OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 18 NOVEMBER 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
SHERINGHAM 10/0143 - Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road
This report concerns alterations to ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill
Road, Sheringham
Background
Members will recall that at the meeting on 29 July 2010 the Committee resolved that
it was minded to serve an enforcement notice to require previous ground levels to be
restored along the rear boundary of two new dwellings unless successful
negotiations took place for the continuation of the retaining wall along both plots.
The Committee indicated that it expected the wall to be brick-faced with appropriate
red bricks and a 1.8 metre fence to be erected along the entire length of both plots
within 3 months of the date of the decision.
Following further representations on behalf of neighbouring residents and from the
developer’s agent, the Committee reconsidered the matter on 21 October. In the
light of the advice given by Officers, the Committee accepted the recommendation
that authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to serve an
enforcement notice requiring five steps to be undertaken, including rendering of the
blockwork wall, replacement of fencing on the north-western boundary of plot 1 with a
1.8 metre high fence, the implementation of a landscaping scheme along the northwestern boundary of plot 2, the requirement to retain and grow a hedge along the
same boundary and the retention of any tree, shrub or hedgerow shown on the
approved landscaping scheme to be retained for a period of 10 years.
Representations
The Chief Executive has received representations from Solicitors acting on behalf of
the neighbouring occupier, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 1. These
representations challenge the basis for the recommendation made to the Committee
and have requested that the matter be reconsidered prior to the enforcement action
as authorised by Committee being carried out. The Committee will note the possible
future reference of this matter to the Ombudsman by the neighbour.
Appraisal
The contents of the appended letter from the solicitors acting for the neighbouring
occupier have been considered by the Planning Legal Manager. The legal matter at
issue arises under section 173, subsections (3) and (4) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended (“section 173”).
Subsection (3) of section 173 states that “an enforcement notice shall specify the
steps which the authority require to be taken, or the activities which the authority
require to cease, in order to achieve, wholly or partly, any of the following purposes.”
Development Control Committee
1
18 November 2010
Subsection (4) of section 173 then sets out the “purposes” to which section 173
relates as follows:
“(a) remedying the breach by making any development comply with the terms
(including conditions and limitations) of any planning permission which has been
granted in respect of the land, by discontinuing any use of the land or by
restoring the land to its condition before the breach took place; or
(b) remedying any injury to amenity which has been caused by the breach.”
It will be noted that the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) for remedying a breach
of control are written in the alternative (“or”…) and the Planning Authority therefore
has a discretion as to the requirements of the enforcement notice. Ministerial advice
upon this matter is provided by paragraph 2.34 of Circular 10/97 (Enforcing Planning
Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements). The relevant text
indicates that Planning Authorities are encouraged, where possible, to set out in
enforcement notices “specific steps which they require to be taken in order to remedy
a breach of planning control. If this is impractical, perhaps because the precise
condition of the land before the breach took place is peculiarly within the knowledge
of the developer, an alternative is simply to require restoration of the land to its
condition before the breach of planning control took place, leaving it to the developer
to comply in accordance with his or her knowledge of that condition.”
Whilst this advice would support the case being advanced on behalf of the
neighbouring occupier, it is also the case that the requirements of an enforcement
notice must be clear and precise so that the contravener is fully aware of the steps
required to be taken. The current condition of the site is well documented but there is
less certainty as to the pre-existing condition of the site and in the event of an appeal
the Council will have to be able to demonstrate to the Inspector that the enforcement
notice is sufficiently precise to be upheld.
Paragraph 2.6 of Circular 10/97 states that “every notice must be drafted with the
utmost care. The Secretary of State’s power in section 176(1)(a) to correct, on
appeal, any misdescription in the enforcement notice, may be used only where there
would be no injustice to either the appellant or the LPA; it does not extend to the
correction of notices which are so fundamentally defective that correction would
result in a substantially different notice.”
An appeal elsewhere in the country was against an enforcement notice which
required the removal of a patio to the rear of a public house and the reinstatement of
the land to the height of the adjacent garden. The Inspector found that the land
surrounding the site was at different levels and the adjacent garden sloped such that
there was no clarity as to what the surface level should be. The notice was quashed
in that case.
Conclusions
The contents of the appended letter from the neighbour’s solicitors have been
considered by officers but the Committee is recommended to endorse the decision
made on 21 October as set out below. It is considered that an enforcement notice in
the recommended terms is more likely to be upheld on appeal than a notice reflecting
the wishes of the neighbour and that a notice in the recommended terms satisfies the
statutory requirement in section 173 (4) (b) of the 1990 Act of “remedying any injury
to amenity which has been caused by the breach.”
Development Control Committee
2
18 November 2010
The Committee is also reminded in any event that the power to issue an enforcement
notice is discretionary.
Notwithstanding the views of the Solicitors for the neighbour, Officers consider that
the original recommendation to be reasonable and balanced, having regard to the
representations made by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
That authority is given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to serve
an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning
Act as amended requiring:
1) within one month of the effective date of the notice the block work wall
to be rendered
2) within 2 months of the effective date the one metre fence along the
northwest boundary of plot 1 shall be replaced with a 1.8 metre fence
3) Implementation of a landscaping scheme which includes a hedge along
the north west boundary of Plot 2 to be planted within the first available
planting season following the effective date of the Notice
4) The hedge along the northwest boundary of plot 2 shall be allowed to
grow to a height of 1.8 metres and shall thereafter be retained at the
minimum height of 1.8 metres from ground level to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5) No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the landscaping
scheme shall be uprooted, felled or in any way destroyed. Should the
hedgerow, tree or shrub die or in the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority become seriously damaged or defective within ten years of
the effective date of the Notice then another tree, shrub, or hedge shall
be planted in its place in accordance with details which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
The remodelling of the land represents development for which planning
permission is required. Policy EN4: Design requires development not to have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers
and respect the character and landscape of the surrounding area.
The imposition of the above conditions will alleviate the injury to residential
amenity and the additional landscaping will reflect the character and landscape
of the immediate area.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
LUDHAM - TPO 2 Malthouse Lane Ludham
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
An inquiry and constraints check in respect of an individual Sycamore tree in the front
garden of 2 Malthouse Lane Ludham was received since it was believed that the
removal of the tree was restricted by a Planning Condition. Further investigation
revealed that the tree was subject to no protection. Following a site meeting with a
Development Control Committee
3
18 November 2010
Landscape Officer the owner requested the tree be felled. An assessment by a
Landscape Officer found that the tree had high amenity value and was an important
landscape feature as defined in Policy EN 4 and EN 2 in the North Norfolk LDF Core
Strategy and should therefore be retained. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was
duly served.
Representations
One letter supporting the TPO was received from local residents outlining the
importance of the tree to the local landscape. Two letters of objection were received
from local residents. (Appendix 2).
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Having considered the likely impact on
an individuals human rights, and the general interest of the public, it is anticipated
that the confirmation of this Order would be proportionate, justified and in accordance
with planning law.
Appraisal
The residents have objected to the TPO on the following grounds:
The roots may be affecting services and the telephone cable passes through the
branches.
If the tree becomes diseased it may pose a threat to neighbouring properties.
No TPO has been placed on the tree in the past.
The leaves and sap from the tree cause problems for the neighbouring property.
In response it is considered that the tree is an important natural feature and therefore
positive for wildlife and this is consistent with the letter of support received. There is
no evidence that the tree roots are affecting underground services at this time. Any
future possible issues relating to the services will be dealt with under the appropriate
guidelines. British Telecom is responsible for maintaining its cables. The Sycamore
tree has not previously been under threat and so a TPO was not appropriate.
Detritus from a tree is not considered a valid reason for removal under the TPO
guidelines.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Development Control Committee
4
18 November 2010
The Sycamore tree covered by the Order make a significant contribution to the
setting and character of the site and the surrounding area. The removal of the
Sycamore tree would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and the
neighbourhood and seriously detract from the quality of the local environment.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142 )
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
METTON - TPO St Andrews Church, Cromer Road
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
A request for a constraints check regarding 2 Beech, 2 Sycamore and 1 Ash tree at
Metton Church and an enquiry concerning the possible removal of the trees was
received from the Secretary of Metton Parish Council. Following a site meeting with
a Landscape Officer the Parish Council requested the trees be felled in accordance
with a report from an architect. The report was based on no arboricultural evidence.
An assessment of the trees concerned found that they did not pose an unacceptable
risk and had high amenity value. The trees are an important landscape feature as
defined in Policy EN 4 and EN 2 in the Core Strategy and it was concluded that they
should be retained. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was duly served.
Representations
One letter of objection from the Parish Council was received (see Appendix 3).
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Appraisal
The Parish Council object to the Order based on the contents of the architect’s report
(see Appendix 3). The letter of objection states that further information from English
Heritage and an arborist was to be sent but to date no information has been
received.
It is considered that the architect’s report is not based on any arboricultural evidence
and does not quantify the risk posed by the trees. In the absence of any further
information from the English Heritage or an arborist no further comment can be
made.
Development Control Committee
5
18 November 2010
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
The Trees covered by the Order make a significant contribution to the setting and
character of the site and the surrounding area. The removal of the trees would be
detrimental to the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed
Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1055 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr & Mrs Barnes
Minor Development
Target Date: 04 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20010325 PF
Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 29/05/2001
20021341 PF
Erection of detached dwelling and garage
Refused 01/11/2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a three bedroom, contemporary design, single storey dwelling
having an area of 144 sq metres, including courtyard space, with an east facing
wedge shaped mono pitched dormer to the roof which would light the interior of the
building. The main roof would be of a sedum finish whilst the wedged dormer would
be of standing seam zinc.
Development Control Committee
6
18 November 2010
The dwelling, which would be built up to the boundary on the west side, would be
“dug in” to the ground by 1 metre with the outer walls of property being 1.8 metres
above ground level.
Access to the site would be via an existing unmade driveway off Beeston Common.
An amended plan has been received which corrects an inaccuracy in the position of
the western boundary and also indicates the boundary walls to neighbouring
properties being of a red facing brick. In addition an e-mail has been received
confirming the applicant's agreement to the introduction of some timber cladding to
the east elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning
issues:
Potential impact of the dwelling on local residents' properties.
PARISH COUNCIL – Objections of the grounds that the development would be out of
character with the Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection, two of which are from the same correspondent, which raise
the following concerns (summarised):
1. Design out of character within the Conservation Area
2. Limited access to the site due to narrowness single track driveway which is also a
public footpath and bridleway.
3. Would open the floodgates for further development on the rest of the plot.
4. Using the environmental friendly tag does not mean that it should be allowed.
5. There are inaccuracies in the site plan with the result that the proposed dwelling
in closer to the rear of No. 3 Meadow Close than shown.
6. Adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
7. Trees will be affected by the development.
8. How will the boundary walls to the neighbouring gardens be maintained.
9. Part of the site is outside the development boundary for Sheringham.
10. The plans do not indicate the provision of satellite dish or television aerials.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
7
18 November 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing 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 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Visual impact, including impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The western corner of the site which would accommodate the proposed dwelling is
within the development boundary for Sheringham as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy whilst the remainder of the site, which
has an area in the region of 700 sq metres including the access, is within the
Countryside Policy area. In addition the whole of the site is within the Conservation
Area whilst the garden area is within the Undeveloped Coast.
Unlike the previous refusals for a dwelling on the site, since the property would be
within the development boundary, in principle this would comply with Core Strategy
Policies SS1 and SS3 which direct new development in North Norfolk to the towns
and large villages, of which Sheringham is a Secondary Settlement. However as part
of the site is within the Countryside Policy area it is also considered that Core
Strategy Policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN8 are applicable. Policies EN2 and EN3
require that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale,
design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area including the setting of, and views from,
Conservation Areas. In addition proposals should not be significantly detrimental to
the open coastal character of the undeveloped coast. Polices EN4 and EN8 require
that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness.
Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. Furthermore
development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in this case the
Conservation Area. In addition Policy EN4 also states that proposals should not have
a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and
new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Development Control Committee
8
18 November 2010
The site forms part of the garden area of No. 4 Meadow Cottages running in a
northerly direction to the east of Nos. 96 - 99 Church Lane, with the proposed
dwelling itself being contained in the smaller area immediately to the rear of the
garage to No. 4 Meadow Cottage. The dwelling would form the eastern boundary
with No. 3 Meadow Cottages, which is currently defined by a close boarded fence
and would be to the south of the garden area of No. 99 Church Lane. Part of the
scheme would involve removal of three fruit trees in the area of the dwelling whilst to
the north east are three large conifer trees which are to be retained. Immediately
adjoining the site to the east, which is separated by a flint wall, is an overgrown area
of land similar in proportions and size to the application site which has a well defined
hawthorn hedgerow to its eastern and northern boundaries.
Given the relatively secluded location of the proposed dwelling, its low profile and
use of recessive materials coupled with the amount of screening afforded by the land
to the east, it is considered that the development would preserve the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area and it would not have a significantly harmful
impact on it or the wider landscape, being seen amongst other properties which form
the built edge of Sheringham. Whilst there are traditional cottages to the south of the
site, there are also more modern dwellings to the north and due to the particular
design and secluded nature of the site it is considered that it would not adversely
affect the form and character of the Conservation Area.
In respect of the proposed dwelling's relationship with neighbouring properties, whilst
it is accepted that it would be close to No. 3 Meadow Cottage and No.99 Church
Lane, given the fact that the property would be single storey, with an eaves height of
just 1.8 metres its impact would be no more than a boundary fence of a similar
height. Given the dwelling's layout the only potential for overlooking would be from
the bedroom and living room window to the north elevation which would look directly
onto the boundary fence of No. 99 Church Lane. However since the dwelling would
be set 1m into the ground the window heads would approximately 1.4 metres above
existing ground level, well below the height of the fence. In terms of the visual impact
of the property when seen from the upper floors of the adjoining dwellings, the use of
a sedum roof would soften its appearance with the only discordant feature being the
zinc roof to the east facing dormer.
It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a significantly
adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties, in terms of overlooking,
loss of light or visual impact, whilst the dwelling itself would have adequate amenity
area and car parking to the east.
In terms of the access to Church Lane, although this is fairly narrow it is considered
that it is adequate to serve a single dwelling and the Highway Authority has raised no
objection to the proposal. It is pointed out that many bridleways co-exist with routes
that are used by people exercising private rights over them.
It is therefore considered that since the dwelling would be within the development
boundary, given that the property would not significantly affect neighbours' amenities,
on balance the scheme is acceptable and would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
9
18 November 2010
5.
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0752 - Erection of four dwellings; Arterial Engineering,
Morston Road for Mrs V Smith
Minor Development
Target Date: 27 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
Employment Area
Class 'A' Road within 60m
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081400 PO - Erection of seven dwellings
Refused 02/02/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of four dwellings comprising two three-bed market dwellings, one
three-bed affordable dwelling and one two-bed affordable dwelling on the site to the
rear of Blakeney Garage on the northern side of Morston Road.
Vehicular access to the site is to be gained from the existing access serving 'The
Saltings' adjacent to Blakeney Garage and a residential dwelling known as 'The
Moorings'.
8 parking spaces are proposed to the front of the dwellings.
Amended plans submitted involving alterations to scale, massing and design. The
dwellings would consist of two pairs of semi-detached two-storey dwellings and
would measure approximately 9m in height from ground level to the ridge of the
roofs. Accommodation would also be provided in the roof space, served by dormers
on the rear (west) elevation.
The materials proposed are a mix of flint, red brick, red pantiles and timber windows.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Designation of land for employment use and history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application as do not wish to lose one of only a very small number of
commercial sites in the parish, thus supporting business investment opportunities
and feel that the proposal would be of no benefit to the local economy.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from 'The Moorings' to the east of the access on to the
highway on the following grounds:
Concern with the need to maintain their boundary hedge to a maximum height to
ensure visibility from the access is achieved.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle to the proposed development
subject to conditions.
Development Control Committee
10
18 November 2010
Sustainability Co-ordinator - the application complies with Policy EN6, subject to
condition, as a minimum level 2 of the Code for Sustainable Homes is proposed for
all dwellings.
Strategic Housing Manager With reference to the above application submission my comments are as follows:
1. Housing need
There is a substantial need for affordable housing across the district, a Strategic
Housing Market Assessment undertaken by Fordham Research identifies a need for
in excess of 900 affordable dwellings per year. There is a high demand for affordable
housing in Blakeney with in excess of 300 applicants from our waiting list indicating a
preference to live in the village with 23 households currently living in Blakeney and
the surrounding parishes.
2. Planning Policy HO2 and affordable housing
The site falls within the Blakeney Development Boundary and therefore the proposals
will need to accord with Core Strategy Policy HO2, this requires not less than 50% of
all the dwellings to be affordable in a service village such as Blakeney. The applicant
has provided a Design and Access Statement where it is proposed that two of the
proposed dwellings will be affordable housing units complying with the 50% figure.
The location of the scheme is considered ideal for affordable housing being close to
the centre of the village and the associated services. From the plans provided it
appears that the affordable housing units are on plots 1 & 2. My main concern is
that the plan shows the two bedroom affordable unit only being a 3 person dwelling
by having a single bedroom to the rear. I would strongly advise that the applicant to
reconsider the design of this property to make it a 2 bed 4 person dwelling. By
making this change will allow greater flexibility over letting, the property will command
a higher rental value and the prospective RSL will be able to pay a greater capital
sum for the property. All the affordable properties should be built to Lifetime Homes
standard.
The applicant should covenant to transfer the completed affordable housing units
built to an agreed sustainability code standard to a Registered Provider (formerly
known as an RSL) at a price which does not require grant subsidy. A S106
Agreement will be required to secure the above and ensure the properties remain
affordable in perpetuity. We will also require the RSL to allocate the affordable
housing units to persons from the Council’s Housing Register, through the Council’s
Choice Based Lettings scheme or through a specific nomination agreement ensuring
that the dwellings are occupied by those in housing need.
Environmental Health Manager - I would recommend a condition requiring
submission of a contamination survey be attached to the application on the basis that
the site was previously associated with a factory/works from 1952 and a barracks
from 1908 to 1952. The site is also in close proximity to a fuel filling station.
I have visited to the adjacent garage site and met with the operator.
The rear of the garage building which is to be retained, appears and is said to be
solid. Please note this is not visible due to the attached workshops and buildings.
The rear wall of the garage is also approximately 2 storey height which should serve
to shield the proposed dwellings from any noise generated at the front and within the
garage building. I am informed that the garage business undertakes repairs and MOT
work rather than any bodyshop or paint spraying operations.
Development Control Committee
11
18 November 2010
I do not believe there have been complaints relating to the current use and it should
be noted that housing exists on adjacent sides, in close proximity.
On the basis of this, I do not wish to raise any objections on noise grounds.
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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 HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development on site/loss of employment land.
2. Mix of development
3. Affordable Housing
4. Scale and layout of development
5. Neighbouring amenity
6. Highway impact
APPRAISAL
Approximately three-quarters of the site (which extends to approximately 0.12 ha)
lies within land designated for employment use and one-quarter in the residential
designation. Whilst the proposal does not strictly comply with Policy SS5, which
seeks to permit only employment-generating development proposals, it is considered
Development Control Committee
12
18 November 2010
that the proposal would not significantly compromise the main employment use on
the site as there would be little potential for a separate employment use for this part
of the site given its limited size and location. As such, the loss of this small part of
employment land is considered to have no detrimental impact on employment on this
site or in Blakeney. Furthermore when the previous application for 7 dwellings on the
site was considered under application reference PF/08/1400, it was refused by the
Development Control Committee on grounds which did not include loss of
employment land. To raise this issue now would be inconsistent with that decision.
In view of the close proximity of the proposed dwellings to Blakeney Garage, advice
has been sought from Environmental Health regarding any potential for noise
nuisance/disturbance and resultant implications for the existing business. The
Committee will note the comments of the Environmental Health Manager above who
confirms that the solid construction of the garage building and the height of the rear
wall should shield the proposed dwellings from any noise generated from the garage
and that therefore has no objection to the proposal on noise grounds.
The development would comply with Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy regarding
dwelling mix and type where at least one of the proposed dwellings is required to
have no more than 70sq.m in floor area and no more than two bedrooms. Unit two
would fulfil this requirement.
In respect of affordable housing the applicant is proposing to provide two affordable
units (Units 1 and 2) which would be in compliance with Policy HO2. In addition, the
scheme has been amended to increase the size of the second bedroom to plot two to
ensure the dwelling could be occupied by four people, to give greater flexibility over
letting, in accordance with the Strategic Housing Manager's suggestions.
In terms of design, the scheme has been amended, reducing the ridge height of the
dwellings from 9.7m to 9m, reducing the overall footprints of the dwellings and
improving the overall massing and scale of the dwellings. The proposed materials
would be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings and elevationally the dwellings
are considered to be acceptable and appropriate for their context.
In terms of the relationship of the development to surrounding properties, whilst there
would be first floor windows and dormers facing the existing dwellings to the west in
Pyes Close, given that the windows would overlook the front garden areas only,
which are already open to public view, it is not considered that any significantly
detrimental loss of privacy would result. With regard to the dwellings to the north
('The Saltings'), it is proposed to have a blank gable elevation facing these dwellings.
As such, and given the relative orientation of the proposed and existing dwellings, it
is not considered that the proposal would result in any significant impact on the
occupiers of those dwellings in terms of overbearing impact or loss of privacy.
The proposed parking arrangements would meet the Council's standards of two
spaces per dwelling and therefore comply with Policy CT6 of the Core Strategy. In
terms of transport impact of the new development, County Council (Highways) have
confirmed no objection to the application, subject to conditions requiring provision of
the visibility splay and parking/turning areas in accordance with the approved plan.
The proposed visibility splay at the access from Morston Road runs across the
frontage of the Moorings and there is currently a hedge located here which would
need to be maintained at a maximum height of 900mm and 700mm back from the
carriageway. The owner of the Moorings has expressed concern regarding the need
for them to maintain the hedge they currently have in the visibility splay, but the land
to the frontage of the Moorings on which the hedge to be maintained is located is
controlled by the Highway Authority.
Development Control Committee
13
18 November 2010
Given the appropriate scale, design and materials for their context, it is considered
that the proposal would have no impact on the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It is considered that the proposal raises no significant issues in respect of the
Blakeney Village Design Statement.
In summary, notwithstanding the marginal conflict with Policy SS5, for the reasons
amplified above the proposal is considered acceptable and in conformity with
Development Plan policy in all other respects.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to a Section 106 Obligation in respect
of the affordable housing provision, as requested by the Strategic Housing
Manager, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
BRUMSTEAD - PF/09/1060 - Erection of Two 130m Wind Turbines with
Associated Hardstandings, Access Tracks and Substation Compound; Grove
Farm Ingham for Meridian Wind Power Limited
Target Date: 29 January 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
Height Restriction (MOD)
THE APPLICATION
Two wind turbines and associated grid connection cable and substation are
proposed on an arable field some 800 metres north of the built up edge of Stalham.
Each turbine would have a hub height of 78m and a rotor diameter of 104m that
would create a total height to blade tip of 130m. An 11 kV substation would be
connected to the Stalham Primary substation by an underground cable. The
proposed operational lifetime of the project is 25 years. Each of the proposed wind
turbines would have a combined rated capacity of up to 6.8 MW.
Access to the site (as amended) is proposed via the lane which runs from
Brumstead Road to Grove Road; minor modifications would be necessary to
facilitate the delivery of components.
The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance
with the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999. The Statement covers
the following issues relating to the proposed development: Site selection; project
details; legislative context and the Environmental Impact Assessment process;
landscape and visual context; ecology; archaeology; historic landscape; effects on
local communities including shadow flicker; ice throw; public rights of way; noise; air
quality; electromagnetic interference (television reception); airspace; contamination;
traffic issues; mitigation; predicted residual impacts; summary and conclusion.
Development Control Committee
14
18 November 2010
Additional information in respect of landscape assessment, access arrangements,
noise and ecology data has also been received during the course of the application.
Most recently a report assessing the impact of the turbines on the historic
environment has been submitted to support the application.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the proposal for the following reasons (summarised):
1. Site too close to residential properties.
2. Noise will affect quality of life.
3. Flicker will affect quality of life.
4. Wildlife. There are particular concerns about birds and bats.
5. Development will ruin the quality of the visual landscape.
6. Doubts regarding 'carbon emission reduction'.
7. Safety issues.
8. Data omissions and accuracy.
9. Property values.
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has generated some 311 written responses objecting for the
following reasons:
1. Unsightly and an eyesore.
2. Detrimental to outlook from residential property.
3. Unduly prominent/visual impact - will spoil the character of the countryside.
4. Generation of renewable energy does not outweigh the visual impact on the
countryside.
5. Inefficiency of wind turbines as an energy source.
6. Harmful to wildlife/biodiversity, especially birds.
7. Noise pollution, especially at night.
8. Inappropriate scale dominates the surroundings.
9. Detrimental effect on tourism.
10. Harmful to health due to noise, shadow flicker.
11. More appropriately located off-shore.
12. Danger to aircraft.
13 Connection cables affect third party land for which consent is not available.
14. Insufficient details submitted to fully assess the likely impact, specifically in
relation to landscape impact, noise data and ecological issues.
15. Concerns regarding the potential for television interference.
In addition to the various individual letters, objections in the form of detailed
assessments of the noise details, landscape assessment and ecology report have
been received from specialist consultants on behalf of local objectors.
51 responses received supporting the proposal for the following reasons:
1. Help to address climate change.
2. Need to produce renewable energy is important.
3. Preferable to fossil fuel energy.
Representation received on behalf of applicants addressing historic environment
concerns in relation to national policy statements. (Full text at Appendix 4).
Development Control Committee
15
18 November 2010
CPRE - Objects. Considers that the proposal would have a significant adverse
impact on landscape, including parts of the AONB, the Undeveloped Coast and the
Broads. They consider the proposal will be contrary to a number of Core Strategy
policies including SS1, SS5, EN1, EN2, and EN7.
CONSULTATIONS
Ingham Parish Council - Raises objection on a number of grounds including size,
visual impact, setting of listed buildings, highway matters, noise, wildlife, shadow
flicker, health and safety and errors contained within the reports. Further objections
have been received in respect of the revised access arrangements and landscape
issues.
Lessingham Parish Council - Objects to the proposal on the following grounds:
visual impact within open countryside, excessive height, noise, shadow flicker,
health, doubts over generating capacity and carbon footprint benefits, economic
effect, wildlife, tourism and loss of agricultural land.
East Ruston Parish Council - Objects to the application and amendments.
Smallburgh Parish Council - No objection to the application or subsequent revisions.
Happisburgh Parish Council - No objections as far as Happisburgh is concerned but
does have some concerns how it might affect people living close to it.
Stalham Town Council - Raises objections and includes a petition signed by
attendees of a public meeting held to discuss the proposal. The objection refers to
size of the turbines, impact on the landscape, residential amenity by noise and
shadow flicker and suggests the proposal would be contrary to a number of Core
Strategy policies. The comments also detail various inaccuracies in the submitted
report and concerns regarding the lack of public consultation. Additional objections
have been received to the highway and landscape revisions.
Hickling Parish Council - Support.
Broads Society - The Society is strongly and implacably opposed to any such
structures as they will impose themselves on the wide skies and distant prospects
which are essential, integral and highly valued landscape component of the Broads
experience. It is our view that the structures envisaged here fall into this category.
We oppose this project and will oppose all similar ones.
National Air Traffic Services - No objection.
Natural England - Raise no formal objection but ask for a number of points to be
taken into consideration as part of any determination. These include impact on the
landscape character as the significance of this aspect has not been adequately
addressed in the visual impact assessment. It is suggested that the mitigation
funding that has been offered does not demonstrate how this will be used or benefit.
It is also suggested that the ecology report includes some inaccuracies and the
effectiveness of the habitat survey has been queried. They also suggest collision
risk modelling should take place. (This has subsequently been carried out).
Environmental Health - Considered it appropriate to seek further advice and
guidance from independent noise consultants. This resulted in further noise
monitoring and data being undertaken on behalf of the applicant that is currently
being assessed. The outcome of this assessment will be reported at the meeting.
Development Control Committee
16
18 November 2010
English Heritage - Comments that the presence of several highly-graded listed
buildings in the vicinity of the application site and especially two medieval churches
close to and with strong visual relationships to the proposed turbines, is of concern.
The Environmental Assessment does not include sufficient information, either
textural or graphic, to illustrate the applicant's assertion that the turbines will not
feature in significant views and that there will be only minor or negligible impact on
some of the closest listed buildings. Recommends that further assessment is carried
out to allow full consideration of the proposals' impact. As the application stands
would not support the granting of permission.
Additional information has been supplied by the applicant's advisors specialising in
historic landscapes; however English Heritage have reviewed this additional report
and remain concerned at the potential impact, in particular to the setting of St.
Peter's Church, which would harm the significance of the listed building and
therefore objects to the granting of permission.
County Council (Highway Authority) - Objects to the proposal and recommends that
permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposed construction traffic
by reason of its width, height and axle weight cannot negotiate the local highway
network even allowing for works that may be able to take place within the highway
boundaries. Accordingly construction traffic will endanger the satisfactory
functioning of the local highway network.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - In terms of the proposal's impact
on the historic environment, raises objections on the grounds of the impact of the
turbines on the setting of listed buildings and on the historic landscape. Concludes
that notwithstanding the policies contained in the North Norfolk Core Strategy and
PPS 22 (Renewable Energy) the potential impact of the turbines on the setting and
character of the historic environment to be negative, both in terms of the historic
buildings and the historic landscape in general and that the policies relating to
sustainability and renewable energy should not take preference in this particular
instance. Recommends refusal on these grounds. (See full comments in
Appendix 4).
In terms of general landscape impact, notwithstanding other policy considerations,
remains concerned about the overall impact of the turbines on the landscape and
visual amenity of the area. The information contained within the Environmental
Statement does not adequately conclude that there will be a negligible impact on
landscape and visual amenity as required by Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy.
Therefore recommends that the development is refused planning permission as it
does not comply with the policy protecting the District's landscape amenity.
With regard to the impact of the development on biodiversity, considers that the
assessment provided with the application is poor. A number of conclusions about
bird collision risk with the turbines are made which are based on inconclusive
research material. However, post construction monitoring would improve research
material for future projects and help inform any necessary mitigation for this
particular wind turbine development. In the event of planning permission being
granted CDL require further clarification regarding the mitigation fund proposed by
the developer and how this will be used to mitigate and compensate for any impacts
on ecology.
British Pipeline Agency - Raises no objection subject to confirmation that the
turbines will be a minimum of 117m from gas pipeline.
Development Control Committee
17
18 November 2010
Environment Agency - No objection.
Broads Authority - Objects based on the view that the Environmental Statement
does not fully consider the true impact of the development on the Broads area.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to condition requiring a
programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation to be submitted prior to any development.
Ministry of Defence - No objection and asks that in the interest of air safety the
turbines are fitted with aviation lighting at the highest practical point.
RSPB - No objection. Additional comments have been received following receipt of
the requested collision modelling data that confirm the development is unlikely to
have an adverse effect on the bird populations within the area.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Raises concerns that the initial report provides no modelling
of bird collision risks and recommends that this work is undertaken and that further
liaison with the RSPB is continued. Further concerns have been expressed
regarding the mitigation and enhancement proposals and recommends that
mitigation methods should be subject to a condition of any approval.
Norwich Airport - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
National Planning Policies
The UK Government , as signatory to the Climate Change Convention, is actively
seeking to achieve its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012. In the Climate
Change Bill 2007 the Government has set a target of reducing CO2 emissions by
60% by 2050. To contribute to this reduction, 10% of all energy production should
be from renewable sources by 2015 and 20% by 2020. Running alongside this,
suppliers of electricity are required to provide 15% of the supply by 2015 from
renewable sources.
PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS1 sets down the Government's commitment to ensuring new development is
sustainable. Key principles include the reduction of energy use and emissions and
protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. The
supplement to PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change) recognises that climate
change represents a potentially catastrophic threat that must be addressed. The
Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing
the world today and that addressing it is the principle concern for sustainable
development.
Development Control Committee
18
18 November 2010
PPS 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment.
Sets out government policy in respect of development which will affect the historic
and built environment. Policy HE10 states that when considering applications which
have a negative effect upon the setting of heritage assets (e.g. listed buildings),
local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of
the application. PPS5 is accompanied by a Practice Guide. Paragraph 26 of the
Practice Guide states as follows:
'Proposals for large-scale schemes, such as wind farms, that have a positive role to
play in the mitigation of climate change and the delivery of energy security, but
which may impact on the significance of a heritage asset, such as a historic
landscape, should be carefully considered by the developer and planning authority
with a view to minimising or eliminating the impact on the asset'.
PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
This policy advice aims to promote more sustainable patterns of development by
protecting the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the
diversity of its landscape, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources
and so it may be enjoyed by all. It advises that, in determining planning applications,
authorities should provide for
he sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the
policies set out in PPS22.
PPS22 - Renewable Energy.
PPS22 and its Companion Guide contains the Government's national planning
policy advice relating to renewable energy projects. PPS22 confirms that increased
development of renewable energy sources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the
Government commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. These
include a target of generating 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources
by 2010 and 20% by 2020, and the suggestion that still more renewable energy will
be needed beyond that date. Key principles of PPS22 include:
• Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated
throughout England in locations where technology is viable and environmental,
economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
• The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable
energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be
given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted
planning permission.
• Small scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall
outputs of renewable energy to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally.
Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply
because the level of output is small.
• Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and
social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been
minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design, and other
measures.
The Companion Guide sets out information on wind turbines. It sets out that the
principle of harnessing wind energy by wind turbines is well established and that
wind turbines make a significant contribution to electricity supply in Europe and the
UK. The Guide sets out a number of issues specific to developments of this type
that need to be considered when determining an application for planning permission
including noise, landscape and visual impact, listed buildings and conservation
areas, safety, proximity to roads and public rights of way, ecology, archaeology,
electromagnetic interference, shadow flicker and constructional and operational
disturbance.
Development Control Committee
19
18 November 2010
PPG24 - Planning and Noise
States that noise can be a material consideration in the determining of planning
applications. Development should not cause an unacceptable degree of
disturbance.
Development Plan Policy
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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment (specifies need to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of historic features and
landscapes)
Policy EN13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation (specifies need to
minimise all emissions including noise pollution)
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The Transport Impact of New Development ( specifies criteria for safe
access )
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. National and local planning policies, including benefits of renewable energy and
effect on climate change.
2. Visual impact on the landscape.
3. Impact on the historic built environment.
4. Impact on residential amenities.
5. Noise issues.
6. Impact on the ecology of the area including migrating birds.
7. Traffic and access arrangements.
APPRAISAL
1. National and local planning policies
Current Government guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS
22) - 'Renewable Energy' seeks to encourage Local Planning Authorities to promote
and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy
resources, and the aims of the Core Strategy include mitigating and adapting to the
effects of climate change and encouraging renewable energy production. Policy
ENV 7 seeks to encourage the supply of renewable energy production in North
Norfolk and contribute to regional targets. The principle of supporting renewable
energy production in the form of wind turbines is therefore in accordance with both
local and national policy.
However, a balance needs to be made between the obvious benefits of renewable
energy technologies and the need to ensure that such developments do not have a
significant adverse impact on the landscape, the historic environment and the
amenities of residents in the immediate locality. A crucial consideration is whether
the impacts of such proposals would be so great as to warrant refusal of planning
permission having regard to the national and local policy position and the principle
of encouraging renewable energy projects.
Development Control Committee
20
18 November 2010
2. Landscape/Visual Impact
The Environmental Statement accompanying the application states that a landscape
and visual assessment was undertaken to assess potential effects of the proposal
on the landscape character and the visual amenity of the locality within a study area
of between 5km and 10km radius.
15 viewpoints were selected to be representative of the main views of the site and
photo- montages and wire frames were used to illustrate predicted views. It should
be stressed this is a recognised manner of illustration which the computer modelling
cannot 'alter'. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was also created which
indicates the areas where topography may permit views of the turbines. The ZTV
illustrates that the turbines would potentially be visible from much of the study area.
However the screening effects of vegetation and built structures would greatly
fragment and reduce actual visibility. Members will recall the Committee site visit
and the tour of the surrounding area.
To assist in reducing the visual impact a mitigation fund of £10,000 has been
offered by the developer to pay for additional conservation measures including
hedge restoration and planting within an area of 5-7km from the proposed site.
Although the principle of any mitigation has been offered no details have been
provided as to how this would be achieved in practical terms or of any liaison which
has taken place with Parish Councils or land owners.
There is no doubt that the turbines would be prominent structures in the landscape
and there would be many public viewpoints, particularly from the surrounding local
road system. However, those views would be intermittent due to roadside hedge
screening. There would be permanent views of the turbines from a number of
residential properties located on and around the loop of roads which encircle the
site, with varying degrees of visual impact. The development would also be seen
from the rear of a number of properties on the edge of Stalham, approximately 1km
away.
It is considered that the wind turbines, by their very nature, would inevitably have
some impact on landscape and visual amenity. National and local planning policies,
whilst recognising the value of local landscapes, primarily seek to protect those
landscapes designated for their national importance, including National Parks and
AONBs. The turbines would be approximately 2km from the boundary of The
Broads. Although the Broads Authority have objected to the proposal, in view of the
distance, it is not considered that the impact of the turbines would be significant and
no greater than that of the existing turbines at Somerton and Martham.
The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager concludes that,
notwithstanding other policy considerations, concerns remain regarding the overall
impact of the turbines on the landscape and visual amenity of the area. He
considers that the information contained within the Landscape and Visual
Assessment does not adequately demonstrate that there would be a negligible
impact on landscape and visual amenity, and consequently concludes that the
development would be contrary to policies EN2 and EN4 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore, the opinion is expressed that the policies concerning sustainability and
renewable energies, as contained within the Core Strategy and the guidance of PPS
22, should not outweigh the concerns regarding the impact on landscape in this
case.
Natural England (NE) has also considered the potential effects of the proposal and
the details of the revised Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and
concludes that the Assessment does not contain sufficient information to assess the
landscape and visual impacts of the proposal
Development Control Committee
21
18 November 2010
3. Impact on historic built environment
There are a number of historic buildings within the vicinity of the site and the
submitted Environmental Assessment has made reference to these. Members are
however referred to the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Appendix 4) who considers that the turbines would have a negative
impact on the setting of these buildings and in particular the listed churches of
Brumstead and Ingham. Further concerns are raised regarding long distance views
and the dominance that the turbines would have within the landscape. It is
suggested that the turbines would be very much at odds with the historic setting and
context of the local built heritage.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager also comments on the impact
of the development on the historic landscape. It is stressed that this landscape has
developed over hundreds of years and that it is generally underrated. Churches,
windmills and lighthouses punctuate the landscape and provide the reference
points but the prevailing skyline remains open at present without large structures. It
is important to retain it as such so that the salient architectural features and historic
structures mentioned above remain paramount in the historic landscape and that
the setting of these historic buildings is preserved.
English Heritage has also raised similar concerns and has suggested that further
details are needed to assess adequately the potential impact on local features of
historic interest. As a result of this response and that of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager, the applicant has commissioned a report 'Assessment of
the impact of Proposed Wind Turbines.... on the Historic Environment’. However,
this has been considered and their response still expresses concerns at the likely
impact on the historic landscape, and in particular the setting of Brumstead Parish
Church.
4. Ecology
The Environmental Statement assesses the potential impacts of the proposal on
ecological receptors comprising ecological habitats, flora and fauna, including birds.
Detailed surveys were undertaken for breeding and winter/migratory birds, bats, and
reptiles and amphibians.
Neither Norfolk Wildlife Trust nor the RSPB has raised objection to the potential
impact on migrating birds. The RSPB is generally supportive of renewable energy
projects and takes the view that the continued use of fossil fuels has a far greater
deleterious effect on climate change and in turn on the bird population. On request,
additional information on collision risk modelling and an assessment of the
cumulative effect of such turbines on various bird species has been submitted.
RSPB has raised concerns at the failure to include this information with the initial
submission, together with a number of basic errors that cast doubts over the quality
of the application and overshadow the biodiversity benefits that the project could
deliver for the area. Nevertheless it is concluded that the proposal would not have
an adverse effect on the bird population of the area.
Natural England responded to the initial consultation by supporting the principle of
renewable energy projects where it is not in conflict with nature conservation. It
recommends that all such developments be accompanied by robust research, and
include appropriate measures for safeguarding and conserving wildlife, where
necessary. It raised no formal objection to the development, but advised that further
details should be sought in respect of collision-risk modelling and monitoring.
Development Control Committee
22
18 November 2010
5. Noise
Local residents and objectors' representatives have raised concerns about the noise
implications and health concerns in respect of the proposed development. The
Environmental Statement includes an assessment of the potential noise impact
based on guidance as set out in ETSU-R-97, 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise
from Wind Farms'. This method of noise assessment is in accordance with guidance
in PPS22.
The assessment indicates that baseline noise measurements were taken at 11
locations representative of the nearest properties to the site. Following comments
from independent noise consultants, who had assessed the submitted noise report
and data and expressed concern at the lack of monitoring from various receptors,
additional data is awaited. The Environmental Health Manager has commissioned a
specialist independent noise consultant to advise on this data and the conclusions
of this and the advice of the Environmental Health Manager will be reported to the
Committee.
5. Shadow Flicker
Under certain conditions it is possible that an effect known as 'shadow flicker' may
be experienced. This describes the situation where, on a clear day, the sun is low in
the sky behind the rotating blades and thereby casts an intermittent shadow. The
shadow flicker effect occurs only inside buildings where it may be noticeable
through a narrow window. PPS22 advises that problems caused by shadow flicker
are rare and that a single window in a single building is likely to be affected only for
a few minutes at certain times of the day during short periods of the year. In
practice, only properties within 10 rotor diameters' distance from a turbine
(approximately 900m) and within 130 degrees either side of north would potentially
be affected.
The applicant has addressed this issue and the ES has identified four dwellings
(one being the landowner's) that could potentially be affected. The ES advises that
any shadow flicker effect would be mitigated by a software management system
that stops the turbines when shadow flicker could occur. This would involve the
turbines being fitted with light sensors and time switches which would activate to
shut down the turbines. The inclusion of such sensors would be subject to a
planning condition.
PPS 22 also acknowledges that wind turbines can cause flashes of reflected light,
which may be visible from some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing,
although not to eliminate it completely. Careful choice of blade colour and surface
finish can help reduce the effect; grey semi-matt finishes are often used and it is
considered that the surface finishes could be controlled by condition to deal with this
issue.
6. Highway matters
The County Highway Authority has raised objections on the basis that it is evident
that the applicant cannot transport the abnormal loads along the U/c 19078 Moat
Hill without impacting on land in third party ownership. It has been made clear that
consent from the third party will not be forthcoming. It is understood that the 'impact'
amounts to the transported equipment oversailing the land adjacent to the highway
rather than physically affecting the land, but nevertheless involves land that is not
within the highway. The Highway Authority is therefore concerned that vehicles
delivering the blades and tower sections will become stuck part way along the route,
thereby causing disruption to highway users and has accordingly recommended
refusal of the application.
Development Control Committee
23
18 November 2010
7. Other matters
a) Ice Throw
Some representations have raised concern to the potential of the build up of ice and
ice throw from the blades and the potential risk to children at the Stalham school.
PPS22 Companion Guide suggests that the build up of ice on turbine blades on the
majority of sites in England is unlikely to create a problem. It states that for ice to
build up on wind turbines particular weather conditions are required, that in England
occur for less than one day per year. Most wind turbines are fitted with vibration
sensors which can detect any imbalance which might be caused by icing of the
blades; in which case operation of machines with iced blades could be inhibited.
The ES has identified that there is a potential, albeit small, risk from ice throw and
has indicated that sensors will be installed in the wind turbines to ensure they will
shut down temporarily should any imbalance occur until normal balance is restored.
The installation of such sensors could be required by a planning condition.
b) Television Reception
Several letters of objection have been concerned that the turbines could potentially
affect television reception. This issue has been identified within the ES which
advises that the potential for any adverse effect on television reception is limited to
terrestrial television only. The digital switch over in the Anglia region is scheduled to
begin in 2011. Although the BBC Windfarm tool indicates that interference is not
likely it is acknowledged that potential interference can only be accurately assessed
by an on-site survey. The developer confirms that should viewers' television
reception be affected by the development, the developer would compensate local
residents with the installation of an appropriate system if this is deemed the best
solution.
8. Conclusion
In determining this application the Committee will need to balance several
conflicting issues. The principal balance to be struck is between the supportive
nature of national, regional and local policies and the impact of the two proposed
turbines on the character of the wider countryside and the associated visual and
environmental impacts, particularly on the historic landscape.
Residential
amenities, local ecological impacts and highway safety issues are also material
considerations of weight.
The Government recognises that tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse
gases is one of the biggest challenges to be faced; hence the stringent targets that
have been set. PPS22 sets out the key principle that renewable energy
development should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in
locations where the technology is viable and environmental and social impacts can
be satisfactorily addressed. The guidance specifically indicates that the potential to
generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects (not
covered by the land-use planning system) should not be used as a justification to
object to small-scale on-shore developments such as this.
The proposed wind turbines would have the capacity of generating 6.8MW,
estimated to be enough to supply electricity to over 3,600 homes.
Wind turbines by their very nature are large alien features within the North Norfolk
landscape. This issue of scale and impact on the wider landscape has been made
by the majority of objectors. The landscape assessment has been fully appraised
by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who concludes that the
developer's assertion, that the turbines would not have a significantly adverse
impact on the character of the landscape of this part of the District, is not justified.
Development Control Committee
24
18 November 2010
Further landscape concerns have been raised in respect of the historic environment
and the impact the turbines would have on the views to and from buildings of
architectural and historic interest, and in particular the heritage setting of the village
of Ingham and its listed parish church and on Brumstead church, also listed. Both
English Heritage and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager are
concerned at the impact the turbines would have on these historic features. As a
result of these concerns additional reports were commissioned and submitted to
provide further evidence that the impact will be mitigated by screening and the
distances involved. However the objections from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and English Heritage remain.
Objections have also been received from the Highway Authority in respect of the
adequacy of the local highway network in delivering parts to the development site;
and from the general public on the proximity of the turbines to their homes and the
perceived concerns of noise and visual intrusion that would be harmful to their
existing amenities. Further advice on the noise issue is awaited from the
Environmental Health Officer and will be reported orally.
In conclusion, it is considered that the benefits of the proposal, in terms of its
contribution to combating climate change and delivering renewable energy, are
outweighed in this case by the potential damage it would cause to a sensitive and
historic landscape, including an adverse impact on the settings of significant listed
buildings, to highway safety, and possibly to nearby residents' amenities on account
of noise. On balance therefore, notwithstanding the support for the principle of this
form of development in national and local policy, the proposal is considered to
conflict with key Development Plan policies which apply in this location.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse, subject to the inclusion of any objection that
may be raised by the Environmental Health Officer and for the following
reasons;
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy EN 2:Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 8:Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
Policy EN13:Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
Policy CT 5: The Transport Impact of New Development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the two turbines would result in a
significant visual intrusion within the landscape to the detriment of the rural and
settlement character and historic setting of the nearby buildings of historic interest,
contrary to the Policies EN 2 and EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore, the proposed construction traffic by reason of its width, height and
axle weight would be unable to negotiate the local highway network in order to
reach the site; accordingly construction traffic would endanger the satisfactory
functioning of the local highway network, in conflict with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
25
18 November 2010
7.
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0822 - Erection of single-storey extension; Town House
Bungalow, The Street, Calthorpe for Mrs L Bird
Target Date: 08 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19830384 HR - Conversion & extension to form dwelling
Approved 27/04/1983
PLA/20011692 PF - Erection of single-storey side extension
Approved 26/04/2002
THE APPLICATION
Is for alterations to a single storey dwelling, including the replacement of a rear
conservatory with a sun room and alterations to the link section between the living
room and bedroom area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilcox having regard to the following planning issue;
Impact upon the private amenity of adjoining neighbours
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received making the following observations;
1. Eastern extension seems to be encroaching upon a shared access .
2. Western extension encroaching upon applicant's driveway - sufficient space
remaining?
3. Minimal gain regarding internal space.
4. Potentially inappropriate skylights.
5. Sun room oversized and out of character.
6. New main entrance would be relocated to the western elevation, 1.5m from the
boundary.
7. Overlooking from the western elevation (especially sun room).
8. Overshadowing to the neighbour to the west.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
26
18 November 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact upon neighbour's residential amenity.
2. Design.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area and as such any residential
development must comply with Policy HO 8. Minor residential development, such as
extensions, are in principle acceptable provided other policies are also complied with.
The property is a small dwelling formed from an initial outbuilding through extension
and conversion. Currently the dwelling consists of two dual pitched sections (one of
which is the outbuilding), a flat roof link section and a conservatory at the rear. The
proposal is to replace the conservatory with a brick built sun room and replace the link
section with a pitched roof.
To the east of the property's curtilage lies a shared access driveway, to the west a
bungalow and to the south gardens belonging to a neighbour.
The original outbuilding lies adjacent to the highway, with the rest of the dwelling
extending south from it. The former outbuilding would remain largely unchanged, with
one velux window inserted in the eastern roof and one light pipe in the north elevation.
The link would extend a further 1.8m on both sides, bringing it closer in line to the
outbuilding. In addition the roof would be pitched as opposed to flat and the main
entrance be orientated on the western elevation instead of the east. The sun room
would measure 4.3m by 5.2m compared to the existing conservatory measuring 2.4m
by 2.4m. With glazing in all 3 elevations, the increase in size would result in the
windows being 1.3m closer to the neighbours to the west.
The extensions to the west would encroach on the current driveway. However there
would still be space left to park a car. Following submission of a copy of the plans
from the deeds, the applicant's boundary appears to run south along the line of the
eastern elevation of the original outbuilding; as such there would be no development
on third party land.
There would be some overlooking from the applicant's property towards the neighbour
to the west. However, the proposal is single storey only and it is considered that the
proposals do not significantly increase the impact; no windows would be any closer
than they currently are. However it is acknowledged that sun room would increase the
current extent of glazing on this elevation and a condition requiring more substantial
boundary treatment is proposed to reduce the impact. Presently the boundary
treatment consists of a fence approximately 1m high. There are no concerns
regarding overlooking towards the east as the boundary is treated with an approx
1.6m fence topped with a trellis and lies adjacent to a driveway.
The alteration to the main entrance is considered acceptable; the western neighbours
are already adjacent to the applicant's driveway and it is not considered that the
alteration would substantially increase the activity on this side of the property.
Development Control Committee
27
18 November 2010
The proposal is considered to be acceptable and would accord with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
improved boundary treatment.
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
Target Date: 06 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0551 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached outbuilding
Refused 08/07/2010
THE APPLICATION
Proposes a single storey rear extension to a terraced dwelling dating from 1970s. The
proposed alterations would add an additional room and a conservatory. This is an
amended proposal following the refusal of PF/10/0551, which was for a larger
extension of a different design. The extra room would be the full width of the property
and extend 3.5m from the rear wall, with a conservatory attached to the rear of this
room measuring 2.6m deep by 3m wide.
Amended plan received repositioning eastern wall of extension off boundary.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Seward having regard to the following planning issue:
Overbearing nature of extension for neighbouring properties.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from three local residents raising the
following concerns:
1. Extension would be higher than the existing boundary treatments
2. Extension would take up 35% of the garden
3. Scale of development inappropriate for the location
4. Restrict light and view for neighbours, both within gardens and properties
5. No similar extension in immediate area
6. Intrude upon number 11's land
7. Hedge within the garden of number 15 would possibly need trimming
8. De-value neighbour's properties
CONSULTATIONS
National Grid UK Transmission - no response
Development Control Committee
28
18 November 2010
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties
2. Design
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for North Walsham. In principle a
residential extension is acceptable, subject to complying with Policy EN 4. Policy EN 4
requires all development to be designed to a high quality, having regard to the local
character and distinctiveness. In addition proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Planning application PF/10/0551 was for a similar development; a single storey rear
extension with a conservatory and detached outbuilding. This was refused following
concerns regarding its overbearing and overshadowing impact upon neighbours due
to the extension's size, scale and immediate proximity with the boundaries. Concern
was also raised in relation to the amount of garden lost due to the outbuilding and
extension proposed. The revised scheme submitted is for a smaller outbuilding and
smaller extension.
The previously proposed extension was approximately 0.5m
deeper and had gable walls facing the neighbours.
The extension would be the full width of the property and extend 3.5m from the rear
elevation, which faces south. This initial section would have a hipped roof on both
sides, extending away from the boundaries with the two neighbours. The bricks, roof
tiles and window would all match the existing property. A pitched roof conservatory is
proposed adjacent to this, extending further south by approximately 2.7m. The
maximum overall depth of the proposed extension will be approximately 6.3m. This
would have a glazed roof with glazing on the south and east elevations. The brick
plinth and brick wall on the west elevation are all to match the existing property, as is
the glazing. The conservatory would sit along the western boundary. The outbuilding
alterations no longer require planning permission.
The amended plan received addresses a concern of residents of number 11. The
external wall on the east elevation is no longer proposed directly on this boundary,
removing encroachment on the neighbouring property.
Development Control Committee
29
18 November 2010
The alignment and design of the terraces means that both the applicant and its
neighbour to the east (number 11) are sited at the same distance from the road, with
the properties either side set back from the road. This ensures that the rear elevation
of numbers 9 and 15 is 1.4m further south than number 11 and 13. As such the
proposed extension would sit along the western boundary for 2.1m, with an additional
2.6m of conservatory, whereas along the eastern boundary the extension would run
for 3.5m.
The proposed new hipped roof would reduce the impact on neighbours on either side,
reducing the bulk. The eastern boundary is treated with a 1.8m fence whereas the
western boundary is treated with two 1.8m tall fence panels, followed by a thick
conifer hedge, measuring approx 2m tall. The height to the eaves is 2.4m. As such a
degree of overshadowing is expected, but due to the orientation of the properties, the
roof design and the existing boundary treatments, the impact on residential amenity is
not considered to be significantly detrimental.
It is therefore considered that, on balance, the scheme as amended would accord
with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
Target Date: 04 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Listed Building Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
See also application PF/10/0942 below
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921645 AI - Three advertisements
Approved 04/02/1993
PLA/19750025 LA - Alterations and extensions
Approved 14/04/1975
PLA/20020521 PF - Erection of lean-to extension, vine house, garden wall and
garage at bank house and erection of dwelling and garage
Approved 23/05/2002
PF/10/0942 PF - Erection of Dwelling
THE APPLICATION
Is to demolish building within the curtilage of a listed building.
The application is accompanied by a structural report.
Development Control Committee
30
18 November 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Gay having regard to the following planning issue:
Effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter objecting on grounds that the building is likely to be of 17th or 18th century
origin, is cart lodge/gig house with hay loft over and used throughout its life in
conjunction with the Market Place buildings. It has suffered insensitive repair, minor
alteration and neglect by successive owners but its original form is essentially still
recognisable. It forms an integral element of the listed group and its loss would
reduce the groups coherence.
The structural report is inadequate. As a chartered surveyor with experience in the
restoration of buildings the underlying structure is sound with walls and roof timbers
require only traditional repair to bring the building back to good repair.
The building was designated for refuse storage in the 1984/85 redevelopment
consents. Without this building there is no meaningful refuse storage. Since it
became unsafe about a year ago a large number of waste receptacles have appeared
in Market Cross Mews detracting from the setting of the listed buildings.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager The building is a simple vernacular structure which occupies a backland position
behind the frontage properties facing Market Cross. It falls within the curtilage of the
Grade II listed 25 Market Place. Although I do not welcome the demolition, the building
has limited significance and the fact it is in a particularly poor state of repair, there can
be sustainable objection to its demolition. The loss of the building will not create a
scar or gap within the North Walsham Conservation Area; therefore, no need to link its
demolition to redevelopment.
Ancient Monuments Society - No response
Council for British Archaeology - No response
Georgian Group - No response
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings - No response
Twentieth Century Society - No response
Victorian Society - No response
Environmental Health - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
31
18 November 2010
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the Conservation Area and the setting of the primary listed building
APPRAISAL
The application site lies within the North Walsham Town Centre and is a curtilage
building to 25 Market Place and thus listed by association. The site also lies within the
North Walsham Conservation Area.
Although the building is not attached to 25 Market Place, it is attached to a
neighbouring building. It is in a poor state of repair and from what can be seen
externally it appears the roof covering is missing but the roof timbers and most of the
walls are present. A rather basic structural report has been submitted with the
application which concludes it is not practical to repair the building and it would be
unsafe to try.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager agrees that the building is in a
poor state of repair and whilst its loss is not encouraged, it appears the building has
passed the point where it could be saved without extensive rebuilding.
Given that this is a curtilage building and in view of its neglected condition, the
recommendation must be to allow the demolition. Policy EN 8 normally requires that if
a listed building is demolished its replacement is first approved, but the advice of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is that it is not essential for this
building to be replaced to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area. It would be prudent to condition an aftercare ground treatment in the event the
site is not redeveloped.
The proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with a condition requiring details of aftercare ground treatment in the
event that a replacement building is not erected.
Development Control Committee
32
18 November 2010
10.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place, North Walsham for Stonefield Estates Ltd
Minor Development
Target Date: 08 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
See also application LD/10/0916 above.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19750025 LA - Alterations and extensions
Approved 14/04/1975
PLA/20020521 PF - Erection of lean-to extension, vine house, garden wall and
garage at bank house and erection of dwelling and garage
Approved 23/05/2002
THE APPLICATION
Is to demolish the existing listed curtilage building and replace it with a small
contemporary dwelling. The ground floor external wall would be rendered and the
upper floor and one side of the roof clad in dark grey non-asbestos roof panels, the
other side of the roof would be clad in pantiles. An open plan kitchen living area
occupies the ground floor with a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Gay having regard to the following planning issue:
Effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter from the agent states that the previous use of the building was as a refuse
store, and then not for a considerable period of time because of the building's
disrepair.
Five letters of objection (summarised) from businesses and local residents objecting
on grounds of:
Concern that businesses will close as a result of disruption during the demolition and
construction phase based on past experience with the developer carrying out works
around the area.
Overdevelopment of a small site.
Lack of parking for the new dwelling.
Inaccuracies in the submitted application.
Comments on the history and condition of the existing building (see LD/10/0916
above).
Development Control Committee
33
18 November 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager As part of a Grade II listed heritage asset the existing building had some intrinsic value
by virtue of its age and mellowed vernacular materials and detailing. Consequently
there is an expectation that any redevelopment would need to offer at least an
equivalent level of interest or ideally more. This could be done either by means of a
qualitative, locally-distinctive piece of contemporary architecture or by means of an
authentic reproduction.
In terms of the scheme submitted, it does not obviously sit at either end of this
spectrum. With its unbalanced roofscape and gables, its rather plain choice of
materials, and its apparent lack of elevational relief and detailing (other than the
retention of the corbel on the NW corner), it is not clear where any meaningful visual
interest will be offered. On this basis, I can only conclude that the new build would be
a retrograde step within the North Walsham Conservation Area.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of a condition
requiring the dwelling be constructed to Code for Sustainable homes level 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design and impact on the Conservation Area and surrounding listed buildings.
3. Relationship with neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies within the Town Centre and is a curtilage building to 25 Market
Place and thus listed by association. The site also lies within the North Walsham
Conservation Area. Whilst it is in the Town Centre the building has not previously
been used for shopping purposes and lies outside the designated Primary Shopping
and Primary Retail Frontage designations; therefore, new residential development is in
principle acceptable on this site.
Development Control Committee
34
18 November 2010
If the existing building is demolished any replacement should be an enhancement to
the Conservation Area and a building worthy of enhancing the setting of the adjacent
listed buildings. This replacement attempts to be contemporary but is considered to
be of insufficient design merit, which is diminished further by the use of industrial type
building materials for one side of the roof and upper storeys. Although not occupying
a prominent place within the Town Centre, it is nevertheless located in a public area
within an intimate mews of shops and flats where it would be viewed against the
backdrop of the surrounding listed buildings In this respect the site is no less
deserving of a quality design than had it occupied a more prominent place within North
Walsham.
The site is no larger than the footprint of the building and would have no external
private amenity space. The level of accommodation offered is little better than a
bedsit. In these circumstances, and in the centre of North Walsham where public car
parking is plentiful, it is considered that the lack of parking space should not be a
barrier to the redevelopment of this site for a dwelling.
The relationship with adjacent development is considered acceptable.
In conclusion, whilst the redevelopment of this building for a dwelling is acceptable in
principle, the design of the new dwelling falls short of the standard that should be
expected in this location. Consequently, the proposal is considered not to comply with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on design grounds as the proposal is considered to be detrimental to the
setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area, and related Development Plan policies.
11.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0957 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension and car port; 18 Litester Close for Mr S Fairweather
Target Date: 13 October 2010
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19811055 PF - Alterations and lounge extension
Approved 19/06/1981
PLA/19820543 PF - Concrete sectional garage
Refused
PLA/19950340 PF - Single storey front extension and alterations to dormer roof
Approved 21/04/1995
PLA/19860444 PF - Continued use of bedroom as dental studio
Temporary Approval 25/04/1986
PLA/19800153
PF - Use of existing ground floor bedroom as dental studio, not
surgery
Approved 25/02/1980
PLA/19830267 PF - Continued use of bedroom as dental studio
Approved 31/03/1983
Development Control Committee
35
18 November 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for a one and a half storey side extension and car port.
The side extension is to enable a lift to be installed on the north gable. In addition to
the lift a single storey store is proposed adjacent to the lift shaft. The car port would be
attached to the existing detached garage sited behind the house to the east side of the
plot. That garage is shown to be converted to a workshop/gym ancillary to the use of
the site as a dwellinghouse.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore having regard to the following planning
issues;
Impact on the amenity of adjacent dwellings and design
TOWN COUNCIL
Support the application
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection received from six different objectors, raising the following
points;
1. Concern that the workshop will be used for commercial activities and/or noisy or
noxious activities.
2. Concern regarding overdevelopment.
3. Development could lead to the beginnings of Care Home being established.
4. Rendering inappropriate.
5. Store room too close to the boundary causing the neighbours to feel 'intruded
upon'.
6. Potential damage to the Leylandii tree belonging to number 12.
7. Inappropriate location of the lift, should be on the south gable.
8. Impact upon car parking.
9. Inconsistencies within application.
10. Overshadowing/overbearing impact from the lift extension.
11. Whether a lift to the first floor is required when there are two bedrooms on the
ground floor, a wet room, shower room and bathroom.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection if a
condition is added requesting an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is produced
and agreed with the Landscape Officers prior to the start of any development on the
site.
The submitted application form was incorrectly completed in regard to trees and
hedges. If this section of the application had been completed then Conservation,
Design and Landscape (C,D &L) would have requested more information including an
Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) so that the impact upon the tree from the
proposed development could be considered.
The tree is a semi mature Leylandii with limited landscape value as it is only visible
from limited public view points. However a meeting with the owner of the tree
confirmed that it provided a natural barrier, visually screening the applicant's property
from her own and therefore has a visual amenity value. the neighbour also confirmed
the tree supports song thrushes and therefore has biodiversity value.
C,D &L therefore considers that an AMS is required detailing the construction method
to be used to protect the roots of the tree and protect it during construction.
Development Control Committee
36
18 November 2010
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbours' amenities.
APPRAISAL
This application seeks a side extension to accommodate a lift and a car port attached
to an existing garage. Several other proposals are planned but only these require
planning permission. The property is sited within a designated Residential Area, and
under Policy SS 3 residential development is acceptable in principle. The dwelling is a
detached one and half storey dwelling on a corner plot. The new owner is disabled and
as part of the proposed alterations a 1½ storey side extension is planned, to be
located on the north gable, in addition to a car port.
The car port is an addition to the existing detached double garage, sited along the
southern boundary behind the dwelling. The car port would extend from the front of the
garage, east, towards the road. Both the garage and car port would sit close to the
southern boundary, which is treated with an approximate 2.5m solid hedge. Only the
roof of the car port would be visible from the neighbouring property to the south. The
car port would have a pitched roof with a total height of 3.2m, compared to the garage
at 4m. It would be visible from the highway but would be situated about 30m away.
The side extension is to incorporate a lift within the 1½ storey section and a store room
in an attached single storey section. This single storey section could be built without
the benefit of planning permission if it were not attached to the taller section. The taller
section would accommodate a lift and a small hallway area to facilitate access from the
house. Dimensions of the 1½ storey section would be 3.5m by 1.5m, with the store
room measuring 2.9m by 2.2m. An external door is proposed from the hallway, to
provide easy access to the store from outside. A small window is proposed in the
store room, facing the north east boundary.
The north-eastern boundary adjoins two neighbours. The whole length is treated with a
1.8m boarded fence, with varying amounts of vegetation on the neighbour's side. The
store room window is not anticipated to create any undue overlooking, but it could be
conditioned to be obscure glazed due to its close proximity with the boundary (1m).
Development Control Committee
37
18 November 2010
The mass of the single storey element is not considered to be an issue in relation to
neighbours' amenities. The 1½ storey section would bring the gable wall closer to both
neighbours by 1.5m. This is not anticipated to alter significantly the impact the property
already has upon both neighbours.
One of the neighbours to the north east owns a Leylandii hedge/tree that is positioned
close the proposed side extension. Unfortunately this was not addressed when the
application was submitted. Following consultation with the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager any development should only proceed once an Arboricultural
Method Statement has been produced and agreed with the LPA. Compliance with
Policy EN 9 would be achieved through this process.
Conversion of the garage to a workshop (referred to in the representations section)
does not need planning permission.
It is understood that the applicant intends to render the whole dwelling following the
alterations. This does not require permission, although it is recommended that a
condition be imposed controlling the external finish of the proposed side extension.
On balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accords with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1045 - Retention of rear extension; White Horse Public
House, 34 High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
Minor Development
Target Date: 03 November 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061859 PF - Construction of access ramp and installation of new entrance door
and canopy
Approved 25/01/2007
PLA/20090931 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension, conversion of barn to
restaurant and retention of umbrella to front of premises
Approved 28/10/2009
NMA1/09/0931 - Non-material amendment request to permit revisions to fenestration,
roof height and projection and materials
Refused 05/07/2010
THE APPLICATION
Retrospective application to retain a extension to the public house as constructed
rather than in compliance with the approved plan under application reference 09/0931.
The differences between what is constructed and the approved extension are;
Development Control Committee
38
18 November 2010
The enclosed area of the building is about 1m deeper with the overall height increased
by 0.3m.
There are changes to the detailing of the building, the number and the proportions of
the windows, the oversailing roof is now unsupported, but was previously supported on
posts and the boarding detail on the gable replaced by a chevron pattern.
The substitution of materials; colourwashed render instead of matching facing bricks;
slate affect roof instead of clay pantiles; and white UPVC instead of timber
fenestration.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Fitch-Tillett having regard to the following planning issue:
Design and appearance of the building.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, the slate roof is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and the
structure is substantially changed from the original plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support on grounds that the newly converted barn adds to the local
economy. Considers the extension has not had an adverse impact on the character or
appearance of the building.
Six letters from local residents on grounds of
The extension as built differs significantly from that approved. As built it is out of
character with the barn which it is built onto and the public house to the detriment of
the appearance of the public house and the Conservation Area.
While internally the pub may be contemporary, externally it is Victorian and this
extension is out of place.
The applicant has failed to comply with a condition of the planning permission to seek
the prior approval of an overbright, intrusive light installed above the entrance.
More light is emitted from the six windows where there should only be four.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager The White Horse Public House is a traditional late 18th/early 19th century building
which makes a significant contribution to the prevailing character and appearance of
the Village. The building holds a prominent position in the street scene being located
on the junction of High Street and Cliff Road. Furthermore it is recognised in the draft
‘Overstrand Conservation Area Appraisal’ as being worthy of local listing.
The extension as constructed has a harmful impact on the significance of the host
building and Conservation Area for the following reasons:1. None of the materials used on the extension comply with those submitted as part
of the application. ‘Colourwashed render’ has been used instead of facing bricks to
match the existing; slate affect roof covering used instead of clay pantiles; white
uPVC fenestration used instead of timber. As a result of these departures from the
approved details the extension has lost its connection/relationship with the host
building and wider architectural context. The extension has a stark and harsh
appearance which contrasts with the host building and its general character.
Development Control Committee
39
18 November 2010
2.
The window proportions on both the north and east elevations have been altered;
the timber boarding on the gable apex has been changed; and the overhanging
eaves with timber posts have been entirely left out of the scheme.
3. The extension can be clearly seen from the public domain from Cliff Road.
Furthermore the site is overlooked on the north and east boundary. For these
reasons it can be perceived as having a visual impact on the Conservation Area.
4. The length, height and footprint of the extension has been enlarged; this has
resulted in engendering a less subservient relationship with the host building.
In conclusion, it is considered that the extension has both an adverse impact on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the appearance and design
of the White Horse itself.
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):
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of extension on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and
relationship with the principal building.
APPRAISAL
The White Horse public house lies within the centre of Overstrand village and the
Overstrand Conservation Area where extensions to commercial premises may be
permissible providing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is at
least preserved.
An extension was approved in October 2009 in conjunction with a scheme to convert
an outbuilding to a restaurant. The extension approved provided vestibule access
from the pub garden to the restaurant and public house. The extension as constructed
deviates in many respects, apart from siting, from the approved scheme. While the
building is a little larger than approved, it is the different construction materials, altered
fenestration and detailing on the building which is considered to result in the greatest
visual harm. The consequence is an extension that has little in common with the
period building, and has an alien appearance that fails either to preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of the public house or the Overstrand Conservations
Area.
Development Control Committee
40
18 November 2010
Consequently, the proposal is considered contrary to the policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the
Development Plan.
If the recommendation below is agreed it will be necessary for the Committee to
consider follow-up action. In view of the significant discrepancies between the
approved extension and that as built and the detrimental impact on the Conservation
Area, enforcement action is recommended but with a period of compliance of six
months, taking into account the potential economic consequences on this business.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Refuse application PF/10/1045, for reasons relating to design, impact on the
Conservation Area and related policies.
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to instigate
enforcement action to secure compliance with the approved scheme, for the
reasons set out above, and with a period of compliance of six months.
13.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0291 - Erection of one and a half-storey extension to
provide two additional flats; 7 Holt Road for Messrs P and T Jenkins
Minor Development
Target Date: 12 May 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19940740 EF - Certificate of lawful use of part of property as self-contained flat
Approved 24/06/1994
PLA/20090964 PF - Erection of One and a Half Storey Extension to Provide Two
Additional Flats
Withdrawn 16/11/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the western side of the
property to provide two additional flats.
Amended plans received, reducing the number of proposed parking spaces from 8 to 4
(deleting the parking spaces adjacent to the highway and closest to existing trees) and
widening the existing access road.
The property is currently divided into 5 flats with no dedicated on-site parking. There is
one garage which is to be demolished to make way for one of the new parking spaces.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Members remain consistent with their previous objections. It was expressed the
parking arrangements are less than satisfactory than the previous application
submitted. Members also expressed there could be possible danger to pedestrians
using the footpath. It was also agreed the proposed application is detrimental to the
street scene.
Development Control Committee
41
18 November 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The demolition of the garage to be replaced with a parking space will result in loss
of privacy to the ground floor bedroom window adjacent on 5b Holt Road.
2. On-site parking proposed at an elevated level to the adjacent highway could have
safety implications.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - subject to conditions the application complies with Policy
EN6 of the Core Strategy.
County Council Highways - The amended scheme proposes four parking spaces.
Given the existing parking arrangement at the site and the proximity to the town
centre, the reduced parking scheme would raise no highway objection given that the
parking arrangement would meet the requirements for the flats proposed under this
application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Subsequent to the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's previous
comments on the above application, a Tree Preservation Order was served
(TPO/10/0808) to protect the three large Poplar trees to the front of the site.
Concern was raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager due to the
negative impact the proposed car parking bays would have on the trees root system
and health. As a result of serving the TPO modifications were made to the parking
areas and they were removed away from the trees which should therefore result in no
negative impact on the protected trees.
The required widening of the drive for highway improvements could potentially impact
on the tree closest to the drive (T1 of the TPO). An Arboricultural Impact Assessment
(AIA) and Method Statement stated that the driveway could be widened without
causing irreparable damage to T1, through careful construction and the use of a no-dig
driveway. However, the AIA also indicated that the trees were subject to infestation by
a moth larva which has rendered T1 in a poor physiological condition. The
arboriculturist has recommended removal of T1 (and the laburnum adjacent to it) on
health and safety grounds and replacement with a Holm oak. As a result a separate
tree work application to remove the tree (TW/10/0216) was received by NNDC to
remove the tree and approved on the basis that a replacement tree was planted (a
Holm oak). It is not clear when or if the removal of T1 will take place (even though
permission has been granted). Therefore conditions are required to ensure protection
of the tree during construction in accordance with the Arboricultural Implications
Assessment in the event that the protected tree remains on site. Subject to conditions
or removal and replacement of the tree in line with the tree works application, the
proposal is acceptable.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
42
18 November 2010
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 3 - Housing (strategic approach to housing issues)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction
of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking standards
other than in exceptional circumstances)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Parking
2. Design
3. Neighbouring amenity
4. Impact on trees
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
The application has been amended with the aim of overcoming concerns with parking,
access and impact on the trees on the site.
The site lies within the development boundary of Sheringham where the principle of
the creation of new dwellings is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
other Core Strategy Policies.
In terms of on-site parking provision, the current application has been amended to
delete four of the 8 originally proposed spaces to the front of the site due to concerns
on the impact on the tree roots of the trees to the frontage of the site. There is
currently one garage on the site but no other parking. The increase to four spaces
would meet the Council's requirements and on that basis the Highway Authority is
raising no objection. The deletion of four parking spaces to the front of the site has
also overcome the Town Council's and neighbours' concern in respect of safety
implications of parking at an elevated level close to the footpath.
The layout of the four parking spaces on the site includes the need to demolish the
garage which sits between the application site and No.5b to the east. Concern has
been raised from the owner of the adjacent dwelling that the parking space in this
location would result in a loss of privacy to a downstairs bedroom window adjacent to
it. Whilst it is accepted that the removal of the garage would leave this elevation more
open to the application site, given that the demolition of the garage and open parking
in this location does not require planning permission, it is not considered that a refusal
on the basis of loss of privacy in this respect could be substantiated.
In terms of other amenity issues, whilst some overlooking would be introduced from
the proposed first floor bedroom and lounge windows, this would only be towards the
front garden of the dwelling to the west and as such no significantly adverse loss of
privacy is considered to result. In addition given the limited height and scale of the
extension to form the two new dwellings, it is not considered that these would have
any significantly adverse overbearing relationship with the adjacent property.
Development Control Committee
43
18 November 2010
In terms of the proposed design and its impact on the street scene, the proposed
extension to this building would be subordinate in height, bulk and scale in
comparison with the original building and as such would have no adverse impact on
the character or appearance of the original building. In terms of impact on the street
scene, given the angle to which the building and extension would be sited with the
road and that the boundary is partly screened, it is not considered that the front
elevation would be read as one; as such, it is not considered that the proposal would
have any adverse visual impact on the street scene or wider area.
The access driveway would be widened in part to ensure that the access is suitable for
the addition of the two new dwelling units. County Highways have advised that subject
to conditions the proposed access arrangements are acceptable and raise no
objection to the scheme overall.
Subject to conditions, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has advised
that the scheme is considered acceptable, having no adverse impact on the protected
trees on the site.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
14.
STALHAM - PF/10/0966 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 142 High Street
for Stalham Radio
Minor Development
Target Date: 14 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070336 PF - Erection of 4 dwellings
Refused 25/04/2007 D 04/03/2008
PLA/20060060 PF - Erection of four dwellings
Refused 01/03/2006
PLA/20060061 LE - Demolition of shop building
Approved 02/03/2006
See also application LE/10/0967 below.
THE APPLICATION
Is to demolish a retail unit and replace it with a pair of two storey dwellings. Each
dwelling would have a single parking space provided within a garage accessed by a
courtyard turning area. The height to the main ridge is 9m. The development would
fill the plot with small enclosed courtyard gardens to the rear.
Amended plans submitted indicating minor design changes.
Development Control Committee
44
18 November 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barran having regard to the following planning issues:
Planning policy and neighbour amenity
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects concern over height of building, overlooks two bungalows at the rear,
contrary to the Core Strategy.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters have been received from local residents objecting on grounds of:
Proximity of the new dwellings to dwelling, the height of the building would increase
from 6.5 metres to 9 metres
The proposed rear wall would allow overlooking
Noise, dust and debris from the demolition
Problems with foul sewer connections on adjoining property.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - There are no Conservation
objections to the demolition of the existing building.
In terms of its replacement, the absence of a properly defined form and character in
this part of Stalham provides considerable scope to produce a qualitative new
development. With buildings ranging from the imposing Baptist Church to a number of
more modest cottages, there is little in the way of a clear design steer. As a result, the
aim of the architects has rightly been to draw their references from the buildings
which immediately flank the site.
Elevationally, the layout and form of the building has been heavily informed by the
position of the integral garages. Quite rightly, however, the temptation of having a pair
of handed symmetrical semis has been avoided and the scheme is all the better for it.
In actual fact, compared to many of the earlier schemes on this site, the latest plans
offer real hope that the end result might take full advantage of this development
opportunity. Certainly, they appear to show a more coherent scheme which has the
potential of contributing visual interest within this part of the town’s Conservation
Area.
With regard to scale, the main core of the building would be quite imposing visually by
virtue of its 9m high ridgeline and 8m wide gable. However, this impact would be
mitigated to some degree by the smaller gable on the west elevation and the front
facing gable at the eastern end. The central parapet and chimney would also help in
splitting the scheme into two visually. With the much larger church beyond, the
building is not considered to be out of scale with its surroundings.
Design-wise, the detailing is generally mild-mannered with little to jar on the eye.
Suggest minor improvements to the detailing of the building.
Environmental Health
contamination.
-
No
objection.
Request
note
regarding
possible
Highway Authority - no objection providing conditions are imposed regarding the
access and parking and turning provision.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to a code 2 level condition
Development Control Committee
45
18 November 2010
Natural England - No objection
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection in principal but requests the imposition
of an archaeological investigation condition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Parking arrangements.
APPRAISAL
The site presently includes a shop unit at the eastern end of Stalham High Street. It
lies within the Town Centre but outside those areas designated as Primary Retail
Frontage or Primary Shopping. Consequently there is no policy objection to the
replacement of the shop unit with dwellings providing there is no significant harm to
the amenity of adjoining properties. However, the site falls within the Stalham
Conservation Area so the impact on the character and appearance is also a critical
determining factor.
The existing shop is single storey at the front with a flat roof two storey extension at
the rear, which in terms of its appearance makes no positive contribution to the
Conservation Area. The design of the new dwellings takes some influence from the
Church Hall to the east and the cottage to the west and proposes traditional local
materials. Small changes to the detailing of the new buildings have been
incorporated into the proposal. As can be seen from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager's analysis of the proposal, this is a scheme that is considered as
improving this part of the Stalham Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
46
18 November 2010
On the rear boundary of the site stands a bungalow. Concerns have been
expressed, including the height of the new dwellings, about the impact of the
development upon that property. As the new dwellings would be due north of the
existing bungalow overshadowing is not likely to arise. Currently, the wall of the twostorey part of the shop forms the boundary. At 5.7m tall this dominates the bungalow.
Although the new dwellings would be taller at 9m their full height would be at 10 m
from the boundary and as such they are considered to have a lesser impact than is
currently experienced.
As regards overlooking, the first floor rear facing bedroom and bathroom windows are
proposed as obscure glass with additional windows to those rooms provided where
they do not overlook the bungalow at the rear of the site. Overlooking at ground floor
level would be restricted by the 1.8m rear boundary wall. These measures are
considered adequate to protect the privacy of the neighbouring bungalow.
Given the lack of public car parking and on-street parking in the vicinity of the site it is
considered that some parking must be provided on site. The standard parking
requirement of two spaces per dwelling could only be provided with direct off street
parking, as is the forecourt parking currently serving the shop.
Given the site's
position on the busy High Street this would not be considered satisfactory to serve
the new dwellings.
One parking space is proposed for each dwelling within the ground floor, with the
communal courtyard at the front providing the turning area for access to each garage.
While the scheme does not comply with the current parking standards, it is
considered that given that this is a town centre location one parking space for each
dwelling is adequate in view of the size of the dwellings. Moreover, as proposed it
would ensure that the parking provision does not dominate the High Street elevation
to the detriment of the Conservation Area.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area without causing significant harm to the
residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The scheme would therefore accord
with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include those
on the prior approval of materials and highways.
15.
STALHAM - LE/10/0967 - Demolition of retail unit; 142 High Street for Stalham
Radio
Target Date: 15 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Conservation Area Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
See also PF/10/0966 above.
Development Control Committee
47
18 November 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070336 PF - Erection of 4 dwellings
Refused 25/04/2007 D 04/03/2008
PLA/20060060 PF - Erection of four dwellings
Refused 01/03/2006
PLA/20060061 LE - Demolition of shop building
Approved 02/03/2006
PF/10/0966 PF - Erection of two two-storey dwellings
THE APPLICATION
Seeks consent to demolish the existing retail shop unit to facilitate its replacement
with two dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barran having regard to the following planning issues:
Planning policy and neighbour amenity
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects concern over height of building, overlooks two bungalows at the rear, contrary
to the Core Strategy.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - On the basis that the existing
building on site is of no architectural or historic merit, there can be no C&D objections
to its demolition and redevelopment. Certainly it is not a structure which makes a
positive contribution to the significance of this part of Stalham’s Conservation Area.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The application site is presently a shop unit at the eastern end of Stalham High Street.
It lies within the town centre but outside those areas designated as Primary Retail
Frontage or Primary Shopping and so there is no policy objection to the loss of a shop
unit. However, the site falls within the Stalham Conservation Area so the sole
consideration is the determination of this application is whether the impact on the
character and appearance is also a critical determining factor.
Development Control Committee
48
18 November 2010
As can be seen from the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager the building is not considered worthy of retention because it makes no
positive contribution to the Conservation Area.
Consequently, the proposal to demolish this shop unit is considered to comply with
Policy EN 8 and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
16.
SUFFIELD - PF/10/0618 - Restoration and upgrading of building, erection of
replacement workshop and engineering unit and removal of temporary
containers; Blacksmith Shop, The Street for North Norfolk Accident Repair
Centre
Minor Development
Target Date: 22 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
Height Restriction (MOD)
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19850280
HR - Improvements to existing blacksmiths agricultural and
automotive engineers shop
Approved 24/05/1985
PLA/19840142 HR - Blacksmiths agricultural & automotive engineer's shop
Approved 17/05/1984
PLA/20090465 PF - Renovation of the old forge and erection of replacement spray
booth and workshop, together with additional access and car parking
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
THE APPLICATION
The application relates to the replacement and upgrading of existing commercial
premises. New buildings comprise:
- A building to provide workshop/paint booth/hoist, to be constructed from dark green
vertical profile metal sheeting with mono pitch roofs either sedum or green fibreglass.
Height approx. 4.0m increasing to approx. 5.4m over the hoist.
- An engineering building approx. 4.2m in height above site level - to be constructed
from material to match the former blacksmiths buildings which is to be restored, red
facing brick and pantile roof.
- Erection of a 1.8m security boundary wall on the site frontage with The Street and
the adjacent through road.
- Hard standing for parking, 5 spaces being indicated.
The proposal includes the removal of three storage containers from the site.
Development Control Committee
49
18 November 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application - Consider the new plans are more sympathetic to the
location than those previously submitted and notes the efforts have been made to
reduce the impact of the new buildings. Additionally, Suffield PC welcomes removal of
the steel containers and retention of hedges as boundaries, notably to the North West
which borders a Conservation Area. However, the Council has deep reservations
about the road safety implications of aspects of the plans as they entail moving the
present site boundaries out to what appears to be the maximum extent. The Council
believes that it would result in compounding the danger of the already hazardous road
junctions. Road users find it difficult to see whether the road is clear as they approach
the junctions at the apexes of the triangle, particularly those at the west and north. To
avoid exacerbating the dangers Suffield PC believes that the footprint of the site
should not be allowed to extend right into the corners.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of support received from the occupiers of four properties on The Street one letter indicates that there have been no problems in regards to the workshops at
the Triangle, its vehicles or items in its driveway, or with the metal storage containers
and considers that the proposal will have a positive impact on the amenity of the area.
A letter from the agent responding to the October Committee report is attached as
Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team - The application complies with Policy EN6. Planning condition
should be imposed requiring the imposition of the proposed sustainability measures.
Environmental Health - Noise:
I do have some concerns regarding noise associated with the potential use of the
workshop and the potential effect that this could have on residential neighbours.
Furthermore, we have had a previous complaint of alleged noise nuisance, however,
this complaint was not pursued by the complainant and the matter was closed as no
evidence to proceed.
I would suggest applying the following conditions:
•
•
Before any new plant and/or machinery is used in the workshop hereby
permitted full details of any machinery and/or plant to be installed/used in the
workshop shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The submitted details shall include measures to control noise.
Prior to the first use of the replacement workshop hereby permitted full details
of the installation of any extractor or ventilation equipment shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The submitted details shall include
measures to control noise and odour. The equipment shall be installed and
thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The application site is
on a triangular piece of land situated at a minor road junction within the small rural
village of Suffield. The village itself lies on the edge of, and is historically associated
with, the Gunton Park estate, an historic wooded parkland estate covered by
Conservation Area status. The Conservation Area boundary terminates at the
Development Control Committee
50
18 November 2010
northern boundary of the application site. The main visual components of the location
are locally distinctive brick housing, some modern housing, significant deciduous
woodland, domestic gardens/allotments and hedgerows (some under management,
some not). The application site is partly bordered by mature hedging (to the south and
west), makeshift gates and fencing posts. Visible buildings within the site include the
brick built former forge building, three metal containers (painted white, green and blue
respectively) and a corrugated grey metal sheeting building. The existing hedging
helps screen the site and most of the buildings within, to a certain degree. The brick
forge integrates with the rest of the built form within the village. However, the metal
containers on the eastern boundary have a significant visual impact due to their colour
and material type. The grey metal sheeting building, although incongruous with most
of the built structures within the village, is not particularly visually intrusive as it is
screened by the hedging. The screening effect of the hedging will be reduced in the
winter months. The existing gates to the application site are not in keeping with local
styles and detract from the attractive rural setting and the Conservation Area.
The development proposals involve removing the three metal storage containers and
replacing the grey metal sheeting building with a larger building (in terms of footprint),
built of dark green vertical profile metal sheeting with either a Sedum flat roof or a
green fibreglass roof. The proposed building extends to the limit of the northern
boundary of the site, adjacent to the main North Walsham Road, with a section of the
building being 5.3m in height, but with the majority matching the height of the existing
brick forge (approximately 4m in height). A new brick building is proposed to the north
of the old forge, again matching the height of the former forge building and materials.
The proposed metal sheeting ‘workshop’ building is to be screened from the North
Walsham Road by new hedge planting, whereas the new brick ‘engineering’ building
is to back directly onto The Street with a new security brick wall extending to the south
and around to the south-western aspect of the site. The new wall will require the
removal of an existing established hedge.
The key Core Strategy policies which are pertinent to the design and visual aspects of
the development are EN4: Design, EN2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape
and Settlement Character, and EN8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic
Environment. These policies are supported by two additional Supplementary Planning
Documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide and the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (LCA). The North Norfolk LCA indicates that the application
site is located on the boundary of the Gunton and Hanworth Wooded with Parkland
Character Area and the Banningham to Suffield Small Valley Character Area. Of
particular significance within the LCA is the sensitivity of the application site in terms of
landscape character, as it is noted in the document that the setting of the parks makes
the surrounding areas of greater sensitivity than would otherwise be the case,
therefore careful consideration should be given to ensure that the development does
not introduce features which are not compatible with the character type or erode
existing features of importance within the character type. In addition, the Design
Guide stipulates that key objectives for new non-residential development are to ensure
that they are compatible with their surroundings and that they are integrated
successfully into existing settlements and the countryside with out harming any
heritage or landscape interests. The development proposes a number of new
buildings on the application site and should therefore be mindful of the above policy
requirements.
The proposed development can be assessed in terms of impact on the character of
the area and also the visual impact.
Development Control Committee
51
18 November 2010
The removal of the hedging on the southern boundary and replacement with a brick
security wall is likely to have a significant adverse impact as it removes a key feature
within the area which also aids screening of the buildings within the site. When the
site is approached from the south the main views surrounding the site are trees,
hedging and grassed verges punctuated by built structures, such as the roof of the
property ‘Ponds Head’ (which is located to the north of the site) which is prominent
amongst the back drop of the trees in Gunton Park. As the site draws closer, the
‘Ponds Head’ property retreats from view behind hedging, leaving views of the former
forge building, the telephone kiosk, gates and the service poles. The boundary
hedging to the site can be seen as a continuation of the hedging along the Colby road.
The proposed wall will introduce a new built structure into the immediate environment
which is not as visually recessive as the previous hedge feature. The wall will draw
the eye to the site and as such have a greater impact on the visual receptors within
the nearby properties.
One of the most prominent views of the site is from the north as it is approached along
the North Walsham Road. The proposed ‘engineering’ building will introduce a new
brick built feature into the immediate environment, however this will be seen in context
with the existing forge building reducing the impact as the materials and scale of the
building are similar. The landscaping proposals include planting a hedge to this
northern boundary which will aid screening of the new building and further softening
the impact of the built structure.
The proposed ‘workshop’ structure is larger in footprint than the existing building and
extends onto the northern boundary of the site, albeit leaving a metre of space for
hedging. The building runs parallel to the road for 21m with an extension of a further
12m. This is a significant increase in the mass of building on the roadside, and very
close to the carriageway. Currently buildings in the village are positioned well back
from the carriageway. The implications of allowing the proposed development would
be to change the character of the village with the introduction of a new detrimental
feature. The proposed hedging is likely to have little effect in screening the building
and it is highly probable that there is insufficient space for the hedging to establish.
The proposed materials and colour would be an improvement on the existing building
and the green colouring would be recessive, but the materials are still not
characteristic of the location. The proposed enlargement of the buildings appears to
be over development on this particular site, not in keeping with the form and character
of the village. Coupled with the sensitivity of the location and landscape character,
and the visual impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area, the proposals fail
to comply with policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Some elements of the proposals may be acceptable in the wider sense, however the
combined scale of size of the development is unsuitable in this location, therefore
Conservation, Design and Landscape recommend the application is refused.
County Highway Authority - The application site is located within the village of Suffield
to the south of the village centre. The site lies on the C288 – White Post Road
adjacent to its junction with the C298 – The Street. The site has vehicular access to
the C298 - Suffield Road. Both the C298 – Suffield Road and the C298 – The Street
are classified as Link Roads (4A2) within the Norfolk Route Hierarchy.
Previous Planning History - Planning application Ref: 01/09/0465/F, relating to the
application site, was submitted by the applicant in May 2009. This application also
sought the construction of a purpose built workshop together with paint booth and
engineering facilities. The applicant elected to withdraw this application prior to
determination by your Authority.
Development Control Committee
52
18 November 2010
Assessment: Access Position & Provision of Car Parking and Servicing Facilities - The
existing premises occupy a usable area of some 189m2, together with 64m2 storage
capacity, within three temporary storage containers. The application proposal
indicates that the usable floor area will be increased to 345m2. The submitted details
also state that whilst the established business employs 1 full time and 2 part time
employees, the development proposal will now employ 5 full time employees.
Whilst the established vehicle repair operations at this site create a limited number of
vehicular movements to and from the site, approval of this proposal will inevitably
engender a substantial increase in traffic accessing and egressing the site. The
commuting movements associated with the increased staff numbers will also add to
the number of traffic movements. The development proposal therefore seeks to
substantially expand the repair operations at this site.
The existing access, annotated as entry to the site, is located on the C298 - Suffield
Road, just 10m from its junction with C298 - The Street. Use of this access
necessitates vehicles turning across the opposing traffic flows on the radius of the
junction. In addition, the current situation appears to encourage access across the
highway verge from the C298 - The Street. The access to the development is
unsuitable to cater for the increase in vehicular movements which will be engendered
by the proposed development.
The submitted details indicate the gross floor area as 345 m2 and the use of the
buildings are to be B1 Light Industrial. The adopted parking standards for this
classification requires provision of 1 car parking space per 30 square metres together
with cycle parking of 1 space per 50 square metres. In addition, a dedicated
servicing/loading area suitable to serve the development must be provided. This
equates to a requirement of 11.5 parking places to be accommodated within the site.
Whilst there are 13 spaces referred to in the Design and Access Statement, the
submitted plans indicate provision of 5 spaces, plus some additional overspill parking.
In addition, the indicated servicing and manoeuvring area is restricted in size. The
proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and manoeuvring
facilities to cater for the development proposed.
The village does not have amenities within close proximity and only limited public
services available and it is felt that this and the concerns detailed above are significant
to warrant a highways objection to this proposal.
In conclusion I consider that this proposal would be likely to result in hazard and
danger to road users and I would therefore recommend that planning permission be
refused in the interests of highway safety for the following reasons:- inadequate
parking facilities, unsatisfactory right turn movement, unsatisfactory intensification of
vehicular use.
In addition the Highway Authority has indicated that it believes that the proposed
development encroaches onto the adopted highway.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
53
18 November 2010
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 EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle and scale of use in the countryside
Visual impact
Traffic generation and parking provision
Impact on residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the last meeting to allow Members to
visit the site.
The site comprises a triangular piece of land (0.1ha) abutting adopted highways on all
three sides. The site is centrally located within the village of Suffield which lies within
an area designated as Countryside in the adopted Core Strategy. The site lies
immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Gunton Park Conservation Area and
close to the boundary of parts of the parkland designated as a County Wildlife Site
and a Historic Park and Garden. To the east and south-east on The Street there are a
number of residential properties.
The site was historically the location of the village blacksmith and the original brick
forge building dating back approx. 200 years remains on the site. Other modern
buildings have been added including timber framed metal clad structures, and more
recently three unauthorized metal storage containers. The buildings are generally
single storey in scale, with a max height of approx. 4.2m.
Development Control Committee
54
18 November 2010
The land and buildings have an Established Use Certificate (EUC) and planning
permission, subject to conditions, for use as a Blacksmith and Agricultural and
Automotive Engineering Shop. The EUC limits use of the land and buildings to that
broadly described on the certificate. Information accompanying the planning
application suggests that the site has been used for vehicle repairs since the mid
1980s and that activities have included general engineering, repair and repainting car
body work and the manufacture of glass fibre body panels. The applicant and current
owner of the site seeks to replace and upgrade existing building on the site and
continue operating an accident repair centre, a use it is suggested complies with the
Established Use Certificate.
The application indicates that the existing buildings comprise approximately 275sqm
of floor space. This figure includes the built structures (200sqm) and the metal storage
containers (75sqm). The proposed plans seek to retain and upgrade the historic
blacksmith building and replace all other structures with a mix of metal clad buildings
with sedum roofs and a brick and tile engineering workshop. The proposed scheme
provides buildings with a gross useable floor area of approximately 315 square
metres.
The proposal therefore seeks to extend the authorised buildings on the site by
115sqm (i.e. by 57.5%). Core Strategy Policy EC3 allows for extensions to an existing
business in the Countryside where it is of a scale appropriate to the existing
development and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Key to the determination of this application is whether the proposed development
would increase the scale of activity on the site and how this would impact on the
character of the site, its visual appearance, traffic and parking and amenity levels.
The proposed increase in floor area is significant when account it taken of the existing
buildings and the overall size of the site itself (0.1ha). The proposal includes a building
designed for use as a paint workshop and reference is also made to the on-site
manufacture of fibre-glass panels. Both processes are considered general industrial
uses broadly consistent with the use of the site for automotive engineering (B2).
However the form and scale of the proposed building is very likely to lead to a level of
use in excess of existing and historic levels. This assumption is supported by the
proposed increase in employees on the site from 1FT& 2Pt to 5FT and the increase in
on-site parking spaces proposed. The proposal increases the built coverage of this
constrained site and allows for the intensification of a B2 general industrial use. Given
the quiet rural location of the site and its prominence, such a use would be highly
visible and of a scale that would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has provided a detailed
response to the proposal given the rural location of the site and its proximity to Gunton
Park Conservation Area. The response refers to the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (LCA) which indicates that the application site is located on the
boundary of the Gunton and Hanworth Wooded with Parkland Character Area and the
Banningham to Suffield Small Valley Character Area. The LCA notes that the setting
of the parkland makes the surrounding areas of greater sensitivity than would
otherwise be the case, and therefore careful consideration should be given to ensure
that the development does not introduce features which are not compatible with the
character type or erode existing features of importance within the character type. In
addition, the Design Guide stipulates that key objectives for new non-residential
development are to ensure that they are compatible with their surroundings and that
they are integrated successfully into existing settlements and the countryside with out
harming any heritage or landscape interests. Given this policy context the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager highlights two aspects of the proposal
Development Control Committee
55
18 November 2010
which give rise to concerns, firstly the replacement of sections of existing boundary
hedging with a brick boundary security wall and secondly the increased mass and
prominence of the replacement workshop building.
In relation to the former, the proposals include a 22m length of wall along the site
frontage on to The Street and 27m length (punctuated with two gated accesses)
adjacent to the Through Road. The removal of the hedging on the southern boundary
and replacement with a brick security wall is likely to have a significant adverse impact
as it removes a key feature within the area which also aids screening of the buildings
within the site. When the site is approached from the south the main views
surrounding the site are trees, hedging and grassed verges punctuated by built
structures, such as the roof of the property ‘Ponds Head (which is located to the north
of the site) which is prominent amongst the back drop of the trees in Gunton Park.
The proposed wall would introduce a new built structure into the immediate
environment which is not as visually recessive as the previous hedge feature.
Regarding the proposed replacement workshop building this is larger in footprint than
the existing building and extends onto the northern boundary of the site, albeit leaving
a metre of space for hedging. The building would run parallel to the road for 21m with
an extension of a further 12m. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considers this to be a significant increase in the mass of building on the roadside, and
very close to the carriageway. Currently buildings in the village are positioned well
back from the carriageway. The implications of allowing the proposed development
would be to change the character of the village with the introduction of a new
detrimental feature. The proposed hedging is likely to have little effect in screening
the building and it is highly probable that there is insufficient space for the hedging to
establish. The proposed materials and colour would be an improvement on the
existing building and the green colouring would be recessive, but the materials would
still not be characteristic of the location. The proposed enlargement of the buildings
would amount to over-development on this particular site, not in keeping with the form
and character of the village.
In relation to vehicular access and parking provision, the Highway Authority has raised
objections to the proposal. The Highway Authority considers that on the basis of the
information submitted the proposals seeks to substantially expand the repair
operations at the site and consider that the access to the site to be unsuitable to cater
for the increase in vehicle movements. In addition, in relation to parking provision the
planning application details refer to 5 proposed employees and the provision of 13 on
site parking spaces. The submitted plans indicate 5 parking spaces within the
curtilage of the site. This level of parking falls well below that referred to in the Core
Strategy and there is limited scope to provide additional provision without
compromising access and manoeuvring areas.
Environmental Health have raised concerns regarding the noise associated with the
potential use of the workshop and the potential effect that this would have on
residential neighbours. Policy EN13 requires that all development should minimise all
emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise. There are a number
of residential properties in the vicinity of the site in particular on The Street. A number
of residents living in the vicinity of the site have supported the application but,
notwithstanding this it would be inappropriate in this quiet rural location to fail to
ensure that noise, light and emission/odours are effectively managed. Environmental
Health have recommended in the event of the application being approved that
conditions be imposed to ensure adequate noise reduction measure and the
installation of adequate extraction systems.
Development Control Committee
56
18 November 2010
This is a small, but prominent village site which is sensitively located adjacent to the
Gunton Park Conservation Area. The site has a lawful use for automotive engineering
and currently many features of the site are not in keeping with the attractive rural
setting and the Conservation Area. Improving the appearance of the site and allowing
for its ongoing employment generating use would have clear visual and economic
benefits. The objective of encouraging new employment opportunities in the
countryside is reflected in Core Strategy Policy EC3 which is supportive of the
extension of existing businesses in the rural area where proposals are appropriate in
scale and where they would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
This approach is consistent with PPS4 (Policy EC6) which indicates support for the
diversification of businesses where proposals are consistent in their scale and
environmental impact with their rural location.
In this instance, it is considered that the scale of this proposal does not comply with
Core Strategy Policy EC 3. The extended buildings would allow for the intensified
use of the site for B2 General Industrial purposes to the detriment of the character and
visual appearance of this rural location, contrary to the requirement of Policies EN2,
EN4 and EN8. In addition the proposal fails to comply with policies CT 5 and CT6 in
relation to safe access and parking provision.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:The proposal would result in a scale of development that would be detrimental to both
the character and appearance of the site, the surrounding countryside and the setting
of Gunton Park Conservation Area. Furthermore the transportation impact of the
proposal is considered unacceptable by virtue of inadequate parking facilities, creation
of unsatisfactory right-turn movements and the intensification of vehicular use of the
road network. The development would conflict with Policies EC3, EN2, EN4, EN8 and
CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
17.
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
Major Development
Target Date: 09 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Wensum Valley Project Area
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
Archaeological Site
Special Area of Conservation
Conservation Area
Historic Park and Gardens
Contaminated Land
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Landfill Gas Site
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2
Development Control Committee
57
18 November 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the construction of an underground cable system from Weybourne to Great
Ryburgh, part of a larger project routing the cable to Little Dunham in Breckland
District. The underground cable system is required to connect the proposed Dudgeon
Offshore Wind Farm to the national electricity distribution network.
The total distance of the cable route through both Districts is 45km. However, the
length of the cable route for consideration in North Norfolk is 27.7km from
Weybourne to Great Ryburgh, passing through the parishes of Weybourne, Kelling,
Salthouse, Cley, Letheringsett with Glandford, Field Dalling, Brinton, Thornage,
Gunthorpe, Hindringham, Thursford, Fulmodeston, Stibbard and Great Ryburgh.
This application covers two stages of development. Stage 1 is for the onshore works
required in relation to the Offshore Wind Farm application currently being considered
by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). That is seeking consent
to construct and operate the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm with an output of up to
560MW. Stage 2 is for the onshore works which are anticipated for an additional
offshore wind farm project next to Dudgeon. This could increase the output in the
Dudgeon area up to a maximum of 1,400MW. Proposals have been initiated for
these further offshore works and will be subject to a further application to the DECC.
The application has been submitted on the basis that the electricity generated by the
offshore wind farm will be transmitted through the underground cables to the point of
connection to the grid by an alternating current (AC).
Up to four trenches would be proposed for the entire length of the route if both
Stages 1 and 2 were to proceed. If only Stage 1 were to proceed there would be up
to two trenches. The working corridor within which all works would take place would
be 40m wide, in view of the trench widths required, distances required between
trenches, vehicular access, sub soil storage and topsoil storage. However, in certain
locations the working corridor width may need to be reduced to 20m for
environmental reasons.
The electrical cable system would comprise the following components:
•
•
•
•
•
A buried cable system, approximately 45km in length, consisting of up to 8
circuits (AC system) if both Stages of the onshore electrical connection are
developed.
Fibre optic communication cables (one per circuit).
Earth continuity cables (one per circuit).
Cable joint bays.
Cross bonding pits and/or cross bonding pillars.
The voltage of the cable export system would be dependent upon the final design,
but will be at Extra High Voltage (EHV) levels (i.e. 120kV or above).
Whilst the application has been submitted on the basis of an AC connection, with
plans indicating the location of cable joint bays and cross bonding locations, it is
possible that a DC (direct current) connection could be used. If a DC connection
were to be used cross bonding pits or pillars would not be required. The buried cable
system would then consist of up to 4 circuits if both Stages of the onshore electrical
connection are developed.
Development Control Committee
58
18 November 2010
The applicants are also yet to establish whether the cables would be ducted or buried
directly, but if the DC connection is used they would be buried apart from under the
highways where they would be ducted, for technical reasons.
The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with
the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999. The Statement covers the
following issues relating to the proposed development: Non Technical Summary;
introduction/background; need for the project; project details; site selection and
consideration of alternatives; legislative requirements and the EIA process; policy
framework and guidance; nature conservation and ecology; archaeology; land quality
and water resources; landscape and visual impact assessment; traffic and access;
noise and vibration; dust and air quality; local community, land use, tourism and
recreation; summary.
Amended plans have been received in relation to the following:
1. A large number of changes to the detailed cable route alignment to:
a) reduce disruption to agricultural practices;
b) reduce impacts on drainage systems; or
c) for site access reasons
2. Alterations to the alignment and length of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)
locations (land at Kelling Estate, Bayfield including at River Glaven, A148 at
Thursford and River Wensum at Great Ryburgh).
3. The removal of an HDD location (disused railway south of the River Wensum).
4. The addition of a new HDD location (land at Kettlestone, containing tributaries to
the River Wensum).
5. Revisions to the construction main and satellite compound locations (sites at
Weybourne, Field Dalling and Ryburgh).
6. Revisions to the location of a number of cable jointing bays, cross bonding
pits/pillars.
7. Inclusion of number of areas where the working cable corridor width would be
reduced to 20m to minimise impacts on hedgerows, individual trees, archaeological
sites and a watercourse (land at Kelling Estate, River Stiffkey, Brinton, Hindringham
and Gunthorpe).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
The comments below are on the amended plans unless stated otherwise.
Weybourne Parish Council - No objection
Kelling Parish Council - Comments on the original plans as follows:
1. We understand that the width of the trench will be in the region of some twenty to
twenty five metres. This would obviously impact greatly on the countryside, and
cause great concern.
2. We understand that the route is not yet finalised and this in itself would affect our
discussion on this proposal.
Development Control Committee
59
18 November 2010
3. We believe that the duration of the work could be some three to four years, which
would be unacceptable.
4. It is proposed that twenty four hour working may be a possibility, which would
cause disruption to locals and an increase in traffic flow.
5. We understand that the trench, when being excavated at the Beck that runs
through the village, will simply pass through the Beck, which will of course cause
flooding on both sides.
6. It is hoped that if the project should go ahead, then the standards employed would
be as high as the present wind farm project, the Sheringham Shoal Farm.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Salthouse Parish Council - No objection
Cley Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
No objection.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Letheringsett with Glandford Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
No objection.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Field Dalling Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
Support.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Brinton Parish Council - No objection
Thornage Parish Council - No objection
Gunthorpe Parish Council - Object. The amendments we requested by letter dated
1st February have been completely ignored and I am instructed to repeat the request
that cabling proposed to affect Bale is re-routed. Reference is in particular made to
the route shown close to Folly Cottage, Common Lane, as it is thought that the line
could quite easily be further north through a scrubby area without detriment to the
environment. Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd, seem to be listening to landowners but
ignoring residents of houses close to the route of the cabling. Just because the
landowners have not asked for a route amendment in this case should not mean that
no notice is taken of those representing the local residents. If there are any perceived
technical or environmental constraints to our suggested route amendments please
therefore inform this Council.
In response to the applicants letter dated 10 June 2010, which provides the reasons
as to why it is not environmentally acceptable to alter the route at Bale, Gunthorpe
Parish Council have advised that "it does not seem from Dudgeons letter that our
comments have been understood or appreciated about the scruffy part of Bale Wood.
No technical reasons have been given for not accepting the request to go through the
scrubby area".
Hindringham Parish Council - No objection
Thursford Parish Council - No objection
Fulmodeston Parish Council - Object. For the same reasons as stated previously,
which are as follows:
Development Control Committee
60
18 November 2010
Although this is a big project, there seems little communication between the company
and landowners. The route seems to be undecided, and it seems to have an open
timescale with little thought gone into the effect on farming practices and soils. There
is a better route, we believe, along side of the old railway line. This is especially if a
super grid cable along the East coast materialises.
Stibbard Parish Council - Object. It is detrimental to the landscape and has an
adverse environmental impact.
Ryburgh Parish Council - Object on the following grounds:
1. There is no provision for a footpath in Little Ryburgh.
2. The proposed cable runs close to the Little Ryburgh Cemetery and ruins.
3. The route cuts through the road into Great Ryburgh.
Pudding Norton Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Original Proposal
Twenty two letters of objection have been received from local residents, landowners
and tenants. Twelve of those are follow up letters received from five objectors in
response to the applicants' comments on their earlier correspondence. The
objections received are summarised as follows:
1. Route would have a significant detrimental impact upon the landscape
2. Will cause significant detrimental impact/damage upon soil structure
3. Will create a significant detrimental impact upon field drainage
4. Cable depths too shallow
5. Significant detrimental impact upon livelihood of local farmers
6. Highway safety/access
7. Health implications from Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF's)
8. Close proximity of route to residential properties
9. Cable should be run along coast to a coastal sub-station, or run under the sea bed
10. Lack of consultation
11. Overground excavations proposed where thought horizontal direction drilling
would be employed
12. Compound location at Stibbard not discussed with landowners
13. Two stages of cable laying not acceptable. Cable laying should be completed at
same time or at the very least ducting for all the phase two cabling should be
trenched in same time as building phase 1.
14. Concerns over trenches remaining open for an excessive period of time
15. Cable route not what proposed or discussed with landowners
16. Concerns over locations of Cross bonding pits being located in fields
17. Bio security
18. Route cuts through heart of Kelling Estate
19. Impact on agriculture, tourism and shoots at Kelling Estate
20. Heat and radiation from underground cables
21. Additional cables to be added in years to come
22. Long term effect of large gaps in mature hedge lines
23. Detrimental impact upon farming practices
24. Detrimental impact on crop production
25. Concerns over impact on footpaths
26. Impact on local businesses close to route
27. Route not sustainable
Development Control Committee
61
18 November 2010
28. Unsuitable road network for traffic associated with cable route
29. Cable route should be realigned at Bale as too close to residential properties
30. Nothing in application to suggest alternative route considered
31. Financial implications to local farmers regarding productivity
32. Application is not precise in terms of type of electrical connection to be used
33. Inaccurate information provided regarding route, cable jointing bays and cross
bonding pit locations
Amended proposal
Four letters of objection have been received, raising the same issues as above and
the following:
1. The cable route has not been realigned at Bale as suggested
2. No information submitted regarding the construction programme. Conditions
should be imposed detailing when works can be undertaken to certain sensitive
locations along the route
3. Following the revised plans increasing the length of the directional drilling site at
Bayfield Estate will increase traffic movements associated with these works on a
minor country road which is not acceptable.
4. The applicants totally fail to grasp any idea of how much this would impact on
either farming operations or soil destruction and consequential problems
5. The application is at odds with the licence granted by Crown Estates
6. Alternative routes have been suggested to the applicants that are either shorter or
have less environmental impact, but the applicants have refused to consider them.
7. The solution is to reject the plan.
8. The alternative for the applicants which is also very much in the National interest
and Norfolk is the East Coast Transmission Route. It is envisaged that by 2020 this
will develop into part of the European super grid.
An Environmental Statement has been submitted in support of the application. A
copy of the Non-Technical Summary is attached as Appendix 6.
Copies of detailed responses to local residents', landowners'/tenants' and consultees'
objections and concerns have been submitted by the applicants with the aim of
addressing the matters raised. These support the amended plans, as outlined above.
An email has been received from an agent acting for a number of landowners
objecting to the application. It states that it has been brought to their attention that the
applicant has not been granted the licence from The Crown Estates which they were
reliant upon to allow them to undertake the second phase that they refer to in their
application. The agent's clients have already expressed their concern about the
second phase but now that the licence has not been granted they believe that this
element of the application is now no longer applicable.
The applicant's agent has provided a response to the comments made in the above
paragraph which reads that Warwick have long since viewed the Dudgeon area as
well suited for offshore wind farms and believe that the area will accommodate up to
1400MW in due course. The current offshore applications cover Stage 1 of this
development for up to 560MW. The UK continues to increase its targets for
renewable energy and regular licensing 'rounds' from The Crown Estate have taken
place, and are expected in the future. Round 4 is already being discussed. Warwick
will apply for more offshore capacity for the Dudgeon area (Stage 2) whenever such
a licensing opportunity arises and The Crown Estate and other stakeholders are
already aware of, and are in broad agreement with these plans. Whilst it hopes and
Development Control Committee
62
18 November 2010
expects that the Dudgeon extension will go ahead in due course it is not a certainty
and the timetable is currently unclear although discussions on this subject are
continuing. However, it is sensible and reasonable that the assessment of onshore
elements of the Dudgeon project accommodate Stage 2 works to ensure that the
maximum possible impact is fully assessed. The recent announcement of some
project extensions known as Round 2.5 did not include any extensions at this time off
the Norfolk or Lincolnshire coasts although these are expected in due course as part
of future initiatives. The new Coalitions' expressed interest in increasing Renewable
Energy targets in the near future may prompt a further review of the opportunities in
this area.
Further information has been received from the applicant in response to a number of
points of concern and objection raised at the previous meeting. These include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Technical Note in relation to the potential effects of EMFs (Electro Magnetic
Fields, letter dated 12 July 2010),
Clarification regarding applicant's position in terms of Stages 1 and 2 of the
proposal (letter dated 15 July 2010),
A response to comments made in relation to the East Coast Transmission
Network (letters dated 19 July 2010 and 31 August 2010),
A response to comments from objectors regarding lack of consultation and
impact upon on hedgerows and ecology, particularly on the Kelling Estate (letter
dated 19 July 2010),
A response to comments regarding lack of consultation and consideration of the
environmental impact (letter dated 20 July 2010),
A Technical Note in relation to construction work of the working corridor and reinstating the land (letter dated 20 July 2010).
A letter to the agent acting for Kelling Estate inviting further discussions to take
place regarding directional drilling under some, if not all, of the key hedgerows
within the Kelling Estate (letter dated 28 October 2010).
A response to comments made by an objector at previous meeting regarding lack
of consultation (letter dated 19 July 2010).
Clarification regarding the need for a 40 metre wide working corridor for the cable
route (email dated 4 November 2010)
All of the above information is contained in full in Appendix 6.
CONSULTATIONS
All of the below have been consulted on the original application. Those whose
particular interests are affected by the amended plan have been reconsulted.
Environmental Health - Comments on original application.
No objection. Environmental Protection are in agreement with the proposed working
hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and would like to see this conditioned.
However, it is also recommended that conditions are imposed regarding: no working
on Sundays or Bank Holidays, and limited working on Saturdays from 08:00 to 13:00,
unless agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing. Detailed
noise mitigation is to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of work as detailed in Section 12.5 of the Environmental Statement.
Dust control should be implemented in line with mitigation detailed in table 13.2 of the
Environmental Statement. An advisory note is also requested that if any potential
contaminants are found that construction work should cease, the District Council's
Pollution Control Team should be contacted and contact details of the site manager
and an out of hours contact are provided before works commence.
Development Control Committee
63
18 November 2010
With regard to Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs), the Environmental Protection Officer
has had a discussion with the Health Protection Agency who are saying that subject
to the cable being buried and constructed to UK standards and that it meets ICNIRP
(International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines on the
frequencies then there is no proven health risk.
Comments on additional information submitted by applicant on EMFs - The level of
magnetic field generated by the cable is well below the ICNIRP recommendations
and is unlikely to pose any risk to public health based on the current guidance. The
risk is minimal and therefore no signage would be necessary in this case.
County Council Highways - Original comments.
No objection. Conditions required including the submission of a Traffic Management
Plan prior to the commencement of development in order to clarify frequency of
deliveries for construction traffic, location of compounds and the direct effect these
will have on traffic movements, details of road crossings as the Highway Authority
would not wish to see any road closures on the A or B road network.
No additional comments to make in relation to amended plans.
Environment Agency - Original comments.
We have inspected the application and supporting Environmental Statement (ES), as
submitted, and have no objection to planning permission being granted for the
proposed work. However, comments have been made in relation to the following,
which have been summarised:
Ecology - Decision to agree with Natural England an appropriate depth and lateral
distance to perform the horizontal drilling of the cable under the Wensum Specific
Area of Conservation (SAC) is supported. A condition regarding mitigation measures
in relation to the risk of bentonite being released into the rivers Wensum and Glaven
as a result of the horizontal direction drilling is required. Mitigation measures for
trenching the smaller watercourses in accordance with the ES is appropriate and
must be adhered to. Mitigation measures for water voles, as detailed in the ES are
adequate and must be adhered to. Whilst it is generally agreed that there is
potentially no impact on otters during the works, we would request that the site
compound is fenced securely to prevent inquisitive otters from coming to harm.
Contaminated land (risk to controlled waters) - We are pleased to see that careful
consideration of mitigation measures has been made in order to try to preclude any
detrimental impact on groundwater and surface water quality. An investigation into
whether landfill gas is present at the historic landfill site should be made, and if so,
the possibility of the trenching and cabling acting as a pathway for the gas should be
engineered our via the design of the works. Having reviewed the ES we consider that
a condition should be imposed on any planning permission granted regarding the
submission of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination on the
site. Without this condition the proposed development on this site poses an
unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.
A further condition is required regarding any unidentified contamination being found
and development ceasing on the cable route until the applicant has obtained written
approval from the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the Method
Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. An
informative regarding relevant advice and guidance on land contamination
investigations is required.
Development Control Committee
64
18 November 2010
Pollution Control - A condition is required for a permanent scheme to install pollution
prevention and control measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.
Dewatering - Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior agreement
of the Environment Agency is required for discharging dewatering water from any
excavation or development to a surface watercourse. An informative note is required
in relation to the prior written consent of the Environment Agency being given for any
proposed works or structures in, under, over or within nine metres of the top of the
bank of any main river.
No further comments to make in relation to the amended plans.
Natural England - Original comments, no objection to landscape impact but some
concerns in respect of protected species (see Appendix 6). Following the receipt of
amended plans, have no objection and agree with the relocation of the satellite
construction compound within the Muckleburgh Collection as having a reduced
landscape and visual impact to the original location. The two new proposed HDD
crossings are supported as likely to reduce impact on vulnerable soils. The reduction
in the working width for the crossing of the River Stiffkey is welcomed. Natural
England have also confirmed that the Ecological Mitigation Summary Final Report
submitted by the applicants addresses their concerns with regard to impact on
protected species. Conditions in relation to pre-construction surveys, a mitigation
scheme for protected species and soil treatment are required.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to conditions (original
proposal).
No objection to amended plans.
Government Office for East of England - No response.
English Heritage - Original comments summarised - Do not wish to comment in
detail, but have some general observations to make. Because this is mainly a buried
cable route, care has been taken to avoid direct impacts on Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and Listed Buildings. English Heritage has no objection in principle to the
proposed route and considers the main impact of this development therefore to be on
undesignated historical assets and palaeoenvironmental remains. These issues can
be dealt with by using a PPG 16 paragraph 30 condition. Norfolk Landscape
Archaeology should be consulted as a matter of course. We would urge you to
address the above issues and recommend that the application should be determined
in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your
specialist conservation advice.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Original comments.
Made detailed comments relating to construction time, tree and hedgerow
replacement and cycleways (see Appendix 6).
Comments on amended plans awaited.
National Grid UK Transmission - No comments received
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) - Following the receipt of comments
from the applicant in relation to initial concerns raised by the CPRE, the CPRE feel
that the points raised have been well addressed by the applicants. There are no
outstanding matters on our side (original comments see Appendix 6). In relation to
the amended plans CPRE welcome the changes made.
Development Control Committee
65
18 November 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
amended plans subject to the provision of suitable conditions to safeguard
biodiversity and landscape. See Appendix 6.
Norfolk County Council (Public Rights of Way) - Original comments.
No objection. If planning permission granted the applicants should contact us at the
earliest opportunity to ensure the mitigation measures are effectively carried forward.
Norfolk Badger Group - No comments received.
Norfolk Biological Records Centre - No comments received.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Original comments
No objection to the application in relation to ecology on condition that mitigation
measures are put in place as recommended in the Environmental Statement. In
particular, we support the proposal for direct drilling beneath the Wensum and
Glaven rivers.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
Norfolk County Council (Planning) - Original comments.
respect of lighting. See Appendix 6.
In relation to amended plans no further comments to make.
Detailed comments in
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Development Control Committee
66
18 November 2010
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Landscape and visual impact.
3. Impact on nature conservation.
4. Impact on archaeology and cultural heritage.
5. Impact on residential amenities and use of land by landowners.
6. Highway safety.
7. Health concerns.
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the meeting on 8 July 2010,
following the resolution of the Committee to be minded to refuse the application on
grounds of loss of amenity, possible risk to health, inadequate mitigation measures to
address all of the environmental impacts which have been identified, significant
adverse impact on the landscape and environment and long term adverse impact on
a significant amount of agricultural land.
The reason for deferral was to obtain expert legal advice on the possible reasons
given for refusal and also to explore with the applicants the possibility of an
alternative offshore route. The Committee will recall that this legal advice was
reported at the last meeting.
The Committee will also note that in response to the possibility of an alternative
offshore route being used, such as the East Coast Transmission Network, the
applicants have provided a response in their correspondence dated 19 July 2010 and
31 August 2010 contained in Appendix 6. This also includes a letter from The Crown
Estate who commissioned the East Coast Transmission Network Technical
Feasibility Study during 2007. The Crown Estate confirms that the concept of such a
transmission network remains embryonic, and that "should such a network ever be
progressed, given the long timescales required for the planning, procurement and
construction of the scheme we consider it unlikely that it would be in service in time
to benefit the Dudgeon project".
The application has been submitted in order to help meet the UK Government's
targets that 15% of the UK electricity supply should come from renewable sources by
2015 and an aspiration of 20% of renewable energy supply by 2020. The applicants
have stated that the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm is expected to contribute
approximately 3% of the total amount of energy required to meet these renewable
targets.
In accordance with Policies SS1 and SS2 of the Core Strategy, renewable energy
projects are permitted within the Countryside policy area. The principle of this
application in terms of the provision of associated infrastructure in relation to a
renewable energy project is therefore acceptable.
Development Control Committee
67
18 November 2010
However, in accordance with Policies SS4 and EN7 the applicant is required to
demonstrate that any impacts on amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable, and
that there would not be significant adverse affects on the surrounding landscape,
townscape or historical features/areas, residential amenity, highway safety, or
designated nature conservation or biodiversity considerations.
The applicants have submitted an Environmental Statement (ES) as required by the
Environmental Impact Regulations. A number of expert bodies have been consulted
and their responses are contained within this report. In Section 4 of the ES the
applicants have provided details as to why and how the final cable route was
selected. They consider that the route chosen is the 'best fit' taking into account a
balance of environmental, technical, financial and risk factors. Residual impacts to
the natural, physical and human environment are assessed within the ES, with the
identification of suitable mitigation and/ or monitoring in order to further reduce or to
remove potential impacts.
Whilst the landfall point of the cable route at Weybourne Hope does not form part of
this application, as it is part of the Offshore Wind Farm application which is to be
determined by the DECC, the applicants’ agent has provided clarification for
information as to why Weybourne Hope was selected. The agent has advised that
the general location of Weybourne was selected for the cable landfall (following the
review of a number of alternatives) in order to avoid areas with major environmental
designations along much of the north Norfolk coast. Weybourne Hope on the north
Norfolk coast was identified as the preferred landfall location due to its close
proximity to the Dudgeon site and likely connection point to the electricity
transmission network.
The south eastern extremity of the search area was determined by the gas pipelines
entering the distribution station at Bacton. The coastline is typically fronted by cliffs
and towards the west, as the cliffs dissipate, becomes highly sensitive and is heavily
protected for its importance to nature conservation under United Kingdom, European
Union and international legislation. The Wash also has similar levels of nature
conservation protection and other potential landfalls further afield were ruled out
because of the increased electrical losses that would be associated with very long
cable routes. Therefore, potential landfall sites are very limited and, following site
visits, background research and consultation with stakeholders, the only feasible
option was identified as being along the section of coast directly north of Weybourne.
No consultee objected to the landfall location
The majority of the route is located through agricultural land and would be installed
by a method of open trenching. In 7 locations in North Norfolk it has been assessed
that open trenching would not be appropriate for environmental or technical reasons.
These locations are as follows:
1. A149 (Kelling road crossing)
2. Hare flights (Woodland at Bayfield Park)
3. River Glaven (Bayfield Park)
4. A148 (Parr Plantation/disused railway road crossing at Thursford)
5. Wetland pasture land at Merryweather Farm between Fulmodeston and Stibbard
6. A1067 (Little Ryburgh road crossing)
7. River Wensum (Great Ryburgh)
In these locations a technique know as ‘horizontal directional drilling’ (HDD) would be
used to install the cables to avoid or minimise any impact on surface features.
Development Control Committee
68
18 November 2010
Furthermore, with regard to directional drilling sites the applicants have provided
further information regarding the possibility of undertaking directional drilling to pass
under some, if not all, of the key hedgerows within the Kelling Estate. This was
following concerns raised by the Estate in respect of the impact on mature and
historic hedgerows where it is considered that the impact of the works will be more
severe and reinstatement more difficult than in the case of an ordinary hedgerow.
The applicants have written to the Estate’s Manager and their agent inviting
discussions to take place. A copy of this letter is contained in Appendix 6.
The cable route would cross 31 water courses, two of which are classified as main
rivers by the Environment Agency, the River Glaven and the River Wensum. The
cable route would also cross the River Stiffkey upstream of the point at which it is
designated a main river.
The cables would be delivered in lengths and would need to jointed together on site.
Where the cables are jointed together a process known as cross bonding would also
be necessary. The cross bonding points would need to be permanently accessible for
maintenance purposes. Where possible these points would be located at field
boundaries. At each of the jointing locations a wider trench of 3m would be required.
The cross bonding locations can be located 10m from the jointing locations and it is
envisaged that the cross bonding equipment would be placed in buried pits with a
surface manhole of approximately 1m by 1.3m in size. It is accepted that this would
have minimal visual impact. However, in certain places it may be necessary to install
an above ground inspection pillar. The pillars would measure approximately 1.16m in
height by 1.05m wide and 0.46m deep. Given that these locations would be located
where possible adjacent to field boundaries it is considered that this would have
minimal visual impact and minimise the impact on the use of the land. No objections
have been raised by the consultees in relation to this matter.
The depth of cover between the protective cable tiles in the trenches and the surface
within any agricultural land would be agreed with the landowner in order to allow
sufficient depth for the land to be ploughed safely.
The cable route would cross the public highway in 35 locations, 20 in North Norfolk.
Depending on the width of the roads, either a full or partial closure would be required.
The cables would be laid via ducts at the road crossing points and the working width
reduced to approximately 20m. Temporary closures and diversions of public
footpaths would also be necessary. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to
the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition requesting the submission of a
Traffic Management Plan for the route. The County Council Public Rights of Way
Officer also has no objections to the proposal.
In terms of timescales the applicants are planning Stage 1 of the onshore works to be
undertaken between 2011 - 2013 and Stage 2 between 2013 – 2015. Further
information regarding the timing of Stage 2 has been provided by the applicants and
is contained in Appendix 6. Whilst The Crown Estate did not grant any extensions
to offshore windfarms in a recent announcement off the Norfolk or Lincolnshire
coasts at this time, discussions are ongoing and the applicant expects Stage 2 to go
ahead in due course, but it is not a certainty and the timetable is currently unclear.
However, the applicants consider it to be sensible and reasonable that the
assessment of onshore elements of the Dudgeon project should accommodate the
Stage 2 works to ensure that the maximum possible impact is fully assessed.
Development Control Committee
69
18 November 2010
Parts of the cable route would pass through the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) for 8.11km between Weybourne and west of Letheringsett, 2.79km of
Undeveloped Coast from Weybourne to Salthouse Heath, the Glaven Valley and
Great Ryburgh Conservation Areas, the Wensum Valley SAC, SSSI 1km south east
of Great Ryburgh, Bayfield Historic Park and Garden. It would also pass close to the
Bale and Sharrington Conservation Areas and 3 Grade II listed buildings. The setting
of 6 other Grade II listed buildings may also be affected for a temporary period until
works are carried out, but to a lesser degree. No trees subject to Tree Preservation
Orders (TPOs) would be affected. No objections have been raised by the technical
consultees in relation to the impact of the route on these designations. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that there will be no long
term impact on views into or out of the Conservation Areas or on the setting of Listed
Buildings affected by the route. The amended details submitted in relation to the
change in location of one of the compounds from a site adjacent to the A149 to one
within the site of The Muckleburgh Collection is considered by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager to reduce the visual impact satisfactorily within the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Committee will appreciate that as the completed cable route would be buried
underground (apart from cross bonding points) there would only be a temporary
visual impact while the line is being constructed, and once constructed the land
would be reinstated to its former condition. The only visible element left of the cable
route would be at the cross bonding locations. It is therefore considered that the
finished underground cable route would have a minimal visual and landscape impact.
No objections from the technical consultees have been received in this respect.
The route has sought to protect, mitigate and minimise against any impact on nature
conservation. The Committee will note that Natural England has raised no objection
to the proposal, neither have any other technical consultees in respect of landscape,
ecology or historic environment issues.
The Committee will note that Environmental Health is raising no objection subject to
the imposition of conditions in relation to noise, hours of working, dust. Therefore it is
not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the
privacy or amenities of the residential properties along the route.
With regard to the concerns raised over the possible health risks, whilst such
concerns can be a material planning consideration Section 3 of the Environmental
Statement states that underground cables, which have grounded armouring
(shielding), as opposed to overhead power lines, do not produce any external electric
fields. The magnetic fields produced at ground level directly above an electricity
cable would be within World Health Organisation guidelines and less than the natural
background EMF produced by the Earth's magnetic field. These levels rapidly
decrease within 5m of the cable centre line.
The Committee will note that Environmental Health has discussed the issue of EMF's
and their potential health risks with the Health Protection Agency. Further
information has been provided by the applicants on this matter, which is contained in
Appendix 6, based on the information provided by the applicant Environmental
Health considers the risk to public health to be minimal and have not therefore raised
an objection.
With regard to the representations made, a number of points have already been
addressed in this report and also through the submission of amended plans and
direct correspondence that the applicant has had with the objectors. However, in
Development Control Committee
70
18 November 2010
respect of some of the more specific points raised such as soil structure, drainage
and livelihood the applicants have advised that further discussion with landowners
and technical experts will take place to address any issues. With regard to concerns
raised at the previous meeting on lack of consultation by the applicants they have
provided some additional information in response to this contained in Appendix 6.
The applicants have confirmed that they have conducted detailed studies and
assessments on the impacts of the proposed cable system construction and are
confident that, following careful reinstatement of the cable working corridor, including
any affected land drains, there would be no long term damage to soil structure and
normal agricultural practice would be able to resume.
With regard to soil structure Natural England have commented on this matter
specifically and are encouraged that the working practices will follow the DEFRA
Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. A number of
conditions are recommended in relation to soils. These comments and conditions of
Natural England are contained in Appendix 6. No objection has been raised by
Natural England, or any other consultee in relation to the applicants’ proposals to
address damage to the soil structure. It is therefore considered that the proposal is
acceptable in this respect.
The applicants have also stated that landowners would be fully compensated for the
loss of agricultural productivity during the construction period, in accordance with
normal principles applying to such activities. The applicants will carry out pre and
post construction agricultural surveys to inform any further compensation on claims
relating to crop yields.
They have also indicated that information from landowners relating to any
underground land drains will be sought prior to excavations. Should any unknown
underground drainage systems be encountered during the excavations these would
be fully reinstated.
Whilst the proposal is considered to be acceptable further details have been
requested from the applicants as to why the working corridor is required to be 40m
wide, and why in only some areas it can be reduced to 20m and not others. The
applicants have provided a response to this which is contained in Appendix 6.
However, the applicants have confirmed that they have been advised by specialist
cable installation contractors that a 40 metre working corridor is required for the
majority of the route in order to meet best practice requirements for careful storage
and adequate separation of topsoil and subsoil excavated from the cable trench. It is
possible to reduce the working width to approximately 20 metres in limited stretches,
where required, by not storing topsoil or subsoil/imported material within that
particular section. This would only be carried out where necessary such as
hedgerow crossings or sensitive pinch points as it will reduce the rate of construction.
Whilst it is accepted that there would be some short term disruption to local residents
this would be on a temporary basis. Environmental Health has raised no objection on
possible health risk grounds, therefore it is considered that the proposal would be
acceptable in relation to impact upon the amenities of occupiers of residential
properties.
With regard to concerns raised over the need for additional horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) sites the applicants have responded to these comments and the
scheme has been amended to include additional HDD sites in those locations where
Development Control Committee
71
18 November 2010
HDD is considered appropriate for environmental and technical reasons. This now
includes the potential for directional drilling to take place on the Kelling Estate.
CONCLUSION
Although the proposal is a significant development in terms of the length of the cable
route through the District, it is considered that the impact of this proposal would be
largely short-term during the construction phase. Once constructed the development
would have minimal impact. The Committee will note from the report that no
objections have been received from the technical consultees. Subject to relevant
conditions requested by the consultees the proposal is considered to be acceptable
and to accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
required by consultees.
18.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/10/1004 - Erection of one and a half storey rear
extension; Orchard House, Alby Hill for Bates
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - LE/10/0992 - Demolition
Thurgarton Road for Dr J Mumford
(Conservation Area Demolition)
of
greenhouse;
Greystones,
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/10/0955 - Erection of replacement dwelling (extension of
period for commencement of permission ref: 07/1078); Land at Chestnut
Hollow, Rectory Road for Mr G Limehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/10/0896 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; Greenbanks, The Street for Mrs Newstead
(Householder application)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/10/0972 - Erection of two two-storey front extensions and
single-storey side extensions; Lokeside, Hall Lane for Mr B Dowman
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0963 - Removal of condition 2 of planning ref: 92/0661 to
permit all year occupancy of caravans and lodges; Castaways Holiday Park,
Paston Road for Mr Hollis
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0980 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Oriental
Restaurant & Takeaway, Coast Road for Miss S C Woon
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/1033 - Construction of replacement sea defences; Land at
Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for Mr R Hollis
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
72
18 November 2010
BACTON - NMA2/10/0039 - Non-material amendment request for change of size
and location of holding basin; Shell (UK) Ltd, Paston Road for Shell (UK) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BINHAM - PF/10/0984 - Change of use of first floor studio/hobbies room to selfcontained unit of holiday accommodation; Apple Garth, Langham Road for Mr J
Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/0797 - Installation of non-illuminated advertisements; The
Granary, High Street for Stotter-Brooks
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1062 - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony
above; Highfield House, 5 Wiveton Road for Mrs A J Langley
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/10/1034 - Erection of bore hole housing and use of land for siting
portable toilet; Land at Hart Lane for Mr Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - NMA1/09/0955 - Non-material amendment request to amend front
window and insert patio doors in bedroom; Highlands, Cromer Road for Mr &
Mrs Clarke
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRININGHAM - PF/10/0990 - Installation of two rooflights; The Stable 3, Belle
Vue Farm Barns, Dereham Road for Mr S Richards
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/10/0970 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home; The
Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs Daniels
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/10/1020 - Construction of raised roof with dormer windows to
provide first floor living accommodation; Rosslyn, Craymere Road for Mr A
Riches
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/10/0373 - Conversion of hay barn to stables and erection of
replacement hay barn and removal of condition 5 of planning permission
reference PF/04/0082 limiting the number of liveries; Land at Wood Street for Mr
Alston
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/10/0959 - Erection of livestock building; White House Farm,
Limes Road for J B Gardiner
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/10/0981 - Raising of roof and alterations to store building;
Catfield Post Office, The Street for Mr and Mrs E Tims
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0868 - Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Ref:
08/1317 to permit annexe to be occupied as holiday accommodation; Emmaus,
Holt Road for Heale
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
73
18 November 2010
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0968 - Construction of paths and footbridge; Cley
Marshes Nature Reserve for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/1070 - Conversion of shop/cafe to two units of
holiday accommodation; Cley Nurseries, Holt Road for Mr C Lacoste
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - NMA1/10/0462 - Non-material amendment request for raised eaves
height to first floor rear extension; Hillside, Long Lane for Mr M Wison-North
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1056 - Re-instatement of windows and
north door; St. Peter's Church, Norwich Road, Corpusty for Norfolk Churches
Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - LA/10/1057 - Repair works to eaves of nave,
chancel & porch, installation of gutters and downpipes, re-instatement of
windows and north door and repairs to window stonework; St Peter's Church,
Norwich Road, Corpusty for Norfolk Churches Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/0840 - Erection of replacement dwelling; 13 Whitehouse
Estate, Jubilee Lane for Mr M Jordan
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/10/0860 - Installation of two air conditioning units to office and
shop; The Pier, Promenade for Ms Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/0954 - Conversion of workshop to residential; 21 Mount Street
for Mr D Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AN/10/1001 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 48
Overstrand Road for Cromer Group Practice
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/10/1017 - Change of use from A2 (financial & professional
services) to D1 (chiropodist/podiatrist clinic); 23 Church Street for Randells
Footcare
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1024 - Erection of garden wall; 1 Chesterfield Villas, West
Street for Mr J Griffiths & Mr D Shenton
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/10/1025 - Demolition of rear lean-to extension, installation of
window and replacement door and erection of garden wall; 1 Chesterfield Villas,
West Street for Mr J Griffiths & Mr D Shenton
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
74
18 November 2010
CROMER - PF/10/1037 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 20 Marrams
Avenue for Mr & Mrs Nicholas
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/08/0242 - Non-material amendment request for increased
depth of conservatory; 21 Howards Hill for Mr C Crane
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - NMA1/10/0258 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
roof lights and enlarged gable windows; Former Public Conveniences, Bond
Street/ Louden Road for Mr and Mrs S Massingham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0976 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (revised
design); 4 Foxhill Road for Mr S Fulcher
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/10/0049 - Non-material amendment request for revised roof
profile and colour of greenhouse; Curve House, Ramsgate Street for Mrs D
Mitchell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0542 - Erection of building for public house (Class A4) and
restaurant (Class A3) with ancillary managers flat; Land at Clipbush Lane,
Clipbush Lane Business Park for Marston's Inns & Taverns
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0947 - Formation of temporary access; J W Automarine,
Enterprise Way for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0965 - Erection of single-storey side extension to garage; 3
Southgates Drive for Miss Longwill
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1011 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 73 Gwyn
Crescent for Smith
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1026 - Installation of first floor side windows; 35 Norwich
Road, Fakenham, NR21 8AU for Davies
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - LA/10/1027 - Installation of first floor side windows; 35 Norwich
Road for Davies
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1047 - Installation of pitched roof to front porch/canopy; 6
Gwyn Crescent for Mr R Hills
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - LA/10/1067 - Installation of air conditioning units; 17 Market Place
for Barclays
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
75
18 November 2010
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1089 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 4 Wigg Road
for Cato
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - CL/10/0979 - Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Residential
Use Without Complying with Agricultural Occupancy Restriction; Beck Farm,
Stow Heath Road for Mr C Thorp
(Certificate of Lawfulness - Existing Use)
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/0997 - Erection of single-storey extension; The Hall,
Felmingham Hall Estate, Hall Road for Kent
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - LA/10/0998 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of singlestorey extension; The Hall, Felmingham Hall Estate, Hall Road for Kent
(Listed Building Alterations)
FIELD DALLING - NP/10/1048 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Land rear of The Chase, 20 Binham Road for Mr G Thomas
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FIELD DALLING - PF/10/1054 - Erection of side and rear conservatories; Field
House, Little Marsh, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs Camilleri
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/10/1009 - Installation of window (increased width),
revised roof coverings and change of materials beneath rear windows; White
House, Dilldash Lane for Bushell
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - LA/09/0928 - Installation of window and internal door opening; 54
Cromer Road, Lower Gresham for Ms A Howard
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/1114 - Erection of rear conservatory; St. Ninians Close,
Field Dalling Road, Bale for Mr Blackiston
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/10/0982 - Construction of rear dormer; The Homestead, The
Common for Mr and Mrs Fleming
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/0931 - Use of land for siting mobile home with lean-to
extension and storage container and formation of access; Land adjacent
Cleveland Cottage, Beach Road for Mr C Batt
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/0958 - Retention of timber garage; 5 School Common
Road for Mr C Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0999 - Erection of studio; 71 The Street for Mitchell
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
76
18 November 2010
HEMPTON - PF/10/1071 - Erection of detached garage; 16 Batterby Gree for Mr
Connors
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/10/0854 - Non-material amendment request for revised
materials; Holt Medical Practice, Kelling Hospital, Cromer Road for Holt Medical
Practice
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HORNING - PF/10/1010 - Erection of single storey side extension; Stone Stocks,
Lower Street for Timewell
(Householder application)
HORSEY - PF/10/1050 - Formation of vehicular access and stopping up of
existing access.; Street Farm, The Street for Horsey Estate Trust
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/0993 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Firdene, Horning
Road West for Mr & Mrs K Webster
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA1/10/0390 - Non-material amendment request for re-location of
access; Hill House, Belaugh Road for Mr D Woods
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1044 - Erection of boundary wall with gate; The Old
Rectory, The Street for Mr & Mrs Little
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0995 - Erection of annexe accommodation to stable court
providing additional bedrooms, gym, laundry room and plant/storage room; The
Stable Court, Langham Hall, Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT
WITH
GLANDFORD
PF/10/1042
Siting
of
summerhouse/studio; 1 Post Yard, Thornage Road, Letheringsett for Mr & Mrs
Virtue
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0991 - Erection of agricultural livestock building;
Land at South Lodge, Melton Park for Mr S Wallace
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1043 - Continued siting of residential caravan; 12 Cromer
Road for Mr H C Truong
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0682 - Conversion of garage building to seven
apartments and erection of fourteen apartments; 13-21 Bacton Road for Mr R C
Fitzgerald
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/10/0871 - Erection of one dwelling; 45 Happisburgh
Road for Mrs Y Bullimore
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
77
18 November 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0881 - Enlargement of front ground floor shop
window; 23 Market Place for Scrivens Opticians and Hearing Co
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/10/0882 - Enlargement of front ground floor shop
window; 23 Market Place for Scrivens Opticians and Hearing Co
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0925 - Erection of single-storey front and side
extensions; 25 Suffield Close for Wright
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0935 - Erection of first floor side extension; 27
Sampson Road for Hayhurst
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0987 - Erection of extension to side conservatory; 29
Norwich Road for Mr Thomas
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/0908 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Plot adjacent
Sunnyside, Chapel Road for M & P Bumphrey Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/0768 - Installation of first floor side window; Endeavour
Cottage, 44A The Street for Mr N Phillipo
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0095 - Erection of storage building and formation of
hardstanding; Land adjacent Cemetery, Weybourne Road for Sheringham Town
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0843 - Erection of rear two-storey extension and singlestorey side extension; 20 Common Lane for Mr S Melton
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0974 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 8 De
Morley Garth for Mr Tibbs
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1015 - Erection of first floor side extension; 4 De Morley
Garth for Mr K Murray
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1039 - Installation of replacement windows, enlarged
window and new side window; Flat 5 Temple Court, 6 West Cliff for Miss Kyd
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1053 - Conversion of dwelling to 3 flats; 19 Cromer Road
for Mr & Mrs S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
78
18 November 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1059 - Erection of smoking shelter; Tyneside Club, 95
Station Road for The Tyneside Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/10/0994 - Erection of pitched roof and rear extension to
garage; Sheerwater, Low Street for Mrs M Debbage
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/0754 - Erection of attached single-storey residential annex.;
Gleedale, Camping Field Lane for Mr P Frizell
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/1040 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Berland
House, Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr T Newman
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/1041 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation;
Shetland Cottage, Horse Barns, Wayford Road for Mr D Sharp
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/1081 - Erection of two-storey/first floor rear extension; Letter
Box House, Hunworth Road for Mr J Brook & Ms C Coombes
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - NMA1/07/1236 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration, installation of personnel door, increased dimensions and revised
materials; The Oak Tree Workshop, The Loke, Bessingham for Mr C Rounce
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SUTTON - NMA1/09/0805 - Non-material amendment request to permit increased
size of extensions and revised door and window arrangements; High Cottage,
Rectory Road for Mr & Mrs Jolly
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
THORNAGE - PF/10/0745 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Barn
Cottage, Thornage Road, Little Thornage for Mrs A Shepherd
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1006 - Erection of front porch; Orchard House,
Cromer Road for Mr D Wright
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1031 - Erection of cart-shed garage with storage
above; Manorwood, Church Road for Mr & Mrs D Reid
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/10/1035 - Erection of 18m high wind turbine; Rosewood Farm,
Craymere Beck Road for Mr C Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - NMA1/08/0793 - Non-material amendment request to change timber
decking to paving slabs and change ramp in south-west corner to steps with a
reduced width of 1.2 metres; The Crown Public House, Front Street for George
Bateman and Son Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
79
18 November 2010
TRUNCH - PF/10/0969 - Variation of condition 6 of 09/0183 to permit installation
of additional windows, timber cladding to be left untreated and change of
window materials; Trunch Builder, Front Street for Mr P Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PM/10/0812 - Erection of two one-and-a-half-storey dwellings; Hall
Farm Cottage, Market Street for Ms C Lee
(Reserved Matters)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/0971 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home;
Brick Kiln Farm, Edgar Road for Beef Production Systems Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0989 - Continued use of land as temporary car
park for 65 days per annum; Wells Town Football Club, Beach Road for Wells
Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1096 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 3
White House Gardens for Jennings
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1097 - Continued use of former guesthouse as
residential dwelling; Normans, 1 Invaders Court, Standard Road for Miss Ellis
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1104 - Erection of front porch; 6 Russell Close
for Mr Flower
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0962 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 3
Barnfield Cottages, Station Road for Ms A George
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0973 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Sandy Hill
Cottage, Sandy Hill Lane for Fenn
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1022 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Friary
Cottage, The Street for Trill
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/10/0985 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Beaconend,
Hall Lane for Mr and Mrs R Tee
(Householder application)
19.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0936 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1
(retail)/residential to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence
Place, The Street for Cannon
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
80
18 November 2010
BRISTON - PO/10/1036 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at rear of 23
The Lane for Mr & Mrs Reynolds
(Outline Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/10/1063 - Installation of dormer windows, erection of one and a
half storey side/rear extension and detached double garage; Rose Patch, New
Road for Mr Locke
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1029 - Erection of two-storey dwelling
and cart-shed garage; Land at Chestnut House, The Street, Saxthorpe for Mr R
Head
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
(Outline Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - LA/10/0948 - Installation of patio doors; Lilac Farmhouse,
Long Common Road for Mr P Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
20.
NEW APPEALS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
21.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 01 December 2010
BEESTON REGIS - ENF/09/0011 - Development not in accordance with approved
plans; Heath Barn, Britons Lane
INFORMAL HEARING 14 December 2010
SEA PALLING - ENF/09/0151 - The Material change of use of the land for the
stationing of a caravan, tents, motorhome and erection of a building
constructed of timber, for residential purposes; Land at The Marrams Clink
Road
PUBLIC INQUIRY
22.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0023 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road for Norfolk County
Council
Development Control Committee
81
18 November 2010
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0432 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension; Rose
Cottage, 82A Wells Road for Mr Hickey
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
BEESTON REGIS - ENF/09/0011 - Development not in accordance with approved
plans; Heath Barn, Britons Lane
SEA PALLING - ENF/09/0151 - The Material change of use of the land for the
stationing of a caravan, tents, motorhome and erection of a building
constructed of timber, for residential purposes; Land at The Marrams Clink
Road
23.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CROMER - AI/09/0930 - Display of Illuminated Advertisements; 57, Church Street
for Iceland Foods Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- PART ALLOWED, PART DISMISSED
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 , Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/0566 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage and
stable block; Eagle Farm, The Street for Wright
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0406 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
two-storey rear extension; 1 Recreation Road for Mr Coop
APPEAL DECISION:- PART ALLOWED, PART DISMISSED
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Mr C Jeffrey
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
82
18 November 2010