OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 18 AUGUST 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
SEA PALLING: ENF/09/151 - Request for authorisation of prosecution for noncompliance with Enforcement Notice:
Surfers Shack, The Marrams, Sea Palling
An Enforcement Notice was served in respect of a material change of use of land at
The Marrams, Sea Palling relating to a caravan, tents, motorhome and a timber
building for residential purposes. The Committee is requested to authorise
prosecution for non-compliance with the Notice.
BACKGROUND
In April 2009 it came to the attention of the Planning Enforcement team that a plot of
land at The Marrams, Sea Palling was being used for the standing of two caravans
and a motorhome. The matter was investigated and an Enforcement Notice served
with the agreement of the Chairman of the Development Control Committee (East)
and local ward Member on 15 December 2009.
The breach of planning control alleged in the Notice was the material change of use
of the land for the stationing of a caravan, tents, motorhome and erection of a timber
building for residential purposes. The Notice required cessation of the residential use
of the land and removal of the caravan, tents, motorhome and building within three
months from the date on which the notice took effect.
The Notice was served on the owner of the site, who exercised his right of appeal
against the Notice. The appeal was dealt with by an Inspector appointed by the
Secretary of State and a copy of the appeal decision is attached (Appendix 1). The
appeal was dismissed and the Notice upheld.
The Enforcement Notice was suspended until the Inspector’s decision was issued
and the three month period for compliance commenced on the date of the decision
letter (30 November 2010) and expired on 28 February 2011. The site was inspected
after that date and it was found that no effort has been made to comply with the
Notice as upheld on appeal. A letter was sent to the contravenor (Appendix 1)
warning of the legal consequences of not complying with the Notice.
SUMMARY
Failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice is an offence contrary to section 179 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The contravenor is on notice
that the matter may become the subject of a prosecution but has apparently taken no
steps to comply. The breach of planning control has not been remedied and the
Committee is therefore recommended to authorise the commencement of legal
proceedings.
Development Committee
1
18 August 2011
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee authorises prosecution of Mr Dino Neale for failing to
comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/09/0151 under Section 179 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager, Ext 6016)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
2.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
UPDATE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to June 2011, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes. For the first time, figures are included for land charge searches which
form part of the Planning and Building Control group of services.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance in processing planning applications for
the first quarter of 2011/12.
No major applications were cleared during the quarter, and only 37 minor
applications and 67 ‘other’ cases were cleared. Speed of determination for minor
and other cases continued to fall during the quarter, an unwelcome trend. It is to be
hoped that the Council will endorse new, realistic targets for the service shortly.
Table 1B sets out information on workload. 398 applications were submitted, close
to the average number of applications per quarter during the last financial year. Preapplication enquiries fell to 79, although “Do I need planning permission?” questions
were at a similar level to last year, as were discharge of conditions requests. Duty
officer consultations fell slightly during the quarter.
In overall terms it is clear that significantly more work came into the service than was
dealt with. This has potentially significant implications for performance, morale and
customer service. A hopeful small step forward is the temporary appointment of a
year-out student, who will take up her position early in September and it is hoped that
she will in due course be able to relieve some of the pressure on other staff in
handling more straightforward matters.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter saw a fall for the first time for many
quarters to 87.2%. However, this may be as a result of many fewer applications
being determined rather than necessarily a sign of greater demand for Development
Committee to make decisions.
In terms of planning appeals, the quarter was successful with all three determined
having been dismissed.
Land Charges are formal restrictions on the use or development of land and property
and details of these are held in the Register of Local Land Charges, the content of
which is revealed to property conveyancers with the submission of searches. North
Norfolk maintains an electronic register of local land charges, which can be inspected
free of charge (personal searches). Fees are payable for other types of search
depending on the type made. In 2011 there were approximately 2,780 searches with
a total fee income of more than £177,000.
Development Committee
2
18 August 2011
In the first quarter of 2011/12, 462 searches were processed, with an average
response time of two days. When personal searches are included, the total number
handled during the quarter was 598. Quarterly fee income was over £38,300, but
this represented a reduction year on year of some £7,900. This is partly due to a
reduction in the fees that can be charged, these having been suspended from 17
August 2010, but the figures also indicate a significant slow down in property
transactions. The income lost as a result of this change for the quarter is estimated
to be about £3,000.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control 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.
CROMER - PO/10/0856 - Erection of single storey rear extension with glazed
corridor link, and proposed re-routing of Public Right of Way FP11; The
Lookout, East Cliff for Hall Property Services Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Public Rights of Way Footpath
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19980366
PF - Change of use of former coastguard look-out to holiday
accommodation
Approved 08/10/1998
THE APPLICATION
Is an outline application for a rear extension to a holiday unit. The floor plan shows
an extension approximately 7m long and 9m wide. Only the layout and access are
for determination at this stage. In addition, the application is also for the re-routing of
a footpath around the edge of the site. The appearance, landscaping and scale of the
rear extension would all to be decided under a future application for the reserved
matters.
Additional plan received showing the extension proposed in a section through the
site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lee, who has concerns regarding the vehicle movements
in relation to public movements and proximity to the cliff edge.
Development Committee
3
18 August 2011
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection registered when first advertised, (without the re-routing of the Public
Right of Way (PROW)). Objection once the re-routing of the PROW was added to the
application. Concerns include; vehicular access, proximity to the cliff and inadequate
plans. They also comment that the PROW should be retained.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from 4 neighbours, on the following grounds:
1. No outside alteration should be allowed
2. There are plenty of holiday homes in Cromer, which are empty most of the year
and do not fully contribute to the economy of the area
3. Extension would encroach upon the woodland
4. Use of the access would be intensified and possibly lead to tarmacing of the
access drive, this should not be approved and conditions should be added to
prevent vehicular access from Cliff Lane
5. Area is 'out of bounds' for cars
6. Unsuitable location for a holiday unit
7. Holiday home is unsympathetic to the SSSI
8. Notice on a gate at the 'end' of Cliff Lane reading no vehicular access
9. Object to any change to PROW (but did not see the plan showing the change)
One member of the public has written raising the following additional concern:
Address used for applicants is not the registered company address; therefore the
application is fraudulent.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - No objection (July 2011). Following
concerns regarding the visual impact of the extension further details from the agent
were requested. The initial objection was then subsequently withdrawn once details
were submitted showing a cross section.
Ramblers Association - Comments awaited.
Open Spaces Society - Object, to the re-routing of the PROW. The proposed rerouting would introduce an unnatural loop and increase the length, which would make
the path less convenient for the public. It would also detract from the amenity value of
the land.
Due to the diversion running closer to the cliff edge the impact of the gradual erosion
will be felt sooner than if the path was retained in its current position. The path is
currently not physically accessible and is obstructed by both structures in association
with The Lookout and vegetation. The obstructions are illegal and the lack of
maintenance a failure of the part of the Highway Authority. However the law provides
for a clear, visible path and the application should be determined as if this was the
case.
Property Services - No objection.
Confirmed that The Lookout has been granted a right of way 'over and along the
access way with or without vehicles' at all times. This was re-affirmed in 1999 by the
Conveyance when NNDC sold The Lookout following the granting of planning
permission PF/98/0366.
Director of Environment, Transport and Development (Norfolk County Council) Countryside Access Officer - No objection. The proposed re-routing is considered not
to detract from the public's enjoyment; they would be able to see the sea to the north
and the building to the south at the same time.
Development Committee
4
18 August 2011
Although coastal erosion is occurring here, it is gradual, and if the path were to
remain in its current location it would likely be closed as soon as The Lookout was
affected, due to the unstable nature of the building affecting the public’s safe use of
the path.
The current state of the footpath is relevant to the Highways Act, not the proposed rerouting under section 257 of the Town & Country (T&C) Planning Act 1990.
Countryside and Parks Manger - Comments awaited.
Highways (Norfolk County Council) - No objection: the access track is not within the
responsibility of Norfolk County Council. The parking is not ideal as the vehicles
would be reversing onto the track, however this is outside Norfolk County Council's
control. The PROW needs diverting to allow the extension to take place. This can be
done under section 257 of the T&C Planning Act 1990. Depending on the route
selected there may be concerns regarding cars from the site reversing onto a PROW.
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Re-routing of PROW
2. Layout and visual impact of proposed rear extension
3. Vehicular access
APPRAISAL
The site falls within an area of Countryside policy area on the east side of Cromer
and is also within the Undeveloped Coast and the Area of Outstanding Natural
Development Committee
5
18 August 2011
Beauty (AONB). The use of an existing building as a holiday unit was approved in
1998 and appears to have been implemented. The principle of holiday use does not
therefore form part of this application. If it did, however, it would continue to be
acceptable.
The 1998 permission (PLA/19980366) also indicated that vehicular access to the site
was available from the track leading from Cliff Lane, which then led to a gravel area
within the curtilage for parking. This access has been confirmed by Property Services
as a right of way for The Lookout by both the land title and the Conveyance of 1999,
which states that there is a right of way 'over and along the access way with or
without vehicles', at all times. The right to vehicular access to the site is therefore
established.
Initially the application was only an outline application for a single-storey extension to
the rear of the building. During consideration of the application it became evident that
an apparently dormant PROW passed directly through the site. The applicants have
sought to address this by proposing re-routing of the PROW around the northern
edge of the site.
Notwithstanding the objections of the Open Spaces Society, the County Council's
Countryside Access Officer has no objections. However, further details will need to
be submitted and agreed regarding to the manner of footpath enclosure. This can
however be achieved by imposing appropriate planning conditions.
The site slopes with the northern end at a higher level than the southern end. As
such the existing building, on the northern side, sits relatively high on the site. The
proposed rear extension would be single storey and be built into the ground by
approximately 1.3m, so that internal steps would be required to join the two buildings
together. Details of the design of the extension would be submitted in a reserved
matters application, but the applicant has indicated that the extension would be flat
roofed. The area to the rear of the building is currently grassed/scrub.
The additional plan shows a flat roof in keeping with the existing building. The
development as proposed would more than double the footprint of the building.
However, due to its position, existing screening, being single-storey and set into the
ground its impact on the wider landscape would be limited. On balance the proposal
is considered acceptable under Policy HO8.
The parking area would be reduced by the extension, but the area would still be
sufficient to park two cars; this complies with the car parking requirement in the Core
Strategy.
The area surrounding the site forms part of the area known as 'Happy Valley'. To the
front of the site (north east) is an open grassland area, before the coastal path and
cliff edge. Except for the access track (which extends beyond the site to the east) the
western, north western, eastern and southern sides are all surrounded by trees. As
such any development to the rear of the building would be well screened from the
main public vantages of the coastal footpath and grassed area around the pavilion to
the north west.
The land immediately to the east of the building would be fenced in as part of the
site. This area is shown on the plans, but has not be physically fenced off so at
present remains open grass. With appropriate boundary treatment here the public's
view of the rear of the property would be further limited.
Notice has been served on the Council as an interested party with regard to the
proposed re-routing of the footpath.
Development Committee
6
18 August 2011
The site is not in a coastal erosion zone, so development here is not covered by
Policy EN 12 - Relocation and replacement of development affected by coastal
erosion risk.
The siting and scale of the proposed extension (Policy HO8) are
considered acceptable, as is the proposed re-routing of the footpath. It is considered
that the proposal accords with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to conditions in relation to the details surrounding the
physical re-routing of the footpath.
4.
ITTERINGHAM - PF/11/0730 - Erection of two-storey rear/side extension, singlestorey side extension and diversion of footpath FP13; Broome Cottage,
Itteringham Road, Oulton for Mr N Slater
- Target Date: 04 August 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Countryside
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey side/rear extension and a single storey side
extension.
The two storey extension would sit parallel with and behind the existing dwelling and
would have a mix of hipped and gabled roof. Materials to the front elevation would
be horizontal timber boarding and to all other elevations red brick. It would have a
ridge height of 7m which is approx 300mm below the ridge of the existing dwelling.
The application originally also included a proposal to divert a public footpath through
the site. This has now been taken out of the proposed development.
The side extension would consist of a pitched roof extension to the west of the
original dwelling with a front facing gable. A flat roofed extension would link this to
the main house.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue: Scale of the proposed extension.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of support received on the grounds that the proposed changes will
enhance what is a house in a poor state of repair.
CONSULTATIONS
Open Spaces Society - Object to the diversion of the public footpath. This should be
applied through the highway act and not the planning system.
Development Committee
7
18 August 2011
Ramblers Association - Neither opposes the planning application nor the movement
of the footpath Itteringham FP13, but questions if the Town and Country Planning Act
is the appropriate means of moving the path. We cannot see in the application what
development necessitates the removal of the path from the garden as it is not close
enough to the house to be affected by the building work there. We would have
thought it more appropriate that the change in the footpath was effected by a
Highways Act 1980 Section 119 Diversion Order in the interests of the landowner.
National Grid - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the extension.
2. Scale.
3. Design.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where Policies SS2, EN2, EN4 and HO8 are particularly relevant.
Policy SS2 is permissive of extensions to existing dwellings subject to compliance
with Policy HO8 which seeks to ensure extensions to dwellings in the countryside are
not disproportionate in height or scale to the host dwelling and that they would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. Policy
EN2 requires that development proposals 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. Similarly EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a
high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design
will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and
does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be
acceptable.
Development Committee
8
18 August 2011
The proposal would extend the dwelling by approx. 124sqm, compared to the original
dwelling of 82sqm. The new dwelling would therefore have a floor area of some 205
sq.m which would result in an increase in the footprint of the dwelling by 150%.
However, the proposed extension is of the same height as the existing dwelling.
Furthermore, a number of attached single-storey outbuildings would also be
removed. In terms of its visual impact on the wider countryside, the extensions have
been split into two-storey and single-storey elements and would be largely to the rear
of the existing dwelling. This, coupled with the fact that the dwelling is not highly
visible in the wider landscape due to rising land around the site, would ensure that
the proposal would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
surrounding countryside. Therefore notwithstanding the significant increase in the
footprint of the dwelling it is considered that on balance the proposed scale of the
proposed extension is acceptable, when coupled with the removal of the
outbuildings.
In terms of design, the proposed extensions consist of two elements, a two storey
rear extension to the rear and side of the dwelling and single storey extensions to the
western side. From the most visible, front elevation, the two-storey extension would
be set behind the original dwelling and its roof would match that of the existing. Its
height would be lower than the existing roof and would appear subordinate to the
original. As it would visually be read as being set back from the main front elevation
of the dwelling, it is considered that this would sit comfortably with the property and
street scene.
The single storey side extension would consist of a pitched roof extension linked to
the main dwelling by a flat roof section. From the visible front elevation, the height,
scale and proportions of these are considered acceptable and appropriate for the
original building.
From the rear the extensions would be more dominant in relation to the character
and appearance of the original dwelling, with a mix of hip and gable roofs and the two
storey extension masking the whole of the rear elevation of the original dwelling.
However, as indicated previously, due to the rising land around the site, the rear and
sides of the dwelling are not highly visible and as such it is not considered that the
scale or appearance of the extensions from these directions would result in any harm
to the appearance or character of the street scene or harm the context of the dwelling
or the surrounding area.
The materials proposed are a mix of red brick, painted horizontal boarding, pantiles
to the roof and timber glazing. Subject to an appropriate colour finish to the
boarding, the mix of material is considered acceptable for the host dwelling and
street scene.
In respect of neighbouring amenity, given the distances to nearby residential
properties, the proposed extensions would not result in any adverse impact on
amenity in terms of loss of light or overlooking and would accord with the Council's
adopted Amenity Criteria.
Overall therefore, it is considered that the proposal would accord with policy EN4,
Design and not materially conflict with other Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
9
18 August 2011
5.
KELLING - PF/11/0592 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 1 & 2 Brookside, The
Street for Kelling Estate
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1211 PF - Erection of two semi-detached replacement dwellings
Refused 15/04/2011
LE/10/1284 LE - Demolition of two dwellings
Refused 15/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
The proposal includes the conversion of the pair of semi-detached dwellings into one
dwelling. Another dwelling (in lieu of one of the original units of the pair of semi
detached dwellings) would be erected adjacent to the existing cottages.
The proposed two storey dwelling would have an L-shaped form and would be
physically attached to the existing cottages by a single storey bicycle store. The
dwellings would share the existing vehicular access but would have separate and
defined parking areas.
The application has been amended by increasing the width of gates and altering the
positioning of openings within the courtyard area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning history
of the site and the complexity of the policy issues involved.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment received: no objection however feel that the established trees
on the northern boundary of the site and those along the highway need to be retained
or replanted.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) As you will be aware, the previous proposal to demolish the existing cottages
produced a finely balanced C&D recommendation of approval. Understandably,
however, that application was refused following local concerns leading to this
resubmission. Now, with the retention of the existing building, it is automatically much
easier to support the principle of the revised scheme. As we suspected all along,
there is nothing preventing its reuse (and addition in this case).
Development Committee
10
18 August 2011
In terms of the scheme submitted, C&D concur that the chosen option is by far the
best solution of those outlined in the D&A Statement. Not only would it retain the
essential form of the existing building, but it would also begin to create the potentially
attractive dialogue between the two buildings which was one of the main benefits of
the earlier scheme. With the subservient cycle store guaranteeing some visual
separation between the two units, the overall form of the development is considered
to be acceptable. Certainly, it will be in keeping with some of the close-knit
relationships seen elsewhere locally.
Design-wise, the new unit obviously treads safe vernacular ground and largely
mimics Brookside. In this case, however, that decision seems appropriate given the
proposed symbiotic relationship between existing and proposed. With the elevational
detailing also giving rise to no particular design concerns, Conservation & Design are
able to support this scheme. With the new boundary walls providing good enclosure
and an attractive frontage, we can be more confident that these proposals would
enhance the character & appearance of this part of Kelling’s Conservation Area.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - no objection subject to
conditions.
Sustainability Officer - Subject to compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes
the proposal is acceptable.
County Council Highways - no objection to the amended plans which amended the
width of gates and positioning of openings within the courtyard area.
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager - This site is located within the
Countryside policy area and is within a Conservation Area. A number of Core
Strategy policies are applicable to the determination of the application, principal
amongst which are Policy SS2 which deals with development proposals in the
Countryside, and Policy HO8 which deals with replacement and extension of
dwellings.
It is important when considering the applicable policies to look firstly at the specific
wording of the policies and also to understand the underlying objectives. These
objectives are outlined in the supporting text which precedes each policy. In this
case the policies aim variously to achieve:
Sustainable patterns of development - by limiting the opportunities for new residential
development in those parts of the District with comparatively poor services.
To control the physical impacts of new development in the Countryside - again by
limiting the opportunities for new build housing and controlling the size of
replacement dwellings and house extensions, and
Retaining a stock of comparatively affordable accommodation in the rural parts of the
District.
Other policies aim to ensure sustainable construction, highway safety and the
protection or enhancement of the historic environment including Conservation Areas.
It is difficult to reconcile approval of this application with any of the above policy
objectives. In effect, the proposal results in a new dwelling in the Countryside, the
clear intention of Policies SS2 and HO8 is to allow for replacement of dwellings, not
the building of new dwellings when the original remains in place (albeit as part of
another property). Taking the latter approach would presumably mean that any
Development Committee
11
18 August 2011
residential property in the District could benefit from another dwelling within its
grounds provided the use of the original is ceased. I am aware that this principle has
been allowed in relation to residential barn conversions where the use of an existing
dwelling has been 'traded' in exchange for residential consent on a nearby barn. In
such cases both buildings exist so there is no new building in the Countryside. The
usual practice in granting permission for replacement dwellings is to require
demolition of the original. If the existing dwelling is not demolished it is not clear to
me how the objective of controlling the physical impacts of development on the
Countryside are achieved. Finally, the proposal results in two dwellings on the site,
both of which are larger than the originals, and no doubt more expensive, and
consequently the proposal would not contribute to the retention of comparatively
cheaper housing which is envisaged in Policy HO8.
If the application is to be approved there should be clear reasons for departing from
policy. I note that significant weight has been attached to the desirability of retaining
the existing cottages and the improvements to the site access and boundary
treatments. I think it is also the view of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager that the arrangement of buildings on the site, including the new dwelling, is
not merely neutral in terms of impact but represents an enhancement to the
Conservation Area. It does not, however, seem that retention of the existing cottages
is considered essential given that the original proposals to demolish were supported,
at least by Officers.
Even if it were felt essential that the cottages should be retained, the only alternative
which appears to have been considered is the agent's assessment that they would
require substantial additions to make them habitable and that such additions would
be unacceptable. This assertion does not appear to have been tested. It is my
understanding that the cottages were occupied until comparatively recently. No
consideration seems to have been given to the possibility of converting the two into
one without building a new dwelling. This would at least go part way towards
meeting the policy requirements.
Overall, I consider that this proposal is clearly contrary to policy and unless I have
missed something I do not consider that any significant justification has been put
forward to justify this departure.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
12
18 August 2011
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Impact on the Undeveloped Coast
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
4. Landscape impact including AONB
5. Biodiversity
6. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Planning permission and Conservation Area consent applications were refused by
the Development Control Committee in March this year in respect of a scheme which
sought to demolish the pair of existing cottages and replace them with two semidetached dwellings. The Committee had concerns over the need to demolish the
existing cottages and the detrimental impact this would have on the character and
appearance of the designated Conservation Area. Other issues included the design
and scale of the proposed replacement dwellings.
The applicant has explored ways of extending the pair of semi-detached dwellings
without the need for demolition and the approach adopted involves converting the
existing pair of semi detached dwellings into one and the creation of a new dwelling
in lieu of the lost dwelling unit.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area, as defined by the adopted
Core Strategy, where the principle of replacement dwellings is acceptable. However,
in this case, the application seeks to erect a new dwelling as the form of the original
pair of dwellings (all be it now proposed to be converted into one dwelling) still
remains and there is no demolition. In the designated Countryside policy area, there
is a presumption against new dwellings in the countryside.
There would be no net increase in the number of units on the site. Whilst the
scheme would technically result in a new dwelling in the countryside, the current
situation on the site would remain unchanged (there would still be two dwellings
accommodated on the site), and it is on this basis that the agent has put forward the
scheme as policy compliant.
Development Committee
13
18 August 2011
However, in effect, the proposal would result in a new dwelling in the Countryside.
The clear intention of Policies SS2 and HO8 is to allow for replacement of dwellings
but not the building of new dwellings when the original remains in place (albeit as
part of another property). There is the expectation of a replacement scheme that the
original would be demolished and this is not the case in this proposed scheme. There
are particular concerns over the precedent that could be set for the potential
combining of pairs of dwellings in the Countryside policy area and the erection of an
additional dwelling within their curtilage. If the application is to be approved there
should therefore be clear and unique reasons for departing from this key policy.
The site is also located within the Undeveloped Coast where 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 for a new
dwelling is also therefore in conflict with this policy although there could be a
conservation argument in favour approval, which if sufficiently justified could warrant
a departure from this policy, too.
A balance needs to be struck between compliance with policies and the weight given
to any material considerations for departing from the policies. Enhancements of the
Conservation Area could be such a material consideration if fully justified. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has confirmed that the proposed
dwelling, the retention of the existing dwelling and the improvements to the site
access and boundary treatments would not merely be neutral in terms of impact but
would represent an enhancement to the Conservation Area.
However, if it is considered that the retention of the cottages is essential, these
enhancements to the Conservation Area, as considered above, could be achieved by
the sensitive extension of the dwellings along with improvements to the site access
and boundary treatments. The agent has indicated that extending the dwellings has
been considered but the dwellings would require substantial alterations to make them
habitable and that such additions would be unacceptable. This assertion has not
been fully tested or justified. Given the policy concerns the agent has been asked to
demonstrate full justification for the departure from policy in this case, based on the
conservation issues at stake. Any further submissions in this respect will be reported
orally to the Committee.
If the principle of the development were considered acceptable following
consideration of the additional information requested, the scheme would need to
comply with policy HO8 in respect of the scale of the proposed building. The
proposed height of the new replacement dwelling would match that of the existing
dwellings, whilst clearly the combined footprint of the converted existing dwelling and
proposed dwelling would be greater than that of the existing pair of cottages
(combined approx floor space of existing and proposed 330sq.m compared to that of
the existing of 176sq.m floorspace). This would amount to an increase in floor space
of 154 sq.m which is approximately an 87% increase in floor space.
The choice of material with flint, red brick and re-used pantiles would help to plant the
building within its landscape setting and reduce its visual impact in the wider
landscape. As such it is not considered that the proposal would result in a material
increase in impact on the surrounding countryside, with the dwellings only being seen
from close proximity, in terms of the wider landscape. It is therefore considered that
the proposal would not harm the special qualities of the AONB.
Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 require that proposals for development should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the
Development Committee
14
18 August 2011
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant
settlement character studies. Development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the character and appearance of area, in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 requires that all development will be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness, whilst innovative and
energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have
regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of
an area, in this case the Conservation Area, will not be acceptable.
With regard to the impact on the Conservation Area, not only would the scheme
retain the essential form of the existing building, but it would also begin to create a
potentially attractive "dialogue" between the two buildings. With the subservient cycle
store guaranteeing some visual separation between the two units, the overall form of
the development is considered to be acceptable and would be in keeping with some
of the close-knit relationships seen elsewhere locally.
The replacement dwelling proposed would be sited parallel to the highway, would
have a hipped roof and be constructed of flint, red brick and clay pantiles. This would
broadly match the scale, appearance and materials to that of the existing pair of
semi-detached dwellings on the site. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has confirmed that this is appropriate given the proposed symbiotic
relationship between existing and proposed. Furthermore with the elevational
detailing also giving rise to no particular design concerns and with the new boundary
walls providing good enclosure and an attractive frontage, Conservation & Design
have no objection to the proposal, considering that the proposal would enhance the
character & appearance of this part of Kelling’s Conservation Area.
With regard to biodiversity, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
advised that no trees of any amenity value are proposed to be removed and
protected species should not be affected. Therefore, subject to conditions requiring
updated tree protection plans, methodology statements, replacement tree plan and
updated biodiversity survey, to ensure protection of the trees to be retained on the
site and replacement of those to be removed, and implementation of the mitigation
measures outlined in the species report submitted, the proposal would have no
adverse impact on biodiversity.
In respect of the relationship with neighbouring properties, due to the separation
distance there would be no amenity issues either in terms of overlooking or loss of
light.
The existing vehicular access would be utilised as a shared access for both dwellings
and on site parking and turning areas would be provided. In terms of highway safety,
the Highway Authority has advised no objection to the proposed replacement
dwelling based on the amended plan and subject to conditions. Furthermore
sufficient on-site parking and turning provision is proposed in accordance with the
Council's parking standards.
As it stands the proposal would conflict with Policies SS2, EN3 and HO8 of the
adopted Core Strategy and this is a matter of concern. However, consideration
should be given by the Committee to any additional information received from the
agent in seeking to justify a departure from policy in this instance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Development Committee
15
18 August 2011
The Committee will be updated orally at Committee in light of the agent's
response for additional information.
6.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0812 - Erection of two-storey
extension; The Glebe, Church Lane for Mr & Mrs Markham
- Target Date: 23 August 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Historic Park and Gardens Ungraded
County Wildlife Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031070 - Demolition of outbuilding and construction of bedrooms extension
and conversion and extension of garage to form car port and workshop
Approved 28/07/2003
PF/10/1428 - Erection of two-storey extension
Refused 14/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey extension in the middle and at right angles to the
existing property. It would be of a contemporary light weight design and would be
constructed from render and horizontal boards, it would have large areas of glazing
and would have a pantile roof.
The extension would have a height to ridge of 7m and height to eaves of 4.7m.
It would have a gable width of 6m and would project to the front of the house by 2m
and to the rear of the house by 3.8m.
A hedge would be planted along the southern boundary of the site to a height of 3m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control as this application is not
substantially different from a previous scheme considered by the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. The scheme has no significant changes from one previously refused.
2. Adverse impact on the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
3. Adverse impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings.
4. Height and scale not in keeping with dwelling or area.
5. Impact on neighbouring amenity.
6. Large area of glazing would be more visible at night, causing light pollution.
Development Committee
16
18 August 2011
7. Would affect views across the Glaven Valley.
8. The proposed hedge whilst desirable would take many years to establish and
therefore to provide the level of screening suggested.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) Although obviously mindful of the earlier decision by Committee, Conservation &
Design comments are unchanged from PF/10/1428. Hence, there are still no
objections to the proposed new build.
The existing building, by virtue of its lack of height and rather bland materials, is a
somewhat sprawling affair which lacks any real visual interest or design quality. It is
also a building which occupies an important position within the Letheringsett
Conservation Area overlooking the River Glaven and the meadows beyond. There
can therefore be no objections to any scheme which seeks to enliven the property in
a way which is compatible with its sensitive surroundings.
In terms of the scheme submitted, it most notably seeks to introduce a two storey
element in the middle of the existing property. This would not only provide a more
varied and interesting roofscape, but it would also create a much needed focal point
within the centre of the building to take attention away from the single-storey flanking
wings. The suggestion of a more contemporary approach in ‘lighter’ materials should
also take some of the bulk out of the existing bungalow which currently has a rather
weighty appearance.
Elsewhere, the loss of the existing conservatory, and the introduction of the glazed
lantern and the covered way are also to be generally welcomed. Subject to the finer
points of detailing, the new build elements should enhance the existing property and
thus the significance of the wider designated conservation area. On this basis,
Conservation & Design do not wish to object to this application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement character
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
17
18 August 2011
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design and scale of development.
3. Impact on Conservation Area and AONB.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
This application is an amended version of an earlier scheme which was refused by
the Development Committee for the following reasons:
"In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed extension by virtue of its
design and height would be incongruous in this location and would fail to enhance
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. Furthermore it would fail to preserve the character of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy
policies EN1, EN2 and EN8 and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient material
considerations to outweigh the identified policy conflicts."
The applicants have amended the proposal by reducing the amount of the proposed
glazing at first floor level on the front elevation of the extension by proposing
boarding to either side of the first floor picture window. In addition the planting of a
hedge along the southern boundary is proposed which is intended to help screen the
proposal to the neighbouring property and from views to the south at its overall
intended height of 3m.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where extensions to dwellings
are considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies. In this case the site also lies within the designated Conservation Area
and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Adopted Core Strategy policies HO8, EN1,
EN2, EN4 and EN8 are applicable.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside. In this case, whilst the extension would
result in an increase in the height of part of the dwelling, the site is not highly visible
from the wider area to the east, west or north as it sits in a natural 'dip' in the land
and the increase in height is not considered significant, or disproportionate; nor
would the proposal materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the wider
countryside. In terms of increase in scale, it is not considered that this would be
disproportionate to the original dwelling; nor would it result in any material impact on
the appearance of the wider countryside.
Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development is designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Furthermore development proposals, including alterations
and extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
designated asset, in this case the Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 states
that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers.
Development Committee
18
18 August 2011
In design terms, clearly the two storey extension on this single storey property would
make a statement, sitting at a height of approx 2.3m above the ridge of the existing
dwelling. It is considered that this would provide a more varied and interesting
roofscape, and would also create a focal point within the centre of the building. The
suggestion of a more contemporary approach in ‘lighter’ materials should also take
some of the bulk out of the existing bungalow which currently has a rather weighty
appearance. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advises that given
an appropriate design solution, the proposal should enhance the existing property
and thus the significance, in terms of character and appearance, of the wider
designated Conservation Area and therefore raises no objection.
In respect of the impact on neighbouring amenity, the proposal would be sited some
40m from the nearest dwelling (Glebe Room to the south) and would accord with the
basic amenity criteria of the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of window to
window distances. The addition of the proposed planting along the southern
boundary would also, in time, help to screen the extension from the neighbouring
property. It is not therefore considered that the proposal for the two storey extension
would result in any significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of
nearby occupiers.
Policy EN2 advises that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the setting and
views from the Conservation Area. In this instance given that the proposal seeks an
extension of an existing dwelling; that it is considered that the increase in height is
not disproportionate; that the site is not highly visible to the wider landscape given
the topography of the site and area and that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has no objection to the proposal in terms of impact on the
Conservation Area, it considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on
the special qualities or local distinctiveness of the area.
Concern has been raised by local residents regarding potential light pollution given
the extent of glazing at the proposed first floor level. It is considered, given the
setting of the dwelling in a natural 'dip' in the landscape and with established
residential properties to the south and east of the site, that views into and out of the
site would not be far reaching into the wider landscape and as such it is not
considered that the proposed glazing would have any significantly adverse impact on
the surrounding area. In addition, the area of glazing at first floor level on the front
southern elevation has been reduced by approximately 50% and the potential for
light pollution has therefore been reduced.
Policy EN1, seeks to ensure that development proposals protect the special qualities
of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In terms of the impact on the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, given that the proposal is an extension to an established
dwelling and that the site is not highly visible to the surrounding area, subject to the
use of appropriate external materials, it is considered that the proposed development
would not adversely impact on the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
In summary, therefore, although obviously mindful of the earlier decision by
Committee, and notwithstanding that the application has not addressed the
Committee's reasons for refusal, Officers consider the proposal to comply with the
Development Plan.
Development Committee
19
18 August 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of conditions including those requiring the
clay pantiles in roofing the extension to match the colour and profile of the
tiles on the remainder of the building, the submission of a full schedule of
colour finishes for the joinery and render to be submitted, and the flue to have
a matt black or dark grey finish.
7.
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/0047 - Removal of condition 4 of planning ref:
01/1604 to allow full residential occupancy; Meadow House, Craymere Beck for
Mr Daniels
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 March 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PAL/20011604 PO - Erection of dwelling for supervision of agricultural and game
rearing enterprise - Approved 17/05/2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to lift an occupancy restriction imposed in respect of outline planning
permission 20011604 which restricted the occupation of the proposed dwelling to a
person solely or mainly, or last working, in the locality in agriculture and/ or game
rearing or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependant. As
part of the application the applicants have provided justification/marketing materials
which seek to demonstrate that they have been unable to sell the property with the
restriction in place.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the planning history of
the case.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection subject to conditions
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection which raises concerns that the dwelling has not been occupied
in accordance with occupancy restrictions.
CONSULTATIONS
Briston Parish Council - comments awaited.
Estates and Valuation – Considers that a market price of £550,000 is reasonable
(subject to the occupancy restriction clause).
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
20
18 August 2011
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 6: Removal of agricultural, forestry and essential worker occupancy
conditions (specifies the criteria that must be met for the removal of agricultural,
forestry and essential worker occupancy conditions).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Compliance with the occupancy condition.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy where Policies SS2, HO5 and HO6 are applicable. Policy SS2 states that
development in the Countryside will be limited to that which requires a rural location
and includes such uses as agriculture and forestry, Policy HO5 states that proposals
for development in the Countryside to meet the housing needs of full-time workers in
agriculture, forestry and other essential workers connected with that land will be
permitted only where they comply with a number of criteria, which include that it can
be demonstrated that there is an essential need for one or more full time workers to
be readily available at most times for the enterprise to function properly; and the
functional need could not be met by another existing dwelling on the site of the
enterprise or in the immediate vicinity; and the enterprise has been established for at
least three years and is, and should remain, financially viable. Policy HO6 which
relates to the removal of occupancy conditions states that proposals for the removal
of an agricultural or forestry worker's or essential worker's occupancy conditions will
only be permitted if the applicant has demonstrated that the dwelling has been
occupied in accordance with the occupancy condition for a minimum of 12 years, and
there is no long-term need for the dwelling on the particular holding / business on
which the dwelling is situated, nor in the surrounding area, and the dwelling has been
made available to one or more Registered Social Landlords operating locally on
terms which would allow it to be occupied as an affordable dwelling and that option
has been rejected.
As part of the supporting documentation the applicant has indicated that at the time
permission was granted he was a full time partner in the game-rearing business
which was family-run concern, which employed four full time seasonal workers. Since
then the business has seen a 30% decline in trade and as such is unable to support
him in the business. He also points to the fact that the Game Farm has no financial or
legal interest in the property and that there is insufficient land for the dwelling to
facilitate any form of independent farming income. Furthermore there are no staff
now employed by the farm.
Development Committee
21
18 August 2011
Also submitted as part of the application is evidence of a marketing exercise which
demonstrates that the dwelling has been offered for sale since January 2010 with the
occupancy restriction, with adverts being placed both in the national and local press,
plus specialist magazines, at a guide price of £550,000. This figure has been
independently verified by the Estates and Valuation Section of the Council as being
reasonable. Whilst there has been interest to date the applicant has been unable to
sell the property with the restriction in place.
From the information provided it is considered that the applicant has been able to
demonstrate that the property has been actively marketed for over a year with the
restriction in place, and has confirmed that there is no longer term need for the
dwelling on the holding. Furthermore as required by Policy HO6 he has been in
contact with a number of Registered Social Landlords who have confirmed that there
is no interest in purchasing one off properties from the open market. As such it is
considered that the applicant has complied with two elements of Policy HO6.
However the fact remains that as outline permission was only granted for the
dwelling in 2001 and the reserved matters were not approved until 19 October 2002
the applicant cannot comply with the requirement that the dwelling should be
occupied in accordance with the occupancy condition for a minimum of 12 years.
Furthermore from the information provided it is unclear that the applicant has been
solely or mainly working in the game-rearing business since the completion of the
dwelling, particular as he states that with the decline in the business it has no means
of supporting or involving him.
It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate not only that he
has been solely or mainly employed in the game-rearing business since 2001, but
that he cannot comply with the requirements of Policy HO6 as the dwelling was only
erected within the last 9 years.
If Members are minded to refuse the application than a report outlining possible
Enforcement action will be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the proposed removal of the occupancy condition
fails to comply with Development Plan policy due to the fact that the dwelling
has not been occupied in a accordance with the occupancy condition imposed
on planning permission 20011604 for a minimum period of 12 years.
8.
MORSTON - PF/11/0583 - Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of
replacement ancillary accommodation; Scaldbeck House, Stiffkey Road for Mr
J Keith
- Target Date: 04 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Flood Risk Zone 3
Development Committee
22
18 August 2011
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of outbuilding and erection of replacement ancillary accommodation to
form walled enclosure at rear of property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
Light pollution in the AONB and suitability of design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on grounds that proposal does not comply with the Village Design Statement
in respect of flat roofs.
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the AONB
2. Design
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated Countryside, AONB and Undeveloped Coast
policy areas. Proposals of this type are acceptable in principle subject to compliance
with relevant Core Strategy policies and provided that they would not introduce any
adverse effect on the AONB nor be significantly detrimental to the open coastal
character of the Undeveloped Coast. The site also lies with Flood Zone 3 and a flood
risk assessment as required has been submitted detailing proposed flood proofing
measures.
Development Committee
23
18 August 2011
The site comprises a secluded two storey detached flint and brick dwelling with semiderelict outbuilding adjoining by courtyard walls. The dwelling is set well back from
the coast road and land adjacent to the site is mainly agricultural fields. There is a
sea view to the north partially screened by boundary trees. The northern elevation of
the dwelling has an interesting multi-gabled appearance. The outbuilding and
connecting brick and flint side walls create a narrow courtyard. The outbuilding is
timber framed, clad mainly with corrugated tin sheeting with pitched clay pantile roof.
This is not considered to have any architectural merit worthy of
preserving/converting.
An objection has been received from the Parish Council on the grounds that the
design ignores the Village Design Statement 2006 by introducing a 'flat roof'. The
Morston Village Design Statement does not specifically refer to 'flat roof' proposals,
but it makes reference to the requirement to 'encourage quality design in accordance
with the North Norfolk Design Guide'. The current north Norfolk Design Guide
adopted in 2008 refers to flat roof forms at paragraph 3.6.2 where it is stated that flat
roof forms are not normally acceptable.
The proposal seeks to replace the outbuilding with a building for ancillary
accommodation. It is proposed to extend the existing courtyard walls to the rear from
7m in length to approx 16.8m. The existing outbuilding is approx. 4m deep.
Increasing the length of east and west flanking flint walls would allow for the
proposed building to sit comfortably behind the walls and be positioned approx. 9.8
from the house. This would have the effect of creating a walled garden with improved
usable space from the existing, somewhat claustrophobic, courtyard. The side walls
would be approximately 3.5m high and the proposed building is 3m high with a flat
roof. A roof terrace is proposed in the central section of the building with access via
steps from the courtyard. Brushed metal posts and toughened glass are proposed for
enclosing the roof terrace at a height of 1m; approx 0.5m of the enclosure would be
visible above the flanking walls and building. The materials proposed would minimise
the visual impact of this element, it being the only indication of a building sitting
behind the side walls.
Northern and southern elevations are proposed to be vertically clad timber boarding
which would appear quite similar to the existing corrugated sheeting. Centrally on
both the southern and northern elevations floor to ceiling glazed doors are proposed,
approx. 5.5m wide, to allow a coastal view from the main dwelling. This glazing and
two further windows to both the northern and southern elevations and the
incorporation of rooflights would provide good natural lighting to the development.
From outside the site the flat roof structure would be read against the backdrop of the
main house, revealing more of the character of the interesting multi gabled north
elevation and not as a stand-alone flat roof structure. Because of this it is considered
that the flat roof design is appropriate in this instance and is an integral design
feature which would minimise the visual impact of the proposed building and provide
additional amenity space.
The north of the site looks out towards the coastal path and is partially screened by
boundary trees. It is considered that the proposed glazing may result in the proposed
building being visible from some sections of the coastal path at night, but this is
against the backdrop of the existing dwelling which has 6 large windows and 6 small
openings at first floor level in the northern elevation. It is therefore considered that
the proposal would not result in any significant detrimental impact on the AONB or
surrounding countryside.
Development Committee
24
18 August 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number D4.5-059-PRO) received by the Local Planning Authority on 27 June
2011.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and details provided on the
amended plan hereby approved (drawing number D4.5-059-PRO) received by
the Local Planning Authority on 27 June 2011.
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 10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes
which are incidental to the use of the property as a dwellinghouse and shall not
be used as a separate dwellinghouse.
Reason:
The close relationship of the proposed accommodation and the existing dwelling
is such that two separate dwelling units would not be appropriate in terms of
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and the site lies in an
area of Countryside as defined in the North Norfolk Core Strategy whereby
proposals for new independent dwellinghouses are not normally permitted.
9.
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0713 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling and
increase in fence height along northern boundary; The Low House, Campion
Way for Mr & Mrs Mash
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070068 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Approved 05/03/2007
PLA/20071947 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Approved 08/02/2008
PLA/20081678 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 06/02/2009
Development Committee
25
18 August 2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of a single storey dwelling as constructed. Whilst the dwelling is
largely complete and occupied, thee are items to finish on the site, principally the
vehicular access to the site. The application also includes a proposal to install a
fence of increased height along the northern boundary of the site. The fence
proposed would add an additional 0.45m on top of the existing 1.8m fence and so
would sit at 1.8m above the finished floor level of the erected dwelling and approx
2.25m above the ground level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection to the height of the fence to reach the top of the ground floor windows of
the Low House.
REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing the report, 23 letters of objection have been received on the
following grounds:
1. The applicant has not complied with the conditions of the original permission in
terms of provision of access on to the highway and details of the garage doors.
These should be enforced if this application is approved.
2. There is no kerb drop or properly constructed driveway.
3. The dwelling is out of keeping with the area and an eyesore.
4. The dwelling is oversized for the plot.
5. Due to the slope of the land there is a large cavity half way along the property
which is ideal for harbouring vermin. This should be filled in.
6. How will the fence be increased in height without infringing on the neighbouring
property?
7. Concern if there is a fire to the rear that there is only access from the front.
8. Suggest Councillor's visit the site to assess the visual impact for themselves.
9. Access for the maintenance of large sections of the building and dividing fence
would appear impossible.
10. When the original permission was granted a traditional brick built dwelling was
expected.
11. Close proximity to neighbouring property.
12. Overlooking of property to the north.
13. Property to the north is floodlit by all of the windows in the evening.
14. Failures by NNDC in monitoring the development and compliance with
conditions.
15. Visibility splay and parking conditions not complied with.
16. Solar panels would increase the height of the building.
One letter of support has been received on the following grounds:
The design is low energy and imaginative and the building is extremely well
constructed.
The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the application and this is
attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
26
18 August 2011
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the increased height of the building would harm the visual amenity of the
area.
2. Whether the increased height of the building and fence would result in a
significantly detrimental loss of light and overlooking of the dwelling to the north and
whether the proposed fence of increased height would reduce these potential
impacts.
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site following the recent site visit.
Permission was granted for a single storey dwelling on the site in February 2009
(application reference 2008/1678). The approved dwelling is of a contemporary flatroofed design with a mix of dark ply membrane roof to the atrium and sedum roof to
the main sections of the building and has a white render finish and timber windows.
It has an unconventional layout with the outdoor amenity area in courtyards in the
middle of the site rather than at the rear.
The current application relates to the increased height of the building as constructed
at one end of the site (max height 4.5m) compared to the approved height (max
height 4.1m)
The site is slightly sloping, decreasing in height from south to north and also from the
back to the front of the site. As a result of the sloping site, the approved building has
been erected on a plinth of varying heights to provide a level base for the building.
This plinth is approximately 0.4m - 0.45m deep on the north-eastern corner of the
building at its greatest depth and reduces in depth towards the southern end of the
building to nothing and towards the rear of the building (west). The plinth is of a
timber construction.
As a result, the finished floor level of the accommodation internally and the height of
the building is approx 0.4m higher than that approved. The roof of the main section
of the main building is as constructed, 3.3m high for the main section of the dwelling
and 4.5m high for the atrium section of the building.
Neither the principle of the dwelling, nor its general appearance, design, scale or
materials are for consideration in the determination of this application. These matters
have already been considered under the original planning permission.
Development Committee
27
18 August 2011
As the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plan in terms of
its height, the key issue at stake is whether the dwelling as constructed at the
increased height is acceptable. The application also includes a proposal to install a
fence of increased height along the northern boundary of the site. The fence
proposed would add an additional 0.45m on top of the existing 1.8m fence and so
would sit at 1.8m above the finished floor level of the erected dwelling and 2.25m
above the ground level. Whether the increased fence height is acceptable is also for
consideration.
In terms of its visual impact, although the design approach differs from the existing
traditional built dwellings, in terms of its scale, massing and general design it was not
considered that the building would adversely affect the appearance and character of
the area. Accordingly permission for the dwelling was granted. This application for
the revised design incorporates an increased height of the building by virtue of the
addition of a plinth. Whilst the increased height of the building makes it appear
slightly more prominent in the street scene, it is not considered that the additional
height results in any significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area or
the appearance of the street scene.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the addition of the plinth to the building has
resulted in the finished floor level of the accommodation internally sitting at approx
0.4m above the ground level of the neighbouring property to the north. Officers have
visited the new dwelling and the existing boundary fence at 1.8m above ground level
and the close proximity of the windows to the fence already ensures that the
occupants of the partially constructed dwelling cannot see into the windows or
garden of that dwelling to the north. However it is appreciated that there is a
perception of being overlooked with the large amount of glazing visible above the
existing height of the fence. The application proposes to increase the height of the
fence along the northern boundary by 0.45m so that it is 1.8m above the finished
floor level of the approved dwelling. It is considered that this would help lessen the
perception of being overlooked from the occupants of the dwelling to the north. The
proposed increase in the height of the fence is therefore considered acceptable and
to overcome concerns of overlooking of the residential property to the north.
As a result of the increased height of the fence, given that this fence would sit at a
lower height than the dwelling to be retained, it is not considered that the additional
section of fence would result in any adverse loss of light or overshadowing to the
occupiers of the dwelling to the north. In the light of the above the development is
considered acceptable under Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Previous permission 08/1678 was conditional upon details of the garage door being
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement
of development.
Whilst these details were never submitted prior to the
commencement of the building, this revised application has confirmed that the doors
installed are white sectional insulated overhead doors operated by remote control.
County Highways have confirmed no objection to the doors as they would not affect
the ability of the occupants to pull safely off the road on to the drive.
Permission 08/1678 was also conditional upon construction of the vehicular access
from the highway and the provision of a visibility splay prior to the first occupation of
the development. The vehicular access from the highway has not to date been
constructed. The applicants have confirmed they are now in contact with the
Highway Authority for this to be completed. Conditions relating to the construction of
the access from the highway and other highways conditions relating to visibility
splays imposed on the original permission would need to be re-imposed.
Development Committee
28
18 August 2011
The dwelling as erected at its increased height and the proposal of a higher fence to
screen the development from the dwelling to the north are considered acceptable
and to accord with the Development Plan, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions, including the erection of a
fence to 1.8m above internal finished floor level of the dwelling in accordance
with the submitted plans and details and the re-imposition of highways
conditions relating to the construction of an access from the highway and
provision of visibility splays.
10.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the applications are
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HOVETON - PF/11/0762 - Erection of 120 dwellings, new vehicular access and
creation of public open space; land off Stalham Road for Persimmon Homes
(Anglia) Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given that it is
major development on an LDF allocation site.
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 - Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway Triangle
Site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given that it is
major development on an LDF allocation site, previously visited by the former
Committee.
RUNTON - PF/11/0770 - Siting of portable building for use as coastal
surveillance station; land at Car Park, Beach Road, East Runton for National
Coastwatch Institution
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Member having regard to the following planning issues:
Scale of development and loss of car parking spaces.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Committee
29
18 August 2011
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - LA/11/0466 - Removal of 2 dormer windows and installation of
roof lights; Thurgarton Lodge, School Road, Thurgarton for Gilkes
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/11/0048 - Conversion of barns to seven units of holiday
accommodation (extension of period for commencement of planning ref:
07/1499); Pitt Farm, The Street for A V Youngs (Farms) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - NMA1/11/0205 - Non-material amendment request for the
installation of solar panels; Green Acre, Water Lane, East Barsham for Mr & Mrs
Wharton
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BINHAM - PF/11/0673 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 9 Buttlands
Close for Mr M Ulph
(Householder application)
BINHAM - LA/11/0674 - Alterations to facilitate erection of side extension; 9
Buttlands Close for Mr M Ulph
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0449 - Installation of photovoltaic ground array and battery
storage shed; Lifeboat House, Blakeney Point for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0569 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and
conservatory; 93 & 93a High Street for Mr & Mrs D Burlison
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0570 - Demolition of single-storey rear extension, erection of
two-storey rear extension and conservatory and internal and external
alterations to facilitate conversion of two dwellings to one dwelling; 93 & 93a
High Street for Mr & Mrs D Burlison
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/11/0634 - Erection of 1.8m high boundary fence and gates;
Breydon, 4 Fakenham Road, Briston, Melton Constable for Mr and Mrs Curtis
(Householder application)
BRISTON - LA/11/0655 - Erection of boundary wall and gates (retrospective); Old
Nursery Farm, Fakenham Road for Mr G Hewson
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/11/0686 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and conservatory;
9 Edgefield Road, Briston, Melton Constable for Mr R Storey
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0474 - Retention of 3.3m high boundary
fence; Ivy Farm, Irmingland Road for Mr A Barnett
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
30
18 August 2011
CROMER - PF/10/1455 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent to 10
Cliff Drive for Mr & Mrs Field
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0435 - Erection of replacement single-storey extension; Flat 1,
2 Norwich Road for Mr R Coleman
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0480 - Variation of Condition 2 of 10/0596 to permit installation
of ground floor side window; 89 Connaught Road for Mr & Mrs Gee
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0593 - Erection of two-storey front extension and balcony,
single-storey side extension and first floor extension to garage forming annexe
accommodation; 1 Clifton Park for Mr & Mrs Hollis
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0647 - Variation of condition 2 of permission reference:
10/1312 to permit installation of French doors and change of wall finish from
timber to brick; Ilex Cottage, 39 Cliff Drive for Mr & Mrs C Mayes
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0707 - Conversion of unused building to amusement centre,
installation of new and replacement shop fronts and erection of boundary
wall/railings; 29 New Street for Triangle Amusements Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0541 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey side extension; 1
Mervyn King Close for Mr J Page
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0581 - Demolition of timber garage and store and erection of
detached replacement garage; 12 Gladstone Road for Mr R Heppell
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0688 - Installation of solar photovoltaic panels; Kings And
Barnhams, 3 George Edwards Road for Kings & Barnhams
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0696 - Erection of two B2/B8 (general industrial/storage)
units; Clipbush Park, Clipbush Lane for Steel Build Masters
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0702 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings; 85 Holt
Road for Mr M Azuki
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - LA/11/0531 - Internal alterations to form new apertures; The
Retreat, Felbrigg Park for National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/11/0557 - Erection
Workshops, The Street, Barney for Mr Bales
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
of
workshop/store;
Longfield
18 August 2011
FULMODESTON - PF/11/0731 - Erection of single-storey extension and raising of
height of courtyard wall; Primrose House, The Street, Barney for Mr Armstrong
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/0777 - Demolition of single-storey extension, erection of
two-storey extension incorporating annexe accommodation; Fen Farm House,
Sandy Lane, Trimingham for Mr E Harrison
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/11/0620 - Installation of satellite dish to rear of dwelling;
Dildash House, The Street for Mrs A Cooper
(Listed Building Alterations)
GREAT SNORING - PF/11/0729 - Installation of solar panels on garage roof;
Dildash House, The Street for Mrs A Cooper
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/0026 - Erection of treatment rooms and kennels; Brambley
Hedge, Stubb Road for Mrs J Semmance
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/11/0701 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
10/0696 to permit erection of additional plant room, increased footprint of
changing rooms, change of roof profiles and installation of additional roof
lights; Land at Ouse Lane for Hickling Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/0563 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Pine
Cottage, 32 Pineheath Road for Mr Holloway
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0106 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide one
unit of holiday accommodation; County Farm, Walsingham Road for Messrs D &
L Chaplin
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - NMA1/08/0959 - Non-material amendment request for revisions
to boundary treatments, revised footpaths to plots 3, 4 & 5 and erection of
900mm high front gates to plots 1-5; 1 - 8 Bowling Green Lane for Flagship
Housing Group Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/11/0643 - Erection/retention of partially constructed porch.; 9 Charles
Road for Mrs G Linford
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/11/0646 - Alterations and erection of single-storey rear extension.; 27
Bull Street for Hayes & Storr Solicitors
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/11/0722 - Removal of cement render and installation of lime render,
restoration of front sash windows and installation of stud wall in attic
(retrospective); Greenways, 1 Bull Street for Greenways Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
32
18 August 2011
HOLT - PF/11/0743 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement dwelling;
Poplars Pig Farm, Thornage Road for Mr Picken
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LE/11/0744 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling; Poplars Pig Farm,
Thornage Road for Mr Picken
(Conservation Area Demolition)
HOVETON - PF/11/0244 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and attached
garage; Cotswold, 3 Brimbelow Road for Mr Byford
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/0728 - Erection of two storey extension; Grange Farm, Long
Lane for Mr N Deane
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/0740 - Installation of shopfronts and side windows and
erection of canopy; Eric Bates & Sons, Horning Road West for Eric Bates
Antiques
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/11/0666 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Inn House,
The Street for Mr & Mrs Livingston
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/11/0348 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 10 Hollow Lane
for Mr M Rhodes
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/11/0732 - Erection of four semi-detached dwellings and
garages (extension of period for commencement of permission reference:
08/0951); Brambles, Thursford Road for R E R Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0345 - Variation of Conditions 2, 5 and 8 of permission
reference: 05/0782 to permit full residential occupancy and changes to
boundaries, boundary treatment and parking arrangements; The Old Stables,
Beeches Farm, Horse Fen Road for Miss A Clawson
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0498 - Variation of Conditions 2, 5 and 8 of permission
reference; 05/0782 to permit permanent residential occupancy and changes to
boundaries, boundary treatment and parking arrangements; Blacksmiths Barn,
Beeches Farm, Horse Fen Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QG for Mrs E
Cowan
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0534 - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference:
97/0999 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Reed Cottage, 8 Pastures
Green, Fritton Road for Mr T Mallon
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0638 - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference:
97/0999 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Meadow View Barn, Fritton
Road for Mr R Burnett
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
33
18 August 2011
LUDHAM - PF/11/0684 - Variation of Conditions 2, 5 and 8 of permission
reference 05/0782 to permit permanent residential occupancy and changes to
boundaries, boundary treatment and parking arrangements; The Hayloft,
Beeches Farm, Horse Fen Road for Mr R Burnett
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0717 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 97/0999 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Clover Cottage, 2 Pastures Green,
Fritton Road for Ms D Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/11/0663 - Re-painting of exterior doors and
windows; The Dairymans House, Melton Park, Hindolveston Road for Mr D
Court
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/0670 - Erection of single-storey extension;
Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr & Mrs J Barnes
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/11/0671 - Alterations to facilitate construction of
single-storey extension; Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr & Mrs J
Barnes
(Listed Building Alterations)
NEATISHEAD - PF/11/0546 - Erection of detached studio/annexe; Boswells
Cottage, The Street for Mr R Crouch
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/11/0202 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 2 Church
Street for Bankmachine limited
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/0235 - Installation of automated teller machine; 2
Church Street for Bankmachine Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0597 - Erection of single-storey garden room; 3
Williams Way for Mr and Mrs T Wogan
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0606 - Conversion and alteration of first and second
floor flat into one maisonette and one flat; 10 Church Street for R G W Portugal
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0678 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D1 (tanning
salon); Unit 2, Stanley Road for Miss A Bedford
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0698 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and
porch; 9 Willow Close for Mr N Hindle
(Householder application)
Development Committee
34
18 August 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0724 - Erection of extension to shed/shelter; North
Walsham Rifle Club, Happisburgh Road for North Walsham Rifle and Pistol Club
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/0611 - Conversion of garage to annexe/holiday
accommodation; 31 High Street for Mr & Mrs R Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/11/0649 - Erection of first floor side extension; Blithekin House,
Mundesley Road for Mr I Gillam
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0622 - Variation of condition 4 of permission reference:
98/0505 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Rascals Barn, Grove Farm,
Back Lane for Mr D Cope
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0623 - Variation of condition 4 of permission reference:
98/0505 to permit residential occupancy; Rogues Barn, Grove Farm, Back Lane
for Mr J Wilkins
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/0605 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Woodlands,
Shawcross Road, West Runton for Mrs L Kay
(Householder application)
RUNTON - NMA1/09/0984 - Non-material amendment request for revised window
arrangements; 4 Golf Close, West Runton for Mr I Hyde
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SALTHOUSE - PF/11/0516 - Erection of detached annexe; 15 Sandy Hill Estate,
Bard Hill for Mr & Mrs McKnespiey
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0419 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
03/0481 to permit permanent residential occupancy; 1 Grove Farm Barns,
Creake Road for Mssrs Herculson and Banson
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0544 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0481 to permit full residential occupancy; 9 Grove Farm Barns,
Creake Road for Mr A Hamlyn
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0629 - Variation of condition 3 of permission reference:
03/1618 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 8, The Grange, Lynn
Road for Ash Property Maintenance
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0708 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 03/0481 to permit permanent residential occupancy; 7 Grove Farm
Barns, Creake Road for Mr R Spencer
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
35
18 August 2011
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0256 - Non-material amendment to change west
elevation handrail to parapet to match north/south elevations; 9 Seacliff,
Vincent Road for Mr & Mrs Walsh
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SMALLBURGH - PF/11/0568 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey rear extensions; Primrose Cottage, Union Road for Mr and Mrs A Mintz
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - LA/11/0489 - Demolition of single-storey extension, internal
alterations to provide enlarged dining room and first floor holiday flat and
erection of single storey extension; The Vernon Arms, 2 Church Street for Mr &
Mrs P Briggs
(Listed Building Alterations)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/0738 - Conversion of barns to residential dwelling; Barns
at Pond Farm, Thorpe Road for Mr & Mrs G Land
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0658 - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of
rear dormer windows and raising height of existing chimney; Owl Cottage, 6
Wells Road for Mr P Barlow
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0659 - Internal alterations and demolition of rear extension to
facilitate erection of replacement extension, installation of replacement window,
dormer windows, replacement porch and raising height of existing chimney.;
Owl Cottage, 6 Wells Road for Mr P Barlow
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUTTON - PF/11/0322 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to three units of
holiday accommodation (extension of period of commencement for
commencement of permission ref: 08/0530); Hall Farm, Hall Road for Mr D
Tatam
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/11/0585 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of holiday
accommodation (extension of period of commencement of planning permission
reference 08/0513); Sutton Hall Barn, Hall Road for Mrs S Berry
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/0636 - Erection of detached garage; 8 Stirling Road,
Sculthorpe for Mr Hudson
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/0712 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 20 Lancaster
Road, Sculthorpe for Mr & Mrs Bloomfield
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/11/0709 - Conversion of barns to residential dwelling and
erection of car port; Barn at, Lime Tree Farmhouse, Saxthorpe Road for The
Trustees of the Knole Second Trust Fund
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
36
18 August 2011
THURNING - LA/11/0710 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
dwelling; Barn at, Lime Tree Farmhouse, Saxthorpe Road for The Trustees of
the Knole Second Trust Fund
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/11/0676 - Erection of first floor side extension; Clover
Cottage, Heath Lane for Mrs B De Courcy Hughes
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0648 - Erection of summerhouse/store; 16 Laurel Farm
Barns, Market Street for Mr R Lewis
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PM/11/0282 - Erection of 6 dwellings; Former NNDC
Depot, Blowlands Lane for Broadland Housing Association
(Reserved Matters)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0301 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings; 11
Egmere Road for Mr & Mrs Parker
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LE/11/0302 - Demolition of dwelling; 11 Egmere Road for Mr &
Mrs Parker
(Conservation Area Demolition)
WALSINGHAM - LA/11/0682 - Internal alterations, replacement of rear door with
glazed doors and demolition of rear extension; 3 The Hill for Mr P Parker
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0553 - Variation of conditions 2 & 13 of planning
ref: 10/0784 to remove requirement for retention and maintenance of hedges on
northern and western boundaries; Partners, Northfield Lane for Novus Homes
Norfolk Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0555 - Installation of air conditioning unit;
Norfolk County Council, Wells Field Study Centre, Polka Road for Scira
Offshore Energy Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0584 - Demolition of existing rear extension and
erection of replacement single-storey extension (revised); Seafarers Cottage, 66
Freeman Street for Miss K Chandler
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0626 - Installation of satellite dish; Normans
Cottage, Standard Road for Mrs E Groom
(Listed Building Alterations)
WIGHTON - PF/11/0690 - Erection of shed attached to garage; Bridge Yard
House, Bridge Yard, Bridge Road for Mr N Trend
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/11/0537 - Construction of vehicular access and driveway; White's
Barn, Old Hall Farm, Witton Heath for Messrs F M, T J & T W H Sands
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
37
18 August 2011
WITTON - PF/11/0628 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Old Chapel,
Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs Lodge
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/0404 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Whitton, Station Road for Mr Nursey
(Full Planning Permission)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0660 - Installation of roller shutter; Cromer Delivery Office, 35
Church Street for Royal Mail Group Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/03/0855 - Non-material amendment request to raise eaves
level facing Fulcher Avenue; W M Morrisons, Holt Road for Wm Morrison
Supermarkets PLC
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - AN/11/0621 - Continued display of non-illuminated direction sign;
Land at junction of Roughton Road/Metton Road for Mr M Boyer
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
(Outline Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/0619 - Installation of flue; Oldbeams Cottage, The Hurn, West
Runton for Mrs W Lemon
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/11/0421 - Variation of Conditions 2, 3 & 7 of planning ref: 08/0874
to permit installation of glazed screen (including doors), window, pedestrian
gate and internal wall revision; Barn 3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road for D & M
Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
No items
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
Development Committee
38
18 August 2011
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for Saw-Milling
and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
BODHAM - PF/09/1269 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Hart Lane for
Mr D Gay
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
BODHAM - PF/10/1469 - Continued siting of caravan for agricultural purposes
and 4 mobile animal shelters and erection of polytunnel; Windrush Farm, Hart
Lane for Mr D Gay
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Committee
39
18 August 2011