OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 18 DECEMBER 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
BACTON - PF/14/1181 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref:
SM5180 to permit revised road layout, and changes to design, including
elevations, to units 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 09 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 50 years
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SM 5180 - Erection of 110 units of holiday accommodation
Approved 02/06/1965
PLA/19740580 PF - Erection of recreational facilities and shop
Refused 16/09/1974
PLA/20001260 PF - Variation of seasonal occupancy restriction (condition 2 of
permission reference: SM 5180)
Approved 21/12/2000
PLA/20001693 PF - Continued use of two holiday chalets as temporary managers
accommodation
Temporary Approval 22/02/2001
PLA/20020026 PF - Continued use of two chalets as managers' accommodation
Temporary Approval 08/11/2002
PLA/20021382 PF - Conversion of four chalets to managers' dwelling
Approved 08/11/2002
PLA/20030245
PF - Erection of Detached One and a Half Storey Manager's
Dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 11/03/2013
PLA/20041773 PF - Continued use of two chalets for manager's accommodation
Temporary Approval 02/12/2004
Development Committee
1
18 December 2014
PLA/20041841 PF - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission reference
20001260 to allow all year round occupation of holiday chalets
Refused 16/12/2004
PLA/20060131 PF - Construction of pitched roofs and cladding of external walls
to chalets
Approved 17/03/2006
PLA/20060525 PF - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission reference
20001260 to permit all-year holiday occupancy
Approved 13/06/2006
PLA/20080439 PF - Erection of one and a half storey building to provide ground
floor reception/office/spa with manager's accommodation above
Refused 13/05/2008
PF/10/0557 HOU - Erection of extensions to chalets and pitched roofs with sun
terraces
Approved 24/09/2010
PF/11/0653 PF - Erection of 15 beach huts and refuse bin enclosure
Refused 31/08/2011
DE20/14/0090 ENQ - Erection of additional holiday chalets
22/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is to vary condition 1 of planning permission (SM 5180 approved) to permit a revised
layout of the site, design and position of 18 chalets.
The replacement chalets are in semi-detached pairs, replacing on the layout two
blocks of four and 10 single chalets. Twelve of the revised layout are repositioned on
the eastern (seaward) side of the chalet park, six are relocated to western side of the
park either side of the entrance.
The original plans show the layout plan approved in 1965. A later plan was approved
as an amendment but it is not clear that this was ever implemented.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning having regard to the planning history of the site,
concerns of residents and the comments raised by Bacton Parish Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Bacton Parish Council - comment as follows:
•
•
•
The provision of a S106 agreement to mitigate towards the additional traffic along
Mill Lane until the furthest boundary at Rainbows End.
The additional traffic flow is of grave concern especially as owners utilise these
buildings as their main residence and live there most of the year.
To work with the Parish Council and Norfolk County Council in a proactive matter to
provide a regulated footpath south from Rainbows End to the beach.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters commenting on the proposals have been received the comments are.
1.
2.
Parking is not shown on the plans
The original plans shown are the 1965 plans and should be an 1972 amended
plan.
Development Committee
2
18 December 2014
19 letters have been received objecting to the proposal
1. The unmade Mill Lane leading to the site is in a poor state of repair and will worsen
with the increased traffic.
2. New layout is not in keeping with the rest of the site and will look out of place.
3. The proposed chalets are of a poorer design quality and build. They are basically
mobile homes on a base.
4. The office is not shown on the plans, where will that go?
5. Parking not shown.
6. Already inadequate parking for owners and visitors.
7. Utilities are already a problem, water pressure is low and drains regularly get
blocked.
8. Cannot rent properties for holiday lets with construction work on site.
9. Chalet Park will double in size.
10. Inadequate waste bin storage
11. Poor lighting on chalet park
12. Crime could rise as more places to hide.
13. Confusion over chalet numbering.
14. Green land within the chalet park will be destroyed.
15. Poor visibility at the point Mill Lane joins the road.
16. The plans eradicate the features that make the chalet park attractive its
non-commercial nature, the clear views to the green field and the sea.
17. Large office building on the site, which does not have planning permission, is not
shown.
18. Several properties have been sublet for residential use, this does not comply with
planning permission.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Authority - no objection subject to a condition on parking.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
CT 6 - Parking provision
EN 4 - Design
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Layout/relationship with existing development
4. Access
5. Parking
Development Committee
3
18 December 2014
APPRAISAL
Rainbows End Chalet Park is located within the Countryside Policy area close to the
settlement boundary of Bacton. Access to the chalet park is from the unsurfaced,
unadopted Mill Lane which joins onto the Walcott Road. Mill Lane serves over 65
other properties besides the chalet park. Rainbows End has an extant planning
permission for 110 chalets of which 56 have been built with 54 not previously
constructed. The application is partly retrospective as a pair of those remaining 54
chalets have already been erected on the site. The revised layout is a repositioning of
12 chalets on the eastern, outside edge of the chalet park roadway and relocating six
of those chalets to the west side around the Rainbow End entrance.
Currently all the 56 existing chalets are arranged around the outside of the chalet park
leaving the central area, (apart from a few car parking spaces), as a grassed open
space giving the chalet park a natural open feel. However, the open space is divided
into two by the existing roadway layout. The outstanding 54 chalets with planning
permission are arranged around or inside the roadway. Most of the lower open space
would remain open under the existing and proposed layout.
It is acknowledged that the effect of building the remaining chalets will have an impact
on the occupants of the some of the existing chalets. While there may be winners and
losers in terms of views, as members will be aware loss of a view is not a material
planning consideration. In landscape terms the revised layout for the repositioning of
the twelve chalets on the eastern side of the park raises no concerns. The six chalets
by the entrance will be more prominent from Mill Lane but again raises no landscape
concerns.
Two of the proposed chalets, close to the entrance and the southern boundary are
regarded as too close to the boundary with a neighbour to the south and unlikely to
meet the Basic Residential Amenity Criteria guidelines between neighbours. The
agent has been advised of this. An amended plan has been requested and it is
anticipated this may be satisfactorily resolved.
As regards the appearance of the chalets, although disputed by some of the objectors
they are very similar to the original chalets. However, they are not of the same
conventional construction, but are a building that is prefabricated elsewhere and
erected on site. There are some cosmetic differences with door and window
placements and materials. Although the buildings will not be identical to the existing
chalets, the appearance is broadly the same and the appearance of the new chalets
would not be out of place in this location.
The existing and proposed parking has not been shown on the revised plan, the agent
has indicated that the parking layout will be submitted prior to the Committee meeting.
The existing parking spaces are tarmac or shingle which is rather a harsh surface
treatment for this Chalet Park. A grid system that allowed the grass to grow through
would be a softer, more appropriate surface treatment going some way to preserving
the natural open appearance of the park. This has been suggested to the agent.
The site office is currently located close to chalets numbered 59 and 60, it is currently
unauthorised. The agent has indicated that a planning application to relocate the site
office will be submitted shortly.
Although close to the area of likely Coastal Erosion, none of the chalets in the revised
chalet layout are within the area at risk. In fact the revised layout would remove four
of the approved chalets to outside the area at risk of coastal erosion within the next 100
years.
Development Committee
4
18 December 2014
In respect of the objectors’ concerns regarding the condition of the road, it is unclear
who owns any part of Mill Lane. The condition of the road as suitable to serve the
development would have been an issue dealt with under the original planning
permission. While it would be desirable for the road to be maintained, it appears to be
outside the applicants' control. Furthermore, there is an extant permission on the site
for the additional units.
In conclusion, there is an extant planning permission on the site to build the number of
chalets proposed. The appearance of the chalets is not significantly different from
those already on the site and is considered better than those that could be built under
the extant permission. There is also a minor benefit in that a few of the chalets would
be removed from the area at risk from Coastal Erosion. While the position of the
chalets is a little different this is not so significant as to alter the character of the
approved chalet park, to have an overall adverse landscape impact or be significantly
detrimental to the amenities of existing chalet occupiers. Taking into account the
extant permission, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval
subject to a satisfactory revised siting for units 59 and 60, and parking layout being
submitted and agreed.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated to the Head of Planning to approve;
Subject to an acceptable revised siting for units 59 and 60, a satisfactory
parking layout and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(2)
HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Horning Knackers Wood Catchment Boundary
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031290 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 23/09/2003
PLA/20021539 PF - Erection of bungalow and garage
Refused 29/11/2002
PLA/20041343 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 01/10/2004
PO/13/0741 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused 22/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks outline planning permission to erect a single storey dwelling, with all matters
reserved.
The site is part of the garden serving the applicant's dwelling, 2 Cloverhill.
Development Committee
5
18 December 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barbara McGoun having regard to the NPPF's
presumption for sustainable development and the personal circumstances of the
applicants; in particular to both Mr and Mrs Kalynuk's health and their current financial
situation with their bank.
PARISH COUNCIL
Does not wish to make a comment
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter of objection received, raising the following points;
• Contrary to policy as it is outside of the settlement boundary
• Would encroach upon the undeveloped Countryside, typified by Letheringtons
Lane which does not have pavements or other facilities
• Approval would encourage ribbon development along the lane in exactly the form
which the Town and Country Planning Acts were originally introduced to prevent
• Both of the existing 2 bungalows have been fully developed within their curtilages
• Applicant cites a necessity for special adaption for health reasons but there seems
no reason why the existing bungalow could not be adapted
• The financial misfortune cited as the need for the development is not a reason for
planning exception
• Letters of 'support' are merely evidence of disablement and not letters of support or
encouragement for the council to breach planning policy
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Awaiting response
County Council Highway Authority - no objection. Although any proposal which would
significantly increase the vehicular use of the single-track Letherington's Lane would
be likely to attract an objection, in this instance it is not reasonable to extend this
objection to a further single dwelling proposed at this particular location. Accordingly,
subject to an appropriate condition and informative note being appended to any
consent notice issued, I would not wish to object to the granting of permission. The
condition would request full details of the visibility splays, access and parking/turning
provision.
Environmental Health - object. There are currently capacity issues at Horning Water
Recycling Centre (WRC). Anglian Water are due to conduct works on the WRC,
however until such a time that these works have taken place and confirmation has
been received that they are adequate the erection of a dwelling and subsequent
increase upon the foul drainage system would be an unacceptable form of
development and contrary to the aims of the Water Framework directive.
Landscape Officer - object. Given that we have a problem with any new dwelling in the
Horning catchment area with the Sewage Treatment Works being at and over
capacity, the application would have to be subject to a Habitats Regulations
Assessment under Section 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended). As a Competent Authority under these Regulations
we have a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the Regulations when
determining planning applications. At the moment we do not have sufficient
information to determine that the proposal would not result in significant likely effects to
the conservation interests of the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) therefore
I would object to the application. If members were minded to be approve the
application at committee we would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment prior
Development Committee
6
18 December 2014
to determination to ensure that the development would not result in significant likely
effects on the Broads SAC.
In addition any subsequent reserved matters application should be supported by an
Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan to
ensure that the trees on and adjacent to the site are adequately protected.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Capacity of Horning's Water Recycling Centre
APPRAISAL
Introduction
The site lies within an area of Countryside where new residential dwellings are not
normally permitted under Policy SS 2.
The site is currently used as a garden by the applicants and is largely laid to lawn, with
several trees around the edge of the site. Sited north of the A1062, it falls outside of
Horning's residential area and lies close to the border with the Broads Authority. In
addition to the applicant's own bungalow, there is another bungalow sited to the south
of 2 Cloverhill, which sits on the corner of the A1062 and Letherington's Lane.
Development Committee
7
18 December 2014
With all matters reserved this application focuses upon the principle of a new single
storey dwelling at the site, and follows the previous refusal issued under PO/13/0741.
Policy EN 4
With both the applicant's and neighbour's dwelling single storey, another single storey
dwelling could prove to be acceptable in terms of design. This is partially dependent on
the number of trees to be retained. The new dwelling would not be readily visible from
anywhere except Letherington's Lane, and could be sited to relate well to the existing
bungalows. At approximately 35m by 17m it is anticipated that the plot is large enough
to accommodate a design which would not result in any significantly detrimental impact
upon the immediate neighbour. Policy EN 4 could therefore be complied with.
Any reserved matters application would require the submission of an arboricultural
report to detail which trees would remain and which, if any, would be removed. It would
also need to demonstrate how the dwelling would be constructed around the trees to
remain.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6
The additional traffic generated by a new dwelling is considered acceptable, and with
appropriate visibility splays a new access onto Letherington's Lane could also be
acceptable under Policy CT 6. The site appears large enough to be able to provide
sufficient parking, complying with Policy CT 5.
Policy EN 6
With a suitable condition added, compliance with Policy EN 6 can also be achieved.
Policy SS 2 and NPPF
As mentioned above new dwellings are not normally permitted under Policy SS 2,
however the applicants consider that there are good grounds to justify a departure
from policy.
They consider the location to be sustainable, therefore complying with the NPPF.
Whilst it is noted that the site is close to Horning's development boundary, and that
Horning is classified as a Service Village within the Core Strategy, NNDC have an up
to date Core Strategy. The guidance within the NPPF in para 12 states that "Proposed
development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and
proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise".
Both of the applicants are now disabled, suffering from a variety of health issues. One
applicant's mobility is deteriorating. The supporting information states that they "need
a disabled friendly dwelling", with a doctors letter stating that one of the applicants
"would benefit from living in a house that has been specifically adapted for her
disabilities" and in their view both of the applicants would benefit from remaining within
her/his practice area due to the complexity of their medical problems.
Their situation has been made more difficult as they feel they have been victims of
malpractice at a bank, which appears to have been investigated by the Financial
Ombudsman.
Although these issues are material considerations, they do not, in Officer's opinion,
amount to sufficient justification to deviate from either Policy SS 2 or the NPPF.
Development Committee
8
18 December 2014
Policies EN 9 and EN 13
The Anglian Water Waste Water Recycling Centre (WRC) Knackers Wood serves this
area. It is currently considered to be at capacity and no development should be
approved which would result in an increase in nutrient loading from the WRC to the
river. Further nutrient loading would have a negative impact upon the Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) further downstream. Whilst works are proposed which should increase
the capacity, these may not be completed until March 2015 and it is uncertain what
capacity will be freed up. Development that could increase the flows to the Water
Recycling Works therefore needs to be avoided.
Clearly a new dwelling would increase the flows to the WRC, and is therefore
considered unacceptable at this time and would fail to comply with the objectives of
Policies EN 9 and EN 13 and the Water Framework Directive.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies SS 2, EN 9, EN 13 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the NPPF, WFD and the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as
amended) and is therefore recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse, for the following reasons;
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO 9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside
EN 9 - Biodiversity and geology
Water Framework Directive
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)(published 27 March 2012)
is also material to the determination of the application.
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against residential development. In the opinion of the Local
Planning Authority the case put forward by the applicant does not provide
sufficient justification to permit the erection of an additional dwelling in the
Countryside contrary to Policy SS 2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development
would not result in additional flows of wastewater. If it does, it would have a
detrimental impact on the receiving watercourse due to capacity limitations at
Horning Knackers Wood Water Recycling Centre. The proposed development is
therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 109 which states ‘The planning system
should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being
put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable
levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land stability. As such the
proposal is also contrary to the Water Framework Directive. Allowing this
development is likely to have an adverse impact on the biodiversity and natural
habitats associated with the receiving watercourse such that it is also contrary
to Policy EN 9 and Policy EN 13 of the adopted Core Strategy, in addition to the
Development Committee
9
18 December 2014
Water Framework Directive and Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as
amended).
(3)
OVERSTRAND - PM/14/0854 - Erection of ten dwellings; Land at Hillingdon Park
for A G Brown Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 October 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Reserved Matters
CONSTRAINTS
Tree Preservation Order
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
Unclassified Road
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
E 4725 - Building site
Approved 4/07/1966
E4919 - Construction of Estate Roads and Sewers
Approved 21/03/1967
PM/13/0790 PM - Erection of ten dwellings
Withdrawn by Applicant 05/09/2013
THE APPLICATION
This is a reserved matters application for the erection of the remaining ten dwellings
across the site following outline approval for 35 dwellings granted in July 1966, under
planning permission reference E 4725. A further approval was granted in March 1967
for the construction of estate roads and sewers.
The only matters for consideration under this application are appearance, landscaping,
layout and scale.
The remaining dwellings would be infill plots within the existing development, grouped
as a site of four dwellings, a site of three dwellings and three single plots. The
proposed dwellings would comprise a mix of two, three and four bedroom properties.
Nine of the dwellings would be single-storey, with the remaining dwelling being
one-and-a-half storey.
The scheme proposes brick, flint, render and clad elevations and tiled roofs.
Various amended plans have been submitted proposing changes to the appearance,
layout and scale of some of the dwellings and to ensure compatibility between the
elevation, floor and site layout plans. The Agent has also submitted amended plans to
re-locate the garage for Plot number 6 and to change the dwelling at Plot number 10
from a one-and-a-half storey dwelling to a single-storey dwelling.
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
• Design and Access and Heritage Statement
• Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, Method Statement and
Landscaping Schedule
Development Committee
10
18 December 2014
•
•
Ecological Survey
Sustainable Construction Checklist
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response on first amended plans:
Whilst there is no objection to the individual applications, there is great concern
regarding the number of trees proposed to be felled, and also the dispersal of surface
water given that there are problems with drainage in the area. A comment was also
added that a staggered development would be helpful. Concerns regarding the
adequacy of the drainage system should be strongly stressed.
Response awaited in respect of amended plans. The Committee will be updated
verbally.
REPRESENTATIONS
71 letters of objection received from 36 representees and 9 comments from 3
representees. The objections broadly cover issues relating to the drainage (surface
and foul), roads and other infrastructure, damage/disturbance during and after
construction, proposals not respecting the front building line, highway safety, cliff
erosion, design/materials, neighbour amenity, loss of trees, wildlife, status of the
outline application, failure to comply with a restrictive covenant and
inaccuracies/comments of submitted planning documents. A more detailed summary
of these objections is as follows:
• Existing sewage and surface water issues;
• Existing infrastructure issues including pressure on drains. Development would
exacerbate issues;
• Developers of remaining plots must assume full responsibility of bringing all
services up to adoptable standards;
• Existing drains not maintained and broken. Problems with burst water drains and
problems after rain etc;
• Proximity of, or building of, proposed buildings on sewers and gas services;
• Roads are unadopted. Concern regarding responsibility for maintenance and
upkeep of roads and pavement;
• Condition of road and pavements poor. Kerbstones sunk and uneven;
• Impact of tree felling on existing substructure, roads, paths, services etc from
ground movement;
• Impact on amenities from existing infrastructure problems with mains water,
electrical services needing repair after numerous power cuts, gas and telephone
connections not working;
• Highway Safety concerns;
• Highway safety on Pauls Lane from additional traffic;
• Traffic burden/congestion from additional properties and additional cars;
• Vehicle manoeuvre access/egress concerns;
• Garages blocking line of sight for vehicles coming out of driveways- danger to
vehicles/pedestrians;
• Sufficient parking should be provided to ensure no parking on road;
• Loss of amenity/disruption/damage during construction (especially noise,
construction traffic, parking of builders’ vehicles, dust, working hours, vermin
control and damage to roads/drains, land heavy and subsidence etc). Timings of
work. Construction period;
• Building line has been ignored;
Development Committee
11
18 December 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Encroachment on established building line by buildings and fencing;
Encroachment on building lines/pavement would obscure sight lines and give
claustrophobic feel;
Secure by Design Document should not be disregarded, especially in relation to
sight lines and security issues. Policing implications;
Hillingdon Park has a visually open aspect. The need to retain trees has brought
building structures forward right up to the footpath out of line and keeping with
existing properties and adversely affecting the visual impact and the character of
the existing development and neighbourhood. Proposals not harmonious or
sympathetic;
Tree removal and subsequent land heave/settling/subsidence/landslip/impact on
soil stability with consequent additional drain off to cliffs and cliff erosion. An
established tree will absorb from the ground an average of fifty thousand litres of
water per annum. Survey required as done for proposed development Mundesley
Road, Overstrand;
Climate change impacts;
Impact on fluvial and pluvial erosion;
Unacceptable design, layout, appearance, materials, scale, height, type,
positioning and density;
Only bungalows should be constructed;
Plots 7, 8 and 9 would give a blank frontage and oppressive look not in keeping
with existing. Would give impression of walking down a street of attached
dwellings;
Fencing details required;
Neighbour amenity issues including overlooking, overbearing, loss of privacy, loss
of sun/ light, overshadowing, overdevelopment, overcrowding, noise, smell,
nuisance and artificial light concerns, loss of peace, quiet, tranquillity and impact
on ambiance. Invasion of privacy and quality of life. Health, safety and sanity
concerns;
To make changes to original approval would destroy character of estate and create
loss of privacy, noise disturbance and issues with highway safety through
obstruction caused by new builds;
Failure to comply with the Council’s Design Guide and Basic Amenity Criteria;
Close proximity of new dwellings, garages and fencing to existing dwellings;
Loss of view;
Health concerns with sewage water not being properly contained and controlled;
Sound buffering problems from loss of trees between Hillingdon Park and
Kingswood children's education and activity centre;
Loss of trees, including TPO trees;
Impact on landscape character;
Reference to dismissed appeal at 24 Danish House Gardens, Overstrand due to
tree loss and impact on landscape character;
Impact of tree felling on water table;
Removal of trees in small groups over longer periods would have less impact on
environment, sub soil and wildlife than removal of 100+ in one operation;
Impact on eco-system from tree removal;
Ecological survey excludes or is dismissive of some wildlife;
Impacts on wildlife/ecology (including protected species) from loss of trees;
Impact on flora;
Bats prevalent and may allow a Site of Special Scientific (SSSI) classification;
Impact on newts, frogs and toads. Possible pair of Crested Newts reported;
Concerns as to the validity of the original permission;
Original consent for building line, type of development and materials should be only
Development Committee
12
18 December 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
one given any consideration;
Development contrary to adopted Policy;
Non-compliance with Land Registry Documents/Restrictive Covenants on Deeds;
Plans and reports inadequate, inaccurate, missing, unclear and misleading;
Impact on Conservation Area;
Development would hinder vehicular access to garage of number 9;
No inclusion of renewable or low-carbon energy technologies and would only meet
Code Level 3 for Sustainable Homes;
Plot 5 has encroached onto rear boundary line of 28 Hillingdon Park;
Maintenance concerns to existing buildings given close proximity;
Safety of trees in high winds and risk to life and property;
Problems with Home Insurance;
Plot 10 site should be cleared and turned into communal gardens/park;
Hillingdon Park is becoming a non-park with building on all recreational areas;
Process concerns raised.
Conflict of interest concerns as the ecological survey undertaken by same
company as is advising builder;
During protracted and piecemeal development, contractors failed to adhere to
design mandate and enforcing authorities to ensure compliance;
Hillingdon Park has had enough publicity and scandal about sex in recent years,
NNDC needs to ensure that their planning consents to not potentially facilitate or
encourage further scandals;
Development does not provide for 20% of dwellings to be built for the elderly and
incapacitated/infirm and disabled;
Alternative proposals put forward.
Some of the above objections were similar to comments made on the application.
Additional comments made:Intention for properties to be in harmony with trees is too idealistic. Concerns
regarding shading, sunlight, amount of sky visible, level of solar gain, appreciation
of living close to large trees, interference with Satellite television signals, future
growth, seasonal nuisance and pressure to remove trees. Impact on amenity;
Impact on trees including TPO trees and removal of Category A high quality trees;
Pleased that applicants have noted residents prior concerns and decided to
complete the estate in one construction period. Can this be a condition;
Final completion of estate will end a lot of uncertainty about the future of the vacant
plots.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): Given previous outline consents on this site it would be
very difficult to substantiate a highway objection to this proposal to complete
development.
Hillingdon Park is not adopted by the Highway Authority who have no present intention
to change this situation.
Conditions required on any approval relating to the provision of the footway extending
the existing footways up to and including the complete roadside frontage of the site
with Pauls Lane and the provision of on-site car parking areas, as indicated on the site
plan.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design):
As with the earlier proposals, there can be no Conservation and Design objections to
Development Committee
13
18 December 2014
the principle of the proposed development given the extant permission which exists on
the site.
In terms of detail, the proposed buildings consist predominantly of single-storey
structures where they directly abut the existing bungalows, and 1½ storeys on the
more peripheral Plot 3. They are therefore considered broadly congruent with the scale
and form of the original buildings on site. In saying this, however, it is acknowledged
that several of the units step forward of the existing building lines and are therefore not
wholly compatible with the original open plan ethos of the development. However,
because these lines were only ever loosely defined, and because the main body of
Hillingdon Park does not lie within the Overstrand Conservation Area, it is difficult to
see how this could form the basis for a sustainable ground for objection. Indeed, based
upon recent experience, there is actually an argument which says that narrowing up
the street scene and channelling views could add additional depth and interest to the
existing layout.
Design-wise, the plans for the most part provide for relatively conventional bungalows
which display compatible proportions and footprints. At the same time, however, they
have been enlivened with the introduction of the occasional glazed gable, and the
addition of rendered and boarded elements. Together these should offer a
contemporary freshness to the units. Providing there is then a consistency across the
roof materials (which echoes the existing dark coloured palette), the new build should
visually take its place harmoniously rather than discordantly. In this latter respect, it is
not considered that red clay pantiles or slate would be appropriate choices.
Plot-by-plot there is nothing within the main house types which particularly jars on the
eye elevationally. The latest plans have also now addressed the earlier concerns
around garage provision. Therefore, whilst inevitably there remains a slight tension
between the original and proposed developments, Conservation & Design maintain
that the new units manage to tread a fine line between respecting the past and learning
sufficient lessons from it. As a result, the development would add its own layer but not
in an adverse way. Certainly there would be no harm caused to the setting of the
adjacent conservation area or to any other heritage assets.
Condition required for the prior approval of all the facing materials prior to their use on
site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape):
The development land at Hillingdon Park has outline planning permission dating to the
1960’s. Building on the site has been sporadic since that time allowing trees to grow
on the vacant plots.
An area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covered the site to protect amenity and
landscape. Under the Council’s review of TPO’s, Area Orders are being phased out
in favour of more descriptive Orders in line with Government Guidelines.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape section has discussed the development
with the Agent over a long period and concluded that it would be expedient to serve a
TPO that facilitated development and protected the woodland character of Hillingdon
Park. A Woodland Order was served together with Group and individual Orders
where appropriate.
The developer has designed the layout of the proposed dwellings to accommodate the
character of the area. Although several trees will have to be removed to facilitate the
development a comprehensive landscape and planting scheme will assist in restoring
Development Committee
14
18 December 2014
the character of the tree cover lost. A total of 160 trees and 140 shrubs will be
replanted.
The properties will be part of the wooded area and it is proposed to market them as
wooded properties which has been successful in other areas. The un-shaded areas
of garden are very close to the minimum guidelines but should be acceptable to new
residents as they are clearly woodland properties. Appropriate maintenance of the
trees will be acceptable under the TPO guidelines.
The original building line of the estate will be sacrificed to preserve as many trees as
possible bringing the buildings forward to the road. It is considered that this layout will
have less effect on the landscape.
The ecological survey submitted with the application takes account of the important
features on the site and proposes mitigation planting to support species that have been
recorded. The biodiversity of the woodland area of plots 1 to 4 will be improved for the
invertebrates with the removal of the tipped garden material which is suppressing the
herb layer and the planting of the new trees and shrubs in and around the gardens.
To make sure that possible bat roosts are maintained it is suggested that bat boxes be
placed in suitable locations on the site.
The ground soils are predominantly glacial deposits and therefore heave will not be a
significant problem. The planting of more trees and shrubs than those removed
should mitigate any concerns regarding future coastal erosion in the long term.
Conditions required to: ensure compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement
and Landscaping plan; the submission of an on site timetable for the methodology
detailing arboricultural supervision; the requirement for all trees to be planted in
accordance with British Standard BS 8545; the submission of a scheme for
replacement planting on Plot 10; the protection of those trees; shrubs and hedgerows
indicated for retention for ten years; the replacement of any new tree or shrub which
within a period of ten years from the date of planting dies, is removed or become
seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting; the
requirement for development to be constructed in accordance with the submitted
Species Mitigation Measures and the provision of bat boxes.
Anglian Water
Assets affected
Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an
adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and
accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public
open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the
developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or, in the case of
apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It
should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before
development can commence.
Wastewater Treatment
The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Cromer
(Runton-Middlebrook Way) Water Recycling Centre that at present has available
capacity for these flows.
Foul Sewerage Network
The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the
Development Committee
15
18 December 2014
developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under
Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advise them of the most
suitable point of connection.
Surface Water Disposal
The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage
system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option.
Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a
surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal
option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning
application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable as no details of flow rates to the
public sewer or evidence that the SUDS hierarchy is followed are provided We would
therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the
Environment Agency. We request a condition requiring a drainage strategy covering
the issue(s) to be agreed.
Head of Coastal Strategy
The Coastal management team would object to the use of soakaways for any
additional surface water runoff from the proposed dwellings. They would prefer to see
the new properties connected to the Anglian Water sewer, so that all surface water is
discharged away from site, thus reducing the potential risk of increased groundwater
impacting on cliff stability. They would be happy with the Agent’s proposal to install
rainwater harvesting tanks that could be used to attenuate the flows, but the overflow
into the adopted sewer would be important.
Building Control
Foul drainage will be straightforward, connecting to the existing foul sewer which is
assumed to have the required capacity for the additional plots, these being the same
number as originally approved with the outline consent.
Surface water disposal will be more difficult – due to the proximity of the site from the
cliff edge, Building Control would not be happy with soakaways to the plots closest to
the cliff although they may be possible to the plots closest to Pauls Lane.
In the first instance, consultation with coast protection is recommended with regards to
the acceptability and then if soakaways are not possible, it would be down to Anglian
Water to consent to the surface water drainage being connected to the foul
system. Due to the small size of the foul sewer in the area, Building Control would
imagine that some sort of holding tank or similar would be needed to prevent the
system being overloaded in the event of heavy rainfall.
Environmental Health
Environmental Health are aware that plots 1, 2 and 3 bound the Kingswood Centre at
Overstrand, and have noted the concerns of the centre manager.
The erection of a 1.8m high close boarded fence to the western boundaries of plots 1
and 3 should be conditioned to help with reducing the noise impact on the properties
from the activities carried out at Kingswood.
Condition requiring details of the proposed surface water disposal required.
Development Committee
16
18 December 2014
Architectural Liaison Officer
Having viewed the plans and associated documents dated 26th September 2014, the
Officer is happy with the layout of the development and have no recommendations to
make in regards to crime and ASB.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
It is Norfolk Wildlife Trust's view that if approved there should be conditions to protect
and enhance biodiversity. These conditions should follow the recommendations
contained in Section 5 of the ecological report that accompanies the application
Planning Legal Manager
In connection with a current application for approval of reserved matters (PM/14/0854)
you had asked for my comments on the status of the historic outline permission for the
Hillingdon Park estate and how the current application should be assessed against
Core Strategy policies, specifically policy HO1. Your enquiry has also raised issues
relating to drainage of the site as our Coastal Protection colleagues have raised
concerns if soakaways are to be installed.
These issues are not straightforward and I am aware that several objections received
in respect of the current reserved matters application query the validity of the outline
consent which was approved in 1966. In considering these matters I have received
the old “County” files relating to the site, specifically applications E4725 and E4919. I
would respond to your enquires as follows:
•
Application E4725
This was an application to Norfolk County Council (which was then the Planning
Authority) for outline permission to develop land described as “proposed building
site” at Pauls Lane, Overstrand. There had been a previous application
(reference 3354) which had been approved on 12 August 1963.
The plan submitted in support of application E4725 was a 1:500 scale plan
showing a total of 35 dwellings served by a cul de sac access. The application
was approved on 4 July 1966 subject to conditions requiring (amongst other things)
submission of details of surface water drainage arrangements.
•
Application E4919
This application sought approval of the “estate road, sewers and street light” at the
Pauls Lane site. The application was approved on 21 March 1967 and the notice
of permission referred to “the application as amended by the plan dated January
1967.” I take this to be drawing number 5/679/1 which shows an estate layout of
35 dwellings and also the existing and proposed sewers serving the development.
The drawing also shows details of the estate road with dimensions marked and
with the positions of a number of soakaways marked.
1)
Subsequent permissions
You had helpfully passed to me a list of permissions for the individual dwellings
constructed on the site. Interestingly, most of these appear to be applications for “full”
permission rather than for approval of matters reserved by the outline permission.
From a review of several of these files I am unable to confirm why the applications
were made as full applications rather than as reserved matters applications; it may be
the case that this was the practice at the time and of course the officers who dealt with
those applications have long since retired. Most of the applications were made by the
same agents; Pike & Partners of Cromer.
Development Committee
17
18 December 2014
I note that an application (01/76/0007/D) was made by another agent and, unlike the
Pike & Partners applications, was for approval of matters reserved by the outline
permission E4725. This application related to plot 11 and was refused on grounds
relating to visual impact and potential effects on trees. The fact that this application
was for RMs approval rather than a full application does not appear to have been
queried at the time.
2)
Current application
Application PM/14/0854 seeks approval of reserved matters for the 10 remaining plots
of the 35 for which outline permission was granted by the approval of application
E4725 in 1966. Assuming that permission to be extant, the only matters for
consideration are appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.
Notwithstanding that the dwellings already constructed on the site were the subject of
full applications (rather than applications for approval of reserved matters) my view is
that the original outline permission, E4725, remains extant and that the principle of
residential development is thereby established for the remaining plots. That being the
case our consideration of the application should be limited to the matters noted above
in my view; the overarching policies in the Core Strategy (specifically HO1) which
would be applicable to new developments do not fall to be considered.
3)
Drainage
The permission for estate roads and surface water drainage (E4909) also remains
extant in my opinion. However there is a greater awareness of potential coastal
erosion than was the case in the 1960s and it is in no-one’s interest for development to
be undertaken which may adversely impact on the site and the surrounding area.
I am mindful that Coast Protection cannot support soakaways and that the agents for
the current application are inclined to an alternative solution involving the installation of
surface water harvesting tanks with an overflow into the mains system. To my mind
this would be a practical solution which (subject to our Coast Protection colleague’s
approval) could be utilised. We should agree, and perhaps reflect in your report to the
Development Committee, that this is at variance with the approved drainage scheme
(E.4909) but is recommended for approval without prejudice to that extant permission
(i.e. it is acknowledged that the developer has the original approval as a fallback but is
prepared to move to the agreed alternative of harvesting tanks).
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Development Committee
18
18 December 2014
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of the development
2) Scale/design/layout and impact on Conservation Area
3) Landscaping and biodiversity
4) Drainage issues
5) Highway safety
6) Impact on neighbouring dwellings
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at a previous meeting to allow members
to visit the site.
Principle of development
Hillingdon Park is accessed off Pauls Lane and is located within the Settlement
Boundary and Residential Area of Overstrand. It adjoins existing residential
development to the east and south, a golf course (Royal Cromer Golf Course) to the
north and a children's education and activity centre (Kingswood) to the west.
The northern boundary of the Overstrand Conservation Area runs through plots 7, 8, 9
and 10, where development proposals are expected to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the area.
The plots themselves are wooded, with trees protected by individual and Group Tree
Preservation Orders and a Woodland Order.
The Committee will note the comments from the Planning Legal Manager, confirming
that both the Outline planning permission and the subsequent permission for the
construction of estate roads and sewers, are extant.
On that basis, the principle of the development is already accepted and some of the
objections raised in respect of the ability of the existing roads etc to cope with the
additional demand, cannot be considered under this application. Similarly, some of the
objections raised are civil, rather than planning, grounds for objection, such as
non-compliance with restrictive covenants etc.
Development Committee
19
18 December 2014
Scale/design/layout and impact on Conservation Area
As far as the scale of the dwellings is concerned, given that the principle of both single
and one-and-a-half-storey properties is established within Hillingdon Park, the current
proposals are considered compatible and in keeping with the surrounding area.
In terms of the concerns raised that some of the dwellings would step forward of the
existing building lines, the Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) has not raised any objections. Whilst
it is recognised that the proposed scheme would not be wholly compatible with the
original open ethos of the development, the building lines were only loosely defined,
the main body of Hillingdon Park does not lie within a Conservation Area and that the
narrowing up of the street scene and the channelling of views could add additional
depth and interest to the existing layout. Further, it is recognised that there is a balance
to be struck between the siting of the dwellings and the preservation of as many of the
significant trees as possible.
The proportions and designs of the proposed dwellings are not considered to be out of
context with existing dwellings on Hillingdon Park, and there is no objection to the more
contemporary approach taken to some of the dwellings, subject to the use of a dark
coloured roof tile to ensure cohesion.
It is considered that the proposed development would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, the boundary of which runs through the four
plots at the southern end of Hillingdon Park.
On balance, it is considered that whilst the scheme would add a more contemporary
feel to Hillingdon Park, it would still respect the character of the original 1960's
development and would be in compliance with the aims of Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Landscaping and biodiversity
Trees on the remaining vacant plots at Hillingdon Park have grown since the approval
of the Outline Permission granted in 1966. As such, to enable the remaining plots to be
developed, it is inevitable that there will be some tree loss.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Landscape) has been consulted and comments that, whilst approximately 120 trees
would be felled to accommodate the development, a comprehensive landscaping and
planting scheme would result in the replanting of 160 trees and 140 shrubs to assist in
restoring the existing woodland character of Hillingdon Park. Subject to the imposition
of conditions, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has not therefore
raised any objections to the scheme.
In respect of biodiversity, an ecological Survey has been submitted and the Committee
will note no objection has been raised by the Landscape Officer subject to conditions in
this respect.
The proposal is acceptable under Policy EN9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Drainage
Concerns have been expressed by local residents, Overstrand Parish Council and the
Local Member in respect of drainage.
The Committee will note that the Head of Coastal Strategy would object to the use of
Development Committee
20
18 December 2014
soakaways for any additional surface water runoff from the proposed dwellings given
concerns in respect of the potential risk of increased groundwater impacting on cliff
stability.
The Committee will also note the comments from the Council's Planning Legal
Manager, confirming that the permission for estate roads and surface water drainage
(E4909) remains extant.
In response to the concerns raised, and whilst it would be at variance with the
approved drainage scheme (E4909), the Agent is proposing the installation of surface
water harvesting tanks with an overflow into the mains system. Given the greater
awareness of the potential for coastal erosion than was the case in the 1960s, this is
considered to be an appropriate approach, and could be secured by way of a condition
on any planning approval.
Highway safety
Hillingdon Park is an unadopted road and County Council (Highways) have indicated
that there is no present intention to change this situation.
In the absence of Highway objections given the Outline planning consent, it is not
considered that the application could be refused on highway safety grounds.
Impact on neighbouring dwellings
Concerns have been expressed by the owners of many of those properties adjacent to
the proposed dwellings in respect of loss of amenity, loss of privacy, overshadowing,
overbearing, loss of daylight, disturbance and noise nuisance etc.
It is recognised that the development of the remaining plots would result in some
shortfalls in the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations, with existing properties
having windows facing towards the proposed plots.
Shortfalls are greatest between the proposed dwelling at Plot 6 and existing dwellings
to the east and west, Plot 7 and the existing dwelling to the west and between the
dwelling proposed at Plot 10 and the existing dwelling to the east.
28 Hillingdon Park, a single-storey dwelling to the east of the proposed single-storey
dwelling at Plot 6, has facing windows serving a living room (classified as a secondary
window, as the room is also served by a south facing window) and a kitchen door. Plot
number 6 would have an east facing bedroom and bathroom window. In this case, the
Basic Amenity Criteria would recommend 15m between two secondary windows and
the development would provide circa 3.4m.
4 Hillingdon Park, a single-storey dwelling to the west of the proposed single-storey
dwelling at Plot 7, has facing windows serving a garage, bathroom and kitchen. The
closest windows at Plot number 7 would serve a living/dining room (classified as a
secondary use, as the largest windows serving the room would be to the south and
north). The Basic Amenity Criteria would recommend 15m between secondary
windows and the development would provide circa 6.7m.
With both of the above, it should be recognised that the windows would be at ground
floor level; that the secondary windows would not sit directly opposite each other; that
a condition could be imposed to ensure boundary treatment is of a suitable height to
prevent views between the properties; that dwellings within Hillingdon Park are
generally fairly close-knit and that the sites already have outline planning permission
for the erection of a dwelling.
Development Committee
21
18 December 2014
30 Hillingdon Park, a single-storey dwelling to the west of the proposed single-storey
dwelling at Plot 6, has facing windows serving a lounge (classified as a secondary use,
as the largest window serving the room is to the south), conservatory, bedroom and
bathroom. The living/dining room at Plot number 6 would be served by glazing
(classified as a secondary use, as the room would also be served by both north and
south facing windows). Whilst the Basic Amenity Criteria would recommend 15m
between two secondary windows and the development would only provide circa 4.4m,
it is recognised that the glazing would be to the apex only and would therefore be
high-level, not allowing overlooking towards number 30.
11 Pauls Lane, a two-storey dwelling to the east of the proposed single-storey dwelling
at Plot 10, has facing windows serving a primary living room window at ground floor
level and a secondary bedroom window at first floor level. Plot number 10 would have
a facing bedroom/study window and a bathroom window. In this case, the Basic
Amenity Criteria would recommend 18m between a primary and a secondary window
and the development would only provide circa 9.3m. In this instance, it is recognised
that the proposed windows would be at ground floor level, that the windows would not
sit directly opposite each other, that there is a boundary fence between the sites which
would help to prevent views between the properties, that dwellings within the vicinity
are generally fairly close-knit and that the site already has outline planning permission
for the erection of a dwelling.
Inevitably, the proposed development would result in some loss of
amenity/overbearing/overshadowing/overlooking/loss of daylight to neighbouring
properties, but consideration should be given to the extant outline planning permission
which accepts that the sites are building plots, to the existing character of Hillingdon
Park where dwellings are generally fairly close-knit and the balance that needs to be
struck between developing the site and protecting significant trees. It is considered that
the scheme as submitted successfully balances these issues.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable and would be in compliance with the aims
of Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Summary
In summary, whilst the proposal has raised some concern with surrounding residents,
given that it is accepted that the outline planning permission is extant and subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposed erection of
the remaining ten dwellings would accord with relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
i) No new material issues being raised following receipt of amended consultation
responses from Overstrand Parish Council or Anglian Water
ii) Subject to the imposition of specific conditions listed below and all other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of two years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Development Committee
22
18 December 2014
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan for Plot 4
(drawing number 2282-34e) received by the Local Planning Authority on 3
September 2014, the amended plans for Plots 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 (drawing
numbers 2282-40c, 2282-32c, 2282-31e, 2282,35d, 2282-37d (with the
exception of the floor plan of Plot 8 included on the drawing), 2282-38d and
2282-39f) received by the Local Planning Authority on 22 September 2014, the
amended plan for Plot 6 (drawing number 2282-36e) received by the Local
Planning Authority on 26 September 2014, the amended Site Layout plan
(drawing number 2282-20o) received by the Local Planning Authority on 29
October 2014 and amended plan for Plot 10 (drawing number 2282-32g)
received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 November 2014
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
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargements of or alterations
to the dwellings or garages hereby permitted (including the insertion of any further
windows or rooflights) shall be undertaken and no further building, structure or
means of enclosure within the curtilage of the dwellings shall be erected unless
planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a close
knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and to protect trees and safeguard the character and
setting of the site and surrounding trees from development which may threaten the
longevity of trees, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Notwithstanding the details indicated with the application and prior to their first use on
site, precise details of the facing materials to be used in the construction of the
external walls and roofs of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application and prior to their erection,
full details of the location, height, design and materials of all screen walls and fences
(to include details of screen walls and fencing between existing and proposed
dwellings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Development Committee
23
18 December 2014
Authority. Any screen wall and fence as approved shall then be erected concurrently
with the erection of the dwelling with which it is related.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to retain control over this aspect of the
development in the interests of the relationship to nearby properties and the
surroundings of the development in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6
The apex glazing to the southern elevation on Plot 1 and to the western elevation of
Plot 6 hereby permitted shall be installed a minimum of 1.8m above the floor of the
room which they would serve. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance
with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme
indicating surface treatments within plots shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall then be completed in
accordance with approved details.
Reason:
To protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
The development be carried out in strict compliance with the amended Landscape
Plan number 1141/01/Rev B, received by the Local Planning Authority on 28 August
2014 and in accordance with the amended Arboricultural Method Statement and
Landscaping Plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 27 November 2014
(plan drawing numbers 1141/02/Rev D, 1141/03//Rev D and 1141/04 Rev D).
Further, prior to the commencement of any development on site, a timetable for the
methodology be submitted detailing arboricultural supervision shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that trees on site are protected from damage and to accord with
the requirements of Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
9
All trees shall be planted in strict accordance with BS 8545: trees from nursery to
independence in the landscape. The planting scheme shall be included in the
arboricultural supervision timetable required by Condition number 8.
Reason:
To ensure that trees on site are protected from damage and to accord with the
requirements of Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Notwithstanding details submitted with the application and prior to the
commencement of any development on Plot 10, a scheme indicating the species,
number and size of new trees and shrubs at the time of their planting for Plot 10 shall
Development Committee
24
18 December 2014
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further period
as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict compliance with
Section 5 of the Ecological Survey submitted with the application and completed by
C.J. Yardley and dated December 2013.
Reason: To ensure that trees on site are protected from damage and to accord with
the requirements of Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
12
Prior to the commencement of any development on site, details of the number and
position of bat and bird boxes proposed for the development shall be submitted and
agreed in writing with the Landscape officer. Unless an alternative timescale is first
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the boxes shall then be erected
and maintained for a period of at least ten years from the date of commencement of
development, unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority has
been given to any variation.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is appropriately
mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the approved plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning
Authority in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
14
Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during
the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local
Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any
variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
15
Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall
commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement
works as indicated on drawing number 2282-20o have been submitted to and
Development Committee
25
18 December 2014
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local
highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
16
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway
improvement works referred to in condition number 15 shall be completed to the
written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development
proposed, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
17
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
on-site car parking areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans and
retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
18
Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application, no development shall be
carried out until such time as details of proposed surface water disposal from the
dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure that satisfactory drainage is provided for the development in accordance
with Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(4)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1334 - Installation and operation of a ground mounted solar
photo voltaic array to generate electricity of up to 50MW capacity comprising
photo voltaic panels, inverters, security fencing, cameras and other association
infrastructure; Former RAF Coltishall, Lamas Road for Scottow Moor Solar
Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 27 January 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Development Committee
26
18 December 2014
Scheduled Ancient Monument
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Tree Preservation Order
Airbase Technical Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19960183 GF - Renewal of security fence
Approved 10/04/1996
PF/10/0063 PF - Erection of a 70m high Wind Monitoring Mast for a period of 3
years
Withdrawn by Applicant 17/02/2010 11:08:22
BX/14/0061 BX - Recycling and restoration of runway areas (County reference:
C/1/2013/1020)
Withdrawn by Applicant 24/11/2014
BX/14/0422
BX - Use of land for fire training purposes including the siting of
containers, modular buildings and portable toilets (County ref: Y/1/2014/1003)
Approved 19/06/2014
PF/14/0642 PF - Change of use of former munitions stores to B8 storage
Approved 18/07/2014
PF/14/1038 PF - Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and light
industrial use) and associated outside storage
Approved 13/11/2014
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of up to 50MW set across
approximately 87 hectares of land on part of the former RAF Coltishall site (now known
as Scottow Enterprise Park). The solar farm straddles the District boundaries of North
Norfolk and Broadland with the larger part of the site within North Norfolk District. A
separate application has been submitted to be determined by Broadland DC (BDC).
A 50MW solar farm equates to approximately 200,000 individual solar panels to be
installed on site. The panels would be sited on the grassed areas of the former flying
field airfield but not on the existing runway or perimeter tracks. The solar farm would be
located within six separate fenced areas.
The panels would be ground mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the
panels rising to approximately 2.6 metres above ground level with rows typically 4m to
6m apart. The site would be enclosed by security/deer fencing (colour and design to be
agreed). Within the fenced areas the applicant proposes to house approximately 30
inverter units which convert the direct current generated by the solar panels into
alternating current to feed into the electricity grid.
The applicant has indicated that a CCTV system will be installed with cameras
mounted on 4m columns. However, specific details of the cameras to be installed and
their locations is yet to be finalised.
The application is supported by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement,
Heritage Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Ecological
Assessment, Transport Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Statement of Community
Involvement
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment.
In
addition
photomontage/visualisations of the existing site and proposed development have been
submitted. An aviation summary and a supplementary statement have also been
Development Committee
27
18 December 2014
submitted which are attached at Appendix 1.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL - Scottow Parish supports this application but has continued
concerns about traffic movements to and from the site through the Badersfield area.
REPRESENTATIONS
One representation/comment has been received. Summary of comments:
Vitromite Ltd as immediate business neighbours here on the former base respectfully
submit that NNDC planning authorities put certain reserved matters in place. To
ensure the possibility for the existing high quality runway, touchdowns and perimeter
tracks to remain as publicly controlled available asset to allow future business
development. Vitromite Ltd are reminded of NNDC and BDC planning policy for the
Aerodrome to encourage business (manufacturing, industrial processes and controlled
and measured air-craft usage)
The planning documents presently on view do not clarify this in air usage terms, but in
fact details included in the formal specific planning application documents would
exclude the runway from aircraft usage for the term of the lease. Vitromite have need
for support in our longer (4-5 year) term business plan which includes creating up to
400 jobs here at the former base to allow some proactive planning for a controlled and
publicly agreed humanitarian role for the runway and its ability to be safely utilised.
This would not exclude a much welcomed photo voltaic ground array but in its
apparent present form the unreserved acceptance of the application would seriously
compromise our intentions surrounding the Vitromite business model constructed
specifically around former Battle of Britain and Cold War Aerodrome and its assets.
Response from Tim Edmunds (Norfolk County Council):
The County Council's Cabinet on the 12 May 2014 agreed to expand the scale of
ground based solar at the former RAF Coltishall site from 10MW (as set out in the
consultation version of its 'Development Vision') to up to 49.9MW. The expansion of
solar at the site has been welcomed by many, including those who had previously
petitioned the Council for such a large scale solar farm, and now forms part of the
Council's agreed 'Development Vision'.
To deliver these expanded aspirations, the Council entered into a contract to lease
land to a private sector company to enable them to pursue a scheme of that scale. That
Company has subsequently submitted planning applications to both of your
authorities.
The contract the Council has entered into covers all the land within the peri-track either
side of the runway to enable the developer to seek to achieve a 49.9MW scheme so as
to maximise income to the Council. No other land (without encroaching actually on to
the runway) is appropriate given the constraints of the site. As I understand it,
achieving a 49.9MW solar scheme on the land the developer has an option on is very
tight - hence the panel density and heights proposed and the fact that the fence line is
set back from the runway by 2m and the panels a further 8m from the fence.
The solar scheme is a significant element of the Council's 'Development Vision' for the
site and will generate income that will enable the Council to operate and maintain the
site. It will also contribute towards the investment required at this former airbase to
create jobs, protect its heritage and enable public access to be further opened up.
Development Committee
28
18 December 2014
I am aware of the representations that have been made concerning a desire for
aviation to return to the County Council's site, and thought it appropriate to help clarify
the position as far as the County Council as land owner is concerned, which is as set
out in the report considered by the Council's Economic Development Sub Committee
on 24 November 2014. The Sub Committee agreed the two recommendations
contained in the report, also resolving to increase Member involvement in the
regeneration of Scottow Enterprise Park through the formation of a Member Working
Group (the details of which are due to be considered at their meeting on 19 January
2015).
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage - Objection - The proposed development comprises the construction
of an 86.64 ha solar farm within former airfield at RAF Coltishall, including landscaping,
transformers, substations, security fencing and associated works. The development
would be situated within RAF Coltishall Conservation Area, which includes the historic
airfield, two scheduled monuments, and a number of locally listed buildings.
Following our letter of the 19th November (Our Ref: P00437601) we have now
received additional [visualisations] from the applicant for this scheme. We appreciate
the effort the applicant has undertaken to produce these visualisations and have been
very impressed with the high quality and usability of this data.
Having considered all available information, we consider that the proposals would
have a direct impact upon the historic airfield and conservation area and impact the
setting of nearby designated heritage assets; resulting in a high level of harm to
significance. It is our view that amendments to the design scheme should be employed
to reduce the scale of the solar farm and lessen the level of adverse impact. We would
recommend that the application is withdrawn or the decision deferred to enable
consideration of design scheme changes to reduce impact and harm and ensure the
economic benefit to the site is secured.
See copy of original comments dated 29 November, response from the applicant dated
3 December and further response from English Heritage dated 5 December 2014 at
Appendix 1.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions - I have noted the
information submitted by the applicant and would wish the following conditions to be
attached to any permission granted:•
•
No plant or machinery proposed to be installed on the site, as part of this
permission shall be audible above background noise level beyond the
boundaries of the site.
Except in relation to the construction phase of the development, hereby
permitted, no external lighting whatsoever shall be installed on the site unless
planning permission has first been granted.
In relation to the construction phase of the installation, considering the volume of
deliveries to the site, I would also recommend that hours of work be limited to 07:00 –
18:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 – 13:00 Saturdays, with no Sunday or bank holiday
working.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions - We have no objection to
the application provided that the four conditions regarding the protection of the water
environment described below are included if you are minded to grant permission. We
also offer advice regarding surface water management.
Development Committee
29
18 December 2014
The water environment
The geology of the site is comprised of Brickearth, a superficial deposit consisting of
clay, silt and sand and is designated as a Secondary B Aquifer. The Brickearth overlies
sands and gravels associated with the Wroxham Crag Formation, designated as
Principal Aquifer which in turn overlies the Principal Chalk Aquifer.
The site is not situated in a Source Protection Zone; however, there are groundwater
abstraction boreholes to the north of the site. The site is considered to be of high
environmental sensitivity in the northern half of the site and medium sensitivity over the
rest.
Land Contamination
We are aware that the RAF Coltishall site has been subject to previous investigation;
Engineering environmental risk assessment executive summary, Jacobs June 2010.
However, this has been limited in the proposed development area, generally to the
western side. Voluntary LNAPL remediation was carried out in the vicinity of BFI5 and
in the northern eastern area where site investigation identified three main areas where
LNAPL contamination in groundwater had occurred. At this time it was acknowledged
that on the basis of the risk assessment remedial intervention in these areas was not
warranted.
The proposed development requires shallow piling across the site, cable runs and the
construction of a transformer building. We are concerned that there is the potential for
these groundworks to find previously undetected contamination within the unsaturated
zone and potentially cause the mobilisation of existing groundwater contamination.
We require sufficient information to be confident that the development will not cause or
promote contamination of the groundwater. The proposed development area should
be subject to investigation and assessment, with subsequent remediation, as may be
necessary to ensure any residual levels of contaminants found to be present do not
pose an unacceptable risk to the groundwater.
Groundwater monitoring should also be undertaken before, during and post
construction. This monitoring should be targeted and include those areas of the
development where LNAPL has previously been identified but not remediated. In some
locations it may be possible to utilise existing monitoring boreholes.
Environment Agency Position
We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development
as submitted if the following four planning conditions are included as set out below.
Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an
unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.
Condition 1
Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission no
development approved by this planning permission, or such other date or stage in
development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, shall take
place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks
associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in
writing, by the local planning authority: 1) A preliminary risk assessment which has
identified:
 a ll pre vious us e s
 pote ntia l conta m ina nts a s s ocia ted with those uses
 a conce ptua l m ode l of the s ite indica ting s ource s , pa thwa ys a nd re ce ptors
 pote ntia lly una cce pta ble ris ks a ris ing from conta m ina tion a t the s ite .
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed
Development Committee
30
18 December 2014
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3)
The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and,
based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4) A verification
plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the
works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any
requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the
express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved.
Condition 2
No commencement of any part of the permitted development or of each phase of
development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of
works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the
remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning
authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in
accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term
monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification
plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as
approved.
Condition 3
No development should take place until a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan
in respect of contamination including a timetable of monitoring and submission of
reports to the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including
details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary
contingency measures shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the
approved reports. On completion of the monitoring specified in the plan a final report
demonstrating that all long-term remediation works have been carried out and
confirming that remedial targets have been achieved shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Condition 4
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at
the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local
planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation
strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination
shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The
remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason:
To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (particularly groundwater
associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers, from potential
pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework
Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency
Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3:2013) position statements.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning
system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
Development Committee
31
18 December 2014
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water
pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should
also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent
person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
Surface water
As the site area is over a hectare in Flood Zone 1 a Flood Risk Assessment; SLR,
407.05185.00001, October 2014 has been submitted to support the application. We
have assessed the FRA and have no flood risk objections to the proposed
development.
The solar panels are to be installed so they are raised off the ground and the existing
grass will be retained; rainfall will drain down the panels and will soak into the grass.
The soil type is Brickearth; clay, silt and sand, therefore it is possible that the water
may take time to infiltrate into the soil. Providing that the site is flat the water will pond
on the site until it has infiltrated and should not flow off site. If the site is sloped it is
possible surface water may run off in lines at the base of the solar panels and may flow
downhill and off site. The site is relatively flat so the water should remain on the grass
until it infiltrates. There is a slight easterly slope and any overland flows would join the
ordinary watercourse to the east.
Overall the development will replicate the existing infiltration greenfield drainage as the
surface water will be retained on the site and infiltrate into the soil and should not
increase flood risk elsewhere.
If there are concerns that the water will run off the site then the land beneath the panels
could be shaped into a dished topography to ensure the runoff collects beneath the
panel and does not run off elsewhere. Alternatively swales and ditches on the eastern
boundary could be constructed to collect any overland flows to prevent them running
offsite.
The soils should not be compacted during construction to inhibit infiltration into the
soils.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions - The former RAF Coltishall site (including the airfield
and runway) was designated a Conservation Area by NNDC in 2010. As part of this
process eight buildings were included on the Councils ‘Local List’ in addition to the
already designated Ancient Monument Blast Walls and Spitfire Pens. With this in mind
RAF Coltishall should be seen as one of the Districts most important military sites of
national significance.
Whilst the airfield dates back to 1939 prior to the outbreak of WWII, its greatest
significance comes from its Cold War development period. The survival of the intact
runway hardstanding was an integral part of the decision to designate the base a
Conservation Area.
As a consequence of this designation, development proposals involving the runway
should be viewed in the context of:-
•
•
•
Any harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area, as set out
by Section 72 of the 1990 Planning (listed buildings and conservation areas)
Act 1990,
Any harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset as required by
paragraph 132, 133 and 134 of the NPPF.
North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy EN8 which requires development to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets
which includes conservation areas.
Development Committee
32
18 December 2014
In terms of the significance of the runway, RAF Coltishall served as a fighter base
during WWII, and more latterly during the Cold War and Gulf Wars. During WWII the
base initially had an open grass airfield and in 1944 this was reinforced by the
installation of prefabricated pierced metal planking. The first composite runway was
constructed in 1949 with large scale modifications in 1957 and 1959 to accommodate
V bombers and heavier jet air craft. Unquestionably the runway has been subject to
much physical alteration through its lifespan and this development adds to the historic
significance and context of the site. The presence of the runway is essential to the
wider understanding of the designated heritage asset (the conservation area) and the
site as a whole. Views of the runway and areas of hardstanding and their relationship
to surrounding structures are very important. The runway provides the focal point and
original purpose to the site as an airfield. ‘The Conservation Area Designation Report’
adopted by the Council identifies three character areas within the site. The runway falls
within Character Area 3 ‘The Airfield’ and is integral to the character and appearance
and interrelationship of this area of the base.
With the above in mind the significance of the runway and airfield is derived from:•
•
•
•
•
•
its historical phases of development,
its relationship to the designated and non-designated infrastructure
surrounding it,
the interrelationship of views to and from as well as around the runway,
the historic connections to the aircraft which used it,
the association with the conflicts it was operational for,
its construction and physical materials.
In regards to the proposal, C&D have previously shown our support for new uses being
secured for the RAF Coltishall site and certainly do not want to see the site preserved
in aspic. We would encourage any use which would ensure the sites future viability
provided this use also balances the long-term conservation of the base and the
preservation of its heritage assets.
The 49.9MW solar array will be split into six blocks and cover almost all the grass
areas of the airfield being separated by the existing hardstanding runway and
perimeter tracks. The development will therefore dominate the aforementioned
‘Character Area 3’ of the base. The six blocks of arrays have a height of approximately
3.0m and will be encircled by 2.1m high security fencing. With this in mind, there will
unquestionably be an impact on the setting of the heritage assets on the base, their
interrelationship and importantly the understanding and interpretation of the airfield.
The detailed visualisations provided by the applicant are extremely useful in assessing
the extent and degree of this impact. Whilst there will be impact on the longer
panoramic views into and out of the airfield, these views are not totally lost. The panels
being 3.0m in height still allow for some appreciation of the scale and extent of the
airfield. There is also sufficient separation distance and buffer zones between the
heritage assets and the panels in order that their appreciation at closer proximity
remains unaltered.
The submission also highlights the reversibility and 25 year lifespans of the proposal
as well as the minimal total loss of fabric to the heritage assets. C&D must be mindful
that the development is fully reversible and represents no long-term harm to the
Conservation Area or the associated heritage assets on the base. It is also important to
bear in mind the economic benefit and investment which the site desperately needs. It
Development Committee
33
18 December 2014
should also be noted that the installation of the panels does not rule out or prohibit
future aviation uses for the base.
Whilst the solar arrays will erode our understanding of the positioning and spatial
relationship of the designated features, and, to some extent, the evidence of their
evolutionary sequence - the site is historically known for its development, technology
and functional utilitarian appearance with which the development is not altogether
dissimilar to. Provided the short-term impact of the development is offset by seeing the
economic benefits of the solar farm invested back into the base and its heritage assets
the development will have a positive impact on the site moving forward.
In conclusion, whilst there will be harm to setting of the designated heritage assets, this
harm is less than substantial due to the reversibility of the development, the ability to
still appreciate the scale and extent of the airfield, the interrelationship of the heritage
assets and the wider public benefit being secured.
In the event of the application being approved the following condition should be
attached:Once the solar array has reached the end of its 25year lifespan the panels and
associated infrastructure shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.
Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the 2.1m perimeter fencing
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be
carried out only in strict accordance with the approved details.
A section 106 agreement should be put in place which would ensure the economic
benefits from the solar development be directed into the conservation, repair and
consolidation of the heritage assets of the base. £25,000 was agreed as part of the
Section 106 agreement at former RAF West Raynham for the conservation of the
Control Tower – a sum equal or similar to this would seem appropriate.
By virtue that the proposed will not substantially harm the significance of the
designated heritage assets, C&D raise no objection to the application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The application
proposes the erection of solar panels (and associated infrastructure) on the disused
airfield of the former RAF Coltishall airbase to produce electricity. The airbase was
decommissioned in 2006 and the airfield has not been in use since then. All of the
concrete runways and taxiways remain in situ as does the majority of the buildings and
other infrastructure associated with the old RAF station. The site has been
designated a Conservation Area with the former WWII spitfire pens and cold war blast
walls designated a Schedule Ancient Monument. The land surrounding the runways
have been left to grass and are intermittently grazed by sheep or mown.
The development site area covers 98ha with the actual ground area covered by solar
panels being 67ha. A security fence is proposed, set back 2m from the site perimeter
(effectively the concrete taxiways) with the solar panels set back a further 8m from the
security fence. Currently the access to the site is via the main access drive into the
former RAF base.
To assist in the assessment of the effects of the development, the application has been
supported by a Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by Luke Broom-Lynne
dated 4th October 2014, and an Ecological Assessment prepared by Wild Frontier
Ecology dated September 2014. Both documents have been prepared in accordance
Development Committee
34
18 December 2014
with recognised standards and procedures by suitably qualified professionals and are
considered acceptable in principle.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations, the principle of erecting solar panels on
the former airfield is not contested. However, there remain some concerns regarding
the landscape character and visual impact, and ecological impact.
The main concern with the proposed development is the impact on a skylark
population of District significance. The ecological assessment has identified that the
site of the solar development has around 140 breeding territories of skylark, and the
surrounding grassland a further 60 territories. This is an unprecedented number of
breeding territories within such a small defined area. The skylark is a Red Listed bird
of Conservation Concern due to the dramatic decline the overall population has
suffered in the last few decades (primarily as a result of agricultural practices). The
proposed development would severely adversely impact the skylark population on the
site.
The skylark is a Priority Species and is listed under Section 41 of the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority Species have
effectively replaced Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Species and are the species of
principle importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. Local Planning
Authorities have a statutory duty under the NERC Act to conserve and enhance
biodiversity with the S41 species to be used as a guide to implement that duty.
Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Guidance states that pursuing the aim of
sustainable development means moving from net losses in biodiversity to net gains.
There is a current lack of clarity within the Ecological Assessment and submitted draft
Mitigation statements as to what the overall impact would be and what mitigation is
required, which is suitable or achievable. Some of this lack of clarity is based on the
unknown construction timings of the development, which once confirmed may allow
adequate mitigation and monitoring to be put in place via a Construction and
Ecological Management Plan (CEMP). However, the solar farm will drastically
reduce the available habitat for skylark resulting in a severe reduction in the skylark
population and likely to put pressure on neighbouring populations as well.
Following the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ which is embedded within the core principles of the
National Planning Policy Framework, it is likely that both onsite mitigation, in the form
of habitat creation/maintenance within the remaining grassland areas in the blue line,
and offsite compensation, secured through a financial contribution, will be required to
achieve no net loss of this Priority Species. However, as yet there is no confirmation
that the required mitigation and compensation is achievable therefore the development
fails to comply with the NPPF or local policy EN9 (as the skylark is a protected BAP
species).
Further concerns arise around the future maintenance of the solar farm and whether
this will be mown or grazed by sheep. In Section 3.28 to 3.29 of the Planning
Statement it indicates that the grass and scrub of the site is devoid of biodiversity, this
is misleading given the value of the site to the local skylark population and to other
species such as barn owls, kestrel, and other fauna. The use of the site by wintering
bird populations is currently unknown as wintering bird surveys have not yet been
completed. Until this survey information has been submitted, the full impacts of the
development on ecology have not been assessed.
The Design and Access Statement indicates that the security risks posed by the
development can be met by a 2m high deer stock fence, this is re-enforced in the
Development Committee
35
18 December 2014
Planning Statement which indicates that deer fencing is ‘less intrusive than standard
mesh security fencing’ (Section 3.23). The use of deer stock fencing is an established
method of security fencing on solar developments and would be appropriate in this
location. It is therefore disappointing to see that 2.3m high standard wire mesh
fencing is proposed in the plan entitled ‘10_fence and gate’. Although it is
acknowledged that the airfield has an associated former industrial use and the
proposed use has industrial connotations, the setting is within a rural landscape more
befitting of the deer stock fencing. I can see no reason why stock deer fencing cannot
be used as suggested in the D&A Statement and the Planning Statement. This would
allow small mammals to access the site without the need for mammal gates at regular
intervals as well as being less visually intrusive.
In terms of the landscape and visual impacts, the submitted LVIA suggests that,
subject to the implementation of mitigation planting, the development will not result in
significant impacts to the local landscape character or visual receptors. This is
generally concurred with, however there are concerns that the proposed mitigation
planting may not be secured due to potential changes in the proposed access to the
development. Mitigation planting has been proposed on the northern and southern
ends of the old runway, as short to mid-range views of the development are possible
from nearby public highways and permissive paths. However, there is the potential
that a new access be developed from Cemetery Road to the north which may render
the planting impractical and have a greater impact on the landscape.
The majority of the former RAF base is owned by Norfolk County Council (with the
exception of the prison, HMP Bure, and the residential housing). This is depicted by
the land within the ‘blue line’ on the Module Layout plan. Any mitigation proposals,
both for the landscape and visual impacts and also for the ecology impacts, which will
be within the blue line, must be secured through a legal obligation to ensure that the
mitigation is implemented and effective for the duration of the development. There is
however concern that the use of the remaining land within the County Council
ownership is still uncertain and that potential changes to the use may render some of
the mitigation impossible, such as landscape planting and skylark mitigation. Section
5.26 of the Planning Statement suggests that the existing recently planted community
woodland to west of the proposed solar farm is to be moved to the south of the former
runway. Again, this will have knock on effects on the skylark mitigation and the
retention of the green spaces as required of the Conservation Area Appraisal (S 4.31
of the Planning Statement).
Overall there are a number of concerns about the proposal that have not yet been fully
addressed in line with current policy guidelines. To summarise these are:
• Skylark mitigation
• Wintering bird impacts
• Confirmation of type of security fencing
• Confirmation from NCC that landscape mitigation is acceptable and deliverable for
the timeframe of the solar development
It is recommended that these issued be addressed prior to making a decision to ensure
that the proposal is compliant with national and local policies.
Broadland District Council - No response
County Council (Highway) - The Transport Statement contains very little information
in relation to traffic generation, however the Planning Statement is a little more
forthcoming and helpfully lists not only vehicle numbers but also breaks the figures
Development Committee
36
18 December 2014
down by vehicle type.
Having regard to the volume and nature of traffic that previously accessed the
operational RAF airbase and the fact that traffic to this site has significantly reduced
since the base closed, it would not be realistic to recommend refusal of this application
on highway grounds.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that traffic follows the route indicated within the
applicants supporting documents and accordingly I recommend the following
condition:-
•
All traffic associated with the construction of the development will comply with
the Traffic Access Route specified within the submitted planning statement and
no other local roads unless approved in writing with the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Adjacent Parishes
Buxton with Lammas Parish Council - Supports the application subject to following
conditions:
1. the fencing and solar panels are sited far enough away from the runway (minimum
10 metres) and at a suitable height to allow future aeronautical use of the runway and
the taxi-ing of aircraft at both ends of the site.
2. the applicants update their application to include this on their plans before it is
approved.
3. the Scottow Enterprise Park (former RAF Coltishall) has its own access to the road
network at a convenient point outside Badersfield village and that industrial traffic is
not routed through Badersfield, a thriving and private residential village with no
connection to the proposed industrial development.
Tunstead Parish Council - resolved to have no objection providing a demolition fund is
set up by the current owner to ensure complete and immediate clearance of the site
after the voltaic panels stop working and preserving the access to and usage of the
runway for the future.
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 SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
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
Development Committee
37
18 December 2014
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
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 EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
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).
Policies of Broadland District Council
Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk 2011 (JCS),
amendments adopted January 2014:
Policy 1:To address climate change and promote sustainability, all development will be
located and designed to use resources efficiently, minimise greenhouse gas emissions
and be adapted to a changing climate and more extreme weather. Amongst a series
of other items, development will therefore be located to minimise flood risk, mitigating
any such risk through design and implementing sustainable drainage.
The environmental assets of the area will be protected, maintained, restored and
enhanced.
Policy 2: All development will be designed to the highest possible standards creating a
strong sense of place. In particular, development proposals will respect local
distinctiveness including, amongst other items, the landscape character and historic
environment.
Policy 3: Development will where possible aim to minimise reliance on non-renewable
high-carbon energy sources and maximise the use of decentralised and renewable or
low-carbon energy sources and sustainable construction technologies.
Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 saved policies:
Policy GS1: New development will only be accommodated within the settlement limits
for the Norwich fringe parishes, market towns and villages. Outside these limits,
development proposals will not be permitted unless they comply with a specific
allocation and/or policy of the Plan.
Policy GS3: Sets out general considerations to be taken into account in all new
development proposals, including accessibility for all, access and highway safety,
residential amenity, the character and appearance of the surrounding area, nature
conservation, agricultural land, the historic environment, land drainage, ground
conditions and air quality.
Policy ENV2: For all development proposals a high standard of layout and design will
be required with regard given to the scale, form, height, mass, density, layout, water,
energy efficiency, storage of waste, landscape, access, crime prevention and the use
of appropriate materials. This will include the consideration of the appearance and
treatment of spaces between and around buildings and the wider setting of the
development taking into account the existing character of the surroundings.
Development Committee
38
18 December 2014
Policy ENV5: Requires, where appropriate the protection and promotion of natural or
semi-natural features such as trees and hedges. Where possible, compensating
features will be required where development is allowed which would result in the loss
of important features.
Policy ENV14: Development which would detract from the setting of a listed building
will not be permitted.
Policy ENV16: The character and appearance of conservation areas will be protected
and enhanced.
Policy ENV20: All sites of development proposals which appear to raise archaeological
issues will be subject to an evaluation of their significance.
Policy TRA14: Development will not be permitted where it would endanger highway
safety or the satisfactory functioning of the local highway network.
Policy CS7: Proposals for renewable energy projects will be permitted unless they
would give rise to a significant adverse environmental impact.
Policy CS14: Noise levels to be taken into account in the determination of planning
applications.
Development Management (DPD) Proposed Submission:
Policy GC1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development: When considering
development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the
presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. It will
always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that
proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that
improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area
Policy GC2 – Location of new development: New development will be accommodated
within the settlement limits defined on the proposals map. Outside of these limits
development which does not result in any significant adverse impact will be permitted
where it accords with a specific allocation and/or policy of the development plan
Policy GC4 – Design: Development will be expected to achieve a high standard of
design and avoid any significant detrimental impact. Schemes which are of an
innovative nature or which reduce reliance on centralised, non-renewable energy
sources will be particularly encouraged. Proposals should pay adequate regard to
specified criteria.
Policy GC5 – Renewable energy: Proposals for renewable energy technology,
associated infrastructure and integration of renewable technology will be encouraged
where its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
Policy EN1 – Biodiversity and Habitats: Development proposals will be expected to
protect and enhance the biodiversity of the district, avoid fragmentation of habitats and
support the delivery of a co-ordinated green infrastructure network.
Where harmful impacts may occur, it should be adequately demonstrated that:
I. The development cannot be located where it would cause less or no harm;
and
II. That adequate mitigation is incorporated; and
Development Committee
39
18 December 2014
III. That the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts
Policy EN2 – Landscape: In order to protect the character of the area, development
proposals should have regard to the Landscape Character Assessment SPD and, in
particular, considering any impact upon key features stated.
Policy EN4 – Pollution: Development proposals will be expected to undertake an
assessment of the extent of potential pollution. Where pollution may be an issue,
adequate mitigation measures will be required. Development will only be permitted
where there will be no significant adverse impact upon amenity, human health or the
natural environment.
Policy TS3 – Highway Safety: Development will not be permitted where it would result
in any significant adverse impact upon the satisfactory functioning or safety of the
highway network.
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD):
Landscape Character Assessment SPD 2013: Identifies this part of the district as
falling within Landscape Character Area D3: Coltishall Tributary Farmland.
The SPD identifies a series of Landscape Planning Guidelines for this character area:
• Seek to conserve the open, rural character of the area
• Resist new development that would result in any diminution of the sparsely
settled nature of the area or in any reduction in the sense of isolation and
tranquillity within the area, which is devoid of large settlements and busy roads
• Seek to conserve remaining subtle features of the historic landscape, including
hedgerows, characteristic hedgerow trees and tracks
• Seek to conserve the landscape setting of churches and halls
• Seek to conserve the landscape setting of hamlets and villages
• Seek to ensure that any new small-scale development in or on the edges of
Tuttington, Lamas and Little Hautbois, responds to existing settlement pattern
and built form character
• Seek to ensure that any new development in or on the edges of Coltishall RAF
base responds to existing settlement pattern and respects the landscape
setting of Lamas and Little Hautbois
• Seek to ensure new development does not reduce the smooth, predominantly
uninterrupted skyline within the area
• Seek to conserve wide expansive views contained by distant wooded horizons
• Seek to conserve small pits, ponds and extraction sites
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. National Policy
Development Committee
40
18 December 2014
3. Local Policy
4. Principle of the development
5. Landscape
6. Impact on Biodiversity
7. Impact on Residential Amenity
8. Light Pollution
9. Highway Safety
10. Impact on Footpaths
11. Flood Risk
12. Contamination
13. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
14. Renewable Energy and Community Benefits
15. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within the
Planning Practice Guidance (06 March 2014). A Screening Opinion was produced
upon receipt of this application concluding that the solar proposal is not considered to
be EIA development and the potential impacts could be properly and rigorously
assessed through the standard planning process. Following the receipt of consultation
replies, Officers remain of the opinion that the proposed solar farm is not EIA
development.
National Policy Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements, circulars
and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, Planning
Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning Policy
Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of the
previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework, the
wording is more condensed.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Core
Strategy (CS) was adopted in 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the
Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
Development Committee
41
18 December 2014
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
•
•
•
•
•
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily,
including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for
co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
•
•
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;
and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable
and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities
should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects
outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the
criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:
•
•
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are
out-of-date, granting permission unless:
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.
Development Committee
42
18 December 2014
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the online
Planning Practice Guidance on 06 March 2014. The guidance includes an assessment
of the particular planning considerations that relate to large-scale ground-mounted
solar photovoltaic farms at Paragraph 13 Reference ID: 5-013-20140306.
Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on
previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high
environmental value;
that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can
be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and
the land is restored to its previous use;
the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on
neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;
the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;
great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a
manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on
views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives
not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful
consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such
assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar
farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the
significance of the asset;
the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example,
screening with native hedges;
the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons
including, latitude and aspect
Other relevant National Planning Guidance includes National Policy Statements for
Energy (NPS) published in July 2011 including:
•
•
Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1); and
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)
Whilst the NPS are designed to guide decision makers in relation to nationally
significant infrastructure, the guidance can also be considered relevant in the
assessment of smaller schemes below 50MW capacity onshore.
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS 2
would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on amenity,
wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
Development Committee
43
18 December 2014
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;
•
•
•
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are not
compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures and
meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken account of advice
not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character) which states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for
dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach to
site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type of
development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The site is located on non-agricultural land and the principle of the
proposed development in this location is considered acceptable subject to compliance
with Core Strategy policies and relevant material considerations such as Government
advice.
Development Committee
44
18 December 2014
LANDSCAPE
The site lies within the Low Plains (LP3) landscape character type as defined in the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June 2009). The broad
characteristics of this landscape type at the former RAF Coltishall site is a strong
'aerodrome character' with large expanses of hard and soft spaces.
To the south of the site lies landscape described within the Broadland District
Landscape Character Assessment SPD (Sept 2013) as Tributary Farmland (D3).
Broadland District Council have been consulted, albeit that BDC are also the
determining authority for the smaller section of proposed solar farm at the southern
end of the runway.
A key consideration is the effect a large area of solar panels and associated
infrastructure has on the character and appearance of this character type and also the
wider landscape. The proposed development would occupy approximately 87
hectares (approximately 215 acres) of non-agricultural land.
The applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
which has been prepared in accordance with recognised standards and procedures by
suitably qualified professionals and is considered acceptable in principle. The
submitted LVIA suggests that, subject to the implementation of mitigation planting, the
development will not result in significant impacts to the local landscape character or
visual receptors. This is concurred with by the Council's Landscape Officer, however
there are concerns that the proposed mitigation planting may not be secured due to
potential changes in the proposed access to the development. Mitigation planting has
been proposed on the northern and southern ends of the old runway, as short to
mid-range views of the development are possible from nearby public highways and
permissive paths. However, there is the potential that a new access be developed
from Cemetery Road to the north which may render the planting impractical and have a
greater impact on the landscape. This is a matter which requires further clarification
from the applicant and landowner(s) but could be secured by way of planning
conditions.
In respect of loss of agricultural land, the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map
produced by Natural England identifies the former RAF Coltishall site within the
'non-agricultural land' designation. Therefore technically no loss of agricultural land
would occur. Notwithstanding the ALC designation the site has been used more
recently for sheep grazing and it may be possible that sheep grazing could continue to
take place under panels to manage the wildflowers and grassland and therefore could
be seen as a form of farm diversification.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation
planting and landscape management, it is considered that the landscape impact of the
proposal would be broadly compliant with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
An Ecological Assessment dated Sept 2014 prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology has
been submitted and has been prepared in accordance with recognised standards and
procedures by suitably qualified professionals and is considered acceptable in
principle.
The main concern raised by the Council's Landscape Officer is the impact the
proposed development would have on a skylark population of District significance.
The ecological assessment has identified that the site of the solar development has
Development Committee
45
18 December 2014
around 140 breeding territories of skylark, and the surrounding grassland a further 60
territories. This is considered to be an unprecedented number of breeding territories
within such a small defined area. The skylark is a Red Listed bird of Conservation
Concern due to the dramatic decline the overall population has suffered in the last few
decades (primarily as a result of agricultural practices). The proposed development
would severely adversely impact the skylark population on the site.
The skylark is a Priority Species and is listed under Section 41 of the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority Species have
effectively replaced Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Species and are the species of
principle importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. Local Planning
Authorities have a statutory duty under the NERC Act to conserve and enhance
biodiversity with the Section 41 species to be used as a guide to implement that duty.
Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Guidance states that pursuing the aim of
sustainable development means moving from net losses in biodiversity to net gains.
There is a current lack of clarity within the Ecological Assessment and submitted draft
Mitigation statements as to what the overall impact would be and what mitigation is
required and whether such mitigation is suitable or achievable. The Landscape
Officer considers that some of this lack of clarity is based on the unknown construction
timings of the development, which once confirmed may allow adequate mitigation and
monitoring to be put in place via a Construction and Ecological Management Plan
(CEMP). However, the solar farm will drastically reduce the available habitat for
skylark resulting in a severe reduction in the skylark population and likely to put
pressure on neighbouring populations as well.
Following the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ which is embedded within the core principles of the
National Planning Policy Framework, it is likely that both onsite mitigation, in the form
of habitat creation/maintenance within the remaining grassland areas in the blue line,
and offsite compensation, secured through a financial contribution, will be required to
achieve no net loss of this Priority Species. However, as yet there is no confirmation
that the required mitigation and compensation is achievable therefore the development
fails to comply with the NPPF or local policy EN9 (as the skylark is a protected BAP
species).
Officers are in continual discussion with the applicant about this matter and the
Committee will be updated orally regarding any further development towards achieving
an appropriate mitigation scheme.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The Committee has had the opportunity to view the development site from various
locations and therefore will be able to appreciate the relationship between the nearest
residential properties and the application site.
In respect of impact of the solar farm itself on residential amenity, the nearest
residential properties to the site itself are Honeysuckle and Sudan Cottages at the
northern end of Frogge Lane. The dwellings are orientated north-east and south-west
and side onto the former airbase perimeter fence which is approximately 32m to the
west. The application site boundary is some 63m from the nearest of these dwellings
with perimeter track and retained grassland in between including the dwellings
curtilages which contain planting and some outbuildings.
Whilst the proposed solar farm may be visible from a small number of other properties,
given the distance between residential properties and the application site and having
Development Committee
46
18 December 2014
regard to the height of the panels, it is not considered that the proposal solar farm
would in any way result in overbearing impacts or loss of daylight or sunlight. The
panels are designed to absorb sunlight and therefore glare is not likely to occur from
the panels themselves.
It is also to be noted that planting is proposed at this point of the application site
boundary
In respect of any CCTV systems to be installed on site, (which are generally required
for insurance purposes), the applicant has not provided details of the type and number
of cameras to be installed on site. Having learned from the experience of systems on
other sites within the District, Officers consider that, because of the general distances
from properties, appropriately positioned cameras would not be likely to pose a
significant risk to the amenity of residents. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a
condition be imposed requiring approval of the full details of any CCTV system prior to
its installation to ensure that the CCTV to be installed is as unobtrusive as possible
both in terms of visibility in the landscape and impact of amenity.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be imposed
to ensure, amongst other things, that noise impacts remain acceptable and to ensure
that the CCTV system to be installed is first approved by the Local Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants are
not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded to
approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent external
lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development, although large in scale, would not
pose a highway safety risk during its operational life with very few vehicle movements
associated with maintenance and repair of the panels once constructed and few
vehicles movements associated with the maintenance of the grassland. It is only
during the construction phase when a significant number of vehicle movements will be
generated and it is delivery of the panels and associated equipment and materials to
site together with construction workers that would be likely to create the most number
of vehicle movements.
The applicant proposes to access the site with construction traffic from the main north
entrance via Badersfield. The applicant indicates that the construction phase would
take between 16-24 weeks for a solar farm of this scale and has indicated that
approximately 600 deliveries would take place to bring materials onto site. This is in
addition to staff movements for the 50-100 members of staff on site each day at peak
construction period (some of which are likely to arrive by minibus). The applicant has
indicated they will employ banksmen to manage the traffic into the site.
Notwithstanding the on-going concerns from residents in Badersfield about increasing
Development Committee
47
18 December 2014
traffic passing through the settlement to access the former RAF Coltishall site, the
Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that traffic
uses the access routes specified in the application (which could be secured by
planning condition).
Therefore, on the basis that the Highway Authority has no objection in principle to the
development and subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the
proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, it is considered that the
proposed development would not have any adverse impacts.
FLOOD RISK
The application site area is above 1 hectare in size and the applicant has submitted a
flood risk assessment which has been assessed by the Environment Agency (EA). The
Environment Agency have raised no objections to the proposal but have nonetheless
provided some advice on measures that may be required to deal with surface water
discharge.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, one of the primary risks relates to the previous military use
of the site. In particular there is the risk of unexploded ordnance and the applicant
would need to carry out necessary checks before work commences to ensure the risk
to construction workers is minimised.
In addition there are risks from contamination in the soil associated with the previous
uses on the site. The Environment Agency have not objected to the principle of the
development but have noted that 'The proposed development requires shallow piling
across the site, cable runs and the construction of a transformer building. We are
concerned that there is the potential for these groundworks to find previously
undetected contamination within the unsaturated zone and potentially cause the
mobilisation of existing groundwater contamination.
We require sufficient information to be confident that the development will not cause or
promote contamination of the groundwater. The proposed development area should
be subject to investigation and assessment, with subsequent remediation, as may be
necessary to ensure any residual levels of contaminants found to be present do not
pose an unacceptable risk to the groundwater. Groundwater monitoring should also be
undertaken before, during and post construction'.
The Environment Agency have suggested the imposition of four conditions as set out
above in their consultation reply. Given that the applicant wishes to commence on site
early in 2015 if permission is granted, officers understand that further discussions are
taking place between the applicant and the Environment Agency and the Committee
will be updated orally if and when any further progress is made. Nonetheless the
Committee would be entitled to approve the development with conditions if the matters
are not progressed prior to determination.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and notes attached to the permission, the
proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
Development Committee
48
18 December 2014
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREA
AND OTHER HISTORIC ASSETS
The former RAF Coltishall site (including the airfield and runway) was designated a
Conservation Area by NNDC in 2010. As part of this process eight buildings were
included on the Councils ‘Local List’ in addition to the already designated Scheduled
Ancient Monument Blast Walls and Spitfire Pens. With this in mind RAF Coltishall
should be seen as one of the Districts most important military sites of national
significance.
Whilst the airfield dates back to 1939 prior to the outbreak of WWII, its greatest
significance comes from its Cold War development period. The survival of the intact
runway hardstanding was an integral part of the decision to designate the base a
Conservation Area.
The applicant has submitted a Heritage Report produced by Donald Insall Associates
which concludes that:
'The proposed scheme offers substantial public benefits of providing an optimum
viable use for the site with environmental benefits which would secure the future of the
important historic military landscape and its heritage assets in the long-term, with only
relatively minimal and temporary ‘less than substantial’ harm to their significance. The
proposals meet the tests for sustainable development, insofar as these relate to
the historic environment in the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as North
Norfolk County Council and Broad District Council policies and should be welcomed in
heritage terms'.
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also Policy
EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment) which states:
‘Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted’.
In coming to its view the Committee should also take into account the advice contained
within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which specifically
addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic environment at
paragraphs 126 – 141.
Paragraph 132 states:
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require
clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed
building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*
registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional’.
Development Committee
49
18 December 2014
Paragraph 133 states:
‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary
to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
• no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
• conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is
demonstrably not possible; and
• the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use’.
Paragraph 134 states:
‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
The former RAF Coltishall site was designated as a Conservation Area in 2010. In
respect of the effect of the development on Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty on
planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is coupled with
the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN8, which requires development to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Officers consider that there is no doubt that the installation of nearly 200,000 solar
panels across the site would adversely affect the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area as clearly indicated within the photomontages produced by the
applicant. This harm would arise across a large part of the former flying field and
through the inclusion of ancillary structures and fencing which it is considered would
change the fundamental character of the airfield from one of generally open
uninterrupted views across the airfield to one partly masked by temporary low-level
structures whilst the solar panels and related equipment are located on site.
In addition the proposal would have some impact on the setting of the Scheduled
Ancient Monuments located at the site including the numerous Cold War blast walls
located predominantly on the eastern side of the site and non-designated blast walls
on the south western side together with adverse impacts on the Spitfire Pen located at
the north western side of the site.
English Heritage have concluded that serious harm would arise to a number of
designated heritage assets on site and have suggested that the scheme be withdrawn
and redesigned to reduce its impacts. However English Heritage have stopped short of
suggesting that 'Substantial Harm' would result and have concluded instead that 'Less
than Substantial Harm' under NPPF paragraph 134 would result.
Whilst Officers accept that harm would occur, it is appropriate to consider this harm to
be 'less than substantial' because no important heritage assets are directly affected
through physical works and the development itself is reversible without permanently
damaging the heritage assets on site. Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgment for
Development Committee
50
18 December 2014
the Development Committee in weighing the harm to heritage assets against the
statutory duties under Section 72 and also against the public benefits arising from the
proposal.
On other similar proposals across the District, a financial contribution has been
secured by developers to help maintain heritage assets on the site. It would seem
appropriate to secure a similar arrangement in this instance and discussions are
commencing with the applicant to secure a financial contribution for the maintenance
of heritage assets throughout the lifetime of the development.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to limit the time that the solar farm would be
permitted on site and subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106
Obligation to secure funding of at least £25k towards the upkeep/maintenance of
heritage assets on the site it is considered that the proposal would accord with the
general aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY & COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
The applicants have submitted a document titled 'Statement of Community
Involvement'. This sets out how the local community were engaged at pre-application
stage. The document refers to a number of possible community projects suggested at
pre-application stage including provision of leisure or sporting facilities in the local
community; provision of a footpath and/or cycle route across the site to link up
Badersfield, Scottow and Coltishall; and the potential for residents to be provided with
renewable energy or solar panels. The applicant refers to the possibility of further
discussions taking place with the Local Planning Authority in respect of these projects
but to date no such further discussions have taken place.
Nonetheless consideration has to be given as to whether the suggested Community
projects would comply with Government advice at paragraph 204 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) and CIL Regulation 122 tests in respect that
section 106 planning obligations “should only be sought where they meet all of the
following tests:
•
•
•
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Directly related to the development; and
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”
Officer advice is that the Development Committee should not give any weight to
possible community projects when determining the application as they would be
unlikely to pass the tests set out above.
In respect of renewable energy benefits, the applicants have indicated that the
proposed 49.9MW solar farm would generate enough electricity to supply
approximately 15,000 homes with their annual electricity requirements.
The applicant has not provided a breakdown of the expected number of KWh
generated by the proposal. The most recent Department for Environment and Climate
Change (DECC) figures of electricity usage per household suggested that
approximately 4715.5 kWh of electricity were used per consumer (household) annually
in North Norfolk. Using this figure the proposed solar farm would need to generate
70,732,500 KWh of electricity per annum to supply 15,000 homes.
Development Committee
51
18 December 2014
The most recent large-scale solar at the former RAF West Raynham site was predicted
to generate approximately 48.153GWh (48,153,000KWh) of electricity per annum
based on a stated capacity of the solar farm of approximately 49.9MW (enough
electricity to power approximately 10,212 homes annually). Officer therefore would
question whether the figures quoted by the applicant are overstated. This is important
when assessing the public benefits against harm. Officers would therefore suggest
that a lower figure of 10-11,000 homes is used in the assessment of electricity
generation.
Nonetheless, the solar farm would make the proposal one of the largest solar farms in
the country and would make a significant contribution towards meeting national
renewable energy targets, to which significant weight can be attached.
It is considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate
mitigation, the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policy EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND
PROJECTS IN THE AREA
At the time of writing this report it is understood that there are no other plans or projects
in the area which the Committee would need to be aware of in terms of assessing
cumulative impacts in relation to the proposed solar farm at the former RAF Coltishall
site.
OTHER MATTERS
During the consultation process a number of comments have been made about
whether the runway at the former RAF Coltishall site could be brought into active
service to transport goods into and out of the site in connection with existing and future
planned business operations.
Whilst the solar farm itself would not be located on the existing runway and therefore
opens up the possibility of its use, the landowner (Norfolk County Council) has made
clear that it does not see aviation use as part of its future plans for the site.
On 24 November 2014, a report to County Council’s Economic Development
Sub-Committee, stated:
“4.2
Aviation
The possibilities of aviation use at the former RAF Coltishall site have been a
recurring theme since the based closed to military use. This has broadly
followed a number of strands. Firstly, that Norwich International Airport (NIA)
should be relocated to make use of the longer runway, and release the existing
airport site for alternative commercial use, or housing. Secondly, the site could
be used for other commercial aviation use, such as aircraft storage and
breakage. Thirdly, that the site could be used for light aircraft and other related
use such as ATC and heritage.
4.3
In terms of the relocation of NIA there are huge technical and economic
obstacles in developing civil aviation use at Coltishall. There would need to be
massive investment in redeveloping the operational infrastructure, and in
off-site transportation improvements. NIA has plenty of capacity for expansion
with no shortage of slots and a recently expanded terminal building capable of
accommodating substantial increases in passenger numbers. NIA can meet
the changing needs of short haul aircraft for decades to come. NIA have made
Development Committee
52
18 December 2014
it clear that they do not want to relocate, that it would not make economic sense
to move the operation further away from its catchment area, and would resist
any proposals to do so.
4.4
The ad-hoc aviation use is not considered viable either. Recent
enquiries to use the airfield for film production use have again highlighted a
number of operational safety concerns over allowing aviation use to any real
extent on an unlicensed facility. In taking forward the solar development,
officers undertook an exercise to understand the compatibility between aviation
and solar. The conclusion of this work was that if protection zones are provided
for aviation use then a lost opportunity cost arises. Buffer / protection zones
would be required, between the solar site and the parts of the airfield that may
be used for aviation use – approximately 60 acres of potential solar
development land would be ‘sterilised’ reducing the scale of the solar farm that
could be accommodated on the site, reducing its financial viability and the
income to the Council (without at this time any firm commercial aviation use
offsetting this reduction). As a consequence the size of the solar farm agreed to
be taken forward for planning consent (49.9MW) will, once complete, prevent
the former airfield from being used for aviation purposes (at least until the
panels are removed, which is unlikely before 2040).
In addition to the above, the applicant has provided an Aviation Evaluation Summary
Report prepared by aviation experts. This responds to the following questions posed
by the applicants:
•
•
•
What the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) requirements would be should the
runway be utilised for aerodrome purposes;
What supporting infrastructure would be required; and
What criteria would the solar farm have to meet to enable the two uses to
co-exist
The report concludes that safeguarding of the runway and ancillary areas would have
significant implications for the design and financial viability of the proposed solar farm.
In addition, safeguarding of the runway is not considered to be viable in the absence of
a firm commitment to utilise it in the near future given the commitment this would
require with respect to capital costs and on-going revenue requirements.
The runway at the former RAF Coltishall site is not protected in planning policy terms
and ultimately it is a matter of economic viability for the landowner in terms of return on
their investment. Officer advice therefore is to assess the proposal before the
Committee on the basis that no economic use of the runway is currently planned.
Refusal based on the potential of the solar farm to inhibit the use of the former runway
could not be justified in planning terms.
SUMMARY
The installation of a 49.9MW solar farm would, amongst other things, have adverse
impacts on heritage assets including Scheduled Ancient Monuments and the wider
Conservation Area and, without appropriate mitigation, could result in adverse
landscape impacts and significant impacts on breeding skylarks.
At the time of writing this report it was not concluded as to whether appropriate
mitigation could be sought to address the impact on skylark habitat but, if appropriate
mitigation was considered possible, then it would be a matter of weighing the impacts
of the proposal against any public benefits (whilst having regarding for the
Development Committee
53
18 December 2014
requirements under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990).
The public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy generation is a
material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded in accordance
with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF).
If appropriate mitigation for breeding skylarks is not possible and/or appropriate
landscape mitigation is not secured then these are further matters which would weigh
against the grant of planning permission.
The Committee will be updated orally regarding progress towards achieving
acceptable landscape and ecological mitigation for skylarks.
In all other respects, the proposal would accord with Development Plan policies and,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the completion of a Unilateral
Undertaking or S106 Obligation to secure funding for the maintenance of heritage
assets and to secure monitoring of the effectiveness of required landscape and
biodiversity mitigation, the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO THE HEAD OF PLANNING TO APPROVE subject to
confirmation that appropriate landscape and breeding skylark habitat improvements
can be secured and subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106
Obligation to secure at least £25k for the maintenance of heritage assets on site and to
secure monitoring of the effectiveness of required landscape and biodiversity
mitigation and subject to the imposition of specific conditions listed below:
•
30 Year permission (including removal of equipment after this time);
•
•
Landscape and Biodiversity Enhancements (including a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan);
Agreement of Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route;
•
No loudspeakers or CCTV systems to be installed unless permission granted;
•
No lighting to be installed unless permission granted
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(5)
SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street for Mr Cutting
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 December 2014
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Development Committee
54
18 December 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761425 PO - Erection of three residential dwellings
Refused 15/11/1976
PLA/19761675 PO - Erection of two dwellings
Approved 10/01/1977
PLA/20020154 PO - Erection of three dwellings
Refused 21/05/2002
PLA/20021353 PO - Erection of one dwelling
Approved 30/07/2003
PLA/20031271 PF - Erection of detached dwelling with garage
Withdrawn 22/09/2003
PLA/20040111 PF - Erection of four detached dwellings
Approved 15/03/2005
PLA/20040139 PF - Erection of dwelling
Refused 25/03/2004
PLA/20050398 PO - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 05/07/2005
PLA/20060520 PF - Variation of condition 13 of planning permission reference
20040111 (four dwellings) to enable the development to take place in accordance with
revised flood risk assessment
Approved 10/08/2006
PF/11/0937 HOU - Erection of double garage, attached two bay cart shed, storage
areas at ground level and in roof space
Refused 11/11/2011
PF/12/0076 HOU - Erection of double garage/two bay cart shed
Withdrawn by Applicant 18/03/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is a full application for the erection of a detached three bedroom bungalow. Access is
from a private drive known as The Horseshoe. Parking is provided with a single
attached garage and parking spaces in front of the garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Stevens having regard to the following planning issue(s):
The application site is surrounded by housing and could be regarded as an infill plot.
PARISH COUNCIL
Sutton Parish Council - no response
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Authority - no objection subject to a condition on the provision of parking.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
55
18 December 2014
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
EN 4 - Design
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Contrary to Policy SS 2
APPRAISAL
Although the site is within the centre of Sutton it is within the Countryside policy area.
(Sutton is not a designated settlement within the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.)
Within the Countryside policy area under the terms of Policy SS 2 proposals for new
market housing should not be permitted.
The access to this plot is from The Horseshoe which is a small development of four
houses, which was developed on land originally part of Horseshoe Cottages curtilage.
This development was approved during the period of the policies of the earlier Local
Plan which allowed for small groups of infill dwellings. This site was not part of that
garden but the garden of an adjacent dwelling The Pightle. The plot had been
detached from that property sometime before 2006. There are no highway objections
to this current proposal.
A previous application on the site was refused on access and visibility grounds. The
proposal proposed a different access arrangement from another private drive.
As regards the design for the dwelling proposed, at five metres to the ridge this is
relatively low and the dwelling has a hipped roof. The relationship with the adjacent
dwelling (The Pightle) is considered acceptable. The dwelling on the other side is a
two storey dwelling with a blank gable wall that would be unaffected by the proposed
development. While the bungalow is of no outstanding architectural merit it would fit
in with the surrounding development. Reasonably good quality materials are
proposed for its construction. Though the proposed bungalow covers a good
proportion of the plot, enough space is left for a reasonable size garden and parking for
at least two cars.
The National Planning Policy Framework clarifies the primary status of the
Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does not change the statutory status of
the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development
that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed
development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations
indicate otherwise'. The Council currently has a demonstrable 5 year land supply as
is required by the National Planning Policy Framework for the North Norfolk Core
Strategy to be regarded as up-to-date.
In conclusion, while there are no objections to the property on design or amenity
grounds, the proposal is contrary to Policy SS2. Accordingly, the application is
recommended for refusal.
Development Committee
56
18 December 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
To refuse for the reason specified below.
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside
policy area where there is a general presumption against residential development. It is
considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this
case.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the adopted Development Plan
Policy SS 2.
(6)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/1302 - Change of use from A4 (public house)/residential
to C3 (Residential); The Old Red Lion, The Green for Mr I Webster
(Full Planning Permission)
ANTINGHAM - PF/14/1261 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of rooflights to facilitate conversion of loft to habitable
accommodation; Kimberley, Bradfield Road, Southrepps for Mr and Mrs
Richardson
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/14/1324 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Edgewood
Cottage, Holt Road for Mrs J Wright
(Householder application)
BACTON - NMA1/14/0619 - Non-material amendment request to alter south wall
to make study rectangular; Seabrink, Beach Road for Mr W & Mrs E Coombe &
Hay
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BARSHAM - NMA1/11/0167 - Non material amendment request to permit insertion
of two additional windows to the first floor west elevation; The Gatehouse, Long
Lane, East Barsham for Mrs Williamson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/1199 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 4 School
Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AT for Mr & Mrs Wilcox
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1306 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension;
Anglia Mowers, Britons Lane for Anglia Mowers
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/1273 - Installation of two dipole antennas, a 1.8m diameter
satellite dish, two GPS antennas and ancillary development; Ntl Site 11407,
Cockthorpe Airfield, The Street, Cockthorpe for Arqiva Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1281 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Sea Grass,
Saxlingham Road for Mr and Mrs C Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
57
18 December 2014
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1053 - Erection of 0.9 metre boundary fence and gates; 41
High Street for Mrs J Robb
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/1068 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions to
link dwelling to annexe, single-storey extension to annexe and erection of boat
store to front elevation of annexe; 50 High Street for Mr & Mrs M Archer
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - NMA3/14/0035 - Non material amendment request to permit to insert
additional rooflight to rear elevation roof slope; Plot 2, John William Way for Mr
and Mr Prince
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRININGHAM - NMA1/12/0242 - Non material amendment to permit change of
windows to ground floor west and north elevations and door and window to
window in east elevation and rooflight to south elevation; Moriah Cottage,
Dereham Road for Mr P Williams
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRISTON - PF/14/1203 - Erection of side extension & raise roof height to existing
detached garage; 4 Thornton Close for Mr and Mrs Coles
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NP/14/1464 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Markshall Game Farm, Craymere Beck, Melton Constable for
Mr V Daniels
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CATFIELD - PF/14/1277 - Erection of detached double garage; Thatch Croft, The
Street for Mr Castleton
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1282 - Removal of condition 4, 5 and 6 of planning
permission 10/1070 to permit permanent residential occupation; 2 Rectory Hill
Barns, Holt Road for Mr Lacoste
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/1197 - Change of use of land to garden
and erection of double garage; Manor House, Norwich Road, Corpusty for Mr G
Sinclair
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0975 - Erection of summer house; Estate Managers Office,
Hanover Court, Overstrand Road for Hanover Housing
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/1237 - Erection of replacement two-storey side/rear extension;
The Watch House, The Gangway for Mr Hill
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/14/1238 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension, replacement
single-storey rear extension with roof terrace and internal and external
alterations; The Watch House, The Gangway for Mr Hill
Development Committee
58
18 December 2014
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/1214 - Insertion of external door and creation of new access for
flat; 1 The Gangway for Mr M Newlands
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/14/1215 - Insertion of external door and internal alterations to
facilitate creation of new access to flat; 1 The Gangway for Mr Newlands
(Listed Building Alterations)
DILHAM - PF/14/1152 - Conversion of agricultural barn to residential dwelling and
erection of detached single garage and creation of new access; New Barn,
Honing Road for Fyebridge Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - NP/14/1375 - Prior notification of intention to erect manure/general
storage agricultural building; Land off Toftrees Road for Mr Blyth
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/1331 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Cedar
Lodge, Drabbs Lane for Mr Wright
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/1050 - Conversion of workshop
accommodation; Chapel House, Chapel Road for Mr J Claxton
(Householder application)
to
habitable
FAKENHAM - LA/14/1204 - Erection of single storey rear extension to facilitate
conversion to dwelling; 12 Market Place for B & L Properties Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1213 - Variation of conditions 2 & 3 of planning permission
ref: 14/0399 to change to external materials and windows to proposed extension;
12 Market Place for B & L Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/14/1312 - Display of illuminated fascia, totem and directional
signs; Thurlow Nunn, Enterprise Way for Vauxhall
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1283 - Change of use of first floor storage to cafe/restaurant
(A3); 23A Bridge Street for Mrs D Pollard
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/89/2604 - Non-material amendment request to change brick
type on Plots 148-177 inclusive; The Rowans (off Salmons Way) for Necton
Management Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/1327 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Bethany
Cottage, Stow Heath Road for Mr B Davies
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/1005 - Removal of debris, redundant structures and
materials and re-alignment of rock sill sea defence to upper foreshore;
Development Committee
59
18 December 2014
Foreshore Beach, Happisburgh for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/14/1255 - Retention of 1.8 metre high fence and gate; 18 Raynham
Road for Mr S Futter
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/14/1106 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; Land at Heron
Way for Mr F Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/14/1264 - Conversion of agricultural barn to 4 residential
dwellings; Brightmere Farm, Stalham Road for Caddow Design and Build Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/1170 - Demolition of pitched roof and erection of flat
roof to linked extension, insertion and re-location of doors and windows.;
Methodist Chapel, The Street, Hindolveston for Mrs Webb
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - LA/14/1171 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion of chapel to residential dwelling; Methodist Chapel, The Street,
Hindolveston for Mrs Webb
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/14/1345 - Demolition of rear single-storey extension and erection of
replacement, insertion of replacement sash windows to front elevation and
recover front elevation dormers; 22 & 22a High Street for Miss D J Bottrill
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - NMA1/12/1164 - Non-material amendment request to erect close boarded
fence with planting in front; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for Capricorn
Estate Partnership
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HORNING - PF/14/1210 - Erection of rear & side single storey extensions; 15
Broadwater Way for Mrs Moore
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/1335 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Nortons,
Meadow Drive for Mr D Olley
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/14/1293 - Installation of roof light; Rookery Barn, Sea Palling Road,
Ingham for Mr A Richardson
(Householder application)
INGHAM - LA/14/1294 - Internal alterations and insertion of rooflight; Rookery
Barn, Sea Palling Road for Mr Richardson
(Listed Building Alterations)
INGWORTH - NMA1/14/0684 - Non material amendment request to permit the
insertion of balustrade to south west balcony and revised window and door to
north east elevation; West End Cottage, West End for Mr and Mrs M Farrow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
60
18 December 2014
KELLING - PF/14/1263 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission 05/0622
to permit permanent residential occupation; Rose Cottage, The Street for Mr &
Mrs Cordeaux
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - LA/14/1058 - Demolition of garden walls; The Old Barn
Farmhouse, 45 The Street for Mrs S Hollier
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - PF/14/1371 - Erection of agricultural lean to storage building;
Land at White House Farm, Fakenham Road for M & K Hattrell Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/14/1247 - Erection of two-storey rear extension (Revised design of
planning permission 14/0696 omitting dormer & replacing with rooflight); Yew
Tree Cottage, Staithe Road for Mr V Enever
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1290 - Change of use from hair salon to additional living
accommodation; 7 High Street for Gold Park Salon
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1342 - Erection of single-storey rear and front extensions;
16 Trunch Road for Mrs J Sutton
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0711 - Change of use from car showroom to D1 (place
of worship); 13-21 Bacton Road for New Life Community Church
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1266 - Erection of single-storey side extension,
detached car port and creation of vehicle access; 68 Yarmouth Road for Mr and
Mrs E Joyce
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1279 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey
rear extensions; 14 Hamilton Close for Mr G Turner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/1315 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
repairs; 6 Church Street for North Walsham Chiropractic Clinic
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1223 - Change of use from ground floor retail (A1) and
first floor storage to Chiropodist (D1) and installation of replacement shop front;
31 Market Place for Mr Hoyes
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1270 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
ref:05/1482 to permit re-location of access road within site; Ebridge Mill,
Happisburgh Road, White Horse Common for Barn Owl Conversions Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
61
18 December 2014
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/1311 - Internal alterations and maintenance; 29-30
Market Place for Acorn Properties
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/14/1314 - Display of two illuminated and one non
illuminated signs; 46 Market Place for Yorkshire Building Society
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/1316 - Installation of replacement non and illuminated
signs; 46 Market Place for Yorkshire Building Society
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/14/1317 - Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings; 43 Marshgate for Mr M Alexander
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1336 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 14/0963 to permit change of pitched to flat roof of rear extension and
insertion of roof lantern; 32 Happisburgh Road for Mr & Mrs Rush
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/14/1219 - Retention of replacement front porch; 20 Pauls
Lane for Mr Thompson
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PO/14/0451 - Erection of forty two dwellings; Land to the South
of Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs Hughes
(Outline Planning Permission)
PASTON - NMA1/13/1242 - Non material amendment request to permit insertion
of door and window to east elevation and fenestration revisions to north, south
and west elevations of the proposed garage conversion to holiday
accommodation; Sundial Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr J Manricks
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RAYNHAM - NP/14/1374 - Prior notification of intention to erect manure/general
purpose storage building; Land to north of Shereford Gate Plantation, Fakenham
Road, Raynham for Mr Blyth
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
RAYNHAM - NP/14/1376 - Prior notification of intention to erect manure/general
storage agricultural building; Land east of West Raynham Airfield, West
Raynham for Mr Blyth
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
RAYNHAM - PF/13/0983 - Change of use of former aircraft hanger buildings to B2
(general industrial) and B8 (storage including agricultural storage); Former RAF
Hangers T1 & T2, West Raynham for Sigma Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/0989 - Change of use of former agricultural buildings to single
residential dwelling; Manor Farm Barns, West Raynham Road, South Raynham,
for Raynham Farm Company
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
62
18 December 2014
RAYNHAM - PF/14/1217 - Change of use of agricultural land to garden; Land rear
of St Margarets House, The Street, West Raynham for Mr Dodd
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/14/0365 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
windows and door layout to south east and west elevations and re-position of
chimney; Adajcent to Keepers Retreat, Old Turnpike Road, Roughton, Norwich,
NR11 8SP for Mr and Mrs D Williams
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - NMA1/14/0794 - Non material amendment request to permit the
increase of proposed single storey side extension width to 2.08m; Saxonholme,
Home Close, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QF for Mr M Hogan
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RUNTON - PF/14/1304 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Calveswell
Barn, Calves Well Lane, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9LU for Mr Brandish
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1038 - Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and
light industrial use) and associated outside storage; Hanger 4, Former RAF
Coltishall, Scottow, NR105GB for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/1268 - Erection of single-storey detached fitness room
and garden shed; Butterfly Barn 5, The Grange, Lynn Road, Sculthorpe,
Fakenham, NR21 9LL for Mr Bashforth
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0921 - Erection of replacement shop building and
provision of defined parking; Shell Fakenham, Creake Road, Sculthorpe,
Fakenham, NR21 9HT for Shell UK Retail
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1230 - Erection of rear porch and replacement of flat roof
to pitched on garage to facilitate conversion to ancillary accommodation; 8
Uplands Park, Sheringham, NR26 8NE for Mr and Mrs N Catchpole
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0774 - Continued use of A3 (café) for a mixed use of A3
(café)/A5 (hot food take-away) and retention of flue; 26 High Street, Sheringham,
NR26 8JR for Mr A Stevenson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1182 - Erection of rear conservatory; 3 (Plot 4) Augusta
Court, Sheringham, NR26 8AH for Mr Duffield
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/0235 - Non material amendment request to permit
fenestrational changes and introduction of roof light.; Lotus House, 10 Station
Approach, Sheringham, NR26 8RA for Mr & Mrs Lee
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
63
18 December 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1299 - Erection of side conservatory; 75 Beeston
Common, Sheringham, NR26 8EU for Mr Talbot
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AN/14/1310 - Display of non-illuminated hanging sign; 20 Church
Street, Sheringham, NR26 8QS for The Salvation Army Trustee Company
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SIDESTRAND - PF/14/1289 - Conversion and extension of roof space to bedroom
with ensuite and insertion of rooflights to west roof slope; South Barn, Cromer
Road, Sidestrand, Cromer, NR27 0LT for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1275 - Change of use of Post Office to residential dwelling
& erection of front wall; Post Office, High Street, Southrepps, NR11 8AH for Mr D
Geary
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/1518 - Continued use of sports ground for car boot sales;
Stalham Football Club Rivers Park, Brumstead Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12
9BJ for Mr D Penrose
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/14/1221 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Brick Kiln Farmhouse, St Giles Road, Swanton Novers, Melton Constable, NR24
2RB for Mr Jenny
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/14/1308 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Craymere Beck
House, Craymere Beck Road, Thurning, Melton Constable, NR24 2LN for Mr S
Garnier
(Householder application)
THURNING - LA/14/1309 - Internal alterations and erection of two-storey side
extension; Craymere Beck House, Craymere Beck Road, Thurning, Melton
Constable, NR24 2LN for Mr S Garnier
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - PF/14/1267 - Erection of front single-storey extension; 3 Blooms Turn,
Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0PQ for Mr and Mrs A Evans
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/1322 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Bracken
House, Anchor Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8HR for Mr Atthowe
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/1355 - Erection of extension to existing agricultural building;
Church Farm, Church Road, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8RG for R and J M Place
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1236 - Widening of existing entrance; Mill Cottage,
Holt Road, Upper Sheringham, Sheringham, NR26 8TN for Ms Hunt
(Householder application)
Development Committee
64
18 December 2014
WALCOTT - PF/14/0886 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling;
Gladstone Lodge, Archibald Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0NF for Mr & Mrs B W
Nunn
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/14/1278 - Construction of two rock sill sea defences; Beach at
Ostend, Walcott for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/1248 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
chapel/studio with covered link corridor; The Retreat, 63A Wells Road,
Walsingham, NR22 6DX for Mr R Pipes
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/1198 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Egmere Wells Cottages, Wells Road, Egmere, Walsingham, NR22 6AU for Miss
Kirby
(Householder application)
WARHAM - LA/14/1163 - Internal alterations; Keepers Cottage, Grove Farm, Wells
Road, Warham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NG for Coke Estates Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1180 - Demolition of front extension & erection of
replacement single-storey front extension; Sea Breeze, Plummers Drive,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1ET for Mr and Mrs Wynne
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1150 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 14/0080 to permit single-storey rear extension and the cladding
and rendering of the west elevation's gable wall.; 1 Mill Court,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HF for Hodgkinson Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1257 - Installation of replacement and upgrade of
pole with antennae (total height 17.5m) in revised position within compound and
siting of 2 new cabinets.; Land at New Farm, Warham Road, Wells-next-the-Sea
for CTIL and Telefonica UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0604 - Conversion and extension of ground floor
from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and B1 (office) and erection of
ground floor and first floor extensions to provide residential flat and additional
A1 and B1 floor area and separate B1 office and installation of first-floor side
window and ground floor doors; 8 Freeman Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23
1BA for Mr I Hodgkinson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1121 - Demolition of rear boundary fence and
erection of replacement 1.6m wall; Woodgets End, 22 Chapel Yard,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1BJ for Mr Seaton
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
65
18 December 2014
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1298 - Retention of internal alterations, insertion
of replacement larger rear window and roof light and demolition and
re-construction of chimney stack; 10 High Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EP
for Mr J Batten
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/14/1218 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Lower
Farm, Back Lane, West Beckham, Holt, NR25 6PH for Mr and Mrs Livingstone
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/1146 - Erection of two-storey front/side and single-storey
rear extensions and insertion of replacement front dormer windows; 4 All Saints
Close, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HH for Mr & Mrs Hemsley
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/14/1303 - Erection of single-storey detached guest lodge ancillary
to Rose Cottage and extension to existing garden room; Rose Cottage, 14
Chapel Street, Wiveton, Holt, NR25 7TQ for Mrs C Von Rittberg
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/1047 - Erection of linked extension to existing industrial
storage building.; Marine & Industrial LLP, Station Road, Worstead, NORTH
WALSHAM, NR28 9RZ for Marine & Industrial LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
(7)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/14/1234 - Use of converted out-buildings as separate dwelling; Bay
Cottage, The Green, Edingthorpe, North Walsham, NR28 9SR for Mr Sidebotham
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1228 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
two and a half-storey dwelling.; Hartland, 57 New Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25
7PA for Swan Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PU/14/1149 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling house (C3); Tin Lodge, Broad Fen Lane, Dilham
for Bindwell Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
HOLT - PF/14/1048 - Installation of tennis court and erection of 2.75m chain link
fence; Jenis Barn, Thornage Road, Holt, NR25 6ST for Mr R Woods
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/14/1202 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at Leeds
Way, Horning, NR12 8LU for Mr D Watts
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1070 - Alterations to dormer windows and
balcony to the front elevation and erection of wall to rear of rear courtyard to
conceal refuse bins; The Golden Fleece, The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23
1AH for Mr Brundle
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
66
18 December 2014
WITTON - PF/14/1260 - Erection of first floor balcony to west elevation;
Whitehouse Barn, Old Hall Road, Witton, North Walsham, NR28 9UG for Mr R
Taylor
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
(8)
NEW APPEALS
None
(9)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
(10) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BARSHAM - PF/13/1494 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 01/0855 to permit full residential occupation; Barsham Barns, Green
Way, North Barsham, Walsingham, NR22 6AP for Mr A Hudson
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills, Cromer,
NR27 9LW for PP3
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QT for Mr A Tedder
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0728 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling and
detached garage; Rear of 3 Benets Avenue, North Walsham, Norfolk for Mr G
Sexton
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
WALCOTT - ENF/14/0020 - 2 metre high fence adjacent to highway.; Desamy,
Lynton Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0NA
(11) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0158 – Construction of 2 detached residential
dwellings; 14 Melton Street Melton Constable for Melbobby Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This application was for two detached dwellings on a site in the Melton Constable
Conservation Area. The Inspector identified four main issues to be considered.
Development Committee
67
18 December 2014
•
•
•
•
effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future
occupiers.
effect on living conditions in a neighbouring property
parking/highway safety
With regard to the character of Conservation Area the Inspector noted that this is
defined by the solid late Victorian terraced dwellings built for the railway workers with
regimented building lines. The Inspector concluded that the two proposed dwellings
would have a cramped relationship with the surrounding development and would
“constitute a conspicuously incoherent and crowded development” at odds with the
distinctively regimented terraced dwellings. He also criticised certain aspects of the
design of the proposed dwellings.
Turning to living conditions the Inspector found that the proposed garden areas to
serve the new dwellings “are appreciably smaller than those found in nearby houses
and notably smaller than the footprint of the dwellings.” He was not persuaded that
these garden areas would provide a meaningful area to sit out, dry clothes or allow
children to play. He was also concerned about a sizeable birch tree on the site which
would be retained but would adversely affect daylight levels to one of the two proposed
dwellings.
The Inspector went on to assess the impact of the proposed development on a
neighbouring dwelling, concluding that this would result in “an unacceptably gloomy
environment resulting in significant harm to the living conditions” in the neighbouring
property.
On highway safety, the Inspector noted parking on footways already occurs and was
concerned that the proposed two dwelling would cause further pressure on the limited
on-street parking, to the detriment of highway safety.
The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would have some benefits but
concluded that these would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm were the
development to proceed. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal.
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0159 – Construction of 4 semi-detached (2x2)
residential dwellings ; 12 Melton Street Melton Constable for Melbobby Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for 4
semi-detached (2x2) dwellings within the designated Conservation Area. Although on
a different site, the Inspector identified similar issues to the appeal summarised above,
relating to application PF/14/0158
• effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
• living conditions for future occupiers
• effect of living conditions in a neighbouring dwelling
• parking/highway safety
The Inspector found that the proposed dwellings would have a poor and cramped
relationship with the characteristic terraced dwellings in the vicinity and was also
critical of certain aspects of the design.
Development Committee
68
18 December 2014
As with the previous appeal the Inspector considered that the gardens of the proposed
dwellings were smaller than the gardens of nearby houses and that the garden spaces
of two of the units were “especially ungenerous.” The Inspector was also troubled by
the proximity of the appeal site to the Marriot Way industrial site, concluding that
“allowing the appeal would increase the likelihood of a statutory nuisance scenario that
would be detrimental to the viability of businesses….on an established industrial
zone.”
The relationship of the proposed dwellings with an existing neighbouring dwelling was
assessed. On this issue the Inspector concluded that two of the proposed dwellings
would have an overbearing relationship, “overshadowing parts of both the dwelling and
its garden.”
On the final issue, parking and highway safety, the Inspector reached the same
conclusions as on the previous appeal. There is limited on-street parking in the
immediate vicinity and the proposed development would be likely to result in
congestion to the detriment of highway safety.
The Inspector again acknowledged that the proposal would have some benefits but
concluded that these would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm were the
development to proceed.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
(Source: RMH/PC Manager Ext.6016)
(12) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Matthew Champion v. North Norfolk District Council and others
(Crisp Maltings, Great Ryburgh
The Council’s decision to grant planning permission (Council’s reference PF/09/0966)
for two grain silos, a lorry park and associated development at the Crisp Maltings site in
Great Ryburgh was the subject of a Judicial Review. The Review was dealt with in the
High Court by Mr James Dingemans QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge and
judgment was given on 7 May 2013. The review was allowed and the planning
permission quashed.
The District Council and Crisp Maltings Ltd. applied for leave to appeal against the
decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal was granted and by
way of a judgment issued on 18 December 2013 the appeal was allowed. The
consequence of the Court of Appeal decision was that the order of the High Court (to
quash the Planning permission) was set aside and the permission therefore “stands”.
An application was made on behalf of Mr Champion for permission to appeal to the
Supreme Court and granted on 30 July 2014. The next stage in the protracted legal
process is for the parties (Mr Champion, the District Council and Crisp Maltings Ltd.) to
agree a statement of facts and issues by 27 February 2015 and to file skeleton
arguments with the Court. The appeal has been provisionally listed for hearing by the
Supreme Court on 23 June 2015.
It is fair to say that the legal basis upon which the objector’s case is founded has
changed since the original High Court case was heard. The further appeal to the
Supreme Court now places greater emphasis on broader issues of the approach of the
Development Committee
69
18 December 2014
UK courts to underlying EU directives relating to the assessment of environmental
impacts of proposed development; essentially the Supreme Court is being asked to
consider the principles of how developments are screened as well as the specific
development of the Crisp Maltings site in Great Ryburgh.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager Ext. 6016)
Development Committee
70
18 December 2014