Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
8 September 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 17 September 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 8 October 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 20
August 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
(1)
FAKENHAM – TPO (Fakenham) 2015 No.21 Land at Rudham Stile Lane (Rear of
53 Lee Warner Avenue), Fakenham, NR21 8ER. Ref No. TPO/15/0906
Page 1
(Appendix 1 – page 67)
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an
individual Oak tree at the above site.
(2)
PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OLD APPLICATIONS
Page 2
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(3)
BACTON - PF/15/0680 - Erection of extension to existing access ramp;
Rudram's Gap Timber Ramp, Keswick Road for North Norfolk District Council
Page 4
(4)
CROMER - PF/15/0594 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Hall Farm,
Hall Road for Mr B Cabbell-Manners
Page 6
(5)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/0941 - Erection of single-storey extension to side and rear
of dwelling; The Beeches, School Road for Mr and Mrs S Means
Page 13
(6)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
Page 17
(7)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/1140 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension (revised
design) and creation of balcony; Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs Oliver
Page 22
(8)
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
Page 25
(9)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0837 - Construction of a Speciality Malt Plant, Steep House,
Warehouse Extension with associated external lighting, Product Bins, Out
Loading Bins, Gantry and associated surface water attenuation works
following demolition of existing single-storey engineering store; Crisp
Maltings, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Crisp Malting Group Limited
Page 28
(Appendix 2 – page 68; Appendix 3 – page 70)
(10)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0189 - Erection of 5 two-storey dwellings, 1 detached
garage and new access road; Woodhouse Close, Greenlands, Sheringham for
Metfield Estates
Page 41
(11)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0681 - Erection of extension to beach access ramp;
Sheringham Ramp, Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
Page 48
(12)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
Page 50
(13)
THORNAGE - PF/15/1042 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 The
Pyghtle, The Street, Thornage for Mr & Mrs R High
Page 54
(14)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 56
(15)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 57
(16)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 63
(17)
NEW APPEALS
Page 63
(18)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 64
(19)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 64
(20)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 64
(21)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 66
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 17 SEPTEMBER 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
FAKENHAM – TPO (Fakenham) 2015 No.21 Land at Rudham Stile Lane (Rear of
53 Lee Warner Avenue), Fakenham, NR21 8ER. Ref No. TPO/15/0906
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an
individual Oak tree at the above site.
Background
The Oak tree is several hundred years old and is a fine specimen standing on the
verge of Rudham Stile Lane. The tree was established well before the adjacent
estate was built when Rudham Stile Lane was a main country road. It is a landscape
feature and can be seen from many viewpoints and therefore has amenity value.
The Council has received several letters from the owners of 53 Lee Warner Avenue
regarding the management of the Oak tree. The Council has suggested appropriate
management for the tree on many occasions and made it very clear that the tree has
amenity value and a TPO would be served if there was any attempt to remove it. The
ownership of the tree has not been clear, however it has recently been discovered that
the tree is in the ownership of the County Council.
Representations
Objections to the Order:One letter of objection to the Order has been received. (Appendix 1)
The main objections are:
1. The Tree is dangerous for the residents and road users.
2. Acorns from the tree pose a risk to small children and pets as they are toxic.
3. The tree obstructs visibility onto Rudham Stile Lane from the property and
neighbouring property.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The TPO does not prevent appropriate management in relation to risk to persons or
property. Risk of falling branches during gale force winds will increase and again
appropriate management will help reduce the risk.
Development Committee
1
17 September 2015
Leaves and debris such as Acorns from trees is considered a management issue and
not grounds to revoke a TPO. In this case they can be managed by raking and
collection from the lawn to reduce risk.
The exit from 53 Lee Warner Avenue has not been approved by Highways and
evidence presented by Highways shows that it has been in use since at least 2008. In
this time there have been no recorded accidents.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: 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 individual’s 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
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.
Officers are satisfied 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.
Officers consider that the tree makes a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that they therefore has high
amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case ( Landscape Officer) Ext. 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OLD APPLICATIONS
Purpose of this Report
To advise Members of measures introduced to clear the backlog of old undetermined
planning and related applications.
Background
Members will be aware that planning performance is measured in terms of the number
of planning applications determined within the statutory period. The statutory period
being 13 weeks for major applications (16 weeks if subject to EIA) and 8 weeks for
minor and other applications.
Determining applications beyond the statutory deadline has a negative impact on the
Council’s performance figures.
Development Committee
2
17 September 2015
Officers monitor the number of applications beyond the statutory period, this has been
as high as 200, and with a concerted effect was managed to reduce to 75, however is
now again increasing and currently stands at 120 ( as of 31 August 2015).
To assist in effectively managing these old applications, Officers consider it would be
beneficial to have clear procedures in place.
Legislation
The issue of ‘legacy applications’ needs to be carefully managed to ensure that
potential for these to impact adversely on performance levels is minimised.
Under Article 36(13) of the Town and County Planning (Development Management
Procedure)(England) Order 2010 applications are deemed to be “finally disposed of“
where they remain undetermined after the period of 6 months following the original
eight or thirteen (as appropriate) week target period for determination, or in the case of
applications where S106 agreement was required, 6 months from the date of the
committee resolution.
This would mean that any application which has passed the 6 month time limit and
where an extension of time for determination has not been agreed should be deemed
to be ‘finally disposed of’ and should be removed from the register.
The backlog can be reduced by wherever possible determining that an application is
“finally disposed of” because it has passed the time limit without extension and there
are no other circumstances which might suggest that the application is still live. The
application should then be removed from the register and no further consideration will
be given to that application.
Conclusions
The team is focused on improving our performance in terms of the number of
applications it determines in the statutory period. There are nevertheless occasions
where for good reasons, we fail to meet these targets. It is therefore suggested that to
ensure a consistent approach and manage these application, the Council amends its
current procedures to:
1. Seek formal extension of time from the applicants. In cases where such
agreements are obtained; provided the application is determined within the
agreed extended period, it will have a positive impact on our performance
figures.
2. For those applications that are beyond both the statutory time limit (8/13
weeks) and the 6 month period, where there is no formal extension of time in
place and there are no other circumstances that might suggest that the
application is still live, these applications are treated as “formally disposed of”
and are removed from the register.
During this transition period, Officers will take a pragmatic approach to the existing old
files, however where there has been no contact for the last 6 months and the
applications are outside the statutory period plus 6 months, these applications will be
treated as ‘formally disposed of” and removed from the register.
Development Committee
3
17 September 2015
Recommendations
It is recommended:
1. Seek formal extension of time from the applicants. In cases where such
agreements are obtained; provided the application is determined within the agreed
extended period, it will have a positive impact on our performance figures.
2. For those applications that are beyond both the statutory time limit (8/13 weeks)
and the 6 month period, where there is no formal extension of time in place and
there are no circumstances that might suggest the application is still alive, these
applications are treated as “formally disposed of” and are removed from the
register.
3. These new procedures come into force from 1 October 2015.
(Source: Nicola Baker, Head of Planning ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BACTON - PF/15/0680 - Erection of extension to existing access ramp;
Rudram's Gap Timber Ramp, Keswick Road for North Norfolk District Council
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 September 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Site is in an area designated as Countryside and an Area of Undeveloped Coast.
Also within a Coastal Erosion Constraint Area and Coastal Erosion Risk Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None.
THE APPLICATION
A 12m long extension to the existing timber beach access ramp is proposed. It would
replace a section that was damaged and part that was lost completely. It would also
allow for the general lowering of beach levels which meant the ramp did not reach the
beach such that it was unusable.
The ramp would be constructed to match the existing - timber planks on timber piles,
and would be the same width. It would have a slope of 1:6 and the lower section/toe
would be below general lower beach level.
Development Committee
4
17 September 2015
Rudram's Gap is at the east end of Keswick Road, Bacton. The existing timber ramp
is an extension of a concrete ramp in a gap between the concrete sea wall. It crosses
over the lower promenade but no longer continues to beach level and is currently
blocked by metal barriers to prevent it being used. The beach at this point is sand
with timber groynes at regular intervals along it. The Norfolk Coastal path runs
parallel with the top of the sea wall.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Proposal is for development by North Norfolk District Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Bacton & Edingthorpe PC: no objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
None required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life or
significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to increase
coastal erosion).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION


Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle; and
Its effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Development Committee
5
17 September 2015
APPRAISAL
Countryside: CS policy SS 2 - the policy allows for development related to
coastal/flood protection and recreation/tourism. The proposal can reasonably be
considered to fall within these definitions and is acceptable in terms of the policy.
Undeveloped coast: CS policy EN 3 - in such areas only development that can be
demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly detrimental
to the open coastal character will be permitted. The proposal is considered to comply
as due to its nature it requires a coastal location and relates to an existing facility, in
need of repair. It would have wider public benefits by enabling improved and safer
access to the beach, There would be no material impact on the character of this part of
the coast.
Design: CS policy EN 4 - the timber surface of the ramp and the supporting structures
will match that of the existing. Design and materials reflect that of other similar
structures found along the coast. Considered acceptable
Coastal erosion: CS policy EN 11 - the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of
this policy as it would not result in an increased risk to life or property and would not
change surface water run-off that could increase coastal erosion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the conditions below:
1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4.
CROMER - PF/15/0594 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Hall Farm,
Hall Road for Mr B Cabbell-Manners
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Adjacent to Historic Park and Gardens (ungraded)
Development Committee
6
17 September 2015
RELEVANT PLANING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the conversion of a barn to a 3 bedroom dwelling with integral
garage. The scheme as proposed would involve the conversion and
extension/reconstruction of a barn which is in a relatively ruinous condition to a
permanent residential dwelling. It is proposed to accommodate the development
within the original footprint of the barn.
At the present time the remaining structure has a floor area of approx 210 sq.m, and
the erection of a three bedroom dwelling would having a total floor area of approx 340
sq.m. The building is constructed of soft red brick with flint facing panels with red brick
quoins. However, the existing walling is only partial in areas and the roof is partially
covered by corrugated sheeting and will require complete re-roofing, including timber
purlins and trusses as part of the conversion scheme where clay pantiles are proposed
for the roof finish.
Access to the site is via Hall Road along a concrete driveway adjacent to existing
industrial units with car parking for the development contained within the proposed
residential curtilage and garage. The proposed garage forms part of the conversion
scheme on the northern end.
Amended details have been received which further examines the barn and range in an
architectural, historical and local context to support the retention and overall
conversion. An amended plan has also been received which illustrates in more detail
the level of rebuild and/or reconstruction that is required.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Shaw to ensure that the Council’s approach is consistent when
considering applications of this type.
At the request of Cllr Cox due to the barn being considered worthy of retention due to
its setting and landscape value.
TOWN COUNCIL
Cromer Town Council: No objections subject to meeting the criteria of NNDC’S H09
Policy.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on the 19 June 2015 and no representations have been
received to date.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: No objection.
County Council Highways: Observes that the access track is in existence and serves
the commercial units, access to the adjacent Home Farm being gained separately from
Hall Road. The Highways Officer raises some concerns regarding the suitability of
the site in relation to its transport sustainability, given the distance from essential
goods and services, leading to resilience on the private car. If the Local Authority
consider that the building is suitable for conversion to enable a re-use and ensure the
future of the building, a refusal would not be recommended but would seek conditions
appended to a decision notice in respect to appropriate visibility splays and on-site
parking and turning.
Development Committee
7
17 September 2015
Norfolk Garden Trust: No comments received.
Council’s Landscape Officer: An updated protected species survey prepared by Wild
Frontier Ecology Limited dated June 2015 has been submitted. The emergence
survey did not reveal any evidence of bats utilising the building for roosting although a
number of bats forage in the locality of the barns which are expected to be roosting in
the nearby farmhouse. It is not considered that the buildings are used by bats for
roosting, therefore the conversion of the barns will not result in the loss of any
roosts. Given the small amount of foraging activity around the barns and the transient
nature of the species, mitigation recommendations are suggested which should avoid
any harm if bats are found during the conversion works. It is therefore recommend
that the mitigation measures put forward in the report are made a condition of any
planning permission given. Given that bats are known to be in the area it would be
advantageous to incorporate future roosting opportunities for bats within the
development, therefore it is suggested incorporate bat boxes into the
development. This would assist in the aspiration of no net loss of biodiversity as
required of the NPPF and Policy EN9. It is not considered that an offence under
Article 12 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) or the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) will occur as a result of the development
subject to the mitigation measures being adhered to. The barns did not reveal any
evidence of barn owl use however an inactive bird nest was identified within the
buildings, again mitigation has been suggested in the report to avoid disturbing any
active nests that may be present. In addition, to replace the bird nesting opportunities
lost, it is suggested to erect artificial nest boxes on the barns once converted.
With respect to the landscape impact, the proposed development is within the Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is adjacent to the southern
boundary of Cromer Hall Historic Park and Garden (Ungraded). As such policy EN1 is
relevant to the application, which seeks to protect the special qualities of the AONB
and policy EN8, protecting and enhancing the historic environment. Policy EN8
stipulates that development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated assets and their settings through high quality sensitive
design. Although the proposals seek to re-create the former threshing barn which is
characteristic of the central North Norfolk character area, it is questionable as to
whether the proposed design and extensions to the building would enhance the
adjacent park and garden or whether the existing appearance of the building is
preferable given its uncompromised link with the previous structure and use. The
question of the quality of the design and preservation of the heritage asset is likely to
be answered by colleagues in Conservation and Design team.
Policy EN1 stipulates that development will be permitted where, inter alia, it does not
detract from the special qualities of the AONB. The proposed development is unlikely
to lead to the loss of the special qualities of the AONB if the domestic paraphernalia
associated with dwelling houses is limited through the removal of PD rights. This is
because the reference of the building is agricultural and should remain so being in a
rural context. This also applies to external lighting and landscaping.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations, the Landscape Section does not object to
the above application subject to the imposition of appropriate 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 Committee
8
17 September 2015
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN2: Protection & enhancement of landscape & 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).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of Development
 Landscape Setting and AONB
 Impact on Heritage Assets
 Access and Sustainability
APPRAISAL
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by Policy SS2 of the North
Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to
convert existing suitable buildings for residential use are considered acceptable in
principle, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy Policies. In this
case, the following are considered relevant: HO9, EN1, EN2, EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6.
Principle of Development
Hall Farm barn and adjoining stable building is located to the west of Home Farm
House and are stated to be part of a range of traditional 18th century farm buildings.
Whilst the stable building is the most complete structure within this complex, it does not
form part of the current scheme for conversion.
The barn is in a ruinous condition and consists primarily of a masonry shell of the
principal two storey section of the barn and the shell of the former single storey areas
to the eastern elevation. The southern section of the barn which equates to
approximately 40% of the original barn is missing completely. The remaining walls
Development Committee
9
17 September 2015
are constructed in flint panels with brick quoins at corners and returns of varying
heights, where only the two-storey element of the barn has been partially roofed with
corrugated sheeting. Whilst the wall panels which have been protected by the
corrugated sheeting are less weathered than that of the panels which have not been
protected, the combination of weather conditions, dense vegetation and long term
under maintenance have resulted in the existing walls to be considered of poor
structural condition.
The structural survey advises that the conversion of the barn will require the following
(the list is not comprehensive):
- Complete replacement of the roof including timber purlins and trusses;
- Combination of repair/strengthen a re-build of existing walls;
- Likely that the top course of masonry/flint panels will need to be removed to require a
rebuild of the weathered flint panels;
- Internal loadbearing lining walls will be a requirement to strengthening the
retaining/existing masonry panels.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value and are structurally sound and
suitable for conversion without substantial rebuilding and or extension.
Overall, the structural survey concludes that the barn will convert to a domestic unit,
however the shell to be retained will require considerable work to ensure the future
structural stability. As such, although the site is within an area where the conversion of
traditional buildings to residential use would be acceptable under Policy HO9, when
combined with the quantum of re-build and/reconstruction that is required, it is
considered that the proposal fails to comply with either the supporting text or policy in
that this former building is not capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding or
extension.
Landscape Setting and AONB
Policy HO9 also requires that a building is worthy of retention due to its appearance,
historic, architectural or landscape value.
In respect to the impact of the residential conversion on the barn’s setting and wider
landscape, the site comprises the remains of a ruinous barn with attached stables
surrounded by agricultural land to the south and west, Home Farm House to the east
and modern commercial units to the north. The barn is situated in a fairly secluded
location, set back from Hall Road by some 270 metres and is primarily viewed from
Hall Farm House, existing commercial units with more distance viewpoints from
Weavers Way, a footpath running north south to the east of the site.
In its present form, the site provides an untidy appearance and could be argued to
present a negative impact on the landscape character of the area. Whilst the
re-introduction of an agricultural building is considered to sit comfortably within this
rural landscape, a proposed residential use of this building to this relatively isolated
location will need to be carefully controlled to ensure that domestic requirements
associated with full time residential occupation would not impact upon the visual
appearance of the building and the landscape character. This has been confirmed
the Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who has indicated that
the barn conversion would be unlikely to lead to the loss of the special qualities of the
Norfolk AONB and therefore landscape quality, providing that domestic paraphernalia
Development Committee
10
17 September 2015
associated with dwellinghouses, such as external lighting and landscaping are
controlled through the imposition of suitable conditions.
In respect to the quality of design and physical elements of the barn conversion, it is
important to not only retain as much as the original building fabric as possible but to
minimise alterations and extensions to help preserve the character of the building. In
this instance, whilst there is an element of conjecture to the areas proposed for
re-instatement and/or re-build, the large expanse of uninterrupted roof line indicative of
the former threshing barn is welcomed along with the propose openings at ground floor
level only. However, concern is raised to the large opening to the south elevation,
which is uncharacteristic to that of the barn gable and could give rise to domestic
intrusion to the wider landscape when viewed from the south and/or Weavers Way.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character).
Overall, it is considered that if appropriately designed, the barn would enhance the
existing untidy site and subject to conditions to control domestic paraphernalia and
landscaping, the proposal could result in visual enhancement to the landscape
character of the area.
Impact on heritage assets
The barn is neither statutory or locally listed, or situated within a Conservation Area.
The barn is however situated adjacent to the Cromer Hall, a Grade II* listed building
and a Historic Park and Garden (Ungraded) as such Policy EN8 is relevant which
seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment. Policy EN8 stipulates that
development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
designated assets and their settings through high quality sensitive design.
Evidence provided within the application clearly illustrates that the building was once
and impressive threshing barn set within a rural context of a working farm environment.
The remaining areas of the barn are constructed of red brick and flint, arrow slit
ventilation under a clay pantile roof (as identified on the existing stables) and can be
considered to be characteristic of local vernacular and construction methods. It is
considered that remaining panels illustrate a good example of course and graded flint
work and that the barn, given its architectural detailing would once have been of
significant quality and value within the landscape. However this value has been
significantly compromised by its long term neglect and left within a ruinous state. As a
result, the language of the barn and how it once related as a complex has been
significantly eroded.
Hall Farm Barn sits of the southern periphery of the ungraded Historic Park and
Garden where there is a probable link between the barn and that of Cromer Hall, which
is situated within the curtilage of the Park and Garden. The threshing barn is
identified on the 1830’s Tithe Map and it is clear that the Hall Farm Barn complex
would have once made a contribution to the wider setting Cromer Hall and its estate.
Despite the proximity of Hall Farm Barn to the Cromer Hall itself, it is considered that a
scheme which reinstates what was once considered a traditional range of historic farm
buildings would likely contribute to the overall setting of the ungraded Historic Park and
Garden, and therefore the listed Cromer Hall.
Development Committee
11
17 September 2015
Overall, the barn and the stables are considered to have historic and architectural
value, not only in itself but when read within its surrounding context. However, it
should be noted that the quality of repair and new build/reconstruction, if not
undertaken properly could dilute or erode the very qualities that remain.
Access and Sustainability
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and that
there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development. In respect of the
access and overall sustainability of the site, although the Highway Authority has
indicated that the proximity to services and facilities is less than ideal and would result
in the reliance on the private car, given the existing commercial use adjacent to the
application site and the established access, they do not wish to raise an objection.
There is adequate parking in the site to serve the proposed dwelling.
Other Matters
Policy EN9 requires development proposals to protect the biodiversity of land and
buildings and minimise fragmentation of habitats. As far as the ecological implications
of the development are concerned, the Council’s Landscape Officer has indicated that
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the scheme is acceptable.
With regard to residential amenity, the relatively isolated nature of the site and
proximity to Hall Farm House ensures that the proposal would not materially impact
upon the amenity of nearby residential properties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to comply with
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. This is due to the fact that insufficient of the
existing structure remains to warrant its conversion to residential use without
substantial rebuilding or extension under the qualifying terms of Policy HO 9. Whilst
the existing structure and its setting displays evidence of historic or architectural value,
and would likely enhance the landscape character the existing site and its
surroundings, it is not considered that the advantages of the scheme outweighs the
amount of rebuilding and reconstruction required and consequently, it is
recommended that the application be refused.
Officers do not consider that the other material considerations put forward on behalf of
the applicant are of sufficient weight to overcome the identified conflict with adopted
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
Policy HO9: Conversion and Re-use of Rural Buildings as Dwellings
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal fails to comply with the
Development Plan policy due the fact that the building is not structurally sound, could
not be converted to a residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
12
17 September 2015
5.
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/0941 - Erection of single-storey extension to side and rear
of dwelling; The Beeches, School Road for Mr and Mrs S Means
- Target Date: 21 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS


Within area designated as Countryside;
Within Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There have been previous approvals for extensions and alterations to the property,
some dating back 30 years. None are considered directly relevant to the
consideration of this application.
THE APPLICATION



A single-storey extension to the rear of the property is proposed. It would extend
from the line of the existing rear elevation eastwards up to the rear boundary of the
property's garden with an overall length of about 9.7m. It would extend about
2.5m beyond the north side elevation up to the side boundary to the garden.
The extension would have a pitched roof - 2.2m high to its eaves and about 4.3m
high to its ridge. There would be a flat gable at the east end with a chimney
(excluding the pot) sitting about 1m higher than the ridge. The front of the
extension would sit very slightly forward of the rear wall of the existing property
such that in views from the front the roof would look like a lean-to.
External surfaces of the walls would be red brick and flint with painted timber
joinery(windows and full height glazed doors) in the south facing elevation facing
into the garden. Red clay pantiles to the roof. The main area of the extension
would be to provide a garden room.
The application relates to a two storey detached Victorian brick and flint house. It has
a single storey rear extension with mono-pitch roof and an open sided porch to the rear
door. There is a detached store/outbuilding in northeast corner of the rear garden that
sits against part of side and rear boundaries. The property has extensive
grounds/garden to the south of the house within which there is a detached garage. A
substantial Beech hedge runs along the rear and north side boundaries of the garden
adjacent to the house. Hedge is approx 2.5m - 3.0m high.
To the rear (east) is a modern detached house (Edgefield), set back about 35m from
School Lane behind a detached double garage. Its front and rear elevations face
north and south respectively. Its west facing flank wall is adjacent to the common
boundary with the application property. Within it there is a high level ground floor
window serving a living room. The flank wall is set back about 5m from the common
boundary and in the area between there is a log store and path providing access to the
rear garden from the front drive. There is a dwelling (Mill House) to the west on the
opposite side of School Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr N Smith due to concerns about the effect of the proposed
extension on the residential amenities of the neighbouring house (Edgefield)
Development Committee
13
17 September 2015
PARISH COUNCIL
Erpingham PC: no objection but have concerns about proximity to neighbours
property.
REPRESENTATIONS
One received from occupier of Edgefield, the property to the rear. Objections on the
following grounds:
 proposed extension would have a considerable negative impact as viewed from
various points on their property;
 loss of sunlight and daylight to a lounge window as the gable end of the extension
would be built close to it;
 loss of enjoyment of their property as they would feel a sense of enclosure and of
being hemmed in due to the close proximity, size and height of the proposed
extension;
 increased footprint. The proposal would be the fourth increase in cubic capacity
and footprint of the original Victorian house and an extension of the size proposed
would be dominant and overbearing in proportion to the original property;
 damage to the beech hedge along the common boundary which would be caused
by excavations for the extension's footings. Hedge would die back, have a loss of
vigour and eventually die adjacent to the extension, which would thus expose the
gable end wall increasing the negative visual impact from their property.
 Comments are also made about the loss of an almond tree adjacent to the
proposed extension: the common boundary being the trunk of the beech hedge
which is not as shown on the application plans; building walls and neat pointing of
joints from the inside of a building where scaffolding cannot be used is difficult.
CONSULTATIONS
Advice has been sought from the Landscape Officer regarding the close proximity of
the Beech Hedge to the proposed extension and how it could be affected.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Development Committee
14
17 September 2015
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
A core planning objective at paragraph 17 states that planning should always seek to
secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing occupiers of
land and buildings.
Supplementary Planning Documents
North Norfolk Design Guidance SPD (2008) - amongst other things, sets out amenity
criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals under policy EN 4.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION




whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle;
the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
existing property and the surrounding area;
the effect on living conditions at nearby properties;
the effect on landscape features
APPRAISAL
Principle: CS policies SS 2 and HO 8 - establish the principle in favour of proposals to
extend existing dwellings in designated Countryside provided there would not be a
disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the dwelling, and that the
proposal would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of
the surrounding countryside. The proposed extension would be single storey with a
footprint of about 60sq.m or about 46 sqm if the footprint of the existing outbuilding
occupying the site is deducted. It is considered that in the context of the footprint of
the dwelling, the size of the plot it occupies and as it would be single storey, the
proposed extension would not be seen as a disproportionately large increase in the
size and scale of the dwelling as it stands now. It has previously been extended as
the objector has referred to, but these extensions where built have been modest in size
and scale.
Any resulting impact on the countryside would be limited. The extension would be
attached to the existing property and to its rear. In the main view in from School Lane
it would be seen to the side of the double gable side wall of the existing property, in the
context of the double garage to Edgefield and the blank upper part of the gable wall to
that property. The ridge line would sit well below that of the original property and
would be similar to that of Edgefield's garage. The existing hedge along the side
boundary would provide a good degree of screening.
Development Committee
15
17 September 2015
Design: CS policy EN 4 - for the reasons stated above, it is considered the proposed
extension would appear subservient to the original house and is appropriate to its
character in terms of scale and appearance. Similar external materials to those on
the rear of the existing property would be used. The outbuilding which would be
removed has no architectural merit. The proposal would preserve the character and
appearance of this part of the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area and as
such also complies with CS policy EN 8 in this respect.
Residential amenity: CS policy EN 4 - other than Edgefield to the rear, the separation
distances to other nearby properties are such that there would be no material effects.
Edgefield has a window in its west gable wall that faces the common boundary. Its cill
is about 1.5m above floor level. It serves a living room, but is a secondary window,
with the main window being to the property's front (north) elevation. There are French
doors at the opposite end of the room which open into a small conservatory extension.
The existing high and dense Beech hedge along the common boundary already
reduces outlook from this window and direct sunlight, which, due to its orientation,
would be late afternoons and evenings. As the rear elevation faces south the room
should receive good levels of sunlight for most of the day, so any impact would be
minimal. The separation distance between the window and the gable wall of the
extension would be about 8m which would be only 0.5m less that the distance
recommended in the North Norfolk Design Guide SPD. Whilst the upper part of the
gable end to the extension would be visible it is considered that on balance, there
would not be sufficient harm to justify refusal.
The other objections raised by the occupier of Edgefield in respect of the likely impact
on their residential amenity have been considered but it is not felt there would be
material harm. Other than from the side window already discussed, it is unlikely there
would be any views of the extension from within the house. Views from the rear are to
the south across a generous rear garden. In views back towards the house, the effect
of the extension would be no greater than that of the existing house.
Trees and other landscape features: CS policy EN 2 - the proposal would result in the
loss of a medium size tree within the property's rear garden. Its contribution to visual
amenity is however, limited and as such its loss is considered to be acceptable. The
issue of potential damage to the Beech hedge has been discussed with the Landscape
Officer who has advised that provided the development is carried out in accordance
with a methodology statement, which can be secured by condition, to ensure the
hedge's root system is protected from chemicals in the concrete used in the
foundations, the proposed development can be accommodated without harm. Some
root pruning may be required which should be dealt with through the submitted
statement.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Parking: CS policy CT 6: the proposal would not generate the need for increased
parking provision and as such does not conflict with this policy
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Development Committee
16
17 September 2015
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the visual
amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to retain
control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the approved
development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with an
arboricultural method statement that has first been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall set out measures for the
protection of the Beech hedge (and its root system) adjacent to the north and east
sides of the proposed development from damage during the course of the
development and from any leaching from concrete used in the construction of the
foundations for the development.
Reason:
In order to ensure the Beech hedge is properly protected, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 August 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
TPO Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061770 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Withdrawn 12/01/2007
PLA/20070149 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Withdrawn 19/03/2007
PLA/20070673 PF Erection of three two-storey dwellings - Refused 06/12/2007 -
Development Committee
17
17 September 2015
Dismissed at Appeal 13/06/2008
PLA/20090693 PF Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and garage - Approved
10/09/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect two single-storey dwellings
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllrs. J. Punchard and J. Rest as both members are acquainted with
the applicant. Cllr. Punchard believes there is scope at the site for the proposed
development.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment was received. The following points were raised:
 The tree referred to as T4 in the Arboricultural Method Statement is located within
the garden of an adjacent property
 The garden is within a conservation area, thus the tree (T4) is protected via the
conservation area designation
 The tree has high amenity value
 No work shall be done to the tree without the consent of the adjacent garden’s
owner and the Council
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: Comments awaited
County Council Highway Authority: The Highway Authority was unable to submit a
formal response at this time as additional and more up-to-date information is required.
The submitted visibility splay measurements relate to an out of date publication ‘Places
Streets and Movement’ measurements should now conform to current guidance
‘Manual for Streets (DfT 2007)’. Given the volume and speed of traffic using Holt Road
visibility splays from a setback position of 2.4m should measure 43m northeast and
37m southwest.
The Highway Authority also requires clarification as to whether the childminding facility
at 24 Holt Road requires planning permission. If the extent of the childminding facility
at the premises is such that planning permission is required it is unlikely the two
allocated parking spaces, as illustrated on the submitted plans, would be adequate.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): A dominant feature of
the proposed development site is a mature Beech tree which is protected by a Tree
Preservation Order (TPO). The Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) submitted with
the application demonstrates the proposed development could be accommodated
while protecting the tree. However, the AMS does not take into account the recent
illegal and inappropriate works that have damaged the tree. The tree has been badly
pruned and the roots have been disturbed by the use of an excavator at the site.
The Landscape Officer considers the proposed development would cause further
damage to the tree at a time when it needs to be protected from any further works. The
officer is of the opinion that the pressure of two dwellings and associated impact form
two families living at the site would have a serious negative affect the tree and would
be contrary to the TPO.
Development Committee
18
17 September 2015
The tree needs time to recover from recent events before further work takes place at
the site. The District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape section object to
the proposal as it is in direct conflict to the TPO.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (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) Impact of development on a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
3) Design
4) Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings
5) Highway safety and car parking requirements
APPRAISAL
1) Principle of Development
The application site lies in a residential area within the settlement boundary of
Fakenham. The North Norfolk Core Strategy defines Fakenham as a Principal
Settlement where proposals for the development of market housing are considered
acceptable in principle, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
This site has an extant permission for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling.
2) Impact of development on a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
The committee will note from the planning history section of this report that
applications for multiple dwellings on this site have previously been submitted and
refused; with one application (PF/07/0673) dismissed at appeal. The site has also
been the subject of numerous pre-planning enquiries for two dwellings to be erected at
the site.
The planning history is considered to be a material consideration in the determination
of this application as proposals for more than one dwelling on this site have been
Development Committee
19
17 September 2015
strongly resisted by officers since 2006. The reason being is because of the large
mature Beech tree on the site which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
Whilst the appeal submitted under PF/07/0673 was for three dwellings, not two, the
Inspector's comments for that application remain relevant to this application. He stated
that the tree makes a valuable contribution to the appearance of the area because of
its stature and position, with the tree canopy reaching over a considerable area and
that following development the occupiers could request the tree be removed or
reduced in size due to perceived risks, damage to property or nuisance from falling
leaves.
These issues have remained a concern for Officers on schemes for more than one
dwelling on this site, as the potential impacts to the tree on the site from such a
development have not changed.
The District Council’s landscape officer acknowledges that the AMS demonstrates
how development can be accommodated while protecting the tree. However, it does
not satisfactorily address the issues of liveability impact nor does it offer any measures
to mitigate the recent illegal and inappropriate works to the tree. On the contrary the
AMS submitted by the applicant highlights the potential liveability problems associated
with dwellings in close proximity to mature trees. Section 3.6.2 of the AMS states “The
main issues that tend to present with liveability of trees in relation to property are:


Shading – direct and indirect light obstruction by trees
Overbearing and ‘fear’ of trees failing or being ‘close’
Paragraphs 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 of the AMS states, “The location of the new buildings will
experience the following shading and overbearing issues …Both buildings will be
significantly affected by the shade and skylight loss occasioned by the tree”.
While the report goes on to say how the tree is the main focal point of the development
and future occupants will be made aware that the “reduction or removal of the tree is
not going to be an option for the residents to pursue in the future” (ibid). Clearly, this
statement is not enforceable.
The extensive glazing to property A, which faces east, will be shaded from the tree
earlier in the day and property B with its heavily glazed front elevation facing north will
also be in the shadow. Furthermore, as a result of this orientation property B would not
benefit from solar gain. Given the level of shading coupled with the perceived risks
associated with living in close proximity to a mature tree it is considered this would
inevitably lead to future residence seeking to reduce or remove the tree, an opinion
shared by the Planning Inspector when considering a previous application at the site.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer is objecting to the application in
view of the unauthorised works and the liveability pressures on this TPO tree.
Additionally, while the AMS makes reference to the difference in ground level across
the site the submitted plans do not indicate any change in ground level. This is of
particular significance to the proposed dwelling to the south of the site. At the time of
writing this report this information had been requested from the agent.
3) Design
In terms of design, the proposed dwellings would lie to the west and south of the site
and measure 17m W x 7m D x3.5 H (maximum height). Additionally each property
would have a covered terrace to their front elevations. The proposed dwellings are
Development Committee
20
17 September 2015
acceptable in terms of their contemporary design, size and massing in relation to the
overall size of the site. Irrespective of the acceptability of the proposed buildings'
design, the Committee will be aware of the Officer's concerns with regard to orientation
and glazing in relation to the tree. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to
Policy EN4.
4) Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings
In terms of impact on neighbouring dwellings, the positioning of windows and the
single-story design of the dwellings suggest the development would not significantly
negatively impact on the residential / garden amenity of the neighbouring properties.
Whilst the proposed development may not impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
properties it is considered there would be considerable overlooking between the
proposed dwellings. The heavily glazed east and north elevations of the respective
properties overlook the site's garden area and with a boundary treatment consisting of
a either a 1m high chain link fence on metal / wooden posts or a 1m picket fence on
wooden posts, neither would provide an adequate level of screening between the
properties.
This lack of residential and private garden amenity would inevitably lead to future
occupiers either replacing the fence and or planting along the boundary in order to
increase their privacy. Given the boundary fence is shown as running through the root
protection zone gives cause for concern as to how much damage these changes could
inflict upon the tree. Whilst the Local Planning Authority may have control over future
fencing, the planting of hedges, shrubs or trees along the boundary would be out of the
Local Planning Authority's control. Furthermore, the North Norfolk Framework
Supplementary Planning Document: Design Guide states residents have a right to
adequate privacy levels and to be kept free from excessive noise and unwanted social
contact The infringement upon residential and garden privacy and amenity is
contrary to Core Strategy policy EN4 and Paragraph of the National Planning Policy
Framework document.
5) Highway safety and car parking requirements
The County Council Highway Authority raised two areas of concern. Firstly, the
visibility splays as illustrated on the plans are considered inadequate, and the
submitted details fail to demonstrate how the required distances could be achieved.
The issue of inadequate visibility splays was raised by the Planning Inspector with
regard to PF/07/0673. Albeit that proposal was for three dwellings, nevertheless
highway safety is essential no matter the number of dwellings. At the time the
Inspector noted some of the land required for the visibility splays to the southwest was
not within the applicant's control and not part of the highway. Without such control,
there is a risk that visibility to the southwest could be restricted. Given that Holt Road is
a busy through road the Inspector found the restricted visibility contrary to highway
safety policies. The comments received from the Highway Officer suggest a similar
situation exists with the current proposal.
Secondly, within the shared access driveway two parking bays have been allocated for
the use of the neighbouring property, 24 Holt Road. The Highway Authority officer
noted that a childminding facility operates from that address. Depending on the scale
of the childminding facility planning permission may or may not be required. Should the
facility require planning permission it is highly likely additional on-site parking bays
would be required. Until the officer has additional details regarding the visibility splays
and clarification on the parking requirements for 24 Holt Road he is not able to submit
a formal response.
Development Committee
21
17 September 2015
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the Highway Officer's comments, in terms of the consultation
response from the Landscape Officer regarding the development's detrimental impact
and liveability pressures to the TPO Beech tree the proposal is not considered to be in
accordance with Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
The development would result in damage to, and prejudice the retention of, the Beech
tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Furthermore, the future occupation
of the proposed dwellings in close proximity to this mature tree would inevitably lead to
pressure for felling or pruning as a result of overshadowing of the site or concerns for
safety.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the required visibility splays would conform to
current standards. Additionally, there is a failure to demonstrate the two parking bays
allocated to 24 Holt Road would meet the requirements of the childminding facility
which operates from that property.
7.
FELBRIGG - PF/15/1140 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension (revised
design) and creation of balcony; Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs Oliver
- Target Date: 28 September 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761559 PF - Front extension of lounge and porch over front door
Approved 26/11/1976
PF/13/0587 HOU - Erection of single-storey rear/side extension
Approved 08/07/2013
PF/13/0896 HOU - Erection of conservatory (revised scheme)
Approved 12/09/2013
NMA1/13/0587 NMH - Non material amendment to permit to extend the proposed
south elevation of music room and revised windows and doors to west elevations of
proposed extension
Approved 04/02/2015
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single storey rear/side extension to provide a music room,
study and other additional accommodation for domestic purposes. The proposal is a
revised design from what has previously been approved under application reference
13/0587 and non-material amendment approval reference NMA1/13/0587.
Development Committee
22
17 September 2015
This proposal seeks the creation of a balcony on the previously approved single storey
flat roof element in the north western section of the development. Minor alterations to
the window and door arrangements are also proposed.
Amended plans have been received proposing the stainless steel and glass guarding
to the north elevation to be raised to a height of 1.8m from floor level and to be fitted
with obscured glazing. The guarding to the western elevation is proposed to raise to a
height of approximately 0.85m above the proposed parapet. The floor area of the
proposed balcony would be approximately 18.5sqm.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning as the applicant is an elected Member of the
Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects due to the siting of the balcony and intrusion over neighbouring property
REPRESENTATIONS
1 x objection received on the following grounds:
 Users of the balcony would have clear views over two of my properties and my
own garden area
 Direct view from balcony into Anvil Cottage (including all three bedrooms,
lounge and court yard area) creating significant loss of privacy detrimental to
the amenity currently enjoyed
 Direct view into approved (15/0570) holiday let
 Detrimental impact on viability of my holiday cottages due to the loss of privacy
and amenity
 Despite a 2.5m high fence along the site’s northern boundary to allow the
applicant more privacy the proposed balcony would override our right to any
privacy
 Separation distances set out in North Norfolk Design Guide are window to
window and not patio type balcony to window/amenity areas, therefore these
guidelines are not relevant in this case
 Noise nuisance because of elevated position of area capable of
accommodating several people
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):
EN 1 - Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
EN 4 - Design
HO 8 - House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Development Committee
23
17 September 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside (where the principle of an extension is
acceptable under Policy SS2) and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
where proposals to extend existing dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to
compliance with the relevant Core Strategy policies. The principle of the proposed
extensions (without the balcony) has been accepted under the extant planning
permission reference 13/0587 and non-material amendment permission
NMA1/13/0857. The proposed alterations to the previously approved fenestration
details are considered to be non-material but have been included here as a full
application was required for consideration of the creation of the balcony. For clarity the
fenestration amendments proposed are for two first floor windows to become doors (to
access proposed balcony). These openings are within the original dwelling and are
therefore allowed under permitted development rights. A double casement window at
ground floor on western elevation to change to glazed double doors and also on the
western elevation for windows either side of glazed doors to go to full length windows.
The main element for consideration is the proposed creation of the balcony to the flat
roof element of the rear extension. Concerns have been raised in relation to impact on
the privacy of the holiday properties and dwelling to the northern boundary of the site.
The nearest property within that complex to the proposed development is some 25m
away with intervening features of a group of pine trees within the curtilage of the site, a
boundary fence some 2-2.5m in height and the existing access/driveway to the
neighbouring properties. The case officer has carried out a site visit including taking a
view from the existing first floor windows to the northern and western elevations. It is
considered that the proposed balcony would not, by virtue of the separation distances
and intervening features, introduce any significant detrimental impacts on the
amenities of the neighbouring properties. However, in light of the concerns raised the
applicant has agreed to amend the proposal such as to raise the height of the guarding
to the northern elevation of the balcony to 1.8m and for the glazing panels to be of
obscured glass. This would ensure that any view from the balcony would be to the west
only. It is considered that the proposal would maintain the privacy of both the users of
the proposed development and that of neighbouring properties.
In relation to concerns of noise nuisance it is not considered that the introduction of a
balcony would result in any significant increase in noise emitted from the property.
Instances of statutory noise nuisance are dealt with outside of the planning system.
It is further considered that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the
AONB nor would it increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable under
policies EN1, EN4 and HO8 and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers ****) received by the Local Planning Authority on ****.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
24
17 September 2015
The glazing to the northern elevation of the balcony hereby permitted shall be
installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity equivalent to
Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this
detail.
Reason:
To accord with the express intentions of the applicant and to prevent undue loss
of privacy to the neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of
the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The extension hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes incidental to and
in connection with the use of the premises as a dwellinghouse.
Reason:
In the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy
EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8.
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
- Target Date: 01 May 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050581 PF
Retention of garden shed
Approved 06/05/2005
PF/13/0822 PF
Erection of one and a half storey side extension and two storey rear extension
Approved 30/08/2013
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the extension and raising of the existing walls and roof of the
existing single-storey property to create a one-and-a-half storey dwelling. In addition,
the proposals include the addition of a balcony on the rear (west-facing) elevation and
the insertion of two rooflights on both the north and south-facing roof slopes. It is
proposed to adopt a more contemporary design through the use of off-white cladding
and upvc windows doors, whilst incorporating a reclaimed pantile roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at the meeting of 20 August 2015 for a Committee site
visit.
At the request of Cllr S Butikofer due to the design and potential impact on
neighbouring amenity.
Development Committee
25
17 September 2015
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. Concerned that the neighbour will be adversely affected by
the application. The measurements need to be checked on site against the property as
they do not seem to agree.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on 09 April 2015. To date, one representation has been
received from a neighbouring property, raising the following concerns:




Boundaries between Apple tree Cottage and Glenroy are incorrectly shown on
location/site plans, providing a false perspective in terms of proximity of the
properties to the boundary;
Loss of light to the windows along the south-facing side of the neighbouring
property (Glenroy)
Loss of privacy due to proposed windows along the northern side and rear balcony.
Grey plastic cladding is out-of-keeping with the village.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - noted the awkward access arrangement onto the
private unmade road which has restricted visibility onto the A149, due to road
alignment and roadside vegetation, and would therefore seek to resist any increases in
vehicular traffic. However, as the proposal is to extend an existing dwelling, there is no
objection to the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Design
3. Neighbouring amenity
Development Committee
26
17 September 2015
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The property in question lies within the designated Countryside policy area of North
Norfolk, as defined under Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this
area, extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle,
subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Design
The existing property is barely visible from the roadside, being a very low single-storey
dwelling with a quirky elongated arrangement of near-flat roofs and a single pitched
roof element with chimney. The principle of extending the dwelling is acceptable. The
proposal, adopting a more contemporary approach, involves raising the walls and roof
of the existing property to create a one-and-a-half storey dwelling, consisting of a
pitched reclaimed pantile roof, cladded walls and white upvc doors/windows. A first
floor balcony will be incorporated into the rear gable ended elevation facing west. Two
rooflights are proposed on both the north and south-facing roof slopes, and the main
entrance would be situated on the south-facing elevation incorporated within a large
landing area with ground and first floor glazing.
As a result of the proposals, the footprint of the property would increase by a modest
13sqm, the eaves height increasing in places by approx. 1m and the overall height
increasing to approx. 6m.
In terms of appearance, a more contemporary approach is not unique in this location,
the neighbouring property 'Mascot' has adopted a similarly contemporary approach, on
which extensions were permitted in 2013 and currently nearing completion, consisting
of white render and a slate roof. There is a mix of dwelling types in the area.
The design is unusual, being entirely cladded, however, it is proposed to use an
off-white colour, almost identical to the neighbouring modern dwelling, which should
not create an appearance that is too stark. The approach in terms of materials,
although bold, is not something that causes significant concerns in terms of
appearance and the site is not widely visible within the surrounding settlement and as
such, is considered to comply with Policy EN 4.
Given that the overall footprint of the dwelling will only increase by a modest amount,
the height of the building is increasing from single-storey to one-and-a-half storey, and
the existence of neighbouring properties of similar height, it is not considered that the
increase in size is disproportionate and as such, the proposals comply with Policy HO
8.
Neighbouring amenity
It is acknowledged that the extended property is in close proximity to the northern
boundary and to the neighbouring property. An objection has been received from the
occupiers of the neighbouring property raising concerns in regards to the potential loss
of light to windows on this property. There are first floor windows facing south, along
with a ground floor kitchen window. The height of the wall on the applicant's property
along the northern boundary has been reduced by 100mm - this is about as much a
reduction as can be accommodated without compromising first floor space. It is
considered that the raising in height of the walls (by approx. 1m) and roof of the
property (which is pitched and slopes away from the neighbouring properties) to an
overall height of approx. 6m will not have a significantly detrimental impact to the
extent that would warrant refusal of this application. It is also noted that light to and
outlook from the ground floor kitchen window of the neighbouring property 'Glenroy' is
Development Committee
27
17 September 2015
already compromised to an extent by an existing closeboard fence and the existing
wall of the property along the northern boundary. Following deferral of the application
for a site visit, the agent has sent a revised plan depicting the angle of the proposed
roof slope in relation to the ground floor kitchen window and first floor windows of the
neighbouring property - the plan indicates that a 45 degree angle of light to these
windows would be maintained.
In terms of privacy, the proposed rear balcony is recessed back within the extended
walls of the property, so would only allow limited overlooking of the rear half of the
neighbouring garden. Again, it is not considered that this is significant enough to result
in a recommendation of refusal of the application. The proposed rooflights are
relatively small, with the two facing the neighbouring property to the north being
obscure glazed.
Based upon the above considerations, the proposal is considered to comply with
Policy EN 4 in regards to neighbouring amenity.
Conclusion
Overall, the design is considered to be acceptable, whilst the concerns in regards to
the potential for loss of light and privacy are not considered to be significant enough to
warrant a refusal of this application. Accordingly, it is considered that on balance, the
proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
9.
RYBURGH - PF/15/0837 - Construction of a Speciality Malt Plant, Steep House,
Warehouse Extension with associated external lighting, Product Bins, Out
Loading Bins, Gantry and associated surface water attenuation works following
demolition of existing single-storey engineering store; Crisp Maltings,
Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Crisp Malting Group Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 02 October 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Contaminated Land
Wensum Valley Project Area
Countryside
PLA/20011083 PF
Erection of silo and alterations to building and erection of eight bins to provide
container loading facility
Approved 28/09/2001
PLA/20080266 PF
Siting of three malt outloading bins and one malt kiln stripping bin
Approved 21/08/2008
PF/09/0966 PF
Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with wash bay, associated surface water
Development Committee
28
17 September 2015
balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage container, office, staff car park and
associated earthworks and landscaping
Approved 13/09/2011
PF/14/0579 PF
Erection of four barley storage silos
Approved 30/06/2015
THE APPLICATION
The proposed development comprises a new Speciality Malt Production facility within
the current confines of the site to enable the site production to respond to new growth
areas within the industry. This would include a new steep house with a maximum
height of 16.4m, plant house building with a height of 13 metres, conveyor gantries
(height 6 to 8m above ground), product bins (24 x 30 tonne bins), out loading bins (2 x
32 tonnes) and warehouse extension 12 metres high and of 36 metres depth
(1,296sqm). Associated drainage works are also proposed to the existing ditch to the
west of the site along Common Lane to provide an enlarged ditch to accommodate
runoff from the roof of the new warehouse extension.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Green “in view of the Parish Council objection and concerns
about general expansion of the site”.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, and consider that an Environmental Impact Assessment should take place.
REPRESENTATIONS
None to date.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objection.
Comments made relating to the
Environmental permit. (See full copy of response at Appendix 2).
Water Management Alliance (incorporating Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board)
– Advises that the Flood Risk Assessment provided states that
existing/pre-development discharge rates will be achieved and that the system will
accommodate a 1 in 100 year probability event with an allowance of 30% for climate
change. It is suggested that a condition is used to secure calculations and designs
detailing how this will be achieved and details of the proposed maintenance to this
storage system.
Natural England – No objection. Comments that the proposed development would
not result in any significant change to the flow regime in the River Wensum. The
development would result in only a very small increase in the area of impermeable land
of approx. 1630m2. Furthermore changes to the rate of surface water run-off from the
site would be regulated by measures proposed in the drainage strategy accompanying
the application. The proposals would also not result in any changes to water quality in
the River Wensum. The drainage strategy accompanying the application states that
the amount of effluent produced would not change as a result of the development and
that effluent produced would continue to be treated at the plant on site under the
existing PPC permit. Natural England has not identified any other pathways by which
the River Wensum SAC or any other European Site could be affected by the proposed
development.
Development Committee
29
17 September 2015
With regard to assessment of the application under the Habitats Regulations, Natural
England have advised that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the
European Site and the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European
site and therefore can be screened out from any requirement for further assessment.
With regard to the close proximity of the application site to the River Wensum, Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed
development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application,
as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has
been notified and therefore advise that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in
determining this application.
(See full copy of response at Appendix 3).
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No comment, as there does not appear to be any impact on
County Wildlife Sites.
Lead Local Flood Authority – The Flood Risk Engineer highlighted outstanding
queries regarding points of detail with the submitted information. Further clarification
was provided by the applicant’s drainage engineer. The Flood Risk Engineer’s final
conclusion is that prior to the commencement of development detailed design of the
drainage structure should be provided for approval.
Landscape Officer – No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Highways – No objection. It is apparent that this proposal will not increase the overall
site production which will still be capped at 115,000 tonnes.
Environmental Health –
Noise – The Environmental Protection Officer has raised questions relating to the
submitted information and further details have been sought. Final comment will be
made upon receipt of answers to queries raised. Committee will be updated verbally
with respect to any change.
Lighting – The information may form the basis of a satisfactory lighting scheme
regarding residential amenity. Lighting could be controlled by condition.
Drainage – Agree with Natural England and confirm that EIA is not required.
Odour – Do not wish to raise any concerns about odour and can confirm that there are
no records of any complaints of any odour issues on the Councils records.
Contamination – An informative note is sufficient, advising of potential site
contamination in view of past site history.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
30
17 September 2015
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 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. Drainage, Flood Risk and Impact on River Wensum SSSI SAC
3. Highway Impacts
4. Visual Impact of Proposals on wider Landscape
5. Ecological Implications
6. Noise impacts
7. Impact on residential amenity
8. Cumulative Impact issues
9. Environmental Impact Assessment and update on the legal position at the site
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site is located within the countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS 2
would permit extensions to existing businesses subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies including those relating to highway impacts,
environmental and ecological impacts, visual impacts, flood risk and noise. In
particular Core Strategy Policy EC 3 states that extensions to existing businesses in
the countryside will be permitted where it is of a scale appropriate to the existing
development and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Drainage, Flood Risk and Impact on River Wensum SSSI SAC
One of the main areas of concern regarding any proposed development at this site
surrounds the potential of development to influence the water quality of the River
Wensum, either through pollution or through increased flows, and thus impacting on
the qualifying features of the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A Flood Risk Assessment and Desk Study
Development Committee
31
17 September 2015
Appraisal of Water Chemistry Report were submitted as supporting information to
assist the assessment of such impacts.
There are three separate drainage systems operating at the Maltings to deal with the
foul water, surface water and industrial flows. Firstly, foul water flows are discharged
to the public sewer and will not change as a result of this development and therefore
can be discounted from having any additional impact. Secondly, the waste water
resulting from industrial processes is piped, stored, treated and monitored prior to
discharge into the local ditch network, ultimately into the River Wensum, with
contaminants transported offsite. With respect to water quality issues and the
industrial processes associated with the proposed speciality malt process, according
to the supporting information the existing Environment Agency permit allows the
discharge of up to 1400 cubic metres in volume of waste water/effluent in any 24hr
period. According to the supporting report the speciality malting and cleaning process
will replace existing malting processes and will only result in an increase in discharge
of approximately 6.9 cubic metres of waste water per day which is within Environment
Agency consented levels and is not considered significant or considered to have
significant effects on the SAC or SSSI.
The third system deals with waste water from surface water runoff from impermeable
areas on the site and is divided between uncontaminated roof water runoff, which is
piped to a drainage ditch to the west, and the runoff from paved areas which flows
through an oil interceptor prior to discharge into the drainage ditches to the north of the
site. All ditches ultimately connect with the River Wensum. Beyond the site the
Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board monitor flow/discharge rates entering into the
drainage ditches and culvert under the River Wensum that are under their control.
The Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board has indicated, “existing pre-development
discharge rates can be accepted without improvements for the new development”.
With the exception of the extension to the existing warehouse, the other buildings and
plant proposed as part of this development replace existing buildings/hardstanding
areas that are already drained by the sites current surface water network and drainage
from these aspects of the development will be on a like for like discharge basis with no
change to current discharge rates.
The warehouse extension (including
storage/loading bins and associated hard standing to the west of the site) will however
replace an existing permeable grassed area and result in a net increase in the
impermeable area of the site. The development therefore proposes a sustainable
drainage feature to attenuate the additional surface water flows from the warehouse
extension by enlarging the drainage ditch to the west of the site and restricting the
discharge associated with this new development into the wider drainage network to
0.6l/s, which would equate to the equivalent Green Field Rate (GFR) and thus
achieving pre-development discharge rates. In essence the evidence presented
suggests that there will be no material change from pre-development levels to the
water flows entering the wider ditch network surrounding the site in terms of quantity,
when considering a 1 in a 100 year event with a 30% allowance for climate change,
due to the attenuation provided through the modification and enlargement of an
existing ditch to the western boundary and with restricted flows from the ditch into the
wider ditch network. The carrying out and timing of these works can be secured
through a planning condition.
Thorough consideration has been given to the characteristics, processes and waste
products of the development specifically in relation to the location of the development
and the impact on the River Wensum, which is a SAC and a SSSI. Based on the
submitted information it is reasonable to conclude that in normal conditions and up to a
1 in 100 year flood event with a 30% allowance for climate change, the mitigation and
Development Committee
32
17 September 2015
control mechanisms for discharge rates and water quality from the development will
not result in significant changes to the discharge rates or water quality entering the
River Wensum and will not therefore have any detrimental impact on the qualifying
features of the river. This is a view supported by Natural England who consider
“based on the material provided that the proposed development will have negligible
impact to flows in the River Wensum SAC and is therefore not likely to significantly
affect the interest features of the SAC and SSSI providing any mitigation measures as
outlined in the Planning Statement dated June 2015 are implemented in full”.
Conditions will be used to ensure necessary maintenance of the attenuation and
discharge features is secured and implemented as outlined.
Regarding flood risk and suitability of the surface water drainage strategy, the Lead
Local Flood Authority raised queries regarding points of clarification with the submitted
information and clarification was provided by the applicant’s drainage engineer. The
surface water drainage system proposed will deal with surface water from the new
impermeable area of the site, providing attenuation and restricted discharge at
greenfield runoff rate. Subject to confirmation of the detailed design of the drainage
system the implementation of the drainage strategy will not increase the flood risk
within the application site or the surrounding catchment.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the proposed
Speciality Malt Plant would not give rise to unacceptable drainage or flood risk impacts
nor would it result in likely significant effects on the qualifying features of the River
Wensum SAC and SSSI or result in significant adverse environmental effects in
accordance with Policy EN 10 of the Core Strategy and taking account of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Habitats Directive, as transposed
into national law.
Highway Impacts
Core Strategy Policy CT 5 sets out the key highway impacts to consider, including
whether or not the proposal would increase vehicle movements into and out of the site
to the detriment of highway safety.
A Transport Statement that accompanies the planning application concludes that
construction traffic will not give rise to a material increase in traffic movements to the
site given the number of workers required and the phased construction. Also the
small amount of additional employment that will be created as a result of the proposals
will not give rise to a material increase in staff movements to and from the site. Once
the works are completed 6000 tonnes of existing production capacity will be replaced
with 6000 tonnes of specialist malt production, which is claimed will give rise to a net
reduction in transport movements to and from the site as a result of a small decrease in
delivery vehicle movements and reduced movements associated with off-site storage.
The Transport Statement confirms that the proposals will not give rise to an increase in
the output tonnage at the site, which will remain capped at 115,000 tonnes per annum
and can be secured through a planning condition.
In assessing the highway impacts, the Highway Authority requested further
clarification from the applicant regarding, amongst other things, the current storage
arrangements and whether the proposal would increase the production capacity at the
site (which was restricted to 115,00 tonnes per annum as part of previous applications
at the site).
The applicant has responded and confirmed that 'the extension of the warehouse is not
intended to allow malt to be stored on site for longer, but is necessary to store the
additional range of product and enable all warehouse capacity to be incorporated on
Development Committee
33
17 September 2015
site reducing the need for off-site warehouse storage and the associated tractor trailer
movements that this generates’. ‘Also the output tonnage from the site is restricted to
115,000 tonnes in one calendar year sufficiently controlling HGV movements and the
restricting factor which prevents this tonnage from being exceeded is existing
germination plant and equipment which is not being expanded as part of these
proposals’.
Having regard to the further information provided by the applicant the Highway
Authority have confirmed that 'as the proposal will not increase the overall site
production which will still be capped at 115,000 tonnes’, the Highway Authority has no
objection to this proposal'.
Therefore subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would accord with Core
Strategy Policy CT 5.
Visual Impact of Proposals on Wider Landscape
The proposed development is for a new production facility within the current confines
of the existing malting facility consisting of a number of separate elements.
A new steep house (floor area approx. 95 square metres) is required for the
preparation of dedicated feedstock for the Speciality Malt Production facility. It is
proposed to be erected in front of germination boxes in an area that is currently hard
standing. The building will be two tiers with the highest part of the building being
higher than the existing germination boxes but not higher than the malt silos, which are
also in the same area of the site. The construction will be of terracotta coloured
composite panels with a sloping roof. The two new steeping vessels within the
building will feed into an existing germination facility housed within the existing malt
production unit.
The Speciality Malt Production equipment will be installed into a newly constructed
plant house (floor area approx. 368 square metres) on the footprint of the existing sack
(packing) plant. The existing sack plant will be dismantled to make way for this new
plant house which will occupy the same footprint as the existing building but will be
higher. The new building will be constructed of composite panels of goose wing grey
colour with a pitched roof. Though the new building will be approximately 13 metres
high, it is situated immediately next to the main silo building which is 32 metres in
height and the visual impact is therefore considered acceptable.
Product will be transported from the Speciality Malt Plant building via a gantry that will
span the yard to the warehouse. The gantry will support conveying equipment,
services and a walkway for access requirements. The gantry will be constructed of
galvanised steel at a height of 6 to 8 metres above the ground, due to different ground
levels across the yard and so as not to inhibit traffic movements on the site. In order
to make way for the route of the proposed gantry, a small single storey engineering
store will be demolished.
Adjacent to the warehouse, a nest of 24 product bins will be constructed to store
speciality malts prior to packing. These enclosed bins will hold approx. 30 tonnes of
product each. Product will be supplied to the bins via the conveyor gantry and a bulk
intake facility will be installed at the opposite end to the gantry. The cladding on the top
of the bins will be coloured to match the warehouse. The bins will be constructed of
galvanised steel. The height of the bins will be 1.8 metres higher than the warehouse
(height 12 metres) with no structure higher than the existing nearby Rotunda store.
Two proposed out loading bins will be installed over an existing roadway to load malt
into bulk lorries. Each bin will hold approx. 32 tonnes of product. The bins of
Development Committee
34
17 September 2015
galvanised steel construction will be installed on a steel frame to allow lorries to drive
underneath.
The existing warehouse will be extended by 36 metres in length (floor area approx.
1,296 square metres) occupying a piece of land which is currently grass. The
construction will be the same style and colour as existing, black wall cladding and
goose wing grey roof. The extension of the warehouse is necessary to accommodate
the additional range of products that will be produced from the new Speciality Malt
Production Facility, and enable existing off site warehousing capacity to be
incorporated on site.
Proposed ditch widening work has the potential to impact on the scrub and tree belt
adjacent to the western ditch. To this end the Landscape Officer has advised that in
order to mitigate against any potential impact on trees once the precise detail is known
of the modifications required to the ditch a condition should be attached to any
permission requiring the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and
Method Statement (to BS5837:2012) prior to the commencement of any works on site,
including details of any replacement planting required for the removal of any
hedgerows, trees or scrub required to facilitate the ditch widening works. This should
be on at least a like for like replacement basis.
The steep house and plant building will be located central to the site alongside existing
buildings of greater scale and therefore will not be visible from public vantage points.
The warehouse extension, gantry, product bins and outloading bins have been located
and designed of matching materials where possible to ensure that they integrate well
with the existing development on the site. The site is well screened from the
surrounding area by existing mature trees and hedgerows to the western boundary
and to the south of the existing warehouse. With regards to the visual impact of the
development proposals, the majority of the proposed building works will be amongst
the existing structures of the maltings site and will therefore be absorbed into the
industrial built form. The raised gantries will be visible from the public highway
through the existing access gates, however the visual impact is not considered to be
significant. The Landscape Officer has advised that In respect of the impact on
landscape character, the impact is considered to be negligible given the containment
of the development within the existing site. The development is therefore considered
to comply with policy EN 2 of the Core Strategy. The proposals are of a scale
appropriate to the existing development and will not have a detrimental effect on the
character of the area in compliance with Core Strategy Policy EC 3.
Ecological Implications
The development has the potential to impact on protected species unless mitigation is
put in place to avoid, reduce or compensate for those impacts to an acceptable
level. An Ecological Appraisal has been submitted with the application, which
identifies the impacts of the development on biodiversity as being potential disturbance
to nesting birds through the removal of vegetation required for the widening of the ditch
and potential disturbance to a badger sett entrance which is located beyond 5 metres
from the anticipated works area. The report suggests appropriate mitigation including
avoiding the bird nesting season for scrub removal or under an ecological watching
brief if done within season and avoiding undertaking any work within 3 metres of the
badger sett entrance and the use of hand tools only within 5 metres of the sett entrance
and carrying out a pre-construction check for any new sett entrances. Subject to the
implementation of the mitigation measures, which should be secured through a
condition, it is considered that the development will not have an adverse impact on
protected species in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN 9 and paragraph 118 of
the NPPF.
Development Committee
35
17 September 2015
Noise impacts
Core Strategy Policy EN 13 sets out the requirement for development to minimise
pollution effects including disturbance from noise. A Noise Impact Assessment has
been undertaken evaluating the impact of the proposed development on the existing
noise environment and also evaluating the cumulative effect of the proposed
development in combination with operations and activities taking place on the site. It
is considered that likely noise impacts could arise from use of plant and machinery on
site, including conveyors.
The modelling and assessment work undertaken
established that the proposals are not anticipated to increase ambient noise levels at
any of the assessment locations.
The Environmental Protection Officer has raised questions relating to the submitted
information and further details to satisfy the Environmental Protection Officer have
been sought. It is important to resolve this issue in the public interest prior to the
issuing of any permission.
On balance, subject to acceptable further details and noise conditions being imposed
the proposal would be likely to accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 13 in relation to
noise.
Impact on residential amenity
The main impacts of the proposal on residential amenity could include noise impacts
from new plant or conveyance systems and any associated traffic and impacts of
proposed lighting.
The closest residential properties are those on Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh with
the closest garden located less than 30m and the property itself approx. 50 metres to
the south/south-west of the site with the closest properties along Highfield Lane some
400m west/south/west. As stated above the proposed development is contained
within the confines of the existing site and the site is well screened from the
surrounding area to the south and west by existing mature trees and hedgerows to the
western boundary and to the south (mainly coniferous species) of the existing
warehouse. Therefore there will be very limited visibility of any of the elements of the
proposals from outside of the site itself and it cannot therefore be said the any element
of the proposals will have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in
terms of overbearing visual impacts.
In respect of noise impacts subject to satisfactory resolution of the outstanding noise
related queries as detailed in the previous section of this report, the proposal will not
have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity and would accord with
Core Strategy Policy EN 13.A Lighting Statement provides an assessment of sky glow
and light spill in relation to external lighting proposed for the warehouse. The lighting
has been assessed against the guidance outlined by the Institution of Lighting
Professionals (ILP) - Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light. The
conclusion is that the lighting proposed falls within guideline levels for upward light and
light intrusion to neighbouring properties and the proposed lighting will not give rise to
light spill that reaches any residential properties, even without taking into account the
line of coniferous trees to the south of the warehouse.
Cumulative Impact issues
In reaching any decision regarding this application for Speciality Malt Plant, steep
house and warehouse extension and other associated works, including surface water
drainage works, regard to cumulative impact considerations is necessary, particularly
in respect of recently approved applications yet to be implemented, including
Development Committee
36
17 September 2015
application ref: PF/09/0966 for the 'Erection of 2 silos, construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping'. This
development was approved but has not yet been implemented due to various legal
challenges ultimately in the Supreme Court in June 2015. The challenge was
dismissed in July 2015 and the lorry park therefore has planning permission.
The lorry park development had similar drainage issues associated with it as the
current application, in that waste water discharges must be attenuated and treated
prior to discharge into the drainage ditch network, with any discharges no greater than
the pre-development runoff rates (i.e. greenfield rates) and not containing any
pollutants. In terms of the cumulative impact of the lorry park development and the
current application for the Speciality Malt Plant there is no increase in pre-development
discharge rates (in a 1 in 100 year event with a 30% allowance for climate change) for
both proposals, therefore there is no cumulative impact to consider.
Four proposed storage silos approved earlier this year, application ref: PF/14/0579
were also concluded to not result in additional vehicle movements, or unacceptable
drainage or flood risk impacts. The Noise Impact Assessment Report submitted as
part of this application acknowledges the four silos application and confirms that
cumulative site noise levels for both the silos and the Speciality Malt Plant are not
anticipated to result in an increase in ambient noise levels at any of the assessed
locations.
Officers would therefore advise the Committee that the assessment of the current
proposed application for Speciality Malt Plant as presented in this report has been
made with the knowledge that the lorry park is permitted and is likely to be developed
as are other grain storage silos and cumulative impact issues have been properly
considered. With this in mind and having regard to the development now proposed,
whilst the amount of built development at the maltings site will substantially increase as
a result of applications PF/09/0966 and PF/14/0579, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions it is considered that the cumulative impact of further proposed
development on the site proposed as part of this application would not give rise to
unacceptable impacts such that refusal of this Speciality Malt Plant application could
not be justified.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and update on the legal position at the
site
At pre-application stage the applicant made a formal EIA Screening request and the
conclusion at that point, further to seeking advice from relevant consultees was that an
Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for the proposed development.
More recently upon the submission of the current planning application, the proposed
development has been screened again considering up to date information and reports
supporting the application and due to a very small change to the discharge rate of
surface water from the proposed warehouse extension. Having taken account of the
development proposed and having regard to the advice of consultees, North Norfolk
District Council, as Local Planning Authority, again considers that an Environmental
Impact Assessment is not required in this instance for the proposed development.
As the Committee are aware a previous development at this site application ref:
PF/09/0966 for the 'Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with wash bay,
associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage container, office,
staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping' was approved but was not
implemented due to various legal challenges ultimately in the Supreme Court in June
2015. The challenge was dismissed in July 2015 and the lorry park has planning
Development Committee
37
17 September 2015
permission. The Supreme Court’s decision confirmed the current procedures and
obligations in relation to EIA screening and of most importance was the requirement
for the Local Planning Authority to “screen” an application that meets or exceeds the
thresholds of Schedule 2, on a scheme by scheme basis. The Court emphasised that it
was for the LPA to screen relevant applications and conclude whether or not the
proposal is “EIA development”. The Court also confirmed that appropriate mitigation
measures may be taken into account during such screening process.
As a competent authority under the Habitats Directive, the Local Planning Authority
has also carried out a Habitat Regulations Assessment of the proposals to assess the
likely significant effects on the qualifying features of the River Wensum Special Area of
Conservation (SAC). The development is not necessary for the management of the
River Wensum SAC, but is not likely to result in significant effects on the River
Wensum either alone or in combination with other plans and projects and is therefore
compliant with the requirements of the Habitats Directive.
Summary
The development involves the construction of a new Speciality Malt Production facility
and associated buildings and works within the current confines of the site. A range of
potential impacts of the development have been considered including highway
impacts, noise impacts, visual impacts, flood risk and potential impacts on the
environment and ecology and in particular the River Wensum SSSI and SAC together
with cumulative impacts; and having regard to the advice of statutory consultees,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the impact of the Speciality Malt
Production facility and associated buildings and works is acceptable in respect of
those matters such that the proposal would accord with relevant Core Strategy
policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no further
grounds of objection from the Environmental Protection Officer following
receipt of the additional noise details and the imposition of the following
conditions:
1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3) The output tonnage of malt produced from the maltings site at Fakenham Road,
Great Ryburgh shall not exceed 115,000 tonnes in any one calendar year.
Records of the actual annual output of malt from the site shall be made available to
the Local Planning Authority upon request.
Development Committee
38
17 September 2015
Reason:
To ensure that vehicular movements to and from the site, are not increased
through increased output and associated traffic movement in the interests of
highway safety in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
4) Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the warehouse
extension, precise details of the construction of the ditch attenuation feature and
discharge restriction feature proposed to achieve a drainage system capable of
accommodating a 1 in 100 year probability rainfall event with a 30% allowance for
climate change, including plans and cross sections along the entire length of the
feature and details of the long term maintenance of such measures, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation
with the Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board and Lead Local Flood Authority.
The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
timetable and retained as operational thereafter.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving sustainable means of surface water drainage and to
prevent the likelihood of flooding and consequent potential harm to the River
Wensum Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation in
accordance with Policy EN 10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
taking account of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Habitats
Directive, as transposed into national law.
5) No development whatsoever shall be commenced in relation to the development
hereby permitted until such time as the applicant or successors in title have
secured consent from Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board (or the relevant
competent authority in place at the time of application for consent) to discharge
water from the proposed development to a watercourse and a copy of the consent
has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the proposed development is not commenced ahead of the
necessary consents to discharge surface water from the site to the water course
have been secured so as to prevent the likelihood of flooding and consequent
potential harm to the River Wensum Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special
Area of Conservation in accordance with Policy EN 10 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and taking account of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive and Habitats Directive, as transposed into national law.
6) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7) Prior to commencement of development an Arboricultural Impact Assessment,
Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan (compiled in accordance with the
British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction
Development Committee
39
17 September 2015
– Recommendations) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The tree protection measures shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. The Method Statement shall include details of any replacement planting
required for the removal of any hedgerows, trees or scrub required to facilitate the
ditch widening works. This should be on at least a like for like replacement.
Reason:
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in order to protect trees on
the site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
8) Any new tree or shrub which within a period of five years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced
during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the
Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any
variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the protected species mitigation measures outlined in the Ecological Appraisal
prepared by The Ecology Consultancy dated May 2015, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To minimise impacts on biodiversity and to mitigate and compensate for the
impacts of development in accordance with Para’s 109 and 118 of the NPPF and
Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
10) Notwithstanding the details of the submitted ‘Proposed External Lighting Layout’
contained within the Lighting Statement produced by Mott MacDonald March 2015,
precise details of any lighting columns and details of operating times of all
proposed lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance with
the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of the visual amenities and residential amenities of the area and to
avoid light pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.3.70 of the explanatory text.
Development Committee
40
17 September 2015
10.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0189 - Erection of 5 two-storey dwellings, 1 detached
garage and new access road; Woodhouse Close, Greenlands, Sheringham for
Metfield Estates
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 April 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19861142 QO - Residential development
Approved 07/10/1986
PLA/19871904 PM - Proposed development of houses, bungalows and garages
Approved 11/05/1988
PLA/19841105 QO - Leisure and associated development and housing
Approved 12/10/1984
PLA/19920713
PF - Erection of 59 dwellings with garages, car parking and
associated road construction. (plots 31-75 and 90-103 inclusive)
Approved 21/10/1992
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of 5no. two storey dwellings, 1no. detached garage and new access
road.
The dwellings would consist of 3no. 3 bedrooms and 2no. 2 bedrooms. Materials
would be red clay pantiles, red multi bricks and coloured render, white UPVC joinery.
The detached garage would serve an existing dwelling No.32.
Each proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling of No.32 are all shown to have two
car parking spaces each.
The access road would run between two existing properties of No.29 and No.32.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Shepherd in light of representations received.
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham Town Council: No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received, three of which are from a solicitor acting
for one of the objectors, on the following grounds:
1. Loss of privacy
2. Loss of unmade footpath/unofficial access
3. Increase in traffic
4. Would increase existing car parking issues
5. Concerns over construction traffic, safety and storage of materials
6. Loss of open space and trees
7. Will increase carbon footprint encouraging more car use
8. Estate already overdeveloped
9. Children use the site to play
Development Committee
41
17 September 2015
10. Site provides safe and easy access for children to the official playground and
sports field.
11. The site has been used by pedestrians as a 'right of way' since original
development of the estate 20 years ago
12. More parking will be required than shown and will severely jeopardise emergency
vehicle access
13. Footpath from the Mews is already lost
14. Unmade path used for accessing sports facility and should be encouraged
15. Deeds show the area as 'Landscaped open space'
16. Applicant claims the site is a "very sustainable location" but then cuts pedestrian
and cycle access
17. The proposal worsens and discourages walking and cycling by making it very
circuitous.
18. Development is not deliverable as applicant does not own all of the land proposed
as access, and the objector will not consent to use of any part of their property as
an access road
19. Unsafe access
20. Applicants in breach of Condition 14 on 92/0713 in relation to use of land as
amenity space
21. Council is failing to enforce conditions
22. Application should be refused and enforcement action taken
23. Objection to scale of development
One question has been raised by an objector regarding whether the '20 year rule' is
applicable to the footpath in that if it has been used unchallenged for at least 20 years
a presumption of dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 can be made.
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way Officer has advised that in relation to an
informal/unofficial footpath a route can be claimed through the '20 year rule' of
uninterrupted use, but a claim does not mean it would definitely be considered as such
as it is possible to object and sufficient evidence has to be submitted to support the
claim. If approved the developer takes a risk if they build over the claimed path as at a
later date they could be potentially obstructing a registered public right of way. This
would have to be pointed out to any prospective buyers. Alternatively, the developer
could recognise the route is there and accommodate it within the development. If they
recognise it is there and it can't be accommodated within the development they could
apply to divert the route under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act as part of
the planning process, or they could offer to dedicate an entirely different route. None of
the above prevent planning permission from being granted. However, if a claim was
made under the '20 year rule' or a diversion proposed these would have to be
confirmed before any development could take place on the site and could take a
minimum of 12 months to determine.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways Officer: Original comments - No objection. There is an
acceptable level of parking for each new dwelling as well as adequate replacement
parking for the adjacent property at No.32. Conditions would be required in relation to
access, on site parking and turning, no means of obstruction across access.
Additional comments following objection: It is correct that matters of obstruction are for
the Police to address under Highway Law, as it is illegal to park a vehicle so that it
obstructs other people wanting to use a road or path. It is also illegal to obstruct a
private entrance. Police have enforcement powers and can issue fixed penalty tickets.
Development Committee
42
17 September 2015
Probably through Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 which creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction.
103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle
to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction.
They do not require any waiting restrictions to be in place, which have the backing of a
traffic regulation order (TRO) to (now) allow enforcement through the civil parking
enforcement scheme which is administered and enforced by local authorities for
breaches to the waiting restrictions, which would not be usual within a residential
housing area unless specific issues have been addressed ie. School drop off parking
issues which may result in Junction restrictions close to schools and affected areas.
Turning to the proposed development, which I have visited on two occasions, dropped
kerbs are already in place serving 29 and 32 Woodhouse Close, obstruction of which
would already be an offence as detailed above.
In relation to private driveways serving more than one dwelling, as is the case here,
then as long as the access measures 4.5m for the first 5m, then our guidance is that it
can serve up to 8 dwellings without need for adoption. The application proposes an
additional 5 units, totalling 7 overall, which is within the number permitted. Visibility is
good and not an issue in this low speed cul-de-sac. Whilst I understand that there may
be some ownership matters which would need addressing prior to implementation of
any development, this remains a civil matter, not a planning consideration.
There would be an element of shared space into the site, however this is no worse than
the existing access to number 29 which crosses the detached footpath leading into the
proposal site.
Whilst I appreciate that the objectors do not share our view, I am satisfied the
proposals have been duly and appropriately considered and that the proposals could
not be reasonably resisted in line with NPPF requirements, based upon the existing
access road layouts and the existence of the access proposed to serve the
development, which provides parking to meet the adopted requirements.
Landscape Officer: No objection subject to conditions regarding works being carried
out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and landscape plan, no
tree, shrub or hedgerow shown to be retained to be removed, any new planting to be
replaced if dies within 10 years of planting.
Countryside and Parks Manager: No objection. This land has been vacant and was
‘left over’ following the construction of nearby properties by Metfield Estates in the
early 1990s. It has never been managed properly. I have attempted without success
to adopt this from the developer on a couple of occasions because it has been the
subject of complaints from local residents due to its unkempt nature. It lies adjacent to
land managed as public open space by this authority and also to a large sports field
providing opportunities for outdoor leisure. The development is too small to generate
any on-site or off-site open space requirement and in my view the development of the
area for residential accommodation seems appropriate.
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 Committee
43
17 September 2015
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy 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. Compliance with Policy HO1 and HO7
5. Loss of amenity space
6. Highway safety and footpath access
APPRAISAL
1. Principle of Development.
The application site is located within an area designated as Residential in the Core
Strategy. In such a location the principle of residential development is acceptable
subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
2. Design
The proposed development is for 5 two storey dwellings, one garage and new access
road. The new garage is proposed to serve the existing dwelling of No.32 as the
garage that currently serves that dwelling would need to be demolished in order to
allow for the new vehicular access road.
The layout, scale and design of the dwellings and garage is considered to be
acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding dwellings, where there is a variety and
mix in terms of two storey detached, semi-detached and terrace dwellings. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the character of the area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
The relationship between the proposed dwellings and the surrounding neighbouring
properties is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the recommended
amenity criteria distances.
Development Committee
44
17 September 2015
Within the site itself there is one minor shortfall in terms of amenity criteria between
Plots 1 and 2. These plots have tertiary elevations facing each other. The amenity
criteria recommends a distance of 3m, but the plans show 1.2m. However, a shortfall
of 1.8m is not considered to be significant enough to warrant a refusal of the
application. The tertiary windows on these plots are to a staircase at first floor on Plot 1
and a WC and bathroom on Plot 2. Given that these are not windows to primary living
areas and that the staircase window is at first floor and the WC and bathroom can be
conditioned as obscure glazed it is not considered that this shortfall would have a
significant detrimental impact on the privacy and amenities of the occupiers.
In addition Plot 1 has a blank elevation facing south towards No.29, and Plot 5 has a
first floor staircase window facing Nos. 32 and 35. These relationships are currently
acceptable. However, in order to prevent any additional windows being added in these
elevations which could reduce the levels of privacy for occupiers a condition is
therefore recommended to remove permitted development rights for additional
windows to be added in these elevations.
4. Compliance with Policy HO1 and HO7
Policy H01 requires that on schemes of five or more dwellings at least 40% of the total
number of dwellings shall comprise not more than 70sqm internal floorspace and
incorporate two bedrooms or fewer, and 20% would need to easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
Therefore, in order to comply with Policy HO1 two of the dwellings would need to be no
greater than 70m² in floor area and have two bedrooms or fewer and one would need
to be easily adaptable for elderly or disabled. Plots 2 and 3 are the smallest of the five
properties with a floor area of 76m². Whilst the policy states 70m², it is not considered
that a shortfall of 6sqm is sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application. In any case it
has been accepted by the Planning Policy Manager that no greater than 78m² would
still fulfil the requirements of this policy. Notwithstanding this both of these properties
have no more than 2 bedrooms, which complies with the requirements of the policy.
Plot 4 demonstrates how the dwelling can be easily adapted with a room for a bed at
ground floor in the living room and space for an internal lift. The proposal is therefore
compliant with Policy H01.
Policy H07 permits residential development that optimises the density of the site in a
manner that protects or enhances the character of the area. In such a location a
density of not less than 40 dwellings per hectare is sought.
The proposed development of 5 dwellings on the site area equates to approximately
44 dwellings per hectare. If the proposal were to represent 40 dwellings per hectare
there would be a requirement for 4.5 dwellings on the site, but this would in any case
be rounded up to 5 dwellings which is the number of dwellings already being proposed.
Notwithstanding this the density of the surrounding development to the east and south
equates to approximately 50 dwellings per hectare. To the west where there is a
development of single storey dwellings this is reduced to approximately 25 dwellings
per hectare. It is not therefore considered that the density of the development
proposed is out of keeping with that of the area. The proposal is therefore considered
to comply with Policy H07.
5. Loss of amenity space
The application site originally formed an area of amenity space for the existing housing
development, under application 92/0713. The provision as amenity space would have
been required to accord with the relevant guidelines at the time in terms of amenity
space provision in connection with the scale of development.
Development Committee
45
17 September 2015
Objections have been received from local residents regarding the loss of this amenity
space if the development were to be approved. Some of the objectors have referred to
the site as designated open space and an unofficial play area for children. An objector
has also advised that the land is shown as 'Landscaped open space' in their deeds.
Clearly, local residents have grown accustomed to this piece of land remaining
undeveloped for many years, and this proposed now raises cause for concern.
However, it should be noted that this site is not subject to any formal open space
designation of any kind, and the land in question has never been subject to such a
designation under the current or previous Development Plan. The site is designated as
'Residential' in the Core Strategy, and has been since 1998 under the now superseded
North Norfolk Local Plan. Therefore at any time a scheme for the development of this
site could have come forward for our consideration.
An objection has also been received on the grounds that there has been a breach of
Condition 14 on planning permission 92/0713, which reads as follows:
"Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the future maintenance of
the proposed amenity areas, as indicated on the approved plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing."
It would appear from application reference 92/0713 that the intention was at one time
for the amenity area to be adopted by the District Council two years after completion of
the development and for the area to maintained by the developer up until that point.
There was ongoing contact between the developer and the District Council from 1993
to 2000 regarding the amenity area, its maintenance, landscaping and adoption. The
reason for this would appear to be that over the years numerous planting schemes,
that were part of any maintenance proposals, had failed.
In 1998 a letter was received from a local resident on a number of matters, one of
which was about the condition of the site. Officer's again pursued the matter. The last
correspondence to the developer from Officers was in 2000. It has now been over 15
years since that complaint was received regarding this land as amenity space. No
other correspondence have been received until the submission of this application.
Given the length of time that has elapsed the District Council is now outside of any
timescale for enforcement action to be taken against any possible breach of condition.
Whilst the site was at one time required as amenity space, and maintenance has been
issue it is not subject to any formal designation as 'Open Space'. However, it is
designated as Residential and the current application has now been submitted for its
development. A balance has to therefore be applied as to what weight should be given
to its use as amenity space. In doing so consideration needs to be given to the fact that
the site is overgrown apart from an informal footpath, and would appear to have been
in this condition for some time. Its use as purposeful amenity space in its current
condition is therefore limited, and as already explained the District Council is outside of
any timescales to take enforcement action over its maintenance. Given the site's
location directly adjacent to land formally designated and managed as public Open
Space, including a large sports field for outdoor leisure, it is not considered that this
small site in comparison can be justified as being retained as amenity space.
Conditions on planning permission 92/0713 required that the development at that time
was built in accordance with the approved plans, which included the amenity area, and
that the a maintenance scheme was required. However, there was no condition that
required the amenity area to be retained thereafter for that specific purpose.
Development Committee
46
17 September 2015
The District Council's Countryside and Parks Manager has been consulted on the
application and has raised no objection to the loss of the amenity area. He has advised
that the development itself is too small to generate any on site or off site open space
requirement and that in his view development of the area for residential is appropriate.
In view of the substantial formal designated Open Space facilities directly to the north
of the site it is not therefore considered that the loss of amenity space in this case
would have a significant detrimental impact upon local residents or the character of the
area.
6. Highway safety and footpath access
Objections have been received from local residents in relation to highway safety
including the access and parking issues. However, the Highway Authority have not
raised an objection to the application, and have confirmed that an acceptable level of
parking is provided for the development, and that the access and visibility are
acceptable.
A local resident has objected to the application through their Solicitor on numerous
grounds, one of which is in relation to the access. The objector advised that the
submitted plans showed the access crossing land in their ownership. As a result of this
the applicant served notice on the objector. This is a civil matter not a planning matter
which will need to be resolved between the objector and applicant, and does not
prevent planning permission from being granted.
There is an informal/unofficial footpath which runs across the site providing access to
the open space facilities, sports field and leisure facilities to the north, and would be
lost if the application were approved. This has also been a concern of objectors to the
application. However, it is not a formal footpath or Right of Way. It is a path that has
been created by residents over a period of time. There is alternative footpath access a
short distance from the site off Woodhouse Close which would still allow residents
access to the public open space to the north. Residents would have to walk further to
access this. The informal footpath effectively provides a short cut.
The applicant has been asked if they would provide a footpath through the site.
However, they are not prepared to do this as they consider this would compromise the
security and privacy of Plot 3 of the proposed development, as any footpath would
have to run directly adjacent to the dwelling on this plot and along the full length of its
garden. The agent has advised that the siting of Plots 1- 3 would also have to be
altered in order to provide a footpath. The agent has also advised that this would be
likely to involve creating a terrace of three properties where rear access to Plot 2 would
have to be gained by running along the rear of Plot 3 and may not be looked upon
favourably under Secured by Design if the applicant is seeking to attain its
accreditation. The agent has advised that the applicant has on numerous occasions
reinstated fencing across the site to prevent access only for it to be illegally removed.
The Committee will note the comments of the County Council Public Rights of Way
Officer in the representation section of this report, which were sought after a question
was raised from an objector regarding the '20 year rule' in which it may be possible to
claim the route as a formal Public Right of Way. However, you will note that this does
not prevent a planning application from being determined, and that at the time of
writing this report no claim has been submitted to the County Council for consideration.
This is not a matter within the remit of Planning Legislation, and the District Council has
no control over this. Officers are not therefore in a position to insist that the
informal/unofficial footpath is retained. If the developer is not prepared to retain it, this
does not provide sufficient grounds for refusal of this application.
Development Committee
47
17 September 2015
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the objections received from local residents it is considered that the
proposal is policy compliant for the reasons explained in the report and would not have
a significant detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the area, or on the
residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including time limit for commencement, in accordance with
submitted plans, materials, Arboricultural Method Statement, landscaping,
planting maintenance, access, car parking and turning, no obstruction at
access, removal of permitted development rights for first floor windows in
southern elevations of plots 1 and 5.
11.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0681 - Erection of extension to beach access ramp;
Sheringham Ramp, Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 September 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Within the Sheringham Conservation Area, an Area of Undeveloped Coast and
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There have been other approvals in 1996 and 1977, for the construction of groynes,
beach and coast protection works.
Planning permission was granted in July 1997 for the building of a access/launching
ramp onto the beach for fishing boats in July 1997 (ref 19970628)
THE APPLICATION
It is proposed to extend the existing beach access ramp by 12m. The extension
would comprise timber planks bolted to angled steel which would be welded to vertical
sheet steel piles. It would be the same width as the existing and would continue at the
same gradient (1:6) with the toe of the ramp below beach level.
The works are necessary as a result of storm damage to the lower section of the ramp
in December 2013. Beach levels along the frontage have also been lowering
resulting in the ramp not reaching the beach and becoming difficult to use.
The existing ramp runs off the promenade at the north end of Beach Road. The
beach is shingle with concrete sea walls to promenade, with some areas of additional
defences comprising large rocks. Ramp has a timber plank surface and is used for
launching small boats. There is a timber cabin near the top containing winch
equipment.
Development Committee
48
17 September 2015
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Proposal is for development by North Norfolk District Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham TC: no objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
None required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle; and
 Whether its design is acceptable and its effect on the character and appearance of
the Sheringham Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
Countryside: CS policy SS 2 - the policy allows for development related to
coastal/flood protection and recreation/tourism. The proposal can reasonably be
considered to fall within these definitions and is acceptable in terms of the policy.
Undeveloped coast: CS policy EN 3 - in such areas only development that can be
demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly detrimental
to the open coastal character will be permitted. The proposal is considered to comply
as due to its nature it requires a coastal location and relates to an existing facility. It
would have wider public benefits by enabling improved and safer access to the beach,
There would be no material impact on the character of this part of the coast.
Development Committee
49
17 September 2015
Design: CS policy EN 4 - the timber surface of the ramp will match that of the existing.
It would be supported on sheet steel piles whereas the existing ramp is on timber
posts. The majority of it would, however, be below the general lower beach level. A
robust construction is needed to withstand tidal forces. Design and materials reflect
that of other similar structures found along the coast. Considered acceptable.
Conservation area: CS policy EN 8 - for the reasons stated above it is considered the
proposal would preserve the character and appearance of this part of the Sheringham
Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the conditions below:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 August 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021403 PF - Change of use from residential care home to house in multiple
occupation
Refused 05/03/2003
PLA/19941430
PF - Erection of single-storey extension to residential home
(renewal of planning permission reference 900609)
Approved 03/02/1995
Development Committee
50
17 September 2015
PLA/19900609 PF - Ground floor extension to residential home
Refused 09/07/1990 A 17/01/1991
PLA/20041973 PF - Erection of single-storey extensions
Approved 20/12/2004
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks permission for the erection of a detached single storey building
to provide 2 self-contained annexes to the rear of the Dalmeny House in Sheringham.
The annexe building will measure approximately 8.9 metres in length by 5.5 metres in
width with a mono-pitch roof which has a maximum height of 3.7 metres. The annexe
building will be constructed in cedar weather boarding with a facing brickwork plinth,
single ply membrane roof, UPVC joinery with black UPVC guttering.
The annexe accommodation will be situated to the south east corner to the garden
area associated with Dalmeny House and will replace an existing timber shed which
measures approximately 6 metres in length by 4.2 metres in width by 3.5 metres in
height.
Dalmeny House is situated on the east side of The Boulevard in Sheringham adjacent
to St Peter’s Church which is also located within the Sheringham Conservation Area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the meeting of the 20 August 2015 for further
information from the Care Quality Commission.
Previously, at the request of Cllr D Smith due to overdevelopment of the site, lack of
amenity space for existing residents and that a further outbuilding could be erected
within the curtilage.
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham Town Council: Object to the application due to size and suitability of this
development as residential accommodation.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Site notice expired on the 10 July 2015 and no representations have been
received to date.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Highways: It is unlikely that the proposed development would
endanger any increases in vehicular activity at the site, nor increase parking needs.
Therefore, subject to the use of the development in association with the existing use of
the site, I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues only, as the proposal
does not affect the current traffic patterns and the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk
County Council does not seek to restrict the grant of permission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
51
17 September 2015
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
EN4: Design
EN8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
CT5: The Transport Impact of New development
CT6: Car Parking
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of development
 Design/Impact on Conservation Area
 Amenity Space/Overdevelopment
APPRAISAL
Dalmeny House is a semi-detached, 2 ½ storey building constructed of redbrick with
corbelled eaves under a natural slate roof with timber sash windows. The building
functions as an 11 bed residential care home for persons with learning disabilities and
mental health issues. The intention is that the annexe building will provide the final
step of rehabilitation for occupants associated with Dalmeny House prior to stepping
back in the community.
Principle of Development
The site lies within the town and of Sheringham which is defined by the North Norfolk
adopted Core Strategy as a Secondary Settlement. Subject to compliance to relevant
planning policies a residential annexe form of development as proposed in a
designated Secondary Settlement is in principle acceptable.
The development site lies within a residential area. The proposed annexe
accommodation is well related to the host building and is complimentary and well
related to the principle use of the site.
Vehicular access for parking is currently direct from the highway (The Boulevard) and
pedestrian access is located to the south side of the building. Vehicular and
pedestrian access remains unchanged to that which is existing for Dalmeny House.
The application is considered to comply with Policy SS1.
Design/Impact on Conservation Area
Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy requires that development should be
designed to a high standard, reinforces local distinctiveness and should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupants.
With regards to the proposed annexe building, it will replace an existing timber
structure of a similar size, scale and location albeit three metres longer in width. The
design and materials proposed are similar to that which would be expected of an
ancillary outbuilding and therefore is considered acceptable in design terms.
In terms of Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC): the annexe building is considered to be
modest in nature and would not result in overbearing or overshadowing of
neighbouring properties. The application building is bounded by an approximate 1.5
metre high breeze block wall to the north, 1.5 metre concrete rendered wall to the east
Development Committee
52
17 September 2015
and 2 metre red brick wall to the south. There is a pedestrian access to the east of the
site which links Morris Street with Church Street where the land is slightly lower than
that of the application site.
The Norfolk Local Development Framework Design Guide requires a minimum of 20
square metres of internal floor space (excluding bathrooms and circulation areas).
Each unit is approximately 15 square metres (without the wet room) which is less than
the design guide requirements, however, it was the Case Officer's view that given that
the accommodation is ancillary to the that of Dalmeny House where the occupants
retain a relationship with the host building, that the shortfall in minimum internal space
requirement was considered acceptable in this instance. Further guidance has been
sought from the Care Quality Commission and members will be updated.
The neighbouring dwelling to the north contains two rear first floor dormer windows
which look directly in the application buildings rear garden and is considered of
sufficient distance (approx. 15 metres away) so as to not be significantly impacted
upon by the development. It is considered the proposal would not significantly impact
upon the residential/garden amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
The proposed window and door openings of the annexe would overlook the residential
garden of the application building. There are no openings proposed to the east, south
and west elevation of the annexe building. The application is considered to comply
with Policy EN4.
Development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in this case the
Sheringham Conservation Area. Development that would have an adverse impact on
their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The site is situated within the Sheringham Conservation Area. The proposed annexe
building is of a similar size, scale and external appearance to that of the existing timber
building proposed to be removed. Given the siting of the annexe to the rear of the
application building, it is not considered that the proposal would detrimentally impact
upon the significance of the heritage assets, in this case the wider Sheringham
Conservation area and is therefore is considered to be compliant with Policy EN8.
Amenity Space/Overdevelopment
The residents of the annexe would use the outside amenities of the main house which
would remain of sufficient size to accommodate all residents associated with Dalmeny
House. It should be noted that planning permission will need to be sought from the
Local Planning Authority for the erection of a shed or outbuilding within the curtilage of
the residential institution, such as the application building as Permitted Development
rights are more controlled than that of a dwellinghouse.
Other Matters
Vehicular and pedestrian access remains unchanged to that of Dalmeny House.
Vehicular access for parking is currently direct from the highway (The Boulevard) and
pedestrian access is located to the south side of the building to access the rear garden.
Existing access to the proposed annexe building would utilise the existing pedestrian
access.
The Highway Authority's engineer does not raise an objection to the application
providing that the use is ancillary to that of the host building, therefore a condition
limiting the use of the annexe to ancillary accommodation only will be imposed on any
subsequent planning approval granted.
Development Committee
53
17 September 2015
The proposal, subject to conditions, is considered acceptable in terms of Core Strategy
Policies CT5 and CT6.
Conclusion
The development site lies within a residential area where proposals for annexe
accommodation are considered acceptable. The design of the annexe is considered
acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area and the garden area of Dalmeny
House is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed annexe accommodation and
would not result in overdevelopment of the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access
remains unchanged to that of Dalmeny House. Overall, it is considered that the
proposal complies with relevant Development Plan Polices.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions:
i.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
ii. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
iii. The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall
be in full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
iv. The annexe accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any
time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling
known as Dalmeny House.
13.
THORNAGE - PF/15/1042 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 The
Pyghtle, The Street, Thornage for Mr & Mrs R High
- Target Date: 07 September 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
B Road
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Advertising Control
Countryside
Contaminated Land Buffer
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
Development Committee
54
17 September 2015
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to extend the width of an existing single storey rear projection. There would be
no increase in the existing ridge height or length of the building. The proposal would
provide an approximately 11sqm of additional floor space.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is related to an elected Member.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response received
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties
3. Impact on Conservation Areas
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside policy area and within the Glaven Valley
and Brinton with Thornage Conservation Areas. Proposals of this type are considered
acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant policies (HO8, EN4,
EN8).
The proposal seeks to extend an existing single storey rear projection which has a
shared gable with the attached property. The proposal seeks to increase the width of
the existing projection with materials to match the existing. The proposal would be
subordinate to the original dwelling and it is considered that the proposal would not, by
virtue of its position and scale, introduce any significant detriment to the amenities of
any neighbouring property. It is further considered that the proposal would preserve
Development Committee
55
17 September 2015
the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas and would not materially
increase the impact of the original dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
An additional ground floor window shown on the proposed plans does not form part of
the application as it falls within permitted development allowances.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the policies of the development
plan and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions below:
1
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2
Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily with
its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
14.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
SCULTHORPE PF/15/0907 – Erection of 71 dwellings, new access road, side
roads, water attenuation ponds, drainage works, play areas, landscaping and
associated works (Phase 1- full planning) and Phase 2 of up to 129 dwellings,
side roads, primary school, land and community resource centre, play areas,
water attenuation ponds and drainage works (outline permission with all
matters reserved); Grove Farm Land for Amstel Group Corporation Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning as this is a major development which is a
departure from the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
56
17 September 2015
15.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - LA/15/0587 - External alterations to retain 4 roof windows;
Thurgarton Lodge, School Road, Thurgarton for Mr Barclay
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/15/0964 - Erection of two-storey extension to front of
dwelling and two single-storey extensions to the front of dwelling, to be lime
rendered; Post Office Cottage, Long Lane for Mrs J Shervell
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/15/0933 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 77/0464
to allow all year occupation; Driftwood, 8 Newlands Estate for Mr D Hagan
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0954 - Single-storey rear and front extensions and
porch; Solana, 33 Britons Lane, Beeston Regis for Mr & Mrs Francis
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0993 - Erection of single storey extension to side of
dwelling; Breckland, Sheringwood, Beeston Regis for Mr & Mrs Lawrence
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - AN/15/0767 - 4 non-illuminated signs painted onto walls of building
and 1 hanging sign; White Horse Hotel, 4 High Street for Adnams PLC
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BRININGHAM - PF/15/0813 - Retention of single-storey shed for storage of
logs/wood and machinery; Mill Lodge, Mill Lane for Mr M Bray
(Householder application)
BRINTON - HN/15/1085 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4.816 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 3.504 metres and would have an eaves height
of 2.152 metres; 1 Bale Road, Sharrington for Mr Parks
(Householder Prior Notification)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0860 - Removal of render to front elevation; The
Old Manor House, High Street for Mr D Goodman
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0920 - Installation of swimming pool; Green Farm
House, Holt Road, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt for Wensum Pools Ltd
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0612 - Non material amendment request to permit omission
of mezzanine floor, modify eaves height and revised window arrangement to
two-storey dwelling; Land off Cambridge Street for Mrs L Chawner
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/15/0683 - Demolition of rear conservatory and erection of
two-storey rear extension and detached garage/studio to front; 56 Norwich Road
for Mr A Crossley
(Householder application)
Development Committee
57
17 September 2015
CROMER - PF/15/0836 - Erection of single-storey side extension following
demolition of existing garage and erection of detached garage; 2 Cliff Avenue for
Mr Robert Dale
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/0956 - Change of use of former car showroom(Sui generis) to
storage/distribution (B8); Cromer Car Centre, Middlebrook Way for Screwfix
Direct Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0394 - Variation of condition 1 of Non material
amendment request ref: NMA1/06/1650 to permit amendments to holiday units 1 4, including demolition of the southern wall and the erection of a revised
elevation, a revised layout, the partial demolition of the northern elevation wall
down to 1.3m in height to permit the installation of open raised terraces to the
northern elevation and revised fenestration and door details and the retention of
some areas of exposed brickwork without rendering and colour washing;
Slaneys Barns, Chequers Street for Mimi Estates Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0947 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0494 to permit omission of window/door on Barn 2 and alteration to parking
layout.; Simms Cottage, Back Lane, East Ruston for Miss Leslie
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0441 - Demolition of church, erection of three story
extension to provide 2 No. dwellings, erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings, and
conversion of church hall to provide 4 No. two storey dwellings; Fakenham
Baptist Church, Mill Court, Bridge Street for Baptist Union of Great Britain
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0846 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 27 Nightingale
Close for Mr P Tann
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0852 - Change of use from A1 (charity shop) to a mixed use
of A1 (charity shop) and A3 (coffee shop); Sue Ryder, Fakenham Superstore,
Greenway Lane for Sue Ryder
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - HN/15/1019 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from original rear wall by 5.8 metres, which would
have a maximum height of 3.8 metres and would have an eaves height of 2.6
metres; 32A Hayes Lane for Mr J Edwards
(Householder Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0899 - Erection of extensions to sides and rear of dwelling
and extension to rear of garage; 11 Hall Staithe for Mr N Bunkle
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0903 - Erection of 5 dwellings following demolition of
magistrates building; Magistrates Court, Baron's Close, Off Norwich Road for
Pryde Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
58
17 September 2015
FAKENHAM - NMA1/15/0093 - Non material amendment to permit steel cladding
from ground upwards; Land at Wymans Way, Fakenham for Payne & Payne SIPP
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FULMODESTON - LA/15/0686 - Removal of leaded glass windows and installation
of clear glass replacements; Wood Farm House, The Street, Barney for Mr D
Astley
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/1029 - Erection of single storey extension to front of
dwelling; The Smithy, Church Street for Mr J Coleman
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/15/0885 - Erection of garden room extension and separate
residential annex; Boundary Cottage, Grub Street for Mr J Burns
(Householder application)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/15/0945 - Erection of first floor extension to dwelling; The
Forge, The Street for Mrs Roy
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0812 - Change of use of offices to dog-grooming business
(retrospective application); Offices, 4B Raynham Road for Mr R Gorman
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0384 - Installation of underground electricity cable; Land at
Sculthorpe, Dunton and Hempton for Lark Energy
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - NMA1/14/1106 - Non-material amendment request to change roof of
front elevation from gable end to lean-to; 21 Heron Way for Mr F Howard
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/15/0839 - Internal and external alterations and refurbishment works to
existing wine bar (part retrospective); Balthazar Wine Bar, Lees Yard for Eclipse
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA2/14/0901 - Non material amendment request to allow omission of
north elevation window and revised design of first floor window to south
elevation; Thornwood, Thornage Road for Mr S Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - AN/15/0628 - Installation of non illuminated advertisement sign; Land
adjacent to Sawmill, Pippin Heath, Hunworth Road, Holt for Thaxters Timber
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - LA/15/0930 - Formation of internal doorway; 1-5 High Street for TSB Bank
PLC
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/15/0910 - Erection of first floor front extension; The Focsle, Mill
Loke for Mr G Seary
(Householder application)
Development Committee
59
17 September 2015
HOVETON - PF/15/0825 - Variation of conditions 2 and 6 on planning permission
13/0146 to allow phased implementation.; Bewilderwood, Horning Road for Bure
Valley Adventures
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/0909 - Erection of single-storey extension with flues to
dwelling; 3 Mere Farm Barns, Matlaske Road, Mannington for Mr McGinty
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - COND/15/1170 - Discharge of condition 5 of planning permission ref:
PF/14/0002; Bernard Matthews Ltd, Langham Airfield, Cockthorpe Road for
Renenergy
(Condition Discharge)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0877 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Black
Swan Hotel, Black Swan Loke for Enterprise Inns PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0851 - Non-illuminated fascia sign and illuminated
projecting sign; 11 Market Place for Bestway Group
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0878 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of first floor side window; 68 Bradfield Road for Mr R Andrews
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0815 - Change of use of second floor office space to
residential flat; 5B Market Street for Mr T O'Shea
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0937 - Retention of illuminated and non-illuminated
signage; 7-9 Yarmouth Road for Lidl UK GmbH
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0520 - Insertion of windows to west elevation, dormer
to west roof slope and revised window design to east elevation; 6 St Nicholas
Court, Vicarage Street for L Bullimore and Sons Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0845 - Conversion and extension of barn to dwelling;
Brick Kiln Farm, Lyngate Road, North Walsham for Mr Denby
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - LA/15/0438 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
insertion of louvered vent to north wall, velux window to kitchen roof, boiler flue
pipe to kitchen roof and installation of garden gate and posts; Church Grange,
Church Street, Northrepps for Mr A Stickells
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0924 - Erection of replacement porch with ramp access to
front of dwelling; Rest Harrow, Chapel Road for Mrs J Sadler
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0928 - Alterations to west elevation of dwelling and
replacement cladding.; The Old Chapel, Chapel Road for Mr P Mills
(Householder application)
Development Committee
60
17 September 2015
RYBURGH - PF/15/0942 - Erection of first floor rear extension, alterations and
conversion of garage to habitable accommodation, erection of front porch and
installation of roof light in east roof slope; 55 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for
Mr R Abery
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0980 - Amendment to cable installation methodology at Little
Ryburgh (NNDC11) seeking to change cable installation methodology from open
cut to Horizontal Directional Drill.; Land at Little Ryburgh for Dudgeon Offshore
Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0657 - Erection of car-port and 1.5 metres front wall;
Southview, Lynn Road for Mr N Cox
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0880 - Erection of steel, open sided building for storage
associated with existing business; Dels Nursery, Barsham Road for Dels
Nursery
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0634 - Alteration to existing garage including increase in
height and change of roof covering; Hill Crest, 19 Hooks Hill Road for Mr D
Valace
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0869 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 2 Knowle
Road for Mr Hedges
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0915 - Erection of multi purpose canopy for refectory use;
Sheringham High School, Holt Road for North Norfolk Academy Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0994 - Erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road, Southrepps for Mr M Goss
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PO/15/0469 - Erection of two, one and a half-storey dwellings and
garages; Staitheway, Lower Staithe Road for Mrs J Blake
(Outline Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/15/0065 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden, and
demolition of detached two-storey dwelling and outbuildings and erection of
replacement detached two-storey dwelling and detached car port/store; Willows
Cottage, The Street for Mrs I Spurrell
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/15/0983 - Erection of single-storey extension to dwelling;
Badgers Barn, Pond Road, Bradfield, North Walsham for Mr & Mrs J Kirby
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - HN/15/1018 - Notification of intention to erect a
single-storey rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 6
metres, would have a maximum height of 3.6 metres and would have an eaves
height of 2.6 metres; Woodside House, St Giles Road for Mr G May
(Householder Prior Notification)
Development Committee
61
17 September 2015
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0979 - External alterations and extension of rear
dormer windows.; Italska, Cromer Road for Mr Baksalary
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/1032 - Infill walls of loggia; The Gunton Arms, Cromer
Road for Mr Braka
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - LA/15/1033 - Infill walls of loggia; The Gunton Arms, Cromer
Road for Mr Braka
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - LA/15/0429 - Internal alterations to main building; Ivy Farmhouse,
Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs Lock
(Listed Building Alterations)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0990 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of dwelling
and extension to rear of detached garage.; New Barn Farmhouse, Church Lane,
Tunstead for Mr & Mrs Edridge
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/0900 - Extension and alterations to cart shed to form
residential annex; The Old Lime Kilns, Scarborough Road for Mr M Burgoine
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/0921 - Erection of single-storey agricultural dwelling;
Brick Kiln Farm, Edgar Road for Mr Calton-Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0302 - Alterations to balcony (amended design
following Listed Building Consent ref. LA/14/1041); The Golden Fleece, The
Quay for Mr Brundle
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0416 - Installation of extension to existing front
balcony and alterations to existing three front dormer windows; The Golden
Fleece, The Quay for Mr Brundle
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0965 - Replacement of existing juliet balcony
with protruding balcony; Flat 6a, The Granary, The Quay for Mr P French
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0857 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Glebe
Cottage, Holt Road for Mr A Morton
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/13/0803 - Non-material amendment revising the layouts of
the lodges and modifying window sizes/configurations and colour, and revision
of colour of timber cladding; Weybourne Forest Lodges, Sandy Hill Lane for
Weybourne Forest Lodges
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WORSTEAD - NMA1/14/0929 - Non-material amendment request to revised
two-storey extension layout; Cantelo Cottage, Meeting Hill Road, Meeting Hill,
Worstead for Mr S Penfold
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
62
17 September 2015
16.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/15/0740 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling
incorporating site facilities; Felbrigg Lodge, School Road for c/o Felbrigg Lodge
Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/15/0229 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to three residential
dwellings; Church Farm, Church Road for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0859 - Single-storey side extension (Retrospective); Suffield
Park Spar, 24 Cliff Road for Mr S Gunaratnam
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0927 - Erection of extensions to side and rear dwelling;
Tanglewood, The Warren for Mr and Mrs Steward
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0650 - Erection of two single storey dwellings; 188 Norwich
Road for CMSH Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PU/15/0967 - Prior notification of intention to convert
agricultural building to dwelling and associated building operations; The Old
Bullock Shed, Wakefields Piece, Foulsham Road for Mrs A Morgan
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0801 - Erection of two garages and associated
parking and accesses; Pipit House, 1 and 1A Mill Court for Mr & Mrs Lemanski
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
17.
NEW APPEALS
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road
for Mrs Cargill
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0419 - Erection of single and two-storey rear extensions;
Annandale Cottage, Ramsgate Street for Mr and Mrs S Smith
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road,
Hindringham for Norfolk County Council
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for Ashford
Commercial Ltd.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
63
17 September 2015
18.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 July 2015
19.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr L Kidd
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
House, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs Everett
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead for Primrose
Developments (Anglia) Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for Ashford
Commercial Ltd.
RUNTON - PF/15/0273 - Insertion of dormer window to front roof slope; 6 Victoria
Terrace, High Street, East Runton for Mr Gould
SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street, Sutton for Mr Cutting
TATTERSETT - PF/15/0240 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear and side
extension; Heath Cottage, The Street, Tattersett for Ms J Skinner
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At, Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Leisure Pk
20.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
CROMER – PF/13/1521 – Proposed crematorium, memorial garden, landscaping,
access road, car park and ancillary works at Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road,
Cromer for Crematoria Management Ltd
APPEAL DECISION: - ALLOWED
Development Committee
64
17 September 2015
The District Council refused planning permission for a crematorium and associated
development on land at Cromer cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer. The application was
locally controversial and a significant number of objections received. The notice of
refusal was issued on 17 June 2014 following a unanimous resolution by the
Development Committee.
The appeal against refusal of the application was dealt with under the written
representations procedure (exchanges of statements followed by a site visit by the
Inspector on 9 June 2015). The appeal decision was issued on 27 July.
The Inspector firstly considered what is described in the decision as a “preliminary
matter”, relating to another appeal on adjoining land for a proposed woodland burial
ground. The Inspector noted that at application stage it had been suggested that the
proposed crematorium and woodland burial ground should be considered as a joint
operation. However, the Inspector found that “they are distinct proposals involving
different appellants and, whilst they would both provide facilities to achieve a dignified
end of life experience, a crematorium is a different event to that of a woodland burial”.
The Inspector also found there to be no physical linkage between the two developments
and determined the crematorium appeal on the basis of the specific evidence and its
individual merits.
The same Inspector, Frances Mahoney, also dismissed the appeal relating to the
proposed woodland burial ground.
On the crematorium appeal, the Inspector set out her decision by reference to the
principle of the development, highways matters, living conditions in nearby dwellings
and concluded that the main issue is “the effect of the appeal proposal on the character
and appearance of the countryside, more specifically that of the North Norfolk
AONB………..as well as that of the existing Cromer Cemetery”.
On the issue of principle, the Inspector found the proposed crematorium to be a
community facility to which policy SS2 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) applies.
This policy sets out that community services and facilities meeting a proven local need
are an acceptable form of development in the countryside.
The Inspector also referred to CS policy CT3 and noted that the proposed crematorium
would offer a service not currently available in the District with the nearest facility being
over 30 minutes’ drive from Cromer. The inclusion of the Crematorium within an
existing cemetery setting, isolated from neighbouring dwellings and with ready access
to the centres of population justified the countryside location. The Inspector therefore
found the principle of development to be acceptable in this rural location.
On the highways issue the Inspector took into account the concerns of local residents
and noted that the Highway Authority sought to restrict the number of crematorium
services to 8 per day. The Inspector referred to paragraph 32 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out that development should only be prevented or
refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe. This
was not such a case.
Turning to living conditions, the Inspector described the relationship of the appeal site
and dwellings in the vicinity. She found that any harm to the living conditions of
neighbouring residents would be acceptable and noted (in respect of fumes/odour) that
cremators are subject to a separate stringent environmental permitting regime.
Development Committee
65
17 September 2015
On the main issue, character and appearance, the Inspector described in some detail
the setting and context of the appeal site and how the proposed crematorium would be
viewed from the surrounding area. She concluded that the proposal “would not detract
from the special qualities of the AONB and would preserve the intrinsic character and
scenic beauty of this countryside landscape”. The terms of CS policies EN1, EN2,
EN3 and EN4 would not be compromised. In what appears to be a reference to NPPF
paragraph 14 (which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and
refers to this as a “golden thread running through plan-making and decision-taking”) the
Inspector concluded that planning permission should be granted.
The Inspector’s decision was therefore to allow the appeal and grant permission for the
proposed crematorium, subject to a number of conditions including a limitation of no
more than 8 services on any operational day.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager, Ext 6016)
21.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
66
17 September 2015
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
67
17 September 2015
APPENDIX 2
Ms S Hinchcliffe
North Norfolk District Council
Planning Department
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
Our ref:
Your ref:
AE/2015/119421/01-L01
PF/15/0837
Date:
24 July 2015
Dear Ms Hinchcliffe,
CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECIALITY MALT PLANT, STEEP HOUSE,
WAREHOUSE EXTENSION WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL LIGHTING,
PRODUCT BINS, OUT LOADING BINS, GANTRY AND ASSOCIATED
SURFACE WATER ATTENUATION WORKS FOLLOWING DEMOLITION
OF EXISTING SINGLE-STOREY ENGINEERING STORE. LAND AT CRISP
MALTINGS, FAKENHAM ROAD, GREAT RYBURGH.
Thank you for your consultation received on 15 July 2015. We have inspected
the application, as submitted, and we have no objection to the proposal
subject to our detailed comments below.
Environmental Permit
The facility is regulated by the Environment Agency by way of an
Environmental permit (ref. FP3037PA).
The permit covers environmental aspects such as:
 Management (management systems, accident management plan,
energy efficiency, raw materials use, waste management and site
security)
 Operations (permitted activities, operating techniques including storage
and containment, closure and decommissioning, site protection and
monitoring programme)
 Emissions & monitoring (fugitive and point source emissions to air
waste and land, odour, noise and vibration, plus monitoring
requirements)
 Records, reporting and notifications to the Environment Agency
Development Committee
68
17 September 2015
Changes in operation at the facility require either notification to the
Environment Agency or a variation to the permit. We can confirm that a
normal variation to the permit will be required to incorporate the addition of the
new Specialty Malt production line plus supporting infrastructure, as the
operating techniques and various management systems will need to be
updated.
A revised H1 assessment will need to be completed to identify and quantify
new emissions from the new production line and associated supporting
infrastructure, the application documents refer to additional dust extraction
and filter units which could give rise to air emissions. Additionally the
proposed development could give rise to odour, noise, and fugitive emissions.
It is noted that the applicant intends to adopt BAT with respect to the dust
extraction and filter units, which would be required by the permit. It is also
noted that a noise assessment has been completed in accordance with
BS4142:2014 and that this concludes there is no significant noise impact. The
application statement also states that the effects of odour will be minimal.
Therefore, whilst we cannot undertake detailed technical assessment until a
permit application has been made, we do not have any major permitting
concerns at this stage.
The applicant should note that our determination period for an application is
13 weeks from the date the application is duly made, and that it is unlawful to
commence any operations prior to an application being determined.
If the applicant has any questions on the permitting process they are advised
to contact Sam Fuller in our EPR-Installations team on 01473 706523, email
samuel.fuller@environment-agency.gov.uk.
We trust this advice is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Ms Louisa Johnson
Sustainable Places - Planning Advisor
Direct dial 01473 706007
Direct e-mail louisa.johnson@environment-agency.gov.uk
cc Alan Irvine
Awarded to Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk Area
Development Committee
69
17 September 2015
APPENDIX 3
Date:
12 August 2015
Our ref: 159842
Your ref: PF/15/0837
Miss S Hinchcliffe
North Norfolk District Council
Customer Services
Hornbeam House
Crewe Business Park
Electra Way
Crewe
Cheshire
CW1 6GJ
BY EMAIL ONLY
T 0300 060 3900
Dear Miss Hinchcliffe
Planning consultation: Construction of a Speciality Malt Plant Steep House Warehouse extension
with assoc. external lighting Product Bins Out Loading Bins Gantry & assoc surface water
attenuation works following demolition of existing sgl storey engineering store
Location: Crisp Maltings Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh Fakenham NR21 7AS
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 15 July 2015.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the
natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (AS AMENDED)
WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED)
Internationally Designated Sites - No objection
The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly
referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features.
European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The application site is in close proximity to the
River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is a European site. The site is also
notified at a national level as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent
sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.
In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent
authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential
impacts that a plan or project may have1. The Conservation objectives for each European site
explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if
any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.
Requirements are set out within Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations, where a series of steps and tests are
followed for plans or projects that could potentially affect a European site. The steps and tests set out within Regulations
61 and 62 are commonly referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ process.
The Government has produced core guidance for competent authorities and developers to assist with the Habitats
Regulations Assessment process. This can be found on the Defra website. http://www.defra.gov.uk/habitatsreview/implementation/process-guidance/guidance/sites/
1
Page 1 of 3
Development Committee
70
17 September 2015
The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate
that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered
by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment.
In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to
assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided,
Natural England offers the following advice:
•
the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site
•
that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can
therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment
When recording your HRA we recommend you refer to the following information to justify your
conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects.
The proposed development would not result in any significant change to the flow regime in the River
Wensum. The development would result in only a very small increase in the area of impermeable
land of approx. 1630m2. Furthermore changes to the rate of surface water run-off from the site
would be regulated by measures proposed in the drainage strategy accompanying the application.
The proposals would also not result in any changes to water quality in the River Wensum. The
drainage strategy accompanying the application states that the amount of effluent produced would
not change as a result of the development and that effluent produced would continue to be treated
at the plant on site under the existing PPC permit. Natural England has not identified any other
pathways by which the River Wensum SAC or any other European Site could be affected by the
proposed development.
SSSI No objection – no conditions requested
This application is in close proximity to the River Wensum Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance
with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for
which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not
represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change,
Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.
Other advice
We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible
impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:



local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)
local landscape character
local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain
material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you
seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre,
your local wildlife trust, local geoconservation group or other recording society and a local
landscape characterisation document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully
understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive
list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link.
Page 2 of 3
Development Committee
71
17 September 2015
Protected Species
We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.
Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species.
You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the
determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural
England following consultation.
The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in
respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect
the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has
reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or
may be granted.
If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for
European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us with
details at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk
Biodiversity enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are
beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of
bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the
site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance
with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority
must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of
those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states
that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or
enhancing a population or habitat’.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any
queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Ross Holdgate on
0300 060 4657. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation
please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.
Yours sincerely
Ross Holdgate
On behalf of Norfolk and Suffolk Area Team
Page 3 of 3
Development Committee
72
17 September 2015