OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 18 OCTOBER 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management 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.
Horning - Tree Preservation Order 2012 No 7, Land at rear of Cedar Close,
Lower Street
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several
individual trees and two groups of trees at the above site.
Background
The Council is reviewing all of its Area TPOs in line with Government advice. The
Cedar Close TPO was originally served to protect a mixture of mature trees on the
site and these have been assessed for amenity and landscape value. The trees
have been re-categorised as individuals or groups and a new TPO served.
Representations
Objections to the Order:Two letters of objection to the Order have been received. (Appendix 1)
The main grounds for objection are:
1. That for various reasons certain trees should not be part of the TPO.
2. That the grouping of trees is ambiguous and may include a hedge.
3. That the TPO will restrict on-going maintenance to a boundary hedge.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
All the trees are currently covered by the old TPO and if it is deemed appropriate to
remove the trees then replacements can be planted to maintain amenity. If the TPO
is removed from these trees then the Council cannot request replacements and
amenity will be lost. Applications to remove the trees can be made under the new
Order and if it is deemed appropriate the trees can be removed and replacements
planted.
The groups identify all the individual trees in the group. There will be no ambiguity
regarding the existing hedge as hedges cannot be protected by a TPO. Currently
under the old TPO there are problems as it is unclear as to which trees are covered.
The TPO would not prevent on-going appropriate maintenance. Under the new
Regulations one application can be made for long term on-going work of this kind.
Development Committee
1
18 October 2012
Landscape Officers would be happy to discuss in detail any application for tree works
with the owners or their agents regarding appropriate tree work and management.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual‟s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council‟s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that they therefore have
high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case ( Landscape Officer) Ext. 6142)
2.
SUTTON – Tree Preservation Order (Sutton) 2012 No.8 at Staithe Road/Old
Yarmouth Road
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) has been served as part of the Council's ongoing
TPO Review process and seeks to replace two Orders with a single unified Order.
The original Orders have been included in the TPO Review as they contain Area
designations which are no longer permitted. The new Order includes eleven
individual trees covering a range of species including Oak, Ash, Silver Birch, Horse
Chestnut and Sycamore, and one Group of trees including Ash, Silver Birch, Cedar
and Sycamore.
The original Orders were served in direct response to the development of the Pond
Farm estate in the 1970's, to try and retain many trees which were under threat from
the housing development and the highways improvements. Some of the trees
protected under the 1970's Orders were removed as part of the development process
and some have subsequently been removed at the request of individual
householders owing to unfavourable relationships with the dwellings.
Development Committee
2
18 October 2012
The trees that remain are all that are left of the original tree stock at Pond Farm and
the surrounding land, and serve as a link to the previous land holding prior to the
development of the housing estate.
As part of the TPO Review the trees have been re-assessed for their amenity value,
and if deemed to be of sufficient value were included in the new Order. The trees
continue to be under threat from removal as all are in private ownership by many
individuals and are situated in close proximity to residential dwellings. It is therefore
considered expedient to serve a TPO and continue to protect the trees.
The Order was served on 25th May 2012, under delegated powers.
Representations
Objections to the Order.
One letter has been received, from the owner of Pond Farm, objecting to the Order
(see Appendix 2).
In summary the objection to the TPO is that a single Silver Birch tree (identified as T8
on the map and within the front garden of Pond Farm) is very large and may, in
strong winds, cause damage to the property and neighbouring properties should it
fail. The owner of Pond Farm would like to remove the tree and does not therefore
wish it to be included in the Order. The owner of Pond Farm does not object to the
other trees included in the Order.
Appraisal
In response to the representation the following comments are made:
The Silver Birch is located in the front garden of Pond Farm, approximately 5m from
the house. It is one of only three remaining trees of what was once a small woodland
adjacent to the old farmhouse, part of the mature tree planting of the original Pond
House Farm.
From ground inspection, the tree does not appear to be suffering from any fungal
disease and appears in good health with a full crown flush. The tree is nearing
maturity and is not expected to grow further by any great extent. The Order would
not stop appropriate management of the tree in the future.
The tree is visible from the public highway and contributes to the overall amenity of
the streetscape. There are very few mature trees remaining around Pond Farm, and
the removal of even one individual tree could have a disproportionate effect. Given
that the tree does not exhibit any signs of decline and that it forms part of the original
woodland it is considered that it should be retained within the Order.
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.
Development Committee
3
18 October 2012
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when making the
Order.
2. Whether or not it was expedient and in the interests of amenity to serve a Tree
Preservation Order on the trees in question.
Officers consider that it was expedient to serve a Tree Preservation Order on the
trees identified, as they have considerable public amenity value and make a
noteworthy contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding
area.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Kerys Witton, Landscape Officer, ext 6323 – File Reference: TPO/12/0858)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/0624 - Erection of rear sunlounge; Ash House Barn,
School Road for Mrs L Warner
- Target Date: 25 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050411
PF - Conversion and extension of barn/annexe to residential
dwelling and erection of garages
Approved 06/04/2005
PLA/19940769 PF - Conversion of barn for residential use (granny annexe)
Approved 04/08/1994
PLA/19990417 PF - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission reference 01
940769 PF to enable use of existing annexe as holiday let
Approved 26/05/1999
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a sunlounge part-way along the rear elevation of the dwelling.
The proposal seeks to use an existing patio door and raised patio area to site the
sunlounge which would be constructed of double glazed sealed units on aluminium
rafters with a mono pitched roof. The proposed structure would have a depth of
approximately 3.9m, width of approximately 3.5m and a maximum height of
approximately 4m.
Development Committee
4
18 October 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Norman Smith having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Design
2. Impact on the Conservation Area
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager: Objection - The site lies adjacent to
the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area. By virtue of its age, construction,
detailing and materials the building makes a significant contribution to the prevailing
character of the area. Whilst the original barn has been altered and extended over
time, its traditional form and appearance remains intact.
With regard to the proposal, the extension will be sited on the rear elevation of the
barn. The barn's character is derived from its long linear form, steep roof pitch and
traditional materials/construction. The extension appears to go against all of these
characteristics, its „box like‟ form and mono pitch roof bears no relation to the host
building.
Conservation and Design consider the structure will appear as an alien feature on the
barn, lacking any real subtlety in detailing and standing out as a tack-on element,
interrupting the linear form and construction lines of the original barn.
Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy states „all development should be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and be suitably designed for the context
within which they are set‟.
The North Norfolk Design Guide also states „extensions should use forms, detailing
and materials which are compatible with the original building‟.
By virtue that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host
building, Conservation and Design recommend the application be refused under
policy EN4 of the Local Development Framework.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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).
Development Committee
5
18 October 2012
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on Conservation Area
2. Design
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated Countryside policy area and adjacent to the
Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area. Extensions to dwellings are
acceptable in principle in this location subject to compliance with the specific criteria
of the relevant Core Strategy Policies. This particular proposal requires permission
as permitted development rights were removed under planning reference 05/0411.
The building was a barn prior to conversion and the reason why permitted
development rights were withdrawn was to protect the architectural character and
setting of the building.
The proposal seeks to erect a sunlounge at the rear of the building situated
approximately 4.7m north of the southern corner and approximately 16m south of the
northern corner of the dwelling. The proposal seeks to use an area accessed by an
existing door from the kitchen and currently occupied by a raised patio which would
be demolished. Therefore no new openings or alterations to the roof would be
required to be made to the original building. The materials proposed are a roof of
solar reactive double glazed units on aluminium frame members with moulded grey
aluminium box guttering, with the frame of double glazed grey aluminium framed
windows and bi folding French doors. A brick plinth to match the existing brickwork.
In terms of the impact of the development on the Conservation Area, since it would
not be directly visible from the Conservation Area it cannot be argued that it would
detract from its setting. No objection is therefore raised on this point.
As to design issues, however, the Committee will note the concerns of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on these grounds. It is considered
that the proposal fails to use forms, detailing and materials that are compatible with
the host building, whose character and appearance would be harmed. The
development therefore fails to comply with Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on design grounds.
4.
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 April 2012
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Development Committee
6
18 October 2012
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740171 PO - Erection of one detached residence and double garage
(outline)
Approved 17/05/1974
PLA/19771706 HR - Erection of house and garage
Approved 21/03/1978
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling adjacent to the applicant's
house.
The dwelling would be a one bedroom two storey house sited within the garden
belonging to 28 Waveney Drive (applicants).
The existing house is placed on the eastern side of the curtilage with the largest part
of the garden to the west. The plot would be on this part of the garden, extending to
the boundary with 26 Waveney Drive to the west and to the A1062 to the south.
Two sets of amended plans have been received. The plans initially submitted were
for a two storey two bedroom house with accommodation in the roof. The first set of
amended plans showed a similar proposal, but with a small gable on the rear. The
second set of amended plans indicated removal of an internal garage and the
accommodation in the roof to create a narrower, smaller two storey house.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection to any plan received.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objection have been received from 4 neighbours.
3 letters of objection originally received, raising the following concerns:
1. Design of dwelling not in keeping with the rest of the road (including the 3 storey
element).
2. Proposed plot restricted and siting of dwelling close to the immediate neighbours.
3. Waveney Drive is currently an open estate with adequate space between each
dwelling. This development could encourage similar applications.
4. Whilst no trees need to be removed for the development, at least one tree has
already been removed.
Following advertisement of the first amended plans one letter of objection was
received, from the immediate neighbour to the east, as follows:
1. 3 storey dwelling inappropriate for Waveney Drive.
2. Dwelling would appear to be squeezed in between the two immediate
neighbours.
3. Possible encourage similar applications.
Following advertisement of the second amended plans one letter of objection was
received, from a resident of Waveney Drive, as follows:
Plot is undersized and would encourage other similar applications along Waveney
Drive.
Development Committee
7
18 October 2012
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Code Level 3 condition required on any approval in
order to ensure compliance with Policy EN 6. No further comments on the amended
plans
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Conditions are required to ensure that the
vehicular access is constructed prior to the first use of the house; access is in
accordance with Highway Authority standards; and no direct access is created from
or onto the A1062.
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).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area
3. Design
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
The site is located within the residential policy area of Hoveton where new dwellings
are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Policy EN 4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, has regard to
the North Norfolk Design Guide, is of a scale and massing that relates
sympathetically to the surrounding area, whilst at the same time making efficient use
of the land. Design which fails to reinforce or preserve local distinctiveness and
character will not be considered acceptable. Proposals should also not have a
significantly detrimental effect upon the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
This part of Hoveton contains a mixture of detached residential properties in terms of
size and style. However the majority of dwellings in Waveney Drive appear to date
from the 1960's. The siting of the dwellings and plot sizes are varied along the road,
Development Committee
8
18 October 2012
but in the immediate area there are several dwellings on fairly large plots, which are
sited in the centre of their curtilages. Further north and north-east plot sizes become
more varied and both properties and plots are generally smaller. In addition new
dwellings have recently been permitted to the south of Waveney Drive along Church
Road, reducing the size of the curtilage of 30 Church Road.
To the west of the site lies a chalet bungalow, directly opposite a 2 storey dwelling.
The house to the east has an attached garage only 3m from the road. The proposed
dwelling would be set back approximately 8m with the main roof ridge in line with
number 28. The building line of dwellings in this part of Waveney Drive is relatively
varied.
The rear garden is more than the footprint of the dwelling, complying with the
guidance within the Design Guide. In addition, as a south facing garden it is
reasonable to expect the majority of it to be substantially free from shading during the
year.
On balance therefore the size of the plot in relation to the dwelling and the impact of
the dwelling on the overall form and character of the area are considered to be
acceptable.
In terms of the impact upon neighbouring dwellings the only neighbours directly
affected would be the immediate neighbours on either side. As the dwelling would be
sited in line with the dwelling to the east (the applicants' property), no significant
overshadowing is anticipated. The neighbouring dwelling to the west is sited a
minimum of 8m away, with the boundary being served with a boarded fence some
1m high and vegetation, varying in height between approximately 2m and 6m which
provides an almost continuous barrier. With south facing rear gardens the impact on
neighbours in terms of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable under Policy
EN 4.
In terms of overlooking no windows are proposed on the western elevation. A window
in the western elevation of the applicants‟ house is thought to be a secondary kitchen
window and would face a wall including a door and two windows, serving a utility
room and study, on the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling. The windows
would all be on the ground floor and set 3.5m apart, with the common boundary
served with a 1.8m boarded fence. Whilst this distance is less than the 9m required
to meet fully guidelines for secondary to tertiary arrangements under the Design
Guide Amenity Criteria, since the fence would provide screening at ground floor level,
this shortfall is not considered sufficient justification for refusal of the application on
amenity grounds.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6 aim to ensure that any new development includes sufficient
parking and that any transport impact is acceptable. The proposed dwelling would be
served by a new access from Waveney Drive which would lead onto a driveway with
room for two cars. With appropriate conditions both policies are considered to be
complied with.
It is considered in this case that the development would not be significantly out of
character with the area. Furthermore the development would not affect significantly
the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would provide adequate amenity
space and parking. The development is therefore considered to comply with
Development Plan Policy.
Development Committee
9
18 October 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 July 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Principal Route
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/12/0037 ENQ - Formation of visitors car park - 24/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the creation of a public car park for up to four vehicles within Bretts (Lings)
Wood, in order to serve the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) Reserve, with access via an
existing forest track with the entrance off the A148 being upgraded to Norfolk County
Council Highways standards.
An amended plan has been received indicating a 5 metre wide steel hinged overhead
barrier, set some 14 metres back from the edge of the carriageway with a steel
barrier gate to the back edge of the visibility splay. Both structures would be painted
olive green. To the north of the car park would be a further gate which would be kept
locked during normal visitor use so as to prevent vehicular access further into the
wood.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
An e-mail has been received from NWT clarifying the situation regarding the closure
of the outer gate. This states that "the outer gate will be locked at night time between
5.00 pm and 9.00 am if we encounter antisocial problems over night. We had not
intended to enforce this on a regular basis since our small car park at the nearby
Thursford Wood further up the same road does not have any restriction re opening
times and we have not encountered any problems at this site regarding overnight
issues. If enforced on a regular basis this would prevent evening access to the wood
by normal visitors, a time when people may often wish to visit. However if it is felt that
this is a necessary constraint we have a system in place regarding regular closure
overnight (the site already has in place 2 volunteer wardens), but we would prefer to
retain the flexibility and instigate a process of locking/unlocking to curtail any
overnight antisocial behaviour if the need arises. The infrastructure will be there in
place to provide us with the ability to deal with this issue."
Development Committee
10
18 October 2012
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the underlying freehold
owner of the land attached to which is a letter to the NWT, which raise a number of
concerns. The letter to the Local Planning Authority points to the fact that the owner
has sporting rights over Lings Wood which he periodically exercises, which poses a
very real threat to public safety. Also that the wood is a beautiful spot and carving a
car park out of it would ruin what is otherwise attractive woodland. The letter also
raises issues regarding the presence of a car parking creating security risk to the
owner's property which adjoins the site. The letter to the NWT raises concerns in
respect of the terms of the lease and the fact that it is considered public access to the
woods is not in accordance with the user clause of the lease.
In addition a letter has also been received directly from the owner of the land which
points to the fact that when he was granted planning permission for his property it
was on the basis that the entrance be understated. The letter goes on to suggest that
the entrance to the car park would not be understated and if permission is granted
would become a stop for fly tipping and use a lavatory. The letter stresses that it is
important to keep this beautiful area unspoiled.
A further three letters of objection have been received which raise the following
concerns (summarised):1. This is an outstanding natural beauty spot and joy to drive past every day.
2. The car park will be used for people to go to the toilet and dump waste.
3. The car park will be used by teenagers, turning this beautiful wood into an
unsightly and possible crime ridden area.
4. There would be a real risk of fire through the irresponsible actions of teenagers
drinking and smoking.
5. There would be an adverse impact on wildlife.
6. This is a very dangerous stretch of road which has been subject to many
accidents and deaths.
A further letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the underlying
freehold owner of the land which raises the following additional concerns
(summarised):1. The justifications and assumption made in the Design and Access Statement are
inaccurate and misleading. Forestry operations are accessed for the airfield and
not the Holt Road. The freehold owner has direct experience and knowledge that
the land is not visited by the public at all and there is a sign at the entrance which
states “no public access”. The correct starting point should be to develop an
access point that is not used either by the public or Forestry Commission, who
ceased using it between 10 and 12 years ago.
2. It is misleading to state that the track will be subject minimal change as inevitably
works would be required to the boundaries to the edge of the access way
running north to separate Forestry Commission activity from the public.
3. The development would adversely affect the visual amenities of the area with the
requirements for barriers, security features, fencing and loss of trees.
4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes no reference to seeking
to increase public access to countryside locations and therefore there is no
current policy support for development of this nature.
5. The NWT statement that there is little opportunity for public access east of
Fakenham is incorrect. There is public access to Thursford Wood to the east
along the Holt Road.
6. Reiterates that the proposal would significantly adversely affect the security,
safety and amenities of the neighbouring property.
7. The NNPF requires that the Council ensures that any development creates a safe
environment where quality of life is not undermined by concerns for safety. The
Development Committee
11
18 October 2012
freehold owner has shooting rights over the land and this would be totally
inconsistent with the respect of public access.
8. Highlights concerns regarding highway safety, and points to the fact that there
have been five incidents between 1999 and 2008 in the area where five people
have died and a number injured.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments in response to further consultation With consideration that the site already has an existing poorly constructed access
and gateway whereby cars are currently parking on the verge adjacent to that
gateway in order to access the woodland, it would be expected that these cars may
make u-turns upon re-entering the highway, would further deteriorate the access and
carriageway edges and would currently have a limited area adjacent to this principal
route in which to park.
The proposed improved access and car park, which is only small in size,
accommodating no more than four cars plus a turning facility, would provide an
improved arrangement which would mitigate any concerns regarding a potential
increase in visitor numbers.
It must be noted that there are no recorded Personal Injury Accidents (plans
provided) in the vicinity of the site, the proposed improvements are seen to be of
benefit providing a larger surfaced access suitable for all vehicles, a parking and
turning facility within the site rather that at the edge of this busy route and it is for
these reasons that the Highway Authority do not consider this proposal to be
detrimental to highway safety and do not raise any objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Police Service Architectural Liaison Officer - There are a number of these small car
parks around the area, and in general there are very few crime and anti-social
behaviour problems associated with them. Occasionally there are thefts from
vehicles however the same can occur on any car park. Further it is noted that a gate
is to be installed to curtail late night anti-social behaviour if this becomes an issue.
On that basis there is no objection to the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
See Police Service Architectural Liaison Officer's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
12
18 October 2012
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Impact on wildlife.
4. Impact on the residential amenities on neighbouring property.
5. Highway safety.
6. Crime and disorder.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 23 August 2012 in
order to allow Officers to seek the further views of the Highway Authority in respect of
the access and accident figures in the vicinity of the site and to consult with the
Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy wherein the provision of a car park for visitors to the NWT Reserve would
accord with Policy SS2, which encourages recreation and tourism. Also relevant are
Core Strategy Policies EN4, EN9 and CT5.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitable
for the context within which it is set and retain existing important landscaping and
natural features. In addition the policy requires the creation of safe environments,
addressing crime prevention and community safety and to ensure that any car
parking is discreet and accessible. A further requirement is that proposals should not
have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect
adverse effect to nationally designated sites or other designated areas, including
Local Nature Reserves, or to protected species will not be permitted. As far as
highway safety is concerned Policy CT5 requires that the proposal is capable of
being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity
or character of the locality. New direct access proposals onto Principal Routes will
not be permitted unless the type of development requires a Principal Route location.
At the present time the existing access onto the A148 serves as an entrance to Lings
Wood for timber lorries and machinery during forestry operations. In addition visitors
to the NWT Reserve park at the roadside entrance, which is considered by the NWT
to be unsatisfactory and potentially unsafe. They therefore consider that the creation
of a small car park for up to 4 vehicles set some 40 metres back into the woods from
the A148, which would be accessed via the existing entrance and forest road, would
improve the situation for those visiting the wood.
In terms of the landscape impact, due to the dense tree cover and distance back
from the A148 it is not considered that the car park itself would be discernible from
the public highway. In respect of the access, although the visibility splay would be
upgraded to Norfolk County Council standards, being finished in bitumen macadam,
the rest of the access driveway, which currently has a hoggin finish, would be
redressed with a granite topping. As such, with the exception of formalising the
access, overall the appearance would remain similar to that which exists, and once
Development Committee
13
18 October 2012
established the development would naturalise and blend with the forest surroundings.
However in order to retain a degree of security within the site it is the intention of the
NWT to introduce a steel barrier gate at the entrance which would be painted olive
green with a further barrier with overhead gantry, so as to prevent access by larger
vehicles, set back some 14 metres within the trees.
Overall it is considered that the impact of the development on the wider landscape
would be minimal and would not significantly detract from its character. Given the
limited intrusion into the woods, with the car park itself being finished with a
Geotextile membrane it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse
effect on trees within the site or wildlife interests, a view confirmed by the Council‟s
Landscape Officer.
As far as the impact on the residential amenities of the owners of the neighbouring
property to the east (who are also the freehold owners of Lings Wood) is concerned,
the boundary of this property would be some 160 metres from the car park through
dense woodland, whilst the dwelling would still be some 400 metres away. Given that
there is already access to the wood and that visitors currently park at the entrance it
is not considered that the proposed car park would have any significantly adverse
impact on residential amenity or security of that property. In respect of the other
issues raised such as shooting rights, this is a civil matter between the parties
involved in the lease and not a concern for the Local Planning Authority.
.
As far as the access on the A148 is concerned and the issue of highway safety, the
Highway Authority has confirmed that a new car park accessed directly from a
corridor of movement would normally be contrary to its adopted policy. However in
this particular case, given the existence of the access and the fact that cars currently
park on the verge adjacent to the highway in order to access the wood, the Highway
Authority considers that the creation of a small car park with turning facilities would
not intensify the use of the access. However it has indicated that in accordance with
the submitted plan it would wish to see the access for the first 4 metres back from the
edge of the carriageway improved in accordance with highway standards.
Furthermore there are no recorded Personal Injury Accidents in the vicinity of the
site.
With regard to local concerns in respect of crime and disorder the Police Service's
Architectural Liaison Officer has confirmed that they would have no objection as
there are a number of these small car parks around the area, and in general there
are very few crime and anti-social behaviour problems associated with them.
Occasionally there are thefts from vehicles however the same can occur on any car
park. Further it is noted that a gate is to be installed to curtail late night anti-social
behaviour if this becomes an issue.
It is therefore considered that the creation of car park for four vehicles would facilitate
public access to the NWT Reserve without significantly affecting the landscape
character of the area or highway safety. As such the scheme is considered to be
acceptable and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
14
18 October 2012
6.
RUNTON - PF/12/0138 - Change of use from residential to a mixed use of
residential/A1 (retail); Ceres, 16 High Street, East Runton for Mrs Mc Knespiey
- Target Date: 06 April 2012
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Development within 60m of Class A road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780940 HR - Alteration of existing shop window, new entrance doorway and
proposed roof window
Approved 21/07/1978
THE APPLICATION
Is for a change of use from residential to a mixed use of residential and A1 use. The
proposed A1 use is on the ground floor only (approx 10.5 square metres) and sited to
the front of the property (south). The rest of the property would remain under a
residential use.
The proposal also includes replacement of the existing window on the ground floor
front elevation to glazed wooden doors.
Amended plans received regarding the design of the proposed doors.
Application AN/12/0140 is a related application for non-illuminated signs which is
intended to be determined under delegated powers following the determination by
Committee of the current application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Eales having regard to the following planning issue:
Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Object; concerns regarding introducing a door opening onto a narrow pavement that
borders a busy road.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection received following the advertisement of the original plans.
Following issues were raised;
1. The proposed ice cream shop would undermine the outlets already selling ice
cream (East Runton Stores, Kelly's Newsagents and Tearooms, and sometimes
a van in the car park). This could lead to a loss in trade to these outlets and could
result in the loss of the businesses.
2. The property could sell more than ice creams and confectionary, further
undermining the existing businesses.
3. The open frontage onto the pavement is highly dangerous as it is close to the
main coast road. Although it is a 20mph zone, vehicles don't always adhere to it,
in addition it is very busy and carries all types of vehicles. It could create
problems with people queuing/waiting outside on the narrow pavement.
4. Parking would be an issue as the 20 minute parking bays opposite the property
are not adhered to. Abuse of the bus stop for parking could occur.
Development Committee
15
18 October 2012
5. Six years ago a new proposed shop front was refused at one of the newsagents
as it was considered out of character with the area; the proposed shop front is
also out of character.
6. There is already a shortage of housing in the area; this should not be further
diminished by converting a residential property into a retail property.
7. There is already a vacant shop on the south side of the High Street.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection to either plan. If the amended plans are
approved conditions are requested to ensure that no part of the structure overhangs
or encroaches upon the highway, and no part of the structure opens outwards over
the highway.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - No objection. Site lies within
the designated East Runton Conservation Area, the building holding a prominent
position in the street scene. By virtue of its setting, form, materials and construction,
the building makes a positive contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
However the existing flat roof front extension makes little contribution to the character
or appearance of the host building. Following several discussions with the applicant
and the submission of amended plans the new plans were re-advertised. With the
concerns addressed on the amended plans, no objection is offered.
Environmental Health - no objection. Conditions requested regarding details of any
potential air conditioning or extractor system.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Design
Development Committee
16
18 October 2012
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the centre of East Runton, which falls within designated
Countryside policy area. The proposal is to convert part of the ground floor of the
dwelling into retail use. The area proposed to be converted is 10.5 square metres,
with the remaining floor area of approximately 100 square metres to remain as
residential.
Policy SS 2 does not include retail use as development which requires a rural
location, therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to the policy. However
the National Planning Policy Framework advises that planning policies should
support economic growth in rural areas, promoting the retention and development of
local services in villages. This part of the East Runton High Street has a mixed use
with commercial and residential uses sitting alongside each other. Although the
neighbours to the north and west are residential, to the east lies The White Horse
public house. East Runton is one of the largest villages not to have a development
boundary and therefore not to have a designated residential area. If it were a Service
Village this use would be acceptable under Policy SS 3. Although contrary to Policy
SS2, in this case the development is considered acceptable in principle, having
regard to the small scale of the proposal and its compatibility with the character of the
immediate area of the High Street.
Furthermore, Policy EC 2 regarding the re-use of buildings within the Countryside is
also applicable. Economic uses, such as retail, are considered acceptable if they are
appropriate in scale and nature. With only a small area proposed to be used for A1
purposes and the site located within the village High Street, the use is considered to
be acceptable under Policy EC 2.
Located within a Conservation Area Policy EN 8 applies, requiring that all
developments preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. The
only external alteration would be to the front window. Following negotiations the
window would be replaced with black painted timber doors, to fit the width of the
existing opening. The glazing would largely mirror the glazing in the existing window.
With the door glazing proportions, materials and opening mechanism considered in
keeping with both the host building and the wider Conservation Area, Policy EN 8 is
considered to be complied with.
The neighbour to the west would be affected by the development to some degree.
This property also borders directly onto the pavement, and then the Coast Road. The
neighbour already experiences some noise disturbance from the road, and from
pedestrians walking along the pavement outside their window. The additional impact
of the proposed use is considered to be insufficient in this location to justify refusal of
the application on amenity grounds. To the east is a public house and there are no
concerns regarding impact on residential amenity. Policy EN 4 is therefore
considered to be complied with.
Policy CT 5 requires that developments provide for safe and convenient access on
foot. With no objection offered from the Highway Authority the proposal is considered
to comply with the policy, subject to a condition added ensuring that the new door
would open inwards. Pedestrians would be able to use both the new door on the
southern elevation and the existing door on the western elevation.
Despite being contrary to Policy SS 2 the development is considered to be
acceptable in this case for the reasons discussed above. Complying with all other
policies in the Development Plan, the proposal is recommended for approval.
Development Committee
17
18 October 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
STALHAM - PF/12/0787 - Retention of solar panels; 129 High Street for Mr J
Dace
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 September 2012
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Retail Frontages
Conservation Area
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030672 PF - Conversion of dwelling to two shops, office and three flats
Approved 17/06/2003
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of 16 roof mounted solar pv panels positioned in two rows on the
south facing roof slope which fronts the highway covering a total area of approx
24sqm.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Stevens having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on the Conservation Area
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
29 letters of support received on the following grounds (Summarised):
1. Completely in keeping with the building and area.
2. Not obtrusive.
3. Has Government support.
4. Building high so do not see a problem.
5. Should be an absolute requirement for this building.
6. Panels are hardly noticeable/far from intrusive or unsightly.
7. Great example of what more people should be doing to protect the world and its
struggling resources.
8. They are acceptable on a dwelling and the flat is a dwelling although it is above a
shop.
9. This type of green environmental energy system should be encouraged and not
objected to.
10. Given the state of the planet we have no choice but to do this sort of thing.
11. Conservation Area is just another layer of unneeded red tape.
12. Will reduce the CO2 in the planet.
13. Will reduce the cost of electricity.
14. They are helping us to remain in business in High Street.
Development Committee
18
18 October 2012
15. We live above The Swan Inn in direct line of sight and hardly notice them.
16. Have never had a bad word about them from our customers, the vast majority are
local to Stalham.
17. Solar panels have a positive impact on Stalham and the environment in general.
18. Contribute to sustaining local businesses.
In response to the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's comments a
further submission has been received from the agent, which is attached as Appendix
3.
The applicant has also submitted copies of 196 survey forms completed by people in
Stalham High Street; the results of which the applicant contends 'show overwhelming
support for the retention of the solar panels'. The results are listed in response to the
question 'do you have an opinion about roof of No. 129?' as having 161 respondents
selecting the option 'yes - think good idea and not a problem visually'; 34
respondents selecting the option 'No - don't care' and 1 respondent selecting the
option 'yes - don't think solar panels should be allowed'. The survey also asked for
postcode, house name or number, the name of the respondent, whether they visit
Stalham High Street 'hardly ever, occasionally or frequently and if they had noticed
solar panels on roofs in High Street. All responses have been attached to the
planning file.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team: Supports the proposal which will deliver a contribution to the
supply of renewable energy in the District. Recommends approval subject to
Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environmental Health Officers confirming
no significant adverse effects as outlined in policy EN7
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager: Objects - given their prominence on
the front roof of the property and their wider impact upon the setting and character of
the Stalham Conservation Area. Even though the host building is not statutory listed
it is next to a building identified in the Draft Conservation Area Appraisal for „local
listing‟. No 129 can be seen up and down Stalham High Street and from the busy
walkway leading to and from the Tesco store. As it stands the application should be
refused in accordance with Policy EN8 of the North Norfolk LDF.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Development Committee
19
18 October 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the development on the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Stalham Conservation Area where development proposals are
required by Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of designated assets. The site also lies within the designated town
centre and primary retail frontage.
The host building is in mixed use with flats above the ground floor hairdresser's, in a
prominent location fronting the High Street. The building forms part of a terrace of
buildings of varying ridge heights and is constructed of red brick with grey plain tiles.
The building is opposite a public walkway which leads past the outside area of a
public house and to the local supermarket.
The proposal is a retrospective application that seeks to retain 16 solar panels which
have been installed on the south facing roof slope of the two storey building. This
elevation fronts the High Street.
The Council's Sustainability Officer supports the proposal which would deliver a
contribution to the supply of renewable energy in the District. This support is subject
to Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environmental Health Officers
confirming no significant adverse effects as outlined in Policy EN7.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the proposal is
unacceptable from a built heritage perspective. The host building is not statutorily
listed but is adjacent to a building that has been identified in the Draft Conservation
Area Appraisal for 'local listing'.
It is recognised that in the majority of cases, renewable technologies can be retrofitted to buildings without causing undue visual or physical detriment. The National
Planning Policy Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to support energy
efficiency improvements to existing buildings, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy supports this approach, recognising that
renewable technology proposals should be permitted where 'individually, or
cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on ...townscape and historical
features/areas.
This is a situation where two planning policy issues pull in opposite directions.
However, in this particular case it is considered that the introduction of technology of
such contemporary appearance onto a prominent roof plane of the traditionally
constructed building has created an uncomfortably stark contrast which is harmful to
the appearance of the building and the wider Conservation Area. The panels
measure approx. 1m x 1.5m. each. On the roof slope they have been positioned in
two rows covering a total area of approx 24 sqm. No scalable plan has been provided
of the actual roof slope but the majority of the roof slope is covered.
Given the above, on balance the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies
EN4, EN7 and EN8 of the Development Plan and is therefore recommended for
refusal. Furthermore it is recommended that authority be given to commence formal
enforcement action if a reasonable timescale cannot be agreed for removal of the
panels.
Development Committee
20
18 October 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS:
8.
1.
Refuse for reasons relating to the impact of the development on the
appearance and character of the Conservation Area and on the host and
neighbouring buildings.
2.
Authority be given for enforcement action to be taken to remove the
panels, with 6 months for compliance.
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0877 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential annexe;
16-18 Todds Yard, off Bridewell Street for Mr T & Mr V Fitzpatrick
- Target Date: 05 October 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Householder application
See also LA/12/0878 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0786 PF - Conversion of outbuildings to one unit of holiday accommodation
Withdrawn by Applicant 13/10/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the conversion of an outbuilding into a residential annexe in
connection with 16 - 18 Todds Yard. It involves combining two small storerooms into
one unit with internal and external refurbishment.
The existing building measures approximately 6.5m in length and 4.5m deep. It is
positioned in between two other buildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
One of the applicants is a Member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received on the grounds that the proposal will
increase traffic in Todds Yard as guests staying at the applicants' holiday
accommodation opposite already drive down Todds Yard and with no turning or
parking space then have to reverse out onto Bridewell Street. No parking provision is
available for the development in an area already struggling with parking at busy
times. Another objection is with the paved area outside the property which is on land
which is not owned by the applicant but was previously part of the Right of Way
which has been narrowed over the past few years by previous owners.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - Having visited the site and assessed the access and
available visibility onto Bridewell Street, It is evident that any intensification of use of
the access must be prevented.
Development Committee
21
18 October 2012
The existing access onto Bridewell Street has no visibility in the trafficked direction
due to the proximity of the roadside wall to Number 12, which extends up to the
carriageway, preventing any view of road users, until the bonnet of a vehicle is
approximately 1.5m into the live carriageway.
Bridewell Street is one-way and restricted in width due to the high property walls
flanking the highway, additionally, there are no formal pedestrian provisions, given
the narrow historic layout, resulting in pedestrians sharing the narrow carriageway
with other road users
Todd‟s Yard is narrow and of insufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass offhighway, which may result in vehicles reversing blindly onto Bridewell Street. Turning
areas on Todd‟s Yard are private and turning within the track is restricted due to
features such as BT poles and boundary walls, which again may result in reversing
onto the public highway.
The conversion to ancillary use would not be considered to result in any additional
vehicular movements, via the substandard access onto Bridewell Street, (given the
shortcomings in both access width and visibility), as such, I can confirm that I do not
wish to raise a highway objection.
As the existing access and visibility arrangements are considered to be unsuitable for
any intensification of use, I would request the inclusion of a condition to ensure the
proposed conversion remains ancillary to the main dwelling at 16/18 Todds Yard,
Walsingham.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
condition being imposed on any approval that requires compliance with the mitigation
measures contained in the protected species report submitted with the previous
application reference 11/0786.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
comments of Conservation and Design remain the same as those given on the
previous application reference 11/0786 as follows: On the basis that the proposed
conversion and alterations would not harm the significance of the overall listed entity
there can be no objection to this application. The localised visual impact from the
new rooflights would be more than offset by securing the future of these ancillary
structures.
Environmental Health - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
22
18 October 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Building
3. Highway safety
4. Impact on neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Walsingham where the
principle of such uses is considered to be acceptable, subject to compliance with
other relevant policies within the adopted Core Strategy. It is also located within the
Conservation Area.
Application 11/0786 was withdrawn following an objection from the Highway Authority
who considered the access to be unsatisfactory to serve a holiday unit by reason of
its inadequate width and visibility at the junction with the highway. The Highway
Authority had suggested that a conversion to annexe accommodation ancillary to the
main dwelling would be the only acceptable use as it would not be considered to
engender any increase in vehicular movements over the substandard access. The
Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to this
proposal.
The alterations proposed are considered to be acceptable and would not harm the
overall Grade II listing of the buildings. It is considered that the proposal would
secure the future of the ancillary building. The Committee will note that no objections
have been received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on
the appearance and character of the Conservation Area, or the listed building and its
setting.
The relationship to surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable.
It is therefore considered that the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance
with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
23
18 October 2012
9.
WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0878 - Internal and External Alterations to facilitate
conversion of outbuildings to residential annexe; 16-18 Todds Yard, off
Bridewell Street for Mr T & Mr V Fitzpatrick
- Target Date: 05 October 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LA/11/0789 LA - Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate conversion to holiday
accommodation
Withdrawn by Applicant 13/10/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking consent for works in association with the conversion of an outbuilding into
a residential annexe in connection with 16 - 18 Todds Yard.
The existing building measures approximately 6.5m in length and 4.5m deep. It is
positioned in between two other buildings.
This is the application for listed building consent in association with planning
application PF/12/0877 above.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
One of the applicants is a Member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
comments of Conservation and Design remain the same as those given on the
previous application reference 11/0789 as follows: On the basis that the proposed
conversion and alterations would not harm the significance of the overall listed entity
there can be no objection to this application. The localised visual impact from the
new rooflights would be more than offset by securing the future of these ancillary
structures.
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 Committee
24
18 October 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the Listed Building
APPRAISAL
The outbuilding is Grade II listed in association with the main dwelling on the site.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
no objection to the application.
It is not considered that the proposal would have any detrimental impact on the
character and appearance of the listed building or its setting.
The proposal is acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
10.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by Officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/12/0887 – Conversion of bed and breakfast lodges to
veterinary surgery; Toll Barn, Heath Road for Toll Barn Veterinary Practice.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in respect of highway safety
issues and the needs of this proposed local business.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
25
18 October 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
11.
WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION
The Committee is asked to consider whether it wishes to recommend a change to
the Scheme of Delegation involving the determination of wind turbine applications.
At the meeting on 20 September 2012 it was agreed that
1. Officers circulate a list of live applications for wind turbines in the District, upon
which any Member could then request that the applications be called in for
determination by Committee, and
2. A report be prepared for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee in
respect of a change of the Scheme of Delegation to require all applications for
wind turbines to be considered by the Committee. If such change is agreed, the
approval of Full Council would be sought to amend the Scheme of Delegation.
In connection with 1, Councillor Cabbell Manners has called in all of the current
applications for Committee consideration in accordance with the Scheme of
Delegation.
Thus these will be considered by the Committee in due course.
However, of the list circulated, the 3 applications at Binham and Hindringham have
subsequently been withdrawn by the County Council as applicants.
With regard to 2, Members will be aware that under the present Scheme of
Delegation any Member has the right to call in any application for Committee
consideration and, if Officers wish to make a determination under delegated powers
which is contrary to the views of a Town or Parish Council or representations
received, or which would be in conflict with planning policy, then the matter has to be
referred to local Member(s) who have the right to call in applications for Committee
determination. The Head of Development Management also has discretion as to
whether to require any application to be determined by Committee.
There is thus currently an extremely wide discretion as to which applications are
considered by Committee and Members have complete control over the way in which
applications are handled should they wish to exercise it.
Apart from applications relating to the Council‟s own schemes which are required to
be considered also by the Chairman (or Vice-Chairman) of the Committee, there is
no limitation under the Scheme of Delegation as to which type of application may be
considered under delegated powers.
This has resulted in the percentage of applications being considered by Committee
falling from approximately 28% some 14 years ago to approximately 7%. This
means that the Committee‟s time is concentrated on applications which require a full
report to be prepared and debated and has freed the Committee from considering
less contentious business which have been dealt with under delegated powers by
Officers.
It is, of course, open to the Council to amend the Scheme of Delegation at any time
and to withdraw authority from Officers in making delegated decisions as Members
see fit. In the case of wind turbine applications, some 27 have been considered
since October 2010. Of these, 6 have been considered by Committee and 21 have
been determined under delegated powers.
Development Committee
26
18 October 2012
It is, of course, perfectly possible for the Scheme of Delegation to be amended to
apply a blanket prohibition on the determination of wind turbine applications under
delegated powers. However, the Committee is asked to consider a number of issues
before recommending this course of action to the Council.
Firstly, there would seem to be a degree of illogicality in requiring all wind turbine
applications to be considered by Committee when, at present, all other
developments, including telecommunications masts, supermarkets, solar farms and
any other large structures may be determined using delegated powers. Secondly, if
there are significant technical objections, eg. because of aircraft safety/radar
considerations, there would seem to be little point in Committee considering an
application which clearly would be refused under delegated powers by Officers.
Thirdly, because wind turbines up to 11.1m in height are generally permitted
development it would seem to be somewhat illogical if a turbine one or two metres
higher than that was required to be considered by Committee when it may be
completely uncontentious and uncontested by local people.
It is of course acknowledged that some wind turbine applications raise very
significant issues and would benefit from debate and determination at Committee.
Whilst Officers consider that the current Scheme of Delegation provides appropriate
safeguards, if Members felt that an additional safeguard were necessary, the
Committee is asked to consider whether wind turbine applications are brought into
the same category as Council schemes whereby, as well as requiring local Member
agreement, the decision of the Chairman (or Vice-Chairman) of the Committee is
required before delegated powers can be exercised. This would have the benefit of
maintaining the general integrity of the Scheme of Delegation, but of ensuring that all
cases would automatically be referred both to local Members (not just by default) and
the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, who would no doubt exercise appropriate scrutiny of
each case.
Finally, following consultation with Members, it has been suggested that an issue for
the future is likely to be the cumulative impact of wind turbines, notwithstanding the
fact that, in isolation, single turbines may not raise significant landscape or other
issues. Officers are giving consideration to this issue and intend to prepare a report
for consideration by Members in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee considers whether it wishes to recommend to Full Council
any change to the Scheme of Delegation in respect of wind turbine
applications.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management, ext 6135)
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - NMA1/11/0640 - Non-material amendment request for revised
design of cart store; The Haven, Thwaite Hill for Mr A Hall
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/0896 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extension;
Cricketers Rest, The Green for Mr Hooker
(Householder application)
Development Committee
27
18 October 2012
BACTON - PF/12/0750 - Erection of replacement garage/store; Eversleigh,
Kimberley Road for Mr & Mrs North
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/12/0763 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/1312 to permit erection of single-storey side extension; 1 Twain
Cottage, The Street for Mr P Eccleshare
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0905 - Change of use of and ground and first floor
extension to garage to form annexe; Pinewood, Sheringwood for Mr A Gooden
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/12/0989 - Demolition of existing single-storey side/front extension
and erection of two-storey side/rear extension (re-submission); 1 Priory
Crescent for McCullum
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - AN/12/0683 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements;
Three Swallows, Newgate Green for Punch Taverns
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA2/10/0506 - Non-material amendment request for
conservatory to replace garden room, deletion of external chimney, revised
porch and ground floor windows details; 2 Hilltop for Mr C Wright
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - NP/12/0846 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural storage
building; The White House, Bridge Road for Mr N Bartram
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0835 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension; 11 Mountains Road, Corpusty for Mr K Cotgrove
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0901 - Installation of replacement roof covering to provide
covered parking area; Former garage site, Cabbell Road for Anchor Homes Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0661 - Change of use from D1 (chiropractor) to A2 (financial
and professional services) and installation of replacement shop front; 28
Louden Road for Ms A Ground
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0477 - Conversion of first floor storage area to eight selfcontained units of accommodation; Budgens Stores Ltd, 10 High Street for J &
P Retail Group
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0823 - Conversion of A1 (retail) shop and flat to two-storey
dwelling, A1 (retail) shop and flat; 101-103 Mill Road for Mr & Mrs P Green
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/12/0777 - Installation of door to replace window; 20 Colne House,
Colne Road for Mr P Whetton
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
28
18 October 2012
CROMER - PF/12/0847 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0081 to permit retention of original rear windows and installation
of balconies; Anglia Court Hotel, 5 Runton Road for Abbey Mill Estates LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - PF/12/0908 - Variation of conditions 13 and 14 of planning permission
ref: 10/1247 to allow submission of updated Bat Mitigation Strategy and Method
Statement prior to commencement of barn 4 and revised mitigation details;
Southmill Barns, Shereford Road, Shereford for Mr R Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/0636 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
porch; 16 The Street, Calthorpe for Mr N Palmer
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0745 - Erection of five B2 (industrial)/B8 (storage) units; Plot
6, Hawthorne Way, Clipbush Business Park for Steel Build Masters Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0700 - Raise roof height to provide habitable
accommodation in roof space and insertion of side dormer window; Bungalow,
Ratcliffe Road for Mrs A Richardson
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/12/0637 - Raising of roof and erection of single-storey side
extension; Drift Cottage Farm, The Driftway for Mr & Mrs Read
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0869 - Insertion of windows and doors to north, east and
courtyard elevations; The Cockpens At Grange Farm, Grange Road for Mr Baker
& Mr Turley
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0854 - Widening of access and installation of
replacement gates; Old Rectory, School Road, Saxlingham for Mr & Mrs Robson
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/0837 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Bullfer
Grove, Bullfer Lane for Mr & Mrs Long
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/12/0786 - Construction of rear dormer window, front and rear
entrance door lights and internal repairs; 20 Swanton Road for Albanwise
Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - PF/12/0879 - Erection of link extension (revised scheme) and
single-storey storage building; Falgate Farm, The Common for Mr & Mrs M
Barclay
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/12/0969 - Erection of side conservatory/porch; 5 Green Close for
Mr & Mrs J Adams
(Householder application)
Development Committee
29
18 October 2012
HEMPTON - PF/12/0808 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/0329 to permit provision of two separate rear garden spaces to
plots 2 and 3; 21 Dereham Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/12/0627 - Erection of single-storey side extension and one and a
half storey rear extension and alterations to roof with front dormer window;
Quaverhurst, Heath Road for Mr G Macaree
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0335 - Erection of garage with studio above and
extension to conservatory; Birkfield House, Bridge Road for Mr & Mrs N Gebbett
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0919 - Erection of porch and store shed; 64 The Street
for Mr & Mrs J Rankin
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/0751 - Erection of side and rear extension, raising roof
height and cladding front and rear elevations; Cintanna, Wells Road for Mrs
Davies
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0765 - Installation of new and replacement render; 16 Mill Street
for Edwards
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0939 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and erection 1.8m
boundary fence; 16 Mill Street for Mr S Edwards
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0857 - Erection of replacement front conservatory; Fairholme, 33A
Grove Lane for Mr R Lynn
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0832 - Demolition of garden room and erection of conservatory; 4
The Peacocks for Mr & Mrs Lewin
(Householder application)
HONING - NMA1/10/1160 - Non-material amendment request for alteration to
roof provide canopy, installation of window opening lights and hard surface to
parking/turning area; Land adjoining 1 Fairview, The Street for Victory Housing
Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/0728 - Non-material amendment request for alteration to
fenestration and revisions to roof; Grange Farm, Long Lane for Mr N Deane
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/12/0746 - Erection of front porch; 130 Stalham Road for Pratt
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/12/0824 - Engineering works to
restore river channel; Glandford Mill, Hurdle Lane, Glandford for Brownlow
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
30
18 October 2012
LUDHAM - PF/12/0805 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 10 Willow Way,
Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QS for Mr & Mrs P Mumford
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/12/0774 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Willow Cottage, Cangate Road, Cangate for Skinner
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0698 - Erection of single-storey rear extension
(revised design incorporating increased length); 111 Mundesley Road for Mr T
Frosdick
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0817 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food
take away); 10 Market Place for Mr S Wang
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0871 - Formation of attenuation pond; The Old
Stables, Bradmoor Farm, Aylsham Road for Mr Wagstaff
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0882 - Erection of glazed lobby; The Lawn Site,
Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane, North Walsham for Paston Sixth Form
College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/12/0883 - Alterations to office area and construction of
lobby; The Lawn Site, Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane for Paston Sixth
Form College
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0677 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide attached two-storey annexe and creation of new vehicular access;
Foresters Cottage, 27 Fir Hill Cottages, Craft Lane for Mr W Wilson
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/12/0814 - Conversion of mill and shop to holiday accommodation
and erection of link extension; Stow Mill, Stow Hill for Mr & Mrs R Hough
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - LA/12/0815 - Alteration to mill to provide holiday accommodation and
to facilitate erection of link extension; Stow Mill, Stow Hill for Mr & Mrs R Hough
(Listed Building Alterations)
RUNTON - PF/12/0917 - Erection of front conservatory; 4 Buxton Close, East
Runton for Blakey
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/12/0760 - Change of use from a mixed use of residential/D1
(school) to a residential dwelling; St. Andrews, Lower Common, East Runton for
Mr K Monaghan & Ms G Baker
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
18 October 2012
RYBURGH - PF/12/0863 - Change of use from B2 (General Industrial) to B8
(Storage); Wensum RTA Wine Racks, Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Wensum
Valley Investments
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0806 - Installation of two front dormer windows; Manor
Farm Cottage, Cross Street for Mrs H Kleeman
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0799 - Erection of wind monitoring mast; Coltishall Airfield
for Partnerships for Renewables
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0915 - Erection of side porch; 6 Hoveton Place, Badersfield
for Wadey
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/11/0495 - Use of land as a Community Woodland, including car
parking and access; Raf Coltishall, Church Road for Ministry of Justice
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0859 - Conversion and extension to garage and bungalow
to form annexe; Bowyn, Creake Road for Bond
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1455 - Change of use from siting of ten touring
caravans/motorhomes and twenty tents to siting of twenty touring
caravans/motorhomes; Walnut Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for Mr J Barden
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0709 - Erection of rear garden room extension, first floor
extension to provide additional bedroom accommodation and sub-division to
provide self-contained dwelling; Myrtle House, 27-29 Nelson Road for Mrs D
Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1000 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension, installation of front dormer window and porch/canopy and second
floor window; 46 Beeston Common for Mr R Courtney
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0849 - Erection of rear extension; 8 Cremers Drift for
Smith
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/12/0014 - Non-material request to re-locate position of
bridge and change of balcony railings to stainless steel rope net system; Public
Conveniences East Promenade, The Promenade for N D Willan Building
Contractors
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0891 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; 1 North
Street for Mr & Mrs Chamberlain
(Householder application)
Development Committee
32
18 October 2012
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0668 - Change of use of agricultural land to domestic
garden; Keys Barn, Chapel Road for Mrs A Hobart
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0720 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Haven
Cottage, Mill Road for Mr Hurst
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/0838 - Change of use of land from agricultural to residential
curtilage to provide access and driveway; Land adjacent Holly Breck House,
Greenway for Mr L Clabburn
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - LA/12/0800 - Erection of rear porch; Vale Farm, 22 Bridge Street for
Mr M Harrison
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUSTEAD - PF/12/0948 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference E6076 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
restriction; Hillcrest, Church Road, Bessingham for Mrs P J Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/12/0953 - Formation of vehicular access; 7 North Lane for Mr
J Stevens
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/12/0620 - Erection of first floor rear extension with balcony;
Church Cottage, Middle Street for Mr & Mrs C Skinner
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0903 - Erection of front and rear extensions; 1 Blooms Turn for
Mr M Pardon
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/12/0794 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to residential
dwelling; Land at Walcott Hall, Walcott Green for Mr & Mrs D Love
(Full Planning Permission)
WARHAM - LA/12/0845 - Internal alterations, enlargement of French windows to
breakfast room and construction of covered walkway; White House Manor,
Chapel Street for Mr J Hadley
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0965 - Re-location of electric control cabinet;
Beach Road for Environment Agency
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0776 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
bathroom accommodation; Burnham, Bolts Close for Mr I McGuire
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0785 - Erection of part two-storey front and
single-storey rear extensions; Marshview, East End for Shinn
(Householder application)
Development Committee
33
18 October 2012
WESTWICK - PF/12/0684 - Erection of conservatory and store room extension;
Hill Farm, The Hill for Mr A Dewing
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0893 - Erection of front extension; 6 Springfield Close for
Mr N Giles
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/0844 - Erection of rear extension and front porch; Rose
Bank, Hall Lane for Mead
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - NMA1/11/0104 - Non-material amendment request for re-location of
entrance door and enlargement of window; 7 Colne Cottages for Mr A Raby
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0412 - Retention of boundary fence; 59 Priory Close
for Mr P Farquharson
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
SITE VISIT:- 17 September 2012
Development Committee
34
18 October 2012
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0134 - Erection of boundary fence and porch; 6 Hoveton
Place, Badersfield for Mr Wadey
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
THURSFORD - PF/11/1434 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden/amenity land; Land adjacent Bell Cottage, 3 Gunthorpe Road for Mrs B
Bullard
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
SHERINGHAM - ENF/10/0221 - Erection of a Balcony; 31 Beeston Road
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
35
18 October 2012