existing conifers, which
currently detract from the existing cottages, the aspect of the site should be
considerably improved.
The amended scheme has satisfactorily addressed previous concerns with materials
and the appearance of the windows on the southern elevation and therefore subject
to conditions including submission of samples of materials, details of verges and
eaves, sections of doors and windows and the use of an appropriate mortar mix the
scheme is acceptable and raises no C&D objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
12
17 March 2011
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Design and scale
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Highway impact
5. Impact on biodiversity
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area, as defined by the adopted
Core Strategy, where the principle of replacement dwellings is acceptable, subject to
compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance
of the surrounding countryside.
Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 require that proposals for development should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant
settlement character studies. Development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the character and appearance of area, in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 requires that all development will be
Development Control Committee
13
17 March 2011
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness, whilst innovative and
energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have
regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of
an area, in this case the Conservation Area, will not be acceptable. In addition
Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) states
that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated
heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater
the presumption in favour of its conservation should be.
In respect of Policy HO8 outlined above, the proposed height of the dwellings would
be similar to that of the existing dwellings (proposed ridge approx 400mm above the
height of the original dwellings), whilst the proposal would have a larger footprint than
existing (approx 274sq.m proposed footprint compared to that of the existing of
88sq.m); the similar height coupled with the combination of single and two storey
elements would help to mitigate against an increase in the overall footprint.
Furthermore the choice of material with flint, red brick and re-used pantiles to the
street elevations and some cedar boarding facing within the application site, would
help to plant the building within its landscape setting and reduce its visual impact in
the wider landscape. It is therefore considered that although the proposed dwellings
would result in an increase in the scale compared with the original dwellings they
would not result in a material increase in impact on the surrounding countryside, with
the dwellings only being seen from close proximity, in terms of the wider landscape.
In terms of impact on the Conservation Area, whilst the existing pair of semi
detached dwellings contributes to the character of the Conservation Area through
their vernacular materials and detailing, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager advises that the buildings have no special architectural or historic interest to
qualify for listed status and subject to an appropriate replacement scheme which
would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, there is no
objection to the demolition of the buildings. In terms of the replacement scheme, the
proposal has been amended to increase the amount of flint, to add dormers to the
southern elevation, instead of the originally proposed inverted dormers, and to soften
the angle of the wall which delineates the parking area of unit 1 within the site.
The scheme proposed would have a front elevation which includes vernacular
detailing and this should help ensure important continuity within the street scene,
which would be further reinforced through the compatible scale and proportions of
the two units. With their coved first floors and relatively narrow gables, the dwellings
would sit comfortably within their setting, and would make better use of the site
through their perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a striking rhythm
and dialogue between the two units with their balancing gables and chimney stacks.
Elsewhere, it is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a
significant planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found
elsewhere in the village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within
the village. The proposed dwellings are therefore considered to be of an appropriate
design for their setting and to enhance the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area.
In respect of the relationship with neighbouring properties, due to the separation
distance there would be no amenity issues either in terms of overlooking or loss of
light.
In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority has advised no objection to the
proposed replacement dwellings subject to conditions. Furthermore sufficient on-site
parking and turning areas are proposed in accordance with the Council's parking
standards.
Development Control Committee
14
17 March 2011
With regard to biodiversity, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
advised that no trees of any amenity value are proposed to be removed and
protected species should not be affected. Therefore, subject to conditions ensuring
protection of the trees to be retained on the site and replacement of those to be
removed, and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the species
report submitted, the proposal would have no adverse impact on biodiversity.
It is considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including submission of
samples of materials, details of verges and eaves, sections of doors and
windows and the use of an appropriate mortar mix, black painted metal
rainwater goods, provision of vehicular access and visibility splays, provision
of parking areas, provision of a vehicular crossing over the ditch/watercourse,
submission of a landscaping scheme, implementation in accordance with the
protected species survey, arboricultural implications assessment, method
statement and tree protection plan and implementation in accordance with
amended plans.
6.
KELLING - LE/10/1284 - Demolition of two dwellings; 1 & 2 Brookside, The
Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Target Date: 30 December 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Conservation Area Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
See also PF/10/1211 above.
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of a pair of semi-detached two storey flint cottages on the
eastern side of The Street, just south of the junction with Coast Road (A149) in
Kelling, in the designated Conservation Area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, for the following reasons:
Our position is that in a Conservation village, two sound, charming early 19th Century
flint-faced cottages should not be demolished, particularly as they are situated
opposite a Queen Anne Grade II Listed house. We are concerned that an
unwelcome precedent would be set for approval to demolish further original houses
in the village.
Development Control Committee
15
17 March 2011
Our reserve position is that, if these fully flint-faced buildings cannot be restored, they
should be replaced with similar flint-faced buildings.
REPRESENTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service The application involves the demolition of a pair of historic cottages within the Kelling
Conservation Area which are shown on the Kelling title map of c.1840. Although the
properties are not listed buildings in their own right they form an important
component of the Conservation Area, which itself is a designated asset. The
demolition of these historic properties would have a negative impact on the
significance of the designated heritage asset. PPS5 (Planning for the historic
environment) states that 'loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require
clear and convincing justification. The application does not provide sufficient
justification for the loss of significance to the designated heritage asset that will result
from the proposed demolition and consequently we recommend that it is refused.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) By virtue of their mellowed vernacular materials and traditional detailing, the buildings
in question blend seamlessly with other properties along The Street. They appear to
date from the mid 19th century and have therefore contributed to the quintessential
Kelling village scene for over 150 years. Their demolition is therefore not something
to be approached lightly.
This said if one looks closely at the two buildings, they display fairly standard
detailing which is far from exceptional. Certainly they do not have the special
architectural and historic interest to qualify for listed status. Rather than 'stand out'
structures, they are part of the supporting cast locally and therefore cannot be
considered 'critical capital' in conservation terms. This notwithstanding, it is
considered that their demolition should only ever be countenanced in the event of a
redevelopment scheme being proposed which would enhance the character and
appearance of this part of Kelling's Conservation Area.
In terms of the replacement dwellings proposed, the vernacular Street elevation
should help ensure important continuity within the street scene. This would be further
reinforced through the compatible scale and proportions of the two units. With their
coved first floors and relatively narrow gables, the dwellings would sit comfortably
within their setting, and would in fact make better use of the site through their
perpendicular conjoined form. This would also create a striking rhythm and dialogue
between the two units with their balancing gables and chimney stacks. Elsewhere, it
is considered that the new flint wall along the site frontage would be a significant
planning gain. Not only would it reinforce the strong enclosure found elsewhere in the
village, but it would also help ‘ground’ the new development within the village. If one
also considers the welcome removal of the existing conifers, which currently detract
from the existing cottages, the aspect of the site should be considerably improved.
Overall, therefore, the loss of the existing cottages is certainly not something which
can be unequivocally welcomed. However, because the proposed development
offers sufficient compensation and enhancements to outweigh the conservation loss,
it is not considered that a recommendation of refusal can be substantiated in this
instance. With appropriate materials, the scheme should not harm the significance of
the designated Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
16
17 March 2011
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit.
The existing dwellings are of a traditional flint, red brick and red clay pantile
construction and are sited perpendicular to The Street, with the western gable hard
up to the highway.
The buildings are traditional in their vernacular and detailing and appear to date from
the 19th Century and contribute to the appearance and character of Kelling Village
and the designated Conservation Area, although do not have the special architectural
and historic interest to qualify for listed status.
The site is located within the village of Kelling which lies within the designated
Conservation Area and Countryside Policy area, as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy, where Policies EN4 and EN8 are applicable. These require that all
development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. In
the case where the proposal would involve the demolition of non-listed buildings
these will be assessed against the contribution to the architectural or historic interest
of the area made by that building. Buildings which make a positive contribution to the
character or appearance of an area should be retained. Where a building makes little
contribution to the area, consent for demolition will be given provided that, in
appropriate cases, there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment or
after-use.
In this particular case the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that as the building is of no particular architectural merit and or historic
value that there is no conservation objection to its demolition, subject to an
appropriate redevelopment scheme being proposed which would enhance the
character and appearance of this part of Kelling's Conservation Area. The
redevelopment of the site, as proposed under planning application 10/1211, is
considered to be acceptable in principle.
Development Control Committee
17
17 March 2011
The Conservation and Design Manager has indicated that whilst the justification for
the proposed demolition is not as detailed as it might be, the issue is fundamentally
about the net impact of the proposals upon the significance of the Kelling
Conservation Area. In this respect there are a number of clearly outlined and readily
apparent benefits which, it is considered, would outweigh the modest interest and
qualities of the existing cottages and these include:
1. The two dwellings, through their conjoined form and orientation would create a far
more interesting and layered street scene than the existing in-line pair;
2. The proposed dwellings would offer more animated elevations through the
fenestration and mix of materials/textures - the existing are rather bland by
comparison;
3. The development as a whole would make much better use of the site in terms if
curtilage arrangements and residential amenity;
4. The new boundary wall would strengthen and reinforce the existing enclosure
through the village and would also help to reduce the existing vehicular dominance of
the curtilage.
Overall therefore, the demolition of the existing buildings in the Conservation Area is
considered acceptable as the proposals outlined in parallel application 10/1211 for
the replacement dwellings would enhance the character and appearance of this part
of Kelling's Conservation Area. A condition would be required to ensure that the
demolition is not undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of
redevelopment of the site has been let.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including a condition
requiring that the demolition shall not be undertaken before a contract for the
carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been let and
planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the
contract provides.
7.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/1428 - Erection of two-storey
extension; The Glebe, Church Lane for Mr & Mrs Markham
Target Date: 07 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Historic Park and Gardens Ungraded
County Wildlife Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031070- Demolition of outbuilding and construction of bedrooms extension
and conversion and extension of garage to form car port and workshop
Approved 28/07/2003
Development Control Committee
18
17 March 2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey extension in the middle and at right angles to the
existing property. It would be of a contemporary light weight design and would be
constructed from render and horizontal boards, it would have large areas of glazing
and would have a pantile roof.
The extension would have a height to ridge of 7m and height to eaves of 4.7m.
It would have a gable width of 6m and would project to the front of the house by 2m
and to the rear of the house by 3.8m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Adverse impact on the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
2. Adverse impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings.
3. Height and scale not in keeping with dwelling or area.
4. Impact on neighbouring amenity.
5. Large area of glazing would be more visible at night, causing light pollution.
6. Would affect views across the Glaven Valley.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) The existing building, by virtue of its lack of height and rather bland materials, is a
somewhat sprawling affair which lacks any real visual interest or design quality. It is
also a building which occupies an important position within the Letheringsett
Conservation Area overlooking the River Glaven and the meadows beyond. There
can therefore be no objections to any scheme which seeks to enliven the property in
a way which is compatible with its sensitive surroundings.
In terms of the scheme submitted, it most notably seeks to introduce a two storey
element in the middle of the existing property. This would not only provide a more
varied and interesting roofscape, but it would also create a much needed focal point
within the centre of the building to take attention away from the single-storey flanking
wings. The suggestion of a more contemporary approach in ‘lighter’ materials should
also take some of the bulk out of the existing bungalow which currently has a rather
weighty appearance.
Elsewhere, the loss of the existing conservatory, and the introduction of the glazed
lantern and the covered way are also to be generally welcomed. Subject to the finer
points of detailing, the new build elements should enhance the existing property and
thus the significance of the wider designated conservation area. On this basis,
Conservation & Design do not wish to object to this application.
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.
Development Control Committee
19
17 March 2011
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement character
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design and scale of development.
3. Impact on Conservation Area and AONB.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where extensions to dwellings
are considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies. In this case the site also lies within the designated Conservation Area
and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Adopted Core Strategy policies HO8, EN1,
EN2, EN4 and EN8 are applicable.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside. In this case, whilst the extension would
result in an increase in the height of part of the dwelling, the site is not highly visible
to the wider area to the east, west or north as it sits in a natural 'dip' in the land and
that the increase in height is not considered significant, or disproportionate; nor
would the proposal materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the wider
countryside. In terms of increase in scale, it is not considered that this would be
disproportionate to the original dwelling; nor would it result in any material impact on
the appearance of the wider countryside.
Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development is designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Furthermore development proposals, including alterations
and extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
designated asset, in this case the Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 states
that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers.
Development Control Committee
20
17 March 2011
In design terms, clearly the two storey extension on this single storey property makes
a statement, sitting at a height of approx 2.3m above the ridge of the existing
dwelling. It is considered that this would provide a more varied and interesting
roofscape, and would also create a focal point within the centre of the building. The
suggestion of a more contemporary approach in ‘lighter’ materials should also take
some of the bulk out of the existing bungalow which currently has a rather weighty
appearance. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advises that given
an appropriate design solution, the proposal should enhance the existing property
and thus the significance, in terms of character and appearance, of the wider
designated Conservation Area and therefore raises no objection.
In respect of the impact on neighbouring amenity, the proposal would be sited some
40m from the nearest dwelling (Glebe Room to the south) and would accord with the
basic amenity criteria of the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of window to
window distances. It is not therefore considered that the proposal for the two storey
extension would result in any significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy EN2 advises that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the setting and
views from the Conservation Area. In this instance given that the proposal seeks an
extension of an existing dwelling; that it is considered that the increase in height is
not disproportionate; that the site is not highly visible to the wider landscape given
the topography of the site and area and that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has no objection to the proposal in terms of impact on the
Conservation Area, it considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on
the special qualities or local distinctiveness of the area.
Concern has been raised by local residents regarding potential light pollution given
the extent of glazing at the proposed first floor level. It is considered, given the
setting of the dwelling in a natural 'dip' in the landscape and with established
residential properties to the south and east of the site, that views into and out of the
site would not be far reaching into the wider landscape and as such it is not
considered that the proposed glazing would have any significantly adverse impact on
the surrounding area.
Policy EN1, seeks to ensure that development proposals protect the special qualities
of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In terms of the impact on the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, given that the proposal is an extension to an established
dwelling and that the site is not highly visible to the surrounding area, subject to the
use of appropriate external materials, it is considered that the proposed development
would not adversely impact on the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
In summary, therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the Development
Plan and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of conditions including those requiring the
clay pantiles in roofing the extension to match the colour and profile of the
tiles on the remainder of the building, the submission of a full schedule of
colour finishes for the joinery and render to be submitted, and the flue to have
a matt black or dark grey finish.
Development Control Committee
21
17 March 2011
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0078 - Erection of 24 bed ward; North Walsham
Cottage Hospital, 62 Yarmouth Road for Norlife
Major Development
Target Date: 05 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Healthcare Campus
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the demolition of the Outpatients Department, Physiotherapy
and 16 bed ward of the North Walsham Memorial Cottage Hospital which have a total
floor area of 1681 sq metres and its replacement with a 24 bed ward building having
a floor area of 1043 sq metres.
The building which would be “L” shaped in form would be of a single storey red brick
construction under a hipped red pantiles roof. Internally it would be split into four 4
bed wards and 8 single rooms which would be provided in two separate wings
separated by an admin/support zone. This central zone would be linked to Rebecca
House which is sited immediately to the west. This building is currently being
refurbished in order to provide Outpatients/Out-of-Hours services and also a base for
Community based staff and Therapies.
The development would be served by the existing access to the site off Yarmouth
Road and a visitors car park containing 28 spaces is proposed immediately to the
east of the new ward, with a further 24 spaces proposed to the north of the building
and adjacent to Rebecca House. The existing Ambulance Station which adjoins the
northern boundary of the site would remain.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred from a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL – Whilst supporting the application would urge the District Council
and the applicant to provide more on site parking facilities to avoid “on road” parking
problems.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter of objection has been received signed by the residents of Nos. 26 to 31
Sampson Road whose properties are immediately to the south of the site. The same
letter has also been received from the residents of Nos. 26 and 27, whilst e-mail
objections have been received from the residents of No. 28 and 29 which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. The building is positioned to close to the boundary of the site and will change the
outlook from our properties.
2. There is a covenant on the land which prevents the erection of any building on
the land immediately to the south of the existing hospital.
3. The removal of trees and shrubs which currently act as a buffer zone along the
boundary will severely reduce the privacy of our properties as well as damaging
wildlife species, including bats.
4. A large amount of the trees bordering our properties are protected and will suffer
root damage from the development.
5. The buffer zone between our properties and the site needs to remain intact and
enhanced in order to maintain privacy.
Development Control Committee
22
17 March 2011
6. The position of the car park will increase noise, disturbance and light pollution.
7. The building as now proposed bears no resemblance the architects impressions
shown at the public exhibition when we were lead to believe that the new building
would be based on the origin footprint of the hospital.
8. The solar panels should be installed in such a way that they do not cause glare to
our properties.
9. We are aware that the mobile x-ray unit will be on site twice a week which will
result in more visitors and traffic congestion and also increase noise pollution.
The applicants' agent has confirmed that it is intended that the main car parking
areas would be used predominantly during the day by visitors and outpatients, whilst
staff would be encouraged to use the spaces to the northern side of the new ward
and in front of Rebecca House.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions as it is considered that the proposal has the potential to engender a
reduction in vehicular movements to and from the site and to alleviate the existing
on-site car parking congestion. Furthermore there are public and limited duration car
parking facilities in the vicinity of the site and the provision of public transport links of
local services. The existing vehicular access to the public highway accords with
visibility requirements contained within DfT document ‘Manual for Streets.’
Health and Safety Executive - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Is satisfied that the
proposed mitigation, by way of replacement and additional planting of trees and
shrubs, is adequate to compensate for the loss of trees required to facilitate this
development. The Arboricultural Assessment proposes sufficient numbers and
species of trees and shrubs, but the planting layout has not been submitted in
sufficient detail. Detailed landscape proposals should therefore be a condition of any
consent and should include hard landscape elements such as vehicular & pedestrian
surfaces, fencing, walling, lighting. The Ecological Assessment raises no issues
relating to protected species in connection with this development, but given the
amount of vegetation removal, all clearance work should avoid the bird nesting
season March – September.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Further information requested from applicant.
Environment Agency - 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.
Development Control Committee
23
17 March 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on trees.
5. Car parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order to allow Members to
visit the site.
The site is located within the Development Boundary for North Walsham, a Principal
Settlement as defined by the adopted Core Strategy and in an area zoned as a
Health Campus. Policy CT3 states that new or improved community facilities or
services will be permitted within the Principal and Secondary Settlements, Service
Villages and Coastal Service Villages, or within the Countryside where they meet the
identified needs of the local community. Proposals on designated Health Care
Campuses at Cromer, Fakenham, Kelling, North Walsham and Wells-next-the-Sea
that would otherwise accord with Development Plan policies but would result in the
loss of health care facilities will not be permitted unless a replacement facility of
equal or greater community benefit is provided for that immediate locality and made
available prior to the commencement of development.
This application forms part of the proposed rationalization of NHS facilities for North
Walsham Hospital, retaining existing service provision on the site whilst at the same
time upgrading the facilities in order to address patient privacy issues, infection
control and increase the number of bed spaces from 16 to 24. It is therefore
considered that the principle of the redevelopment of this site is acceptable.
Development Control Committee
24
17 March 2011
As far as the design of the building is concerned, the layout of the building has to a
certain extent been dictated by internal layout requirements together with the need
for a central link to Rebecca House; this has resulted in the building having a fairly
squat appearance with broad 17 metres hipped ends to the south and east and a
shallow pitched roof. Whilst this does not directly reflect the architectural styling of
Rebecca House, which has a narrow plan form and steep pitched roofs, the resultant
effect would be that the ridge height of the two buildings would be similar at 6.5
metres, with a similar eaves height to that found on domestic properties. In addition,
in order to articulate the design it is intended to introduce a number of lanterns
features to the roof, similar to Rebecca House, thereby breaking the ridge line and
giving the building a degree of verticality. It is therefore considered that, subject to
the use of appropriate materials, the building would site comfortably on the site and
blend successful with Rebecca House.
In terms of the impact of the proposed building on the adjacent properties to the
south in Sampson Road, part of the area which would be occupied by the building
contains a dense mix of mature and semi-mature trees, including a number of
Lawson Cypress, Cherry, Poplars and a Norway Maple, all of which would be
removed. Within the site adjoining the southern boundary are further trees
interspersed with under-planting, some of which would also be removed either due to
their proximity to the proposed building or their condition.
Due to the operational constraints placed on the siting of the proposed building the
southern hipped roof of the ward, which would be 17 metres in width, would be only 4
metres from the boundary at its closest point. However, this would be to the rear of a
double garage block in Sampson Road. Slightly further to the east the rear windows
of No. 26 Sampson Road, a bungalow, would be 17 metres from the rear wall of the
ward. Although the building at this point is in close proximity to the boundary due to
the fact that the only openings in the south elevation facing this property would be
double doors, which would be used in an emergency, together with a window serving
a single bed room it is not considered that this would result in any privacy issue
especially as at the site is lower than the bungalow at this point and that a landscape
buffer zone is proposed together with the retention of a Turkey oak.
Other properties in Sampson Road potentially affected by the development would be
40 metres from the south elevation. Whilst the rear boundaries of these properties is
formed by a close boarded fence it is inevitable that in the short to mid term the site
would be more open in nature. However due to the internal layout of the proposed
ward together with the separation distances involved it is not considered that there
would be any issues of loss of privacy or direct overlooking.
Along the remainder of the southern boundary a landscape scheme has been
submitted which shows the retention of a number of trees, including two trees of
heaven together with enrichment planting within the existing wood some 16 metres in
width which expands to a depth of 45 metres whilst further within the site there would
be a further planting belt some 15 metres in width containing shrubs and root ball
standards with a mix of native species including Oak, Beech and Rowan. It is
therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with the basis
amenity criteria contained in the North Norfolk Design Guide.
As far as the trees and protected species are concerned, the Council’s Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has confirmed that the submitted Arboricultural
Implications Assessment together with the Ecological Assessment, which includes
mitigation measures restricting the time within which the trees can be removed,
together with the comprehensive replanting scheme, are acceptable.
Development Control Committee
25
17 March 2011
A further area of concern expressed by local residents is that of noise and
disturbance together with light pollution from the access driveway and proposed car
park from which they are currently shielded by the existing hospital buildings. As
proposed it is intended that a 28 space car park would be provided to the east of the
new ward which would be accessed from the driveway which runs close to the
northern boundary of the site. The car park would be orientated north-south with
parking bays either side of a central isle. At its closest point the car park would be
20m from the boundary of the site and a further 8m from the rear windows of the
closest house.
In terms of lighting to the car park it is intended that this would be from 3.5 metre high
lighting columns with baffles to avoid light pollution. In addition the lights would be
designed to seek a luminance level of 10 lux on the ground and if required operate
via a time clock. Owing to the existing and proposed vegetation to the southern side
of the site, together with the existing boundary fence to the properties in Sampson
Road, it is considered that these properties would be screened from car headlights
within the car park. On the issue of noise and general disturbance the Council’s
Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objection, but would require
information in respect of extraction equipment associated with the building. It is
therefore considered that the scheme as a whole would not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
In terms of the adequacy of parking provision and access arrangements, at the
present time the total car park allocation for Rebecca House is 22 spaces whilst the
Cottage Hospital has 30 spaces, giving a total of 52 spaces.
Based on the parking standards contained in the Core Strategy the new ward,
assuming 16 staff and 24 beds, would require a total of 12 car parking spaces plus
provision for 6 cycle spaces.
Given the fact that the function of Rebecca House is to change and would be dealing
with non-residential patients and it would also be a base for community-based staff
and for therapy treatment, based on the parking standards contained in the Core
Strategy this would require a total of 42 spaces. As a result a total of 54 spaces
would be required for Rebecca House and the proposed 24-bed ward. This would
result in a shortfall of two spaces based on the current level of parking. However, it
is understood that whilst the Community Health Workers would be based at Rebecca
House, during the working day they would be out in the community, visiting patients
in their homes. In addition, it is considered that the hospital is fairly well located for
those visiting either on foot, cycle or public transport as the centre of North Walsham
is less than 1km away and local bus services operate along the Yarmouth Road.
The applicant's agent has indicated that if required additional spaces could be proved
on site but believes that the current levels will encourage staff and visitors to use
public transport, walk, cycle or car share.
As far as the access is concerned the Highway Authority has indicated that as there
would be no significant increase in traffic movements it would not wish to raise an
objection to the proposal; it also considers that the car parking provision is
acceptable. In the light of the Highway Authority's support for the scheme, it is
considered that the access and parking arrangements are satisfactory.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
26
17 March 2011
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0144 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling with
habitable accommodation in roofspace; 24 Happisburgh Road for Gaviant
Developments Limited
Minor Development
Target Date: 30 March 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a three bedroom, two storey dwelling with accommodation in
the roofspace, within what is part of the current garden area of No.24 Happisburgh
Road. The dwelling would be attached to No.24, thus forming a terrace of three
dwellings, would have a floor area of just over 100 square metres and would be
vernacular in style, matching the adjoining properties both in terms of its detailing and
materials which would of red brick under a clay pantile roof.
Access to the site would be via the existing vehicular entrance to No.24 Happisburgh
Road which adjoins the boundary with No.22 Happisburgh Road and would provide
parking and manoeuvring area for four vehicles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Ford and P Moore having regard to the following
planning issues:
Impact on character of area and neighbours' amenities.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds of over development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection, together with a petition signed by fifteen local residents,
(which includes five signatories of the letters of objection), which raise the following
concerns (summarised):
1. Adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.
2. Loss of privacy.
3. Detrimental effect on property values.
4. Roof lights would look unsightly.
5. No other properties in the vicinity have roof lights.
6. Narrow access will inevitably result in on road car parking, affecting the flow of
traffic.
7. Issues of highway safety.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
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.
Development Control Committee
27
17 March 2011
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Development Boundary for North Walsham, a Principal
Settlement as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy in an area zoned as residential, where, subject to compliance with Core
Strategy Policies EN4, CT5 and CT6, the principle of development is considered to
be acceptable. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
At the present time the semi-detached pair of dwellings, to which the proposed
property would be attached, have retained their original form but have been altered
with the original Victorian sash windows having been replaced with top hung PVC U
windows. The dwelling as proposed would replicate the original dwellings, having a
splay bay at ground floor with a hipped end to the roof whilst to the rear a small
single storey rear extension would provide a utility room and W.C. Therefore based
on the use of appropriate materials, including matching red brick and clay pantiles, it
is considered that the proposed dwelling would compliment the existing properties
and would be visually acceptable in the street scene.
As far as the relationship to neighbouring properties is concerned, with the exception
of Nos. 26 and 24 Happisburgh Road to which the property would be attached, the
nearest dwelling would be No.22 Happisburgh Road which is a single storey
bungalow to the north west. This property which has secondary and tertiary windows
facing the site is separated from the site by the driveway to that property and a
boundary hedgerow some 1.3 metres in height. Given the fact that the separation
distance between this property and the blank wall of the proposed dwelling, which is
Development Control Committee
28
17 March 2011
set closer to Happisburgh Road than the existing bungalow, is some 9 metres it is not
considered that it would result in any significant loss of light to that property and the
separation distance would comply with the requirements of the amenity criteria in the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
In respect of other surrounding properties, whilst it is proposed that there would be
two south-west facing roof lights serving bedroom three, it is considered that the
separation distance between these windows and neighbouring properties to the
south west, the nearest boundary to which would be some 40 metres away, would
not result in any significant loss of privacy. However if required the roof lights could
be obscure glazed. The layout as proposed would provide adequate private amenity
space for both dwellings.
In respect of the access and parking arrangement the development would utilise the
existing access and gravel driveway to No.24 and would provide parking for four
vehicles, two for each property, together with adequate manoeuvring and turning
area, thus complying with adopted standards. The Highway Authority has indicated
that it does not wish to object to the proposal which would therefore accord with
Policies CT5 and CT 6 of the Core Strategy. However, in view of the fact that the
driveway would run close to the boundary with the adjoining property No.22
Happisburgh Road, it is suggested that in order to reduce potential noise and
disturbance the driveway should be of a porous hard surface rather than gravel.
In summary therefore it is considered that overall the development would integrate
successfully in the street scene and would not result in any significantly overlooking
or loss of light to neighbouring properties and would accord with the Development
plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
SEA PALLING - PF/10/1450 - Change of use of land from storage to car park;
Land at Clink Lane for Sea Palling with Waxham Community Trust
Target Date: 04 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19911311 PF - Temporary use of land for contractor's site offices and for
storage of materials
Temporary Approval 11/11/1991
PLA/19920303 QF - Change of use from agricultural to public car parking
Approved 09/03/1993
PLA/19960712 PF - Site compound (renewal of temporary approval 01 911311 F)
Temporary Approval 24/07/1996
PLA/20021076 PF - Retention of site compound
Development Control Committee
29
17 March 2011
Temporary Approval 30/08/2002
PLA/20081409 PF - Retention of storage compound
Approved 01/12/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is to change the use of an area of land last used for storage associated with flood
defence. The physical works include replacing the security fencing with a post and
rail fence, new gates and some regrading of the surface.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Agent for the application is a member of staff.
PARISH COUNCIL
Sea Palling Parish Council - no response
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - No objection subject to a parking and access condition.
Environment Agency - Advise that an adequate Flood Response Plan is submitted to
prevent cars becoming buoyant and a hazard in the event of a flood.
Natural England - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
Environmental Health - no objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character (specifies
criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape Character
Assessment)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EN 10 - Development and Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood
risk areas)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Flood risk
Development Control Committee
30
17 March 2011
APPRAISAL
The application site lies behind the sand dunes close to the beach access in the
centre of Sea Palling and has been more recently used for storage for sea defence
works. In principle the proposal which is within the Countryside Policy area is
considered acceptable because the development is related to tourism. The car park
would also serve as a community facility.
The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal but has requested
a simple Flood Response Plan with measures to prevent cars floating and becoming
a hazard in the event of flooding. This has been received, but it would be prudent to
impose a condition so as to ensure details of the emergency Flood Response
Measures are prominently displayed within the car park.
No permanent buildings are proposed and the works to the car park, including
principally improvements to the fencing, would improve the appearance of this area
of land for a use that is beneficial to local residents and the tourist economy.
The proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Development
Plan and so approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended details specified in
the applicant's Flood Response Plan to the Local Planning Authority received on 2
February 2011.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4. Prior to the bringing into use of the car park hereby permitted the proposed
access and car park shall be laid out, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance
with the approved plan. They shall thereafter be so retained.
Development Control Committee
31
17 March 2011
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. A copy of the flood response procedures set out in the Flood Response Plan
submitted on 02 February 2010 shall at all times be prominently displayed within the
car park.
Reason
To protect users in the event of a flood, in accordance with the requirements of
Planning Policy Statement PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
11.
SUSTEAD - PF/10/1317 - Erection of general purpose agricultural building;
Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
Minor Development
Target Date: 18 January 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Setting of the Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071516 NP - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural storage building
Approved 09/11/2007
PLA/20090437 PF - Erection of agricultural storage building
Withdrawn 09/06/2009
PLA/20090974 PF - Erection of Agricultural Storage Building
Withdrawn by Applicant 13/01/2010
PF/10/0699 PF - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
Withdrawn by Applicant 11/08/2010
PF/10/0197 PF - Proposed general purpose agricultural building
Refused 22/4/2010
Appeal Allowed 28/9/2010
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building
measuring approximately 36.5m long, 13.7m wide and 5.3m high to the ridge.
The building is to be constructed with a steel frame and timber vertical Yorkshire
boarding on three elevations. Its roof would be constructed from corrugated fibre
cement boarding. The building would be open to the southern elevation and would
have 8 equally spaced bays.
The internal arrangement of the building indicates one large area of approximately
500sq.m.
Access to the building would be along the recently formed track which runs along the
boundary to the east with the Manor House.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee
32
17 March 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from occupiers of The Old Coach House to the north
of the site on the following grounds:
1. Don’t feel that a larger building than that allowed at appeal should be permitted.
2. Location of the building extends further east than the existing building and it will
therefore have more impact on the Conservation Area and their property.
3. Would only want indigenous planting if permission were to be granted.
4. Would not want this and the one allowed at appeal to be built – should be one or
the other.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition ensuring that no extractor
or ventilation system is installed unless details have first been approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
County Highways - Subject to the use of these buildings being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use whatsoever
being carried out from the site - no objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - There are no
fundamental landscape objections to this proposal.
Whilst relatively large in scale, the proposed new agricultural building is in keeping
with the existing modern building on the site. The location adjacent to the existing
unit is appropriate.
Materials, namely brick plinth and Yorkshire boarding are acceptable. The colour
finish to the proposed Eternit Farmscape Profile 6 cement roof sheeting has not been
specified. I would suggest that the ‘Bracken’ option would be most appropriate to
give the new building some reference to the pantiled roofs of the adjacent traditional
farm buildings making up The Old Coach House and Manor House Farm.
It must be said that concerns still remain relating to the impact of these modern
functional buildings on the Conservation Area and the setting of the Manor House
situated within the Conservation Area. However, having explored many options for
siting and scale of this second modern unit, this does appear to be the least intrusive
solution. The planting proposals in the form of 3 groups of trees will provide an
amount of screening and are suitable given the pastoral parkland setting.
Therefore subject to conditions including samples of materials, tree protection and a
landscaping scheme, Conservation, Design and Landscape raise no objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
33
17 March 2011
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Scale
3. Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.
The building would be located adjacent (to the south) of an existing agricultural
building of approximately 300sq.m. and is immediately south of Bessingham
Conservation Area. The site consists of traditional parkland characterised by open
meadow and copses of mature trees. Formerly within the curtilage of the adjacent
Manor House, approximately 25m to the east of the site, the parkland is now under
separate ownership.
A building of a footprint of approx 400sq.m was allowed at appeal (planning
permission reference 10/0197). This would be located to the east of the existing
building on the site and would be constructed with a steel frame and timber vertical
Yorkshire boarding on three elevations. Its roof would be constructed from
corrugated fibre cement boarding. This permission has not yet been implemented
and the applicant has been advised and has accepted that should the current
application be approved, it would be necessary to ensure that either the building
allowed at appeal or the current proposal be erected but not both, owing to the
cumulative negative impact that both would have on the setting of the Conservation
Area.
Since the appeal decision for 10/0197, permission has been granted to re-locate the
Manor House some 80m to the east.
The site is located in the village of Bessingham which is designated as Countryside
in the Core Strategy. The principle of the erection of new buildings for agricultural
purposes in the countryside is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies including Policy EN4 which has regard to design and setting, and
Policy EN2 which seeks to protect and enhance landscape and settlement character.
Development Control Committee
34
17 March 2011
Previous applications for agricultural buildings (of a smaller footprint to that
proposed) have been refused, based on their scale, massing and design. However,
planning application 10/0197 which had a footprint of 400sq.m was allowed on
appeal in September 2010. In terms of the scale of the proposed building, the
building is larger than that allowed at appeal (some 500sqm compared to that
allowed on appeal at 400sqm). However, the Inspector advised in his decision that
‘the proposed building’s dimensions, steel portal construction and Yorkshire boarding
finish would not reflect the local traditional form of agricultural buildings. However, I
consider it most unlikely that modern farming methods and economics would support
new buildings in traditional scale and materials, and I am unaware of any such local
examples. The adjoining building is similarly modern in appearance …’. Therefore,
given that the Inspector did not support the contention that the scale of the building
would result in any harm to the countryside or setting of the Conservation Area, it is
not considered that a refusal based on the increased scale of this building by an
additional 100sq.m could be substantiated.
In addition the Inspector did not accept that the siting of the allowed building
(10/0197) adjacent to the existing farm building, to the south of the Conservation
Area would adversely affect the Conservation Area or setting of the Manor House
within the Conservation Area as it would not be highly visible from public vantage
points. The proposal now for determination would be positioned to the south of the
existing building (rather than to the west as allowed at appeal). Given that the
proposed siting would not be any closer to the Conservation Area and again would
not be highly visible from public vantage points, it is not considered that the proposed
building would result in any harm to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area;
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is raising no objection to the
scheme. Therefore it is not considered that any significant harm would result in
respect of the setting of the Manor House or of the Conservation Area.
However, it is not considered acceptable for the building subject to this application to
be built in addition to that allowed on appeal, given the cumulative negative impact
they would have on the Conservation Area and surrounding countryside.
It is therefore considered necessary to require by a S106 Obligation, that either this
permission is implemented or that allowed under the appeal (planning ref 10/0197),
but not both.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including the
submission of samples of facing materials, details of any ventilation or
extraction prior to its installation, a soft landscaping scheme, tree protection of
all trees within 30m of the proposed building, and subject to a S106 Obligation
to ensure that only this building or that allowed at appeal is erected, but not
both.
Development Control Committee
35
17 March 2011
12.
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1439 - Erection of two detached one and a half
storey dwellings; Land to the rear Green Farm Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Perry
Minor Development
Target Date: 09 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Listed Building Grade II
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080532 PF - Conversion of hotel and outbuildings to nine dwellings, erection
of two semi-detached dwellings
Refused 20/06/2008
PLA/20080971 PF - Alterations to hotel to provide guest house with owner's
accommodation, conversion of outbuildings to two dwellings and three holiday units
and erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings
Approved 18/08/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is to erect two one and a half storey dwellings in place of the two single storey
dwellings permitted under application 20080971.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issue:
Design of development.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
A petition has been received from local residents objecting on the following grounds:
The site of Green Farm has already been subdivided and the subdivision not carried
out in accordance with the approved plans likely to result in increased parking
demand outside the site if the hotel use is continued or the Bed and Breakfast use
implemented.
Proposal is detrimental to the listed building in the design of the new dwellings
Increased vehicle traffic.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - Concerned about the apparent shortfall in parking spaces.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) When originally approved back in 2008, it was considered that the two dwellings on
this site should take the form of a low key outbuilding in order to preserve the
hierarchy of the site. Whilst it is easy to look back critically at the approved design,
the basic principle of the new build being subordinate to the Grade II listed hotel, and
being compatible with the existing accessory buildings, still applies.
Development Control Committee
36
17 March 2011
The basic approach is still one of having two detached buildings which are very
similar in appearance – in this case a pair of conventional single-storey properties
from the front and a pair of chalet bungalows from the rear. The resultant stand-alone
units would have a rather regimented and suburban feel which would prevent them
from successfully integrating with the rest of the site.
Elevationally, the buildings on their more ‘public’ side are fairly mild mannered but
ultimately offer little in the way of visual interest or innovation. Elsewhere, the box
dormers and flat roof additions are routed firmly in the mid-late 20th century and
would hardly enhance the designs. Therefore, despite the good quality materials
proposed, there is nothing within the submission to suggest that the new build would
make a positive contribution to the built environment as required by PPS1.
Because the proposals would harm the significance of the existing heritage assets,
refusal has to be the Conservation & Design recommendation.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a code level 3 condition
Building Control - No fire engine turning provision and if the dwelling within 1m of the
boundary all doors and windows in the side elevation should not exceed 1 sq. m in
total.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant and an individual who has objected.
However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public,
refusal of the application is considered to be justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
EN 6 - Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Car Parking
2. Design
3. Impact on the setting of the listed building.
4. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
37
17 March 2011
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the village of Thorpe Market which formerly had
a development boundary under the Local Plan but within the Core Strategy is
designated as Countryside. Thorpe Market lies on the A149 on the edge of Gunton
Park. The site also lies within the Thorpe Market and the Gunton Park Conservation
Areas and most importantly within the curtilage of a Grade II listed building.
The site has permission for the development of two single-storey semi-detached
dwellings which formed part of a comprehensive scheme involving the
redevelopment of Green Farm whose last use was as a hotel. This site is formed
from the subdivision of a large portion of the former car park. As currently proposed,
this subdivision would result in some loss of parking allocated for the Guest House
use, granted under the same permission, and has arisen because the site plan on
the earlier permission was inaccurate. As it stands therefore the scheme would lead
to a shortfall in car parking for the neighbouring development, with adverse
consequential impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area from displaced
vehicles.
It is a fundamental requirement of Policy EN 4 that design should have regard to the
local context as well as preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area,
which this proposal fails to do. The design, apart from some token flint on the front
elevation, is more akin to that which can be found on a suburban residential estate in
a town. Whilst quality materials may be proposed for the walls, roof and joinery this
cannot lift the basic design above the mundane. This scheme appears to have
scant respect for its setting within the Conservation Area and within the former
curtilage of a listed building. The proposed dwellings are considered to be 1¹/2 storey
dwellings, and had they not the accommodation in the roof space the roofs could be
lower and better proportioned.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has assessed the detrimental
impact that this proposal would have on the setting of the listed building and the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In conclusion, whilst the plots would be located behind Green Farm, development on
this site would be visible from A149 and other public vantage points from other
dwellings and along footpaths and from Southrepps. The proposed development
would not only fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area, but it would also be detrimental to the setting of a Grade II listed
building.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal, for the following reasons
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (requires compliance with the
Council’s car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee
38
17 March 2011
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would result
in a development that by virtue of its form, layout, height, position and suburban
appearance would introduce a style of building incompatible with the existing
converted outbuildings formed around the original curtilage of the listed building to
the detriment of the setting of that listed building. As a consequence the proposal
would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas.
In addition, the proposal would prejudice the proper development of the adjoining site
and the implementation of an existing planning permission through the loss of
parking spaces allocated to that site, to the detriment of the appearance of the
Conservation Area.
13.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the applications are
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BODHAM - PF/10/1469 – Continued siting of caravan for agricultural
purposes and 4 mobile animal shelters and erection of polytunnel; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 – Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the
planning history of the site.
SHERINGHAM – PF/11/0061 – Erection of two storey dwelling; 1A Havelock
Road for Mr Carter
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to expedite the
processing of the application following referral of the application to Committee by
Councillor Mrs Bevan Jones for the following planning reasons:
Impact on neighbours’ amenities and possible over-development of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Control Committee
39
17 March 2011
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - NP/11/0151 - Prior notification to erect agricultural building;
White Lodge Farm, Southrepps Road for D J & J M Blaxell
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BACTON - PF/10/1486 - Retention of roof light and installation of 2 front roof
lights and 2 rear roof lights; Felbrigg Lodge, Meadow View, North Walsham
Road for Mrs Preston
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/1416 - Erection of first floor side extension and
replacement single-storey rear extension; Meadow Way, Berry Hall Road for
Mr G Owen
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/10/1462 - Erection of single-storey side extension and detached
garage, conversion of outbuildings to 2 annexes and installation of 4 dormer
windows; Barnwell Cottage, 49 Warham Road for Mr & Mrs Van Ree
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/1244 - Re-opening of arched link and installation of
replacement window; 91 & 93 High Street for Mr D Burlison
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1424 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and raising
of part of roof to provide first floor living accommodation; 15 Morston Road for
Mr P Claybourn
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0039 - Retention of additional photovoltaic and solar
panels, repositioned roof light and flue and changes to brick and flint
detailing. Proposed changes to former garage and installation of satellite dish;
Bobbin House, Whitefriars, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs Daley
(Householder application)
BODHAM - AI/10/1144 - Display of illuminated advertisement; Crayford And
Abbs, Weybourne Road for Crayford and Abbs
(Advertisement Illuminated)
BRISTON - PF/10/1466 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
130B Hall Street for Mr & Mrs I Shaw
(Householder application)
BRUMSTEAD - PF/10/1456 - Erection of slurry storage tank; Land at Home
Farm, Brunstead for J E & M E Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0037 - Installation of dormer windows and erection of one
and a half storey side extension and detached double garage; Rose Patch,
New Road for Mr R Locke
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0013 - Conversion of garage to habitable
accommodation and erection of garage; Field Barn, Old Womans Lane for Mrs
A Atkinson
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
40
17 March 2011
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0024 - Erection of rear veranda; Hunters, High
Street for Mr G Peploe
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/1174 - Conversion of one dwelling into 2 dwellings; 10 Mount
Street for World Property Co (UK)
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0029 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (extension of period
for commencement of planning ref:07/1930); Land rear of 1 The Warren for Mr
& Mrs Royall
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - LA/10/1223 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Bristows Farm
Barn, Chequers Street for Lancashire Mortgage Co
(Listed Building Alterations)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/1444 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Ash
House, School Road for Dr Gray
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1383 - Erection of building for B2 and B8 uses; Plot 6,
Clipbush Lane for Steel Build Masters
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/10/1389 - Installation of advertisement lettering; Connaught
House, 11 Oak Street for Stephenson Smart
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1402 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning ref: 02/0741 to
permit the sale of furniture and secondhand goods and approximately 15%
new items; Former English (Garages) Ltd, Greenway Lane for Sue Ryder Care
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1477 - Erection of front porch and replacement side porch;
71 Jubilee Avenue for Mr Swift
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/1593 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of personnel door; 155 Holt Road for Mr S Dawkins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0011 - Use of land for siting 4 Timber Camping Pods;
Deers Glade Caravan Park, White Post Road for Deers Glade CCP
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/1458 - Erection of front conservatory; Holidays, 3 Bush
Drive, Bush Estate for Mr D Pearce
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/0003 - Erection of double garage with pitched roof link
above flat-roofed extension; Broadwalk, Staithe Road for Mr Taylor
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
41
17 March 2011
HICKLING - NMA1/10/0878 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of chimney, revised plaster finish and revised door and window; Community
Centre, The Street for Mr G Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/0019 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Sweetbriars, 11 Warren Road for Ms B Mumford
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/0046 - Erection of first floor dormer extension; Appin,
Vale Road for Mr R Bennett
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/10/1360 - Erection of 2 two-storey dwellings; Dolston
Depot, 57 The Street for Mr R Parker
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/1464 - Variation of Condition 7 of planning ref: 10/0360
to permit change of door colour; Row Hill Farm, Walsingham Road for Wace &
Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/10/1342 - Removal of internal wall sections and raising of beam
above fireplace; Byfords, 1-3A Shirehall Plain for Byfords
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/10/1452 - Alterations to facilitate construction of rear extension;
The Kings Head, 19 High Street for Mr Wilson
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/10/1470 - Installation of 2 extraction fans; Caxton House, Market
Place for Oasis Healthcare Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/11/0079 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail)
& A3 (cafe); 6 High Street for Mrs M Lees
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/10/1394 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning ref: 04/1723 to
permit residential occupancy; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Mr & Mrs
Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - NMA1/07/0921 - Non-material amendment request for revised
conservatory roof; Amethyst, Malthouse Lane for Mr K Miller
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MATLASKE - PF/11/0010 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension,
extension and raising roof of rear extension and installation of rooflights.; The
Old Manor House, The Street for Mr Dykes & Ms Neill
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0001 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 29 High
Street for Mrs Slee
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
42
17 March 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1399 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 30
Cherry Tree Lane
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/10/0666 - Non material amendment request for
change of blockwork to brick and replace bedroom window for French doors
and Juliet balcony; 127 Mundesley Road for Mr Brown
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
PASTON - NMA1/10/0078 - Non material request to erect extension to control
room; Bacton Gas Terminal, Paston Road, Bacton for Perenco (UK) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/10/1229 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window arrangements; Molen Huis, Cromer Road for Mrs P Moy
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/0020 - Removal of Condition 9 of planning ref: 08/0848,
to enable approval of landscaping scheme; Nissen hut Site, Church Road for
Sea Palling Parochial Church Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0988 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 82 Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Mr & Mrs L Frost
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/05/1652 - Request for non-material amendment for
change of roof tiles, installation of rooflight, bi-fold doors and rear window; 23
The Avenue for Mr Cottrell
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1431 - Erection of detached garage; 15 Beeston
Common for Mr Young
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/10/1445 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land at 25
Cremers Drift for Mr & Mrs Harvey
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0089 - Construction of pitched roof to facilitate
conversion of garage to habitable accommodation; 4 De Morley Garth for Mr K
Murray
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/07/1831 - Non-material request to build middle dwelling
at lower level; 8-12 Waterbank Road for A G Brown (Builders) Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/1193 - Erection of poultry house; Ash Tree Farm, Top
Road for Woodlands Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0032 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and detached garage; 8 Sandy Lane for Mr T Willis
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
43
17 March 2011
STALHAM - PF/10/1365 - Erection of single-storey extension and re-location of
external staircase (amendment to permission ref: 09/0555); 116 High Street for
Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - LA/10/1474 - Alterations to facilitate erection of extension/lobby;
West End Farm House, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr & Mrs Knightley
(Listed Building Alterations)
STALHAM - PF/10/1475 - Erection of single-storey extension/lobby; West End
Farm House, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr & Mrs Knightley
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/1483 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The Birches,
Brumstead Road for Mr & Mrs St John
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/10/1385 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to seven units of
holiday accommodation (extension of period for commencement of planning
ref: 07/1924); Hall Farm, Rectory Road for Hall Farm Suffield Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - PF/10/1406 - Erection of detached garage; Larksfield, Rectory
Road for Mr S Vince
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/10/1266 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Stones
Cottage, Knapton Road for Mr Roberts
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/10/1269 - Erection of two-storey side extension.; 8 Stirling
Road, Sculthorpe for Mr Hudson
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/10/1218 - Conversion of barns to 2 units of holiday
accommodation; Mill Farm, Holt Road for Mr C Bingham-Newland
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - LA/10/1270 - Alterations to barns facilitate conversion to two
units of holiday accommodation; Mill Farm, Holt Road for Mr C BinghamNewland
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURNING - NP/11/0110 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Land at Lime Tree Farm, Corpusty Road for Trustees of the Knole
Second Trust Fund
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
THURSFORD - PF/10/0895 - Erection of lean-to extension to indoor arena,
retention of lorry parking area and erection of 2 floodlights to lorry parking
area; Lime Kiln Farm, Hindringham Road for T F Lee & Son
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/10/1457 - Erection of conservatory; Swingtime, 7 Wrights Loke
for Mr B Sumser-Lupson
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
44
17 March 2011
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1438 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit full residential occupancy of Unit 9, Laurel Farm Barns; 9 Laurel Farm
Barns, Market Street for Dr V Lew
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/1460 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Ebenezer Cottage, Scarborough Road for Gibbons
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - LA/10/1461 - Internal alterations and erection of side
extension; Ebenezer Cottage, Scarborough Road for Ms G Gibbons
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/0038 - Installation of solar panels; 4 Knight Street for Mr
L Lewis
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1479 - Change of use from C2 (field study
centre) to B1 (offices); Field Study Centre, Polka Road for Scira Offshore
Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0009 - Conversion into 2 flats and erection of
single-storey rear extension; 11 Northfield Avenue for Mr N King
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0052 - Removal of external door and
installation of window; The Wain, 44 Church Street for Mr B Johnson
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1472 - Installation of side and front balcony, first floor
side doors and construction of replacement rear dormer; Field House,
Sheringham Road, for Dr P Roebuck
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/10/0594 - Change of use of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and one residential unit; Barns at Mill Common House, Mill
Common Road, Ridlington for Mr J Pugh & Mrs W Pugh
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1447 - Conversion of coach house to ancillary residential
accommodation; Lyngate House, Honing Road, Lyngate for Ms Hitchens
(Householder application)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0025 - Removal of condition 3 of planning ref:
10/0249 to omit staining of cedar cladding; The Nest, Coast Road for Mr D
Broch
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/1222 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Bristows Farm
Barn, Chequers Street for Lancashire Mortgage Co
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
45
17 March 2011
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1411 - Erection of single-storey extension; 5 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr G M Grimwade
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/1437 - Continued use of land for storage of portable
toilets; The Old Works, Marshgate for Broadland Toilet Hire
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1485 - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of one and
a half storey dwelling; 45 Church Street for Mr Stasi
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
16.
NEW APPEALS
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for SawMilling and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for
Mr Taylor
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0746 - Erection of first floor extension; 4
California Terrace, Warham Road for Mr & Mrs A Dessent
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
17.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0936 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1
(retail)/residential to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence
Place, The Street for Mr A Cannon
SITE VISIT:- 28 February 2011
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0786 - Variation of Condition 2 of 08/1690 to increase
opening hours to 8.00 am to 1.00 am each day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
Development Control Committee
46
17 March 2011
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Use of site for HGV Operating Centre and
storage of Portaloos; The Old Works, Marshgate
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
47
17 March 2011