OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 19 DECEMBER 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1205 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include splay bay window, insertion of dormer
windows and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The Quay for
Mr & Mrs K Bertram
- Target Date: 03 January 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Flood Zone 2
Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
13/0753 HOU - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions with partial
undercroft - Withdrawn by Applicant 23/07/2013
PF/13/0937 HOU - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to single-storey
element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of dormer windows, rooflights
and window to existing two-storey wing
Refused 27/09/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey extension having a total floor area of some 82 sq.
metres, which would accommodate a sitting room at ground floor with bedroom,
bathroom / dressing room above. The extension would be constructed of a mix of flint
with red brick dressing under a pitched clay pantile roof which would present a gable
to the north, front, elevation and half hipped roof to the south, rear elevation which
would have a glazed apex. To the front elevation there would be double patio doors
at ground floor level flanked by flint dressings, which would lead out onto decked
area with glazed balustrade, whilst at first floor level there would be a recessed
glazed screen with glazed Juliette balcony. To the rear elevation there would be
double patio doors at ground floor level leading onto the decked area. Whilst the west
elevation would have further ground floor openings serving the sitting room with three
small square first floor windows, two of which would serve the bedroom and the other
the bathroom/dressing room. The external timber joinery would be of a natural finish.
Development Committee
1
19 December 2013
Other works would include increasing the width of the dining hall by 1 metre, which
would involve the introduction of a new roof with a slightly shallower pitch so as not to
increase the overall height. In addition, a splay bay would replace an existing picture
window to the front elevation, and on the rear garden elevation a high level roof light
is proposed.
As far as the two storey east wing is concerned, it is proposed to convert the roof
space to habitable accommodation which would involve the introduction of two
dormer windows to the front (north elevation), a two light window to the western
facing gable and a high level roof light to the rear elevation which would be in the lee
of the roof behind the neighbouring property. In addition, a further eight over eight
sash window is proposed at first floor level to the front elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member Councillor Brettle, due to concerns regarding the
impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Blakeney
Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of visual impact on the surrounding area.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. The alteration is not in keeping with the lovely quayside setting that is a nationally
renowned beauty spot.
2. The raised two storey glass addition is inappropriate and will dominate and spoil
the aspect when approaching Blakeney from the coastal path.
3. The area has a balanced look at the present time and the proposal is too
dominant and rather shouts out how wealthy the owners must be.
4. The proposed structure would conflict and contrast with The Pastures
development which won an architectural award for its traditional and sensitive
design in a modern context.
5. Some of the dwellings in The Pastures were designed specifically to afford views
over the marshes to Blakeney Point, having living accommodation upstairs.
6. The large windows on the two storey extension are not in harmony with the
historic appearance of Blakeney Quay and the listed buildings thereon.
7. Our house is an upside down house with the living area at first floor which gives
us and our neighbours unique views over the salt marshes and sea beyond. The
proposed extension would take away this view, our privacy and our enjoyment of
coming to this lovely village.
8. It would be entirely out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, several of
which are listed, and detrimental to the Conservation area and the surrounding
part of the village.
9. The modern design of the extension - the large gable, huge area of glass on the
north elevation fronting the Quay, urban-style glass-surrounded deck and first
floor balcony - would look utterly alien in the context of the old buildings which
make up the Quay area.
10. The land rises to the south from the Quay and the proposed extension, being
considerably higher than the surrounding properties, would be very visible
indeed.
11. During the evening the light from the large windows of the extension, and indeed
any lighting outside on the „deck‟, would be very evident to those walking along
Development Committee
2
19 December 2013
the Quay, especially compared with the gentle level of lighting glimpsed from the
existing properties.
12. Whilst a number of large modern houses have been constructed elsewhere in
Blakeney, this is one part of the village where the buildings are still of traditional
local materials and of „ordinary‟ scale. We believe that the introduction of one
building of large modern appearance into this area is likely to destroy its historic
feel.
13. There is still a reference in the Application to cedar being one of the roofing
materials. This would be completely inappropriate and we request that it is not
permitted.
14. No information has been given regarding the design of the proposed bay window
or the dormer windows on the existing two-storey part of property, but we think it
important that in this prominent location on the Quay careful consideration should
be given to the design and materials of these new elements.
15. The application does not give any indication as to how the proposals would relate
to the properties surrounding Quay Cottage, other than the assertion made by the
applicants‟ agent that the proposed extension would blend in with the prevailing
architectural character (for which no evidence has been provided).
16. We do feel that our property would be overlooked; however our main concern is
that at night the lights shining out from inside Quay Cottage through the new
south-facing rooflights and the high glazed apex to the „gablet‟ would be highly
detrimental to the dark night skies which are such an important part of Blakeney.
17. During the summer the proposed Velux window to the „dining hall‟ would reflect
the sun into our living room window.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Raises
no objection and makes the following comments.
The site in question occupies a prominent position just off The Quay within the heart
of the Blakeney Conservation Area. It is a location which is defined largely by the
three linear ranges (Quay Barn, The Lookout & Blakeney Hotel barn) which stand
gable end-onto the road and which provide longstanding enclosure and rhythm to the
street scene. These former maritime structures, along with their connecting frontage
walls, are all Grade II Listed Buildings and are separated by important open spaces
between. As a result, the location is considered to be a particularly sensitive one
which demands our full attention.
At the same time, however, the host property is actually something of a hybrid and
features a series of rather disparate elements. This is most noticeably illustrated by
the existing living room extension which is a rather lifeless affair and which adds little
to the overall site. With this part of the building also set some way back from The
Quay, and therefore not impinging upon the open space, there can be no objections
to the principle of some form of new build in this area.
In terms of the revised scheme submitted, the plans still essentially provide for a twostorey cross wing which would be built through the end of the existing living room. At
some 7.7m above ground level, it would still obviously be higher than this particular
part of the building. However, because this differential would now only be 1.3m, and
because the new build would actually be 2m lower than the main Quay Cottage, it is
not considered to be out of scale with its environs.
Design-wise, the un-annotated sketch plans submitted still do not help gain a true
feel for the proposed development. However, from what can be determined, the new
build should present an elegantly proportioned gable facing The Quay. This
Development Committee
3
19 December 2013
potentially offers an attractive mix of a solid battered flint base at lower level and a
more contemporary glazed screen/apex at first floor level. The former should help
„ground‟ the new build on the site whilst the latter should actually enliven this part of
the site and add some much needed visual interest. Crucial to the success of this,
however, is ensuring that the glazing is set deep within its masonry reveals to create
meaningful shadow lines and depth – the latest plans successfully provide for this.
Elsewhere, the minimalist balcony should wrap successfully around the corner of the
extension and link creatively through the curtilage wall. Rather less successful would
be the rather unbalanced roofscape with its high level gablet facing south. However,
with this seemingly necessary to reduce the impact of the development, it is not
something that can be challenged (particularly as there would only be fleeting and
angled views of these side elevations). Therefore, with compatible materials, this
element of the scheme should take its place comfortably on site without any
detriment to the existing heritage assets.
Of the other elements of the application: The addition of the bay window in lieu of the existing ill-proportioned picture
window is very much to be welcomed in principle. However, as the plans stay
quiet on materials and detailing, this would need to be conditioned if the
application were to be approved.
Similarly, the work within the listed part of the building also raises no obvious
concerns. This said, it would be helpful to know exactly how the access is to be
configured out of the garage into the utility room – there hardly seems space to fit
a stair in between the two doors.
The ramp is now considered to be acceptable with it being tucked in behind by
the continuation of the flint plinth.
In summary, the proposed development, and in particular the two-storey extension,
would undoubtedly still constitute a significant intervention into the existing built
environment. However, with compatible materials, Conservation & Design are still of
the opinion that the new build would actually help to enliven the existing property by
adding visual interest. With it also having been lowered by a metre, we can now be
even more confident that it would not harm the listed building (both directly and in
terms of its setting), or the appearance and character of the wider Blakeney
Conservation Area. In the event of an approval being issued, conditions covering the
bricks, tiles, flintwork, mortar mix, joinery (i.e. the glazed screen, doors and bay
window) and the balconies are all requested.
English Heritage – Raise no objection in principle to the two storey extension which
they consider would not have an adverse impact on the setting of Quay House, whilst
its scale, form and orientation would be similar to that seen in the surrounding
Conservation Area. However, in order to strike a balance between the contemporary
design and that of other traditional buildings in the area they suggest that the extent
of glazing to the north elevation be reduced. They suggest that consideration be
given to the enlarged bay window being reduced in size and fitted with traditional
casements and that the extent of glazing to the gable also be reduced, perhaps by
not glazing the apex and reducing the door widths.
Whilst in respect of the proposed two dormer windows and window to the two storey
range they consider that these would not detract from Quay House or the wider
Conservation Area.
Development Committee
4
19 December 2013
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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
The Blakeney Village Design Statement which was published in 1998 and has been
adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is also a material
consideration.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on Heritage Assets.
4. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
5. Flood risk.
6. Trees.
APPRAISAL
Members will recall that a similar proposal, planning reference 13/0937 was
considered by Committee on 26 September 2013 when it was resolved to refuse the
application on the following grounds. The proposed two storey extension, by virtue of
its scale, massing and overall appearance would not be compatible with the host
building and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Blakeney Conservation Area or setting of the adjoining listed building.
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Blakeney as defined by the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy in an area designated as
residential. In addition, the site is within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and the Blakeney Conservation Area, whilst part of the northern wing
of the property is listed Grade II.
In principle an extension in the manner proposed is considered to be acceptable in
this location subject to compliance with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8.
Development Committee
5
19 December 2013
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from
the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in
this case the Blakeney Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings and their
settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
Whilst the scheme as envisaged would involve a number of elements the alterations
to the dining hall could be implemented without the benefit of planning permission as
the works would not increase the height of the roof and would be Permitted
Development under the Town and County Planning, (General Permitted
Development) Order 2008. Similarly the velux rooflight to the rear elevation and first
floor window to the north elevation of the two storey element would also not require
consent. As such consideration can only be given to the two storey extension, the
splay bay to the front of the dining hall and the two dormer windows to the north
elevation of the two storey wing.
In respect of the splay bay and dormer windows these do not raise any particular
concerns, with representation from local residents being primarily concerned with the
appearance and impact of the proposed two storey extension.
As far as the two storey extension is concerned, compared to the previously refused
scheme the ridge height would be 1 metre lower, resulting in an overall height of 7.7
metres from the existing ground level to the frontage of the site. This reduction has
been achieved by lowering the floor level of the sitting room and also a slight
reduction in ceiling heights. In addition, the cedar boarding to the south and west
elevations has been deleted and replaced with flint with red brick dressings.
In terms of the impact on the extension on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
as this is primarily a landscape designation consideration needs to be given as to
how the proposal would impact on the surrounding landscape. Although Quay
Cottage, is visible from Blakeney quay and the Blakeney Marsh National Nature
Reserve beyond, the frontage to the site is defined by a substantial flint wall some
1.8 metres in height, which substantially screens the property from view. Whilst the
introduction of a two storey element would undoubtedly increase the impact of the
existing property when viewed from the north, this would be seen in the context of
surrounding properties fronting the quay and against the backdrop of properties at
The Pastures and would not it is considered adversely affect the special landscape
qualities of the area.
In respect of the impact on the heritage assets, the form and character of Blakeney is
that of a close knit linear form being concentrated on High Street and West Street,
which consists of small, two storey cottages of flint with red brick dressings under
clay pantile roofs. Whilst properties fronting the quay form a slightly looser form of
development and range in scale from The Blakeney Hotel, a large two and half storey
property on the corner of High Street to more modest two storey properties at the
western end of the quay. However one of the main characteristics of properties
fronting the quay is that a number have north facing gables abutting the highway
whilst others are set back some considerable distance thereby creating gaps in the
development and providing the feeling of space. In addition, as with other areas of
Blakeney a number of properties are listed buildings, including Quay House a Grade
Development Committee
6
19 December 2013
II* building which joins the application site to the east, plus The Lookout which joins
the application site to the north, which is listed Grade II, as is the frontage wall to the
site and the majority of other walls fronting the quay which are primarily of flint.
At the present time Quay Cottage, which is “T” shape in form, consists of two distinct
elements. The east wing dating from the 18th Century is two storey and constructed
of flint and red brick with timber sash windows and physically joins and was clearly
once part of Quay House. Joining this to the west is a single storey central core off
which there is a western wing, most probably dating from the 1960‟s, part of which
would be incorporated within the proposed two storey element. A further single storey
wing projects in a northerly direction, part of which dates from the 1960s, with the
remaining element, which forms an open fronted garage, being listed Grade II, the
same as The Lookout to which it is physically attached. When viewed from the quay
the two storey wing is not readily visible, being masked by the single storey elements
which give the property both an understated appearance and neutral impact on the
setting of the Conservation Area. Inevitably the introduction of a two storey element,
the ridge height of which would be some 1.3 metres higher than the existing single
storey element, would increase the prominence of the property in the street scene.
However the introduction of north facing gable, which would have a total height of 7.7
metres, including a 800 millimetres flint plinth, and a width of 6 metres would, it is
considered, reflect the form and character of other properties in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Furthermore, it would create a stopped end to the existing single
storey element, and would balance with the larger two and a half storey wing to the
eastern side of the property which abuts Quay House. In terms of its elevational
treatment, although more contemporary, with the proposed use of substantial areas
of glazing to the north elevation, it is considered that this mixed with the palette of
material consisting of flint with red brick dressing and the joinery of natural timber
with the roof finished in clay pantiles would be in keeping with the local vernacular.
It is therefore considered that overall the scale, massing and detailing of the
extension as proposed would contribute to the overall character and appearance of
this part of the Blakeney Conservation Area, preserving its appearance and would
not have a significantly harmful effect on the heritage assets. This view has been
substantiated by the Council‟s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who
considered that whilst the two-storey extension, would undoubtedly constitute a
significant intervention into the existing built environment the scheme would be
compatible with the form and character of this part of the Blakeney Conservation
Area, and would not result in any harm being caused to the listed building both
directly or in terms of its setting.
It terms of the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, those dwellings
most affected by the development would be to The Pastures immediately to the south
of the site, which are two storey properties, having first floor reception rooms facing
north towards the quay. The southern boundary of Quay Cottage and these
properties is formed by a substantial flint wall some 3.0 metres in height which is
topped with planting and other vegetation and forms a fairly dense barrier.
As outlined above the proposed rooflights to the dining hall and two and half storey
element do not require formal consent. Therefore the only elements over which the
Local Planning Authority has any control and which could affect the amenities of
neighbouring properties are the two storey extension and the front dormers. In
respect of the extension the only windows to the southern elevation would be patio
doors at ground floor and glazing to the apex of the gablet which would serve the
bathroom / dressing room and would be above eye level. Whilst the extension itself
which is north of The Pastures and some 14 Metres from the boundary at its closet
Development Committee
7
19 December 2013
point would not result in loss of light or overbearing impact. However it is accepted
that the occupiers of a number of properties at The Pastures could lose their view
towards the quay, however this is not a consideration that the Local Planning
Authority can take into account.
However the Blakeney Village Design Statement Section 3.1 - Guidelines for
Protecting Blakeney views, states that “views from all parts of the village of the
marshes, the harbour, the shingle spit and the open sea should be jealously guarded
and protected from the intrusion of by new development.” Whilst Officers concur with
this statement, it is considered that the prime intention is to protect important views
from public vantage points and not to safeguard views from individual properties.
In terms of the impact on other properties in the vicinity of the site the only other
potential for overlooking would be from the proposed dormer windows which would
look towards the frontage garden area of Quay House. However given that this is
communal parking area serving four flats within Quay House, this would not in itself
result in significant amenity issues.
As far flood risk is concerned, although the site is identified as being with Flood Risk
Zone 2, the applicants' agent has indicated that the site is 900mm higher than the
ground level at the edge of the flood zone. In addition, the extension is raised slightly
to take it further away from flood levels. It is therefore considered that given that the
proposed extension would not significantly increase the residential capacity of the
property, that refusal on flood risk grounds could not be justified.
In summary, it is considered that the proposals would not have a significantly harmful
impact on the Blakeney Conservation Area or the setting of listed properties in the
vicinity of the site in terms of its scale, massing or overall appearance. In addition,
they would not result in overlooking or overbearing of neighbouring properties. In
terms of flood risk this is also considered to be acceptable and the development
would not increase the risk to life.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
2.
CROMER - PF/13/1222 - Demolition of former police station and court house
and erection of 34 retirement apartments with communal facilities; Former
Police Station & Magistrates Court, 5 Holt Road for McCarthy & Stone
Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 23 January 2014
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
Development Committee
8
19 December 2013
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0111
PF - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with communal
facilities
Refused 15/07/2013
LE/13/0112 LE - Demolition of former police station/court house buildings
Refused 15/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
Members will be familiar with the site following the recent refusal of a similar scheme
(planning application 13/0111 and Conservation Area consent application 13/0112),
which were refused by Development Committee on 4th July 2013. This application is
a re-submission following that refusal.
The proposed development would replace the former Cromer Police Station and
Magistrates Court building. The proposed 34 apartments would be contained within
one large block and would consist of 17 x 1 bed and 17 x 2 bed units intended
specifically for elderly people.
In terms of what has been amended compared to the refused scheme, the overall
scale, massing, height and design approach are largely the same as the previous
scheme. The width of the proposed building remains at 54m with the same plan
depth as previous at 25m. The overall height to the highest part of the roof would
now be 13.1m (a 0.3m increase in height to the middle section of the building
compared to the previous scheme), however the rest of the building would remain at
12.2m height as per the previous scheme.
The amended scheme has focused on amending the front elevation of the building.
The entrance has been stepped slightly forward and the two end sections of the
building have been pushed slightly back. The number of units has been decreased
from 35 to 34 although the footprint of the building has not decreased.
There are a pair of former police houses linked to the principal existing building. It is
proposed that the majority of the house closest to the principal building will also be
demolished as part of the overall redevelopment.
The construction of the building would for the most part comprise a flat roof,
disguised to the front and sides by a series of pitched roofs. It would be
approximately 3m higher than the existing building on the site.
The rear elevation would include a number of a large balconies which would serve
the respective units. Balconies are also incorporated in the upper floors of the front
elevation. In addition two roof terraces are proposed (one on each side of the
building) to serve individual units.
Externally there would be a shared landscaped garden to the rear and 19 car parking
spaces to the front.
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Statement of Community involvement
Transport impact and Parking Provision report
Building and Heritage Assessment
Drainage Survey
Viability Assessment
Development Committee
9
19 December 2013
Habitat Report
Tree Survey
Sustainability Statement
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management given the planning history of the
site and with regard to the impacts on designated heritage assets.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection on the following grounds (summarised):
1. Object to any changes to the exterior of the existing building - it is an attractive,
historic building and could be converted to flats very easily.
2. There aren't many old original buildings left in Cromer.
3. There is already more than enough accommodation for the elderly in Cromer.
4. The building should be re-used rather than demolished.
5. The building is ideal for re-use as a medical practice which is much needed by
Cromer residents.
6. There is no further need for housing for the elderly in Cromer, the site should be
used for a use that would keep the youth in Cromer.
7. The application would not „boost the economy‟ as suggested in the design and
access statement – it would not bring new industry or spending in the local area, only
put a further drain on existing services.
8. The lack of on site parking for residents and their visitors would result in street
parking in the surrounding area.
Letter received from the Cromer Preservation Society - Objects as follows
(summarised):
The Current application is for an austere building of institutional design with a
predominantly flat roof concealed behind a fringe of pitched roofs which we consider
to be of no special architectural merit and would, by its sheer mass, dominate and
overshadow the surrounding street scene. The proposed use of uPVC window
frames and doors to the rear of the building does not conform to Cromer's adopted
Conservation Management Plan which absolutely discourages the use of this
building material within the Conservation Area. We do not believe that this proposal
will make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and consider that any
replacement building for the Police Station should be equally worthy of 'local listing'.
Many of the apartments are very small and would lead to cramped living conditions.
We do not believe that this application will benefit the local community nor does it
appear to have the overwhelming support of the community. In conclusion the
application should be refused as it is not off sufficient architectural merit to warrant
the demolition of a designated heritage asset. The application does not conform to
adopted Core Strategy policies EN4 and EN8 and will neither preserve nor enhance
the character or appearance of Cromer's Conservation Area. In addition, the
proposal does not contain any convincing evidence of substantial public benefits and
it has been shown that local people do not support this application.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Advises that there is presently available capacity at Cromer Sewer
Treatment Works and in the sewerage network to cater for the foul drainage from this
development.
Development Committee
10
19 December 2013
The submitted surface water strategy indicates discharge via infiltration, however site
specific infiltration testing has not been undertaken and therefore, connection to a
public surface water sewer may be required. If connection to a public surface water
sewer is required, a surface water drainage strategy will need to be submitted and
approved to be secured by a condition.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Indicate that whilst the parking provision is
not in accordance with the general provision in the adopted standards, it is
appropriate for the Category 2 accommodation provided at the site, where car use
and ownership is reduced and therefore raise no objection subject to conditions.
Conditions include the construction specification of the access, the restriction of
gates and bollards opening on to the highway and the closing up of the existing
access.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) – Require a fire
hydrant which can be secured by way of condition, and indicate that as the
development will place pressure on the existing library service, a contribution of
£2,040 (i.e. £60 per dwelling) is sought to increase the capacity of Cromer library.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue – Taking into account the location and infrastructure
already in place and type of premise proposed, Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service will
require an additional hydrant to be installed. A condition is requested to secure the
fire hydrant.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments as follows:
The level of open space requirement for this development has been calculated in
terms of the additional population generated. Based purely on population (38 adults)
the open space contribution for this development should be a total of approx £51,000
(approx £24,000 for parks, £6,000 for play, £9,000 for green space and £11,800 for
allotments). The level of contribution however should be related to the proposed
development, for retired residents only, and as such requiring a contribution towards
parks and play is not appropriate.
There is a waiting list for allotments and further land is being sought, and the
Meadow approx 200m away requires minor improvements in terms of tree planting.
It is appropriate to seek contributions towards these requirements.
Therefore on the basis that the proposed development is for retired people, and with
an appreciation that the commercial viability of the scheme is marginal, a contribution
of £10,000 towards allotment provision and £5,000 towards improvement to the
Meadow is sought.
Strategic Housing Manager - comments as follows:
It is not proposed that any of the 34 dwellings are provided as affordable housing and
the applicant‟s had submitted a Financial Viability Assessment stating that it was not
viable to provide any financial contribution for affordable housing in lieu of onsite
affordable housing. I have considered carefully the submitted Financial Viability
Assessment and was able to show that the scheme can generate a small financial
contribution of £8,851.
The applicant‟s agent dealing with the viability has confirmed that his client‟s will
accept the financial contribution.
Subject to a S106 to secure the financial contribution including an Affordable Housing
Uplift clause, Housing Strategy would support the application.
Development Committee
11
19 December 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) comments as follows:
This proposal is essentially a re-submission of a planning application (PF/13/0111)
refused by the Development Committee earlier this year at its 4 July meeting.
The building presently standing on the site concerned was recognised as a Building
of Local Special Architectural or Historic Interest by the Council on 12 November
2012 and subsequently added to North Norfolk‟s „Local List‟ of non-designated
Heritage Assets. The identification of the former Cromer Police Station and Court
House as a locally listed building was integral to the procedure by which the Cromer
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan was adopted by the Council on
the same date. The „locally listed‟ status of the building means that along with the
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan it has become a „material
consideration‟ in the planning process.
Located within the Cromer Conservation Area and occupying a prominent position at
the entrance to the town centre, the former Police Station and Magistrates Court is a
significant building. The original building was erected in 1938. It has a distinctive and
unique style, not untypical of a period between the two world wars when architects
made references to previous architectural periods and attempted to give some 'civic
gravitas' to their buildings. In itself the architectural design is reflective of a specific
time and period in history and also the development of Cromer as a town. The
buildings are very much a demonstration of local civic pride. The social history and
community engagement and ownership of these buildings cannot be overlooked.
Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the adopted Policy
EN8 (Historic Environment) in the North Norfolk Local Development Framework and
the adopted Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan provide the policy
context for any decision in respect of this application. Moreover Section 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty
on Local Planning Authorities to pay „special attention to the desirability of preserving
or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas‟. North Norfolk‟s
LDF Core Strategy Policy EN8 requires development to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of Conservation Areas. In addition English Heritage‟s
Practice Guide to the former PPS5 (Historic Environment) remains in force at this
time.
In assessing the present application the chief requirement is to consider the impact of
the proposed development on the character of the Conservation Area, both as a
cause of the loss of the existing building and by the proposed new development. As
stated above the Cromer Conservation Area itself is a designated heritage asset and
whilst the Cromer Police Station and Court House is a ‟non-designated‟ heritage
asset its status means that it is a material consideration in the planning process as
well as being covered under Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy and Section 12 of the
NPPF.
The NPPF (Para.128) requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage
assets and the contribution their setting might make to that significance. Sufficient
information should also be provided to enable an understanding of the potential
impact of new development on such assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises
great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and any harm or
loss should require clear and convincing justification. It is considered that the
documents submitted with this application are an improvement on the previous
submission. However the true significance of the building remains unstated and
Development Committee
12
19 December 2013
underestimated. It is arguable as to whether the information supplied is sufficient for
the application to comply with Para 128 of the NPPF. No doubt English Heritage will
form its own opinion on this aspect of the application.
When analysing the illustrative material submitted a particular concern is the absence
of sufficient images or drawings showing the end elevations of the development. The
view down Holt Road and towards the proposed apartment block would show a
mansard roof and a flat roof behind it. This design approach amounts to pure
„façadism‟. Behind the front elevation facing Holt Road is a 3-storey flat roof block.
Indeed, the development would be a very substantial one. The scale, massing and
form of the proposed development is out of accord with its context. If allowed it would
dominate the setting and with its height and mass form a quite oppressive, imposing
and over-assertive welcome to Cromer, not least from the railway station opposite.
Furthermore should the design philosophy be aiming to reproduce architectural
features from Cromer‟s built heritage, it has signally failed. The amount of detail and
ornamental treatment of elevations is negligible. In short the proposed building, like
the previous proposal, has little or no „local resonance‟ and no „local distinctiveness‟.
The architectural style has scant connection with Cromer. For a re-development to
succeed architecturally and in townscape terms which would in turn result in the
enhancement of the Cromer Conservation Area a wholly new design approach is
needed.
Of paramount concern is the demolition of a locally listed building within the setting of
a Conservation Area. In regard to the loss of a locally listed building and the resultant
impact on the Conservation, a designated heritage asset, North Norfolk Core
Strategy Policy EN8 states that this should only be permitted in exceptional
circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new ones. This has not been
proven.
Paragraphs 131 - 135 of the NPPF outline the need to weigh up the considerations in
respect of applications which affect, directly or indirectly, heritage assets. A balanced
judgement is required wherein regard is given to the scale of any harm or loss and
the significance of the heritage asset. Whilst Paragraph137 of the NPPF encourages
Local Planning Authorities to look for opportunities for new development in
Conservation Areas they are also reminded of the absolute need for new proposals
to „preserve those elements of Conservation Areas and their setting which make a
positive contribution or to better reveal the significance of the area‟.
It is considered that in this instance should the development as designed be
approved harm would be caused to the setting and significance of the Cromer
Conservation Area, resulting from both the loss of the locally listed building and the
detrimental impact on the setting of the Conservation Area through the erection of the
apartment block. The design of the proposed building fails to adequately respond to
this part of the Cromer Conservation Area and is not a building that is of a
convincingly high quality design. Neither can it be said that it be said that it has
effectively taken its inspiration from the legacy which is Cromer‟s historic built
heritage The proposed building lacks sufficient „local distinctiveness‟ and is out of
scale with its surroundings.
Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that in cases of 'substantial harm' to the setting or
significance of heritage asset consent should be refused unless it can be
demonstrated that exceptional 'substantial' public benefits would be achieved that
outweigh any harm or loss to a heritage asset. Taken in the context of the whole
Development Committee
13
19 December 2013
heritage asset it can be argued that this proposal would result in „less than
substantial harm‟ However in these circumstances Paragraph 134 of the NPPF
comes into consideration. In short any loss of a heritage asset or negative impact on
its significance would need to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal,
including securing its optimum viable use. On this occasion it is considered that the
public benefits do not outweigh the harm that would be caused (the current building
would be completely replaced and the setting of the Conservation Area damaged).
The public benefits do not outweigh the harm.
Finally and in conclusion the proposed building is inferior in character and design to
the building it would replace. It would not be an improvement on the current building
and would not preserve or enhance the appearance, character and setting of the
Cromer Conservation Area. Whilst the provision of 34 apartments and thereby homes
would provide some public benefits they do not outweigh the serious harm that could
be done to a designated heritage asset (viz. Cromer Conservation Area) and the
non-designated asset which is the former Police Station and Court House.
Consequently the proposed development should be refused in accordance with
Policies EN4 (Design) and EN8 (Historic Environment) of the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework and Paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
In respect of the reasons for refusal I would await English Heritage‟s response before
determining that a lack of sufficient detail or description of significance of the in-situ
heritage asset should be a further reason for refusal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – comments as
follows:
This application is the second planning application to be submitted for the site by the
same applicants and for similar development. The previous application (ref. 13/0111)
included an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared by Marishal Thompson
Group. This report recommended further bat activity survey work to be undertaken in
order to determine whether bats were utilising the building to be demolished however
this was never provided for that application.
This subsequent application was supported by the additional Bat Absence/Presence
Survey previously requested and prepared by Marishal Thompson Group and dated
July 2013.
The surveys were undertaken at a suitable time of year for
presence/absence surveys and in accordance with established good practice
guidelines and by suitably qualified ecologists. The results and conclusions of the
survey are deemed sound.
The surveys revealed foraging activity by small numbers of bats along the boundary
of the site however no bats were found roosting within the building and it is not
considered that bats use the buildings in any way. The proposed development may
have a slight negative impact on foraging bats within the grounds of the site; however
it is considered that this can be mitigated for through the use of a landscaping
scheme and the controlled use of outside lighting. It is therefore considered that an
offence under the Habitats Regulations is unlikely to occur subject to the
implementation of the recommended mitigation and enhancement recommendations
outlined in the report and secured via a condition of planning.
A Tree Survey and Tree Constraints Plan were also included in the application and
indicate that the majority of the trees can be retained as part of the development. In
addition to this, an indicative landscaping scheme is also proposed and illustrated on
two submitted drawings. It is considered that the retention of the existing vegetation
Development Committee
14
19 December 2013
is essential in integrating the proposed development into the landscape and will
assist in screening the proposed building particularly from the rear. The landscaping
scheme should incorporate the suggested planting species identified in the
Ecological Report to enhance the foraging opportunities for bats and will therefore
need amending to reflect these requirements.
To secure an appropriate landscaping scheme and ensure the adequate protection
and retention of the existing trees and matures shrubs it is recommended that
conditions are placed on any planning permission granted requiring the submission
of an Arboricultural Method Statement and a Landscape Scheme.
Subject to the above suggestions, the Landscape Section does not object to the
application on the grounds of impact to trees or ecology, however it is recognised
that colleagues within the Conservation and Design Section will be making additional
comments with respect to design.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - No comments received
English Heritage - Have verbally advised they will maintain their objection as per
that on 13/0111 and 13/0112. It is understood that written comments to be submitted
shortly.
Environmental Health No objection although comment that further assessment needs to be undertaken
regarding the proposed surface water disposal and, should surface water be
discharged in to the sewer, a financial contribution to the Surface Water Management
Plan would be sought.
Conditions are requested requiring a contaminated land survey, a SUDS scheme for
surface water disposal to be submitted and advisory notes in respect of demolition
and any potential asbestos.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Development Committee
15
19 December 2013
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - March 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design issues and the impact upon heritage assets
3. Amenity issues
4. Affordable Housing
5. Developer contributions
6. Highway impact and car parking
7. Protected species
8. Sustainable construction
9. Landscaping
APPRAISAL
The site
The site lies on the southern side of the Holt Road opposite the entrance to
Morrisons supermarket, a public house and the railway station. It is rectangular in
shape (approx 0.38 ha.) and is currently occupied by the former police station and
courthouse building. The site slopes up steeply at the rear with planted banks around
an existing rear parking area.
The existing building is set back from the site's frontage with Holt Road with its
ground floor elevated above road level and a front parking area. The main building is
single storey, neo-Georgian style built in approximately 1938 and is relatively
unassuming within the streetscene.
To the eastern side of the site is a two storey dwelling (former police house) and to
the west there is a row of bungalows (on rising ground). To the rear of the site there
are three rows of two storey dwellings set at a higher ground level positioned
perpendicular to the rear site boundary.
Principle of development
The site lies within the designated residential policy area where the principle of new
residential development (in this case retirement apartments) is acceptable subject to
compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Background
This application is a re-submission following the recently refused scheme
(applications 13/0111 and 13/0112). These were refused for the following reasons:
'In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to adequately
assess the significance of the heritage assets contrary to the requirements of para
128 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
16
19 December 2013
Furthermore, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance either the character or
appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area and is not suitably designed for its
context, contrary to Policies EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy. It would in fact
result in harm to the character, appearance and significance of the Conservation
Area contrary to paras 134 and 137 of the NPPF and this is not considered to be
outweighed by the public benefits in this instance.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the Development Plan.'
The key issue is therefore whether the amended scheme overcomes those
previously identified issues in respect of design and adverse impacts on the heritage
assets in terms of the locally listed building and Conservation Area. The second test,
if harm is still identified, is whether the public benefits of the proposal outweigh that
identified harm.
Design issues and the impact upon heritage assets
The site lies with the designated Conservation Area. Furthermore as part of a recent
review of the Conservation Area (Cromer Conservation Area - Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals - adopted by the Council in November 2012) the former
court house and police station building is 'locally listed'.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy policy
EN8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, and the NPPF.
Assessment of this application therefore needs to consider what the impacts would
be upon the character of the Conservation Area, both as a cause of the loss of the
existing building and by the proposed new development. Both the Conservation Area
and the locally listed building are heritage assets to which policy EN8 of the Core
Strategy and the NPPF seek to protect and enhance.
In addition policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. It requires design to have regard to local context
and to preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who considers the design of the apartment block to be inappropriate. He
comments that the scale, massing and form of the proposed development is out of
accord with its context. If allowed the proposed building would dominate the setting
and with its height and mass form a quite oppressive, imposing and over-assertive
welcome to Cromer, not least from the railway station opposite. In addition he
comments that, the proposed building, like the previous proposal, has little or no
„local resonance‟ and no „local distinctiveness‟. The architectural style has scant
connection with Cromer. For a re-development to succeed architecturally and in
townscape terms which would in turn result in the enhancement of the Cromer
Conservation Area a wholly new design approach is needed.
In terms of the scheme now proposed, there is little difference between it and that
which was recently refused. There have been some design changes, in that there
has been some re-modelling and more focus given to the Holt Road elevation
however it is not considered that they amount to any substantial improvement. It is
Development Committee
17
19 December 2013
considered that the revised design submitted is not significantly different from the
refused scheme to overcome the previous reasons for refusal or to warrant a change
on the recommendation to Committee.
As was the situation with the former application, the scale and massing of the
proposed building are considered too large and inappropriate for their context. The
proposed building remains one large mass with no significant breaks in its elevation
or roofline. Whilst attempts have been made to give more relief to the building, the
breaks are not significant enough to have any meaningful impact in reducing the
mass of the building.
It is therefore considered that should the development as proposed be approved
harm would be caused to the setting and significance of the Cromer Conservation
Area, resulting from both the loss of the locally listed building and the detrimental
impact on the setting of the Conservation Area through the erection of the apartment
block and as a consequence would be contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy
policies EN8 and EN4.
It is therefore contended that the proposed redevelopment of the site would result in
serious harm to heritage assets.
The NPPF identifies two levels of harm to heritage assets, either "substantial harm"
or "less than substantial harm" when assessing the relative significance of the
element affected and its contribution to the significance of the conservation Area as a
whole. Paragraph 133 states that in cases of 'substantial harm' consent should be
refused unless it can be demonstrated that 'substantial' public benefits would be
achieved that outweigh any harm or loss to a heritage asset. Whereas paragraph 134
states that in cases of 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of a heritage
asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,
including securing its optimum viable use.
In this case it is considered there is serious harm (the current building would be
completely replaced). However, taken in the context of the whole of the Cromer
Conservation Area it can be argued that it is „less than substantial‟. In such instances
Para 134 of the NPPF applies. This requires the harm to be weighed against the
public benefit of the proposal. Other than the delivery of retirement housing in the
area, bringing a currently disused site into active use and a small contribution of
£8,851 for affordable housing, there are no other significant public benefits being
provided as part of the proposed development. It is considered that these benefits do
not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the heritage asset.
Officers recommendation is therefore one of refusal on Conservation and Design
grounds in accordance with policies EN4 and EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework as far
as heritage assets and their setting is concerned. The committee will note that the
comments of English Heritage are awaited, however they have advised they are
maintaining an objection to the proposed development.
The previous refusals included the failure to adequately assess the significance of
the heritage assets contrary to the requirements of para 128 of the NPPF. The
Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considers that the documents submitted with this application are an improvement on
the previous submission. However the true significance of the building remains
unstated and underestimated. It is arguable as to whether the information supplied is
sufficient for the application to comply with Para 128 of the NPPF. Comments are
Development Committee
18
19 December 2013
awaited from English Heritage in this respect before a clear assessment can be
made as to the adequacy of the application in this respect and whether this will also
remain as a reason for refusal.
To conclude, the two key concerns are:
1. The proposal as amended is not significantly different to the previously scheme. It
would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Cromer
Conservation Area as required by Policy EN8. Its scale, mass and design is not
suitable for its context as required by Policy EN4. As a result it would result in serious
harm to the character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area and
this harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits, contrary to paragraphs134
and 137 of the NPPF.
2. The adequacy of the heritage statement in fully assessing the significance of the
heritage asset and whether this is still considered lacking enough to be included as a
reason for refusal.
Amenity issues
In terms of the level of amenity provided for the future occupants of the new
development, the majority of apartments would have private balconies and there
would be a landscaped garden to the rear. The applicant contends that in view of the
nature of the accommodation and their experience with this form of development,
the proposed amenity space to be more than adequate to serve the particular needs
of the residents. Given the proposed use for retirement apartments, the amenity
areas proposed are considered adequate.
Potential impacts of the development upon neighbouring residential amenities are
mainly confined to existing properties to the rear of the site and primarily relate to
loss of privacy from proposed windows, balconies and roof terrace.
The dwellings directly to the rear are side on to the proposed development and at a
higher ground level. The relative distance between the proposal and those dwellings
meets with the minimum distance set out in the Council's Basic Amenity Criteria and
the relationship is therefore considered to be acceptable.
No.5 (the former police house to be retained) and 5a to the east would not be unduly
overlooked and these relationships are considered acceptable.
The relationship with no.11 Holt Road, which is the closest bungalow on rising land to
the west of the site, would be very close. To make this relationship acceptable, a
number of side windows on the proposed development would need to be obscurely
glazed and one balcony either deleted or the boundary treatment along the western
boundary be conditioned to ensure it adequately screens that property from
overlooking.
Subject to conditions indicated above it is considered the proposal would result in no
significant harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.
Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires 45% of developments of 10 or more dwellings to
be affordable, subject to viability, or an equivalent contribution made for off-site
provision. Normally affordable housing provision should be on-site, however in the
case of this specialised form of development on-site provision would be impractical
Development Committee
19
19 December 2013
and therefore a contribution towards off-site provision (if viable) is considered more
appropriate.
The applicant has submitted an assessment to indicate that the scheme would not be
financially viable to provide any affordable housing contribution.
The Committee will note the comments of the Strategic Housing Manager who
advises that following assessment of the financial viability of the scheme, a
contribution in lieu of onsite affordable housing of £8,851 has been agreed with the
applicants agent and on that basis Strategic Housing raise no objection.
Developer contributions
On schemes of 10 or more dwellings where there is not sufficient capacity in
infrastructure, services, community facilities or open space, Policy CT2 indicates that
improvements should be sought in order to make new development acceptable. The
nature and scale of any planning requirements sought to improve facilities,
infrastructure and services should be related specifically to the type of development
and its potential impact on the surrounding area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Council's Parks Manager who
suggests that in the event of approval the need for a contribution of £15,000 towards
off-site open space provision, as well as the response from County Council requiring
a contribution of £2040 towards library provision (and a fire hydrant).
The submitted viability assessment indicates that there is no viability within the
scheme to provide any contribution towards these community facilities. The fire
hydrant, however, would be secured by condition. The Committee will note that the
Strategic Housing Manager, based on viability, has secured an £8,851 financial
contribution. Given the relatively small amount of money secured it is considered that
this should be for off-site affordable housing provision given the high housing need in
Cromer.
Highway impact and car parking
In respect of the access to the site, the existing access is to be relocated slightly
further west. Subject to conditions to ensure its appropriate construction, the
Highway Authority raise no objection.
In terms of parking provision, 19 car parking spaces are proposed, this falls short of
the Councils parking standards, which equate to 36 spaces for this development.
There is therefore a shortfall of 17 parking spaces. However, the County Highway
Authority has raised no objection. Given the type of accommodation proposed and
the justification submitted with the application regarding the typical car ownership and
usage of their residents, coupled with the location close to the town centre and
facilities, services and public transport, it is considered that a reduced parking
provision in this instance can be justified and would result in no significant harm to
highway safety.
The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of highway impact and
parking provision in accordance with policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy.
Protected species
Policy EN9 advises that development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect
adverse effect to protected species will not be permitted unless measures are in
place to mitigate those impacts and the benefits of the development outweigh those
impacts. It indicates that where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected
Development Committee
20
19 December 2013
species, applications should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence,
and, if present, the proposal must be sensitive to and make provision for their needs.
In addition paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to
conserve and enhance biodiversity, and indicates that if significant harm resulting
from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort,
compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
The application is supported by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. The
Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who indicates that there would be no harm to protected species and the
proposal complies with Policy EN9
Sustainable construction
Subject to a condition to ensure compliance with code level 3 of the Code for
Sustainable Homes and 10% of energy from on-site renewables (details of how the
proposed air source heat pump will achieve this figure), the proposal would comply
with policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
Landscaping.
The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager indicates that there is
no objection in principle subject to conditions requiring retention of the existing trees
and planting, further landscaping and an arboricultural method statement.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies EN2 and EN4 in this
respect.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)(published 27 March 2012) is
also material to the determination of the application.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal fails to preserve or
enhance either the character or appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area by
virtue of its inappropriate scale, massing and design for its context. It would result in
harm to the character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area
contrary to Paras 134 and 137 of the NPPF and this is not considered to be
outweighed by the public benefits in this instance.
Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan.
In addition, delegate authority to the Head of Planning to add any additional ground
of refusal that may be appropriate following receipt of the outstanding consultation
response from English Heritage, Cromer Town Council and Historic Environment
Service.
Development Committee
21
19 December 2013
3.
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 December 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080380 PO - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Refused 12/05/2008
THE APPLICATION
An outline application for a single dwelling on a garden plot approximately 30m x
30m in dimensions. No matters are included for determination.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lee Walker having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
Although contrary to policy the applicants intend to live at the property and cannot be
considered as developers.
Should be supported under paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support signed by 6 local residents on grounds that it would
Enhance a barren piece of land into a vibrant addition to our small community.
The agent in support of the application has submitted a statement which is attached
as Appendix 1, but to summarise the case being made is
The previous 2008 application was not determined on the merits of the case.
The application should be considered by a proper application of material
considerations which are;
1. Other gardens in Broad Fen Lane have been developed this is the only remaining
garden plot.
2. As the last garden plot in Broad Fen Lane no precedent will be created.
3. This application proposes a larger site and so precludes the possibility of a
further plot
4. Two plots in Broad Fen Lane were approved in 1993 when the Countryside
Policy was already established in the emerging North Norfolk Local Plan. Those
dwellings were subsequently built by 1998.
5. There have been no recorded accidents attributable to the road network.
6. Localism - Parish support for development.
Development Committee
22
19 December 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Highways The Highways Authority is aware that there was a highway objection to the earlier
identical application (20080380) on this site, this being on grounds of the unsuitability
of the narrow, poorly aligned approach roads to the site to cater for any further
vehicular use resulting from new development.
Having re-inspected the site there is no reason to change the previous view. The
approach roads to the site being in the main of approximately 3.5m width with substandard junctions and poor forward visibility. No formal vehicular passing places or
pedestrian facilities are available.
With regard to the applicant's agents comments regarding highway matters and the
Highway Authority would respond that the fact that no accidents have been recorded
on surrounding rural roads is fortunate and reflects the countryside location and
existing very low number of traffic movements. Any new development, however
small, will increase the number of vehicular movements and increase the likelihood of
accidents and highway inconvenience occurring.
Additionally the site is remote from service facilities without good access to public
transport and pedestrian facilities. The expectation would therefore be that occupiers
of this proposed new dwelling would be highly reliant on the use of the car for
everyday trips contrary to transport sustainability objectives.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
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
Principle of residential development within the Countryside policy area and other
material considerations.
APPRAISAL
The application site is located on Broad Fen Lane outside of the main village of
Dilham which is not a settlement selected for development. It is therefore located in
the Countryside policy area (Policy SS 2) where there is a presumption against new
Development Committee
23
19 December 2013
market housing unless other material planning considerations are felt to outweigh this
policy objection.
An outline application for a new dwelling on the site was refused in May 2008 under
Local Plan policies as being outside of any area as selected for development and
detrimental to Highway safety. In the Local Plan Dilham was a village selected for
development, Broad Fen Lane however being a little detached from the main body of
the village the application site was excluded from the development boundary
The local Member in referring the application to Committee has quoted Paragraph
187 of the National Planning Policy Framework as relevant to this application.
Paragraph 187 states;
Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and
decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
The Council has an up to date, sustainably led, Core Strategy that remains broadly in
line with the National Planning Policy Framework. With the adopted planning policy
being a significant material consideration the ability to work proactively with a
proposal that is contrary to such as policy is very limited. Moreover, the statement
requires the developments should improve conditions for the area. The benefit to the
applicants is personal and clear, however, any benefits of the proposed development
to the area are far less apparent or certain. Furthermore, the agent is not claiming
that the proposed dwelling falls into any of the housing exceptions categories set out
in Policy SS2 or the National Planning Policy Framework as explained below.
Although the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration it
clarifies the primary status of the Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for
decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan
should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused
unless other material considerations indicate otherwise'. Furthermore, the National
Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration and on the subject of
rural housing it emphasises the point that new housing should be sustainable and in
paragraph 55 states ' Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in
the countryside unless there are special circumstances'.
Those special
circumstances include; the essential need for a rural workers dwelling, the optimal
viable use of a heritage asset, the re-use redundant or disused buildings and the
exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. None of the
special circumstances are considered to apply to this proposal.
Instead the agent's case for development looks at three other material
considerations; firstly the 1993 approvals for two dwellings in Broad Fen Lane.
Those applications were approved since the Countryside policy was originally
established in the emerging Local Plan. Secondly, the poor quality of the highway
network has not resulted in accidents and it is unlikely a single dwelling would be
significantly detrimental. The Highway Authority have considered this and continued
to object.
Thirdly, local support for the new development including the Parish
Council. Though it should be noted the Parish Council have not explained the
reasons for the support, officers consider that the localism issue has not be
substantiated.
Consequently it is considered that none of material considerations put forward in
support of the application are of sufficient weight as to outweigh the primary material
Development Committee
24
19 December 2013
consideration that the proposal is contrary to the adopted Core Strategy and the
National Planning Policy Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside
policy area where there is a general presumption against residential development. It
is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this
case or that compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework has been achieved.
In addition the road network (Broad Fen Lane (U19235/Staithe Lane (U19236)/Oak
Road ((U19234) ) serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment, restricted width, lack of
passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the adopted Development
Plan polices SS 2 and CT 5 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
(4)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871946 PF - Convert barn forming lettable accommodation in conjunction
with public house
Approved 23/11/1987
PLA/20000137 PF - Removal of occupancy restriction (condition 3 of planning
permission reference 871946)
Approved 10/03/2000
PLA/20020690 PF - Demolition of toilet block and temporary office and erection of
single-storey dining room extension
Approved 05/12/2002
PLA/19791347 PF - Erection of bungalow
Approved 07/01/1980
PLA/20080555 PF - Change of use from public house to residential dwelling
Refused 23/05/2008 Appeal dismissed 18/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of The Hare and Hounds from a public house to a residential
dwelling.
Development Committee
25
19 December 2013
The building to the front of the site is used as lettable accommodation in conjunction
with the public house. The main building is set back from the road and has a large
area for parking to the west of the building within the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Hempstead Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
- Many of the arguments offered by the applicant are inaccurate.
-The way the pub has been run gives the reasonable impression that the true aim of
the owners has been to run down the business. In doing so they have deprived
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe a valued and valuable social amenity.
- Opening hours were erratic
- The suggestion that the local village halls have competed with and deprived the pub
of business is absurd and disingenuous.
- The pub has been successful in the past and could be again if run in a competent
and business-like way.
- There is good reason to believe that the pub has not been sold as a going concern
because the asking price has been unrealistically high.
Comments following submission of additional information:
The Parish Council maintains its objections on the same grounds as previously
stated. In addition it is felt that the applicants statement is misleading (for example the
assertion that Hempstead Village Hall has an alcohol licence). Furthermore it is not at
all clear why problems with sewerage are raised now when the papers show that the
matter was first brought to the applicants attention in 2002 (on application 20020690)
Baconsthorpe Parish Council Original comments:
Strong objection (comments summarised)
- The loss of the pub is very sad. It has always played a part in the life of this village.
- The owners of the pub made it fairly clear over a period of time that they intended to
shut the pub down eventually.
- Opening times of the pub were erratic.
- The applicant suggests parking is restricted on the site. This is inaccurate there is a
large car park at the pub.
- Reasons given by the applicant as to why the business was not successful include
the rural location, lack of footpaths and lack of tourist accommodation in the area.
These were facts that the applicant knew when originally purchasing the pub and are
unchanged from when the pub was run successfully.
- The Parish Council have never been aware of any drainage problems at the pub.
There is surely no difference with drainage for a pub or a dwelling and if there are
drainage problems surely the conversion of the little pub barn at the front of the site is
an issue for the applicant.
Comments following submission of additional information (summarised):
Objects to the amended application and maintains its position as previously offered.
-There is no new information that makes a difference in assessing the situation.
-The question of drainage poses a problem, but as the applicants indicate they need
to address this with their solicitor and should be settled legally before any further
action is taken.
-Should the ombudsman find the applicants complaint upheld she will have the right
Development Committee
26
19 December 2013
to sue for the cost of the drainage to be put right.
- Questions the accuracy of the some of the statements offered by the applicant in
her submission.
-Permission has recently been given for a campsite in the village and this will help the
vitality of the village, as would the retention of the pub.
REPRESENTATIONS
21 letters of representation received. These include 20 letters of objection and 1
letter of comment.
Letters of objection citing the following grounds:
1. This is the last pub in the village and in fact in the four surrounding villages.
2. The village of Baconsthorpe is in need of a well run local pub.
3. The pub serves not only Hempstead and Baconsthorpe but Plumstead and
Matlaske.
4. Many other pubs in the area have had new owners in the same period as the Hare
and Hounds and are still successful.
5. The current owners took over a thriving business and mismanaged it.
6. The owners have deliberately run the business in to the ground. When the pub was
still open it had erratic opening times, the owners had no interest in developing the
trade and turned customers away.
7. The marketing exercise was a fait accompli as the owners did not want to sell the
business. Marketing was only done to tick the box for the planning application- for
example prospective purchasers of the pub were turned away, not being allowed to
view the pub.
8. The pub is a valuable commodity to a village in rural Norfolk which allows people in
the village to meet and converse to avoid isolation.
9. the only people who will benefit from the change of use is the applicant, to the
detriment to the community.
10. Baconsthorpe and Hempstead have already lost the post office and shop and the
loss of the pub would represent the final nail in our village's coffin.
1 letter of comment as follows:
Shame to lose the chance that the Hare and Hounds might once again flourish as a
public house.
The applicant has submitted information in support of their application detailing the
viability issues with retaining the public house in addition to details of the problems
encountered with adequately resolving the drainage problems on the site. This is
attached as Appendix 2. She has commented that the premises have not been open
to the public since 2010.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - (summarised) With consideration of the current use of the
building, I find that I have no objection to the proposed development, in principle. The
proposed use would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic above that currently
permissible, I do however have concerns regarding parking provision as none is
indicated on the submitted plans. Further information in respect of proposed parking
layout and the number of bedrooms proposed in the dwelling (to ascertain the
required parking spaces) would need to be provided to enable the Highway Authority
to further consider the application.
Building Control Original comments:
I refer to the drainage consultation. It appears that the premises was a pub initially
Development Committee
27
19 December 2013
with a septic tank drainage system. The restaurant use was then added and the
discharge consent should then have been varied with the Environment Agency. This
presumably would have started a chain of events involving alterations to the drainage
system which would have then required consent under Building Regulations. This
would not have been required without the Environment Agency input however as the
introduction of trade waste would not have impacted on the drainage from a building
control aspect.
As far as satisfactory drainage is concerned, we have advised the applicant that
adequate provision may be possible but would involve the use of a specialist
consultant to design a system suitable for the use of the premises, the likely output
and the site conditions. This would apply equally to the current public house use or
any subsequent change of use.
Comments following submission of additional information:
The applicants would appear to have obtained specialist advice on the feasibility of a
suitable drainage system as was previously suggested. Percolation tests have been
undertaken and the results of these discussed with the Environment Agency and
which would appear to preclude the use of a septic tank or sewage treatment plant to
serve a commercial development. The only other alternative would be a cesspool and
again this would appear to be prohibitive in terms of the cost of the plant, installation
and on-going emptying. I would therefore conclude that from the details now
submitted by the applicant the use of this property as a commercial enterprise would
appear to be compromised by the apparently insurmountable drainage problems.
Environmental Health – Comments as follows:
In general terms I agree with the applicants comments on the suitability of soil in the
locality having poor porosity. Without site of the previous planning application I would
normally question whether it was possible to connect to a main public sewer. Parts of
Baconsthorpe are connected to an Anglia Water sewage treatment works located
approximately 1km away and does have very limited capacity available. I would
however suggest that the cost of connection to it is uneconomical given the distance.
For this reason I am discounting the need to question connection to the main public
sewer. As such I have no reasons to object to the conversion to a dwelling on the
grounds of poor drainage, but do require that details of the actual disposal route for
sewage is submitted and approved.
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).
Development Committee
28
19 December 2013
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of the public house as an important local facility
2. Conversion of a building in the countryside to residential
APPRAISAL
The site
The Hare and Hounds Public House is in a countryside location in the Countryside
policy area. It lies within the parish of Hempstead although it is very much on the
boundary of that parish with the centre of the village being approx 1km away. The
centre of the village of Baconsthorpe is closer to the public house. There is a cluster
of houses in close proximity to the property.
The Hare and Hounds is the only local public house which remains available to serve
either Hempstead or Baconsthorpe. There are other licensed premises available in
Holt, Edgefield and Bodham but those settlements are 4, 5 and 6 kilometres away
respectively.
Background
An application to change of the use of the public house to a residential dwelling was
refused and dismissed on appeal in 2008 (08/0555). The application was refused on
the following grounds:
„The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan on 2 April 1998 for all
planning purposes. The following saved policy as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England on 14 September 2007 is considered
relevant to the proposed development: Policy 87: Country Pubs The applicants have
failed to establish through a marketing exercise whether or not the public house is
potentially viable. Furthermore, the proposals would result in the loss of an important
social and community facility in the Countryside policy area in conflict with the
objectives of the above policy.‟
This application is for the same proposal. Whilst the Core Strategy has been
introduced since those decisions, the policy context of retaining local facilities and
services in countryside locations where they are the last of their kind still remains.
This current application was on the committee agenda in September 2012. The item
was deferred without consideration by the Committee at the request of the Local
Member to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide further information in support
of her application.
At that time Officers were recommending refusal of the application based on the
same grounds as the refused and appeal dismissed 2008 application, namely the
failure to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts had been made to market the site at
a reasonable price for 12 months, demonstration that the business was no longer
viable and there were no reasonable prospects of retaining the pub at that site.
The applicant had indicated that the poor drainage was a significant factor in why she
is unable to run the public house. She had indicated that she no longer had access to
the existing soakaway and that due to ground conditions (clay soils, sloping site and
no drainage ditches to soak in to) that the drainage could not be improved to
accommodate a public house. At that time the Council's Building Control Service
commented that based on the submitted information that adequate provision for
Development Committee
29
19 December 2013
drainage may be possible but that this would need to be explored further by the
applicant with a specialist consultant. At that time based on the submitted
information, it was not therefore considered that the information regarding poor
drainage was significantly material and it did not satisfactorily demonstrate that there
was no reasonable prospect of retention of the public house at the site.
Since that time, the applicant has submitted further information in respect of the
extent of marketing that was conducted to sell the business; more information on how
they tried to improve business whilst they were still trading; details of profit and loss
accounts to demonstrate lack of financial viability; and more detailed information to
demonstrate why the drainage issue on the site means that it is no longer viable to
continue to run the pub on the site.
Loss of the public house as an important local facility
The first key issue for consideration is the loss of the public house. The public house
is the last in the village and as such, although the applicant indicates it has not been
open for a number of years, it is protected by policy CT3.
Policy CT3 requires that development proposals that would result in the loss of sites
or premises currently, or last used for, important local facilities and services, which
include public houses, will not be permitted unless:
1. Alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will be
provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
2. It can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has demonstrated
that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell
or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.
In terms of marketing, the applicant indicates that reasonable efforts have been made
to sell the property at a realistic price since January 2010 but these have met with no
success. Information now submitted gives a slightly clearer picture on the type and
duration of marketing carried out.
Information regarding the changing price and duration of marketing in 2008 by UK
Pub Sales Ltd has been submitted. The applicant indicates that the pub was for sale
with UK Pub Sales from Jan 2008 until the end of 2010. Two letters have been
submitted from UK Pub Sales which indicates commencement of marketing took
place in Jan 2008 and a letter detailing an offer which was later withdrawn in March
2008. There is no specific information as to the extent to which they marketed the
property, however written confirmation that UK Pub Sales marketed the property until
December 2010 has now been submitted.
Marketing by Cockertons commenced in March 2011. A letter from them on 17
January 2012 indicates there was no significant interest to date. It appears from the
supporting information submitted by the applicant that during the marketing period
with the local agents that no financial accounts or trends for the business were
provided. This is detailed in an email between the local agents and an interested
party in September 2011. Some information has been submitted to the Council to
demonstrate the extent to which the marketing has been undertaken which includes
a sales brochure, an email from Cockertons indicating that the extent of marketing
was mailing to their clients, advertising in the window in the Holt Office and
advertising on Rightmove online. The precise duration of that marketing has not
been provided, no price was specified on the marketing details and it is clear that no
basic financial information was supplied in respect of accounts of the business.
Development Committee
30
19 December 2013
Whilst it is clear that there has been a reasonable attempt to sell the property, given
the lack of information regarding the precise duration of the marketing or that a
realistic price which might achieve a sale has been sought for a whole 12 month
period it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the property
has been satisfactorily marketed for sale or to let at a realistic price for a period of at
least 12 months.
The applicant indicates that the poor drainage at the site is a significant factor in why
she is unable to run the public house.
Another key issue for consideration is whether the adequacy of the foul drainage for
the site makes the retention of the pub an unreasonable prospect and financially
unviable.
It appears that the pub formerly relied on a septic tank drainage system on third party
land to the rear. The applicant has indicated that this has since been disconnected at
the withdrawal of permission from the land owner. Furthermore, the applicant has
submitted correspondence from the Environment Agency that the said septic tank did
not hold the required Discharge Consent which would have been necessary for trade
effluent. The applicant has indicated that she purchased the pub without knowledge
that the foul sewage was discharging without the necessary consents.
The public house has been closed since 2010. The applicant has been in discussion
with the Environment Agency in order to understand what foul sewage system would
be acceptable. The applicant has submitted information from the Environment
Agency which advises that there are no appropriate sewage systems for the pub to
dispose of its trade effluent. They advise that it appears the site is too far from the
nearest mains sewers in Baconsthorpe (over 800metres); there are no surface waters
surrounding the property to discharge treated sewage effluent to; and the percolation
test was not successful so a drainage field cannot be installed (not suitable for either
a septic tank or package treatment plant as both have a final effluent that would need
to discharge somewhere). Having explored all sewage discharge options the
Environment Agency confirm the only reasonable option is a cesspit.
Cesspits do not drain to the ground, all of the waste is contained within the pit and as
such they require frequent emptying by tankers. Information and a quote from a
drainage company have been submitted by the applicant which indicates that the cost
for the installation of the cesspit for this size pub would be approximately £140k. In
addition with the likely effluent from the pub, it would cost approx £10k every 45 days
to empty.
The costs of the plant, installation and on-going emptying of a cesspit would therefore
appear prohibitive to the continued running of a public house on the site.
Therefore whilst it possible that the public house could re-open it would require a very
substantial investment and it is not considered that such a level of investment could
be justified on the basis of the very small catchment area in the immediate area which
is very rural. In that respect Officers consider that the applicant has adequately
demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the retention of the pub at its
current site and the costs of installing and maintaining the necessary foul drainage
makes the continued running of the pub unviable. On this basis, the application as
amended, is considered to comply with Policy CT3 of the Core Strategy.
Development Committee
31
19 December 2013
Conversion of a building in the countryside to a dwelling
The second key issue is whether the building is suitable for conversion to a dwelling
under the requirements of Policy HO9.
In respect of Policy HO9, the site is located outside of the HO9 zone. However, good
quality buildings are permitted for conversion to residential uses in this location. The
building is constructed of flint, is well proportioned and attractive, having a positive
impact in the street scene. The building appears on the Councils historic maps dating
back to 1881 to 1887 and information submitted by local residents suggests that the
building has been a pub since 1836 and so does have historic merit. The building
would require no substantial rebuild or extension and appears structurally sound.
The proposal would therefore comply with policy HO9.
Other considerations
It is not considered that the conversion would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the amenities of any neighbouring property.
There is more than ample parking for the proposed dwelling, however as the
applicant has not indicated how the building would be converted (i.e number of
bedrooms) and not has indicated where the parking would be located, the Highway
Authority would require further information (which could be secured by way of
condition) to ensure that adequate parking and turning are retained on the site.
There are clearly drainage issues on the site and an appropriate solution would need
to be installed for a residential property. The applicant has submitted information from
a drainage company which suggests costs for a cesspit for a domestic property are
approx £1.5K per person per year. In light of the highlighted drainage problems, in
the event that planning permission is granted for the change of use to a dwelling,
prior to first occupation Environmental Health require precise details of the sewage
disposal method for the residential property to be submitted and approved. This
could be secured by condition.
Summary
Whilst it has not conclusively been demonstrated that the property has been
marketed at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months (one of the tests in
policy CT3), in the opinion of Officers, the foul drainage on the site and the impact
this has on the financial viability of the business means that the business is no longer
viable and there is no reasonable prospect of its retention at its current site. As such
whilst the loss of the pub is regrettable, the application would comply with that part of
Policy CT3.
Subject to conditions it is considered that the proposal would accord with all other
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
- Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, precise details of
the proposed parking and turning areas including number of parking spaces, layout
and surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be completed in accordance
with the approved plan prior to the first use of the property and shall be retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
Development Committee
32
19 December 2013
- Prior to the first use of the premises as a dwelling, details of sewage disposal for the
dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(5)
HOVETON - PF/13/0814 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling with
attached garage, erection of detached double garage and the creation of an
access for existing dwelling; 72 Stalham Road for Mrs S Meacock
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 October 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19771155 HR - Change of access to private dwelling
Approved 26/08/1977
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to sub-divide the garden of the existing dwelling to erect a one and a half
storey dwelling with attached garage. The proposal includes demolition of the
existing garage and the erection of new double garage for the existing dwelling and
the creation of a new access to the existing dwelling onto the Stalham Road. The
proposed dwelling would use the access which currently serves the existing dwelling
and exits the site onto Littlewoods Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Dixon with regard to the following issue:
Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the access onto Stalham Road opposite the Hoveton and Wroxham surgery
which is a busy and dangerous junction. The positioning of an additional access
would contribute to the existing dangers at this junction. No objection to the
construction of the buildings.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 x letters of objection received on the following grounds:
position of new access almost opposite the entrance to the Doctor's surgery car
park and busy crossing point
the present access is adequate
a shared access [using the existing] would easily be accommodated
to make a virtual shared access with the neighbour would devalue their property
the new roundabout rather than slowing traffic causes some drivers to think it is a
race track
living at number 80 exiting from my drive is increasingly 'tricky' and I notice that
number 84 (nearer the roundabout) is for sale
the Brook Park development has still to be completed, and we await a vast
increase in traffic movements
Development Committee
33
19 December 2013
there is a bed and breakfast business being conducted from No. 72 which could
be increased to accommodate more guests and more comings and goings from
the premises adding to the already heavy volume of traffic
at present there is an evergreen hedge between our property (74) and No. 72, if
the hedge is to be removed what are the proposals for the new boundary
there is a collection of small trees and hedging at the beginning of our front
garden at the top of the vehicular access way which we understand the applicant
wishes to remove. We have no objection to reducing the height and width but we
would do this ourselves and to our satisfaction
There is a lamp post and large drain situated against the hedge of 72, has this
drain been taken into consideration?
on no account would we consider a shared access way, we would like a small
amount of kerb left between our property and No.72 to avoid any vehicle cutting
across our vehicle access.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): Required an
Arboricultural Impacts Assessment. Following receipt of the assessment no objection
subject to the imposition of a condition requiring submission and approval of a full
Arboricultural Method Statement.
County Council (Highways): No objection subject to imposition of requested
conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy 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).
Development Committee
34
19 December 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of development
2) Relationship with neighbouring properties
3) Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area where proposals of this type are
acceptable in principle. The application seeks to sub-divide the garden of 72
Stalham Road and demolition of the existing garage to allow for the erection of a new
dwelling. The proposal also includes the erection of a double garage and the creation
of a new access onto Stalham Road to serve the existing dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would be two bedroom, one and a half storey with the main
accommodation on the ground floor with a further bedroom and bathroom within the
roof space and an attached garage. The form and scale of the proposal is considered
acceptable and would not introduce any significant detriment to the amenities of any
neighbouring properties. There are several trees within the vicinity of the site and an
arboricultural impacts assessment has been submitted. The Council's Landscape
Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition to
ensure the works are carried out in accordance with an agreed arboricultural method
statement.
The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal that would see the
new dwelling utilise the existing access onto Littlewoods Lane and the creation of a
new access onto Stalham Road for the use of the new dwelling. This proposal follows
pre-application discussion with the Highway Authority who advised against any
proposal that would result in increased use of the existing access.
In respect of concerns raised about the treatment of the boundary hedge between 72
and 74 Stalham Road; the applicant has advised that the hedging does not need to
be removed in order for the garage to be constructed or for the new access to be
achieved. The applicant has further advised that they retain their civil right to remove,
reduce in height or width any part of the hedging or vegetation on their side of the
boundary. As the application does not propose to remove this hedge it is considered
that these concerns are a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of the Local Planning
Authority.
In light of the highway safety concerns raised, the Highway Authority has further
advised that there would not be a highway requirement for removal of the dividing
boundary hedge and that any reference to a 'shared access' refers to where the
proposed access meets the highway. Therefore the dropped kerb area would be
extended across to the existing dropped kerb access to No.74 with separate
accesses within the curtilages of No's. 72 and 74. In addition the Highway Authority
have advised that whilst the proposed access is far from ideal on the busy Stalham
Road; it is considered that highway safety standards (including visibility, on-site
parking and turning) are met and therefore the Highway Authority considers that
there are no justifiable reasons to refuse this application on highway safety grounds.
In the absence of Highway objections and subject to the imposition of recommended
conditions it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with adopted
Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
35
19 December 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific
conditions listed below:
(2)
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
(3)
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the
approved plan in accordance with the highway specification (Dwg. No. TRAD
3). Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted
and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the
highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy
CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(4)
Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any
Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates, bollard, chain or
other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access
unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(5)
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access, on-site car parking and turning areas shall be laid out, demarcated,
levelled and surfaced in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(6)
Before the development is started a full Arboricultural Method Statement in
accordance with the recommendations contained within the Arboricultural
Implications Assessment, carried out by Oakfield Arboricultural Services, dated
November 2013 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 26 November
2013, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with
the approved Arboricultural Method Statement.
Development Committee
36
19 December 2013
Reason:
In order to protect trees on and around the site, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(7)
The dwelling hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design
that replaces that scheme). The dwelling shall not be occupied until a Final
Code Certificate has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning
Authority certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an
alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(6)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1274 - Erection of extensions to house storage,
office, preparation and freezer facilities with related increase in net sales area
from 807m² to 1056m², provision of additional parking area and re-cladding of
existing store.; Lidl Food Store, 7-9 Yarmouth Road for Lidl
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 December 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Residential Area
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19960863 PO - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of class a1(food)
retail unit and associated car parking
Approved 10/12/1996
PLA/20010060 PF - Demolition of buildings and construction of foodstore and
ancillary works
Approved 03/09/2001
AI/13/0089 AI - Display of illuminated pole-mounted advertisement
Approved 24/05/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to extend and alter the existing A1 (retail) supermarket. The
extensions comprise a front addition of some 149sqm and a rear addition of some
341sqm. The front extension would be of flat roof design with a width of 27.5m, a
depth of 4.5m and a height of 4.3m to top of the roof. The rear extension would also
be of flat roof design in an 'L' shape with a width of 26.5m a maximum depth of
15.8m and a height of 4.6m to the top of the roof.
Development Committee
37
19 December 2013
Externally the applicant proposes to substantially re-clad/re-cover the building with
painted render proposed on all existing and new walls save for the gables and upper
sections of the proposed extensions, which would be clad in an aluminium panelling.
The existing 'faux' cupola is proposed to be removed from the roof.
The proposal would include an amendment to the car park layout and additional land,
currently used for the adjacent fire station, would be included as part of the car park
for the supermarket. The plans indicate that 74 car parking spaces would be provided
(including 3 disabled and 2 parent and child spaces).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Peter Moore in view of concerns about the potential impacts on
adjacent neighbours.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received including a petition signed by 5
residents of Farman Avenue and 1 resident of Yarmouth Road. Summary of grounds
of objection:
Concerned about the potential for noise and disturbance from freezers and fans;
There have been problems in the past from freezers and fans which have been
recently addressed;
Will have an overbearing and dominating impact on residents nearby;
Limited amounts of parking for the store will increase existing problems of people
parking on Farman Avenue preventing access for residents;
The exterior of the existing Lidl has excellent russet/grey brickwork that blends
with the character of the area. The white and grey render would be wholly out of
character and a 'blot on the landscape'
Can the town support three supermarkets?
An increase in existing traffic congestion will add to the high volumes and
bottlenecks already along Yarmouth and Grammar School Road;
The rear extension will be built on what was part of the gardens of 2 and 3
Farman Avenue;
Question the accuracy of the plans;
This is just the thin end of the wedge;
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions regarding control of
lighting, controls regarding noise from extraction/ventilation/refrigeration and control
over delivery hours (same as existing)
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to conditions - Given that this
proposal alters the internal layout of the site to the potential benefit of servicing by
large vehicles and with a very small resulting reduction in parking spaces I have no
objection to the granting of permission.
My site inspection does not reveal any readily accessible cycle parking provision and
the application should address this by the inclusion of a condition requiring
submission and agreement on cycle parking details.
Development Committee
38
19 December 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
principle of the development as some of the trees on site are of limited quality and
may benefit from appropriate replacement. Recommend a condition to secure
appropriate replacement of two trees on the western side of the rear extension.
Planning Policy Manager - No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Comments awaited.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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
Impact on Town Centre
Design & Impact on Conservation Area
Impact on Residential Amenity
Landscaping
Highway Safety
APPRAISAL
Principle
The existing A1 (retail) store (approved under planning ref: 01 20010060 PF) is
located within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of North
Walsham where there would be support in principle for the extension of an existing
A1 retail premises subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Development Committee
39
19 December 2013
The proposal would extend the built envelope of the existing store outside of the town
centre and primary shopping onto land formerly part of the gardens of Nos.2 and 3
Farman Avenue. Again the principle of such an extension is considered acceptable
subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Impact on Town Centre
Both the North Norfolk Core Strategy (Policy EC 5) and the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) identify a need to ensure that proposed development does not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of
town centres. In this case the existing A1(retail store) has a net sales area of 807sqm
(using the National Retail Planning Forum definition of sales area) and the store
contributes positively towards generating footfall within North Walsham Town Centre
with anecdotal evidence of linked-trips between this site and the rest of the town
centre, particularly as a result of the 90mins free parking available. The proposed
enlarged store would increase the sales area of the store by 249sqm to 1,056sqm.
this would be achieved by devoting the footprint of the existing store to sales area
and with the proposed rear extension being used as part of the warehouse/service
area. Technically therefore the proposed enlarged sales area would be entirely within
the Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of North Walsham and would be
considered policy compliant. No Impact or Sequential Test Assessment is therefore
considered necessary as the site is within a sequentially preferable location and the
extension would generally accord with the requirements set out Policy EC5.
Officers therefore conclude that the enlarged store would contribution positively
towards the vitality and viability of the town centre and the proposal would accord
with Development Plan Policy.
Design and Impact on Conservation Area
The external materials proposed for the extended and altered store would
undoubtedly change the visual character of the building with white and grey painted
render replacing existing brickwork exteriors and the new proposed extensions also
finished in painted render. The gables and upper sections of the extension would be
clad in aluminium panelling. Representations have raised concerns about the visual
impact of the changes to the external appearance of the building including concerns
about the loss of the cupola.
Whilst the site is not located within the Conservation Area of North Walsham, the site
lies opposite the Conservation Area and therefore has the potential to affect views
into and out of the Area. In respect of the effect of the development on Conservation
Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy
EN8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. In view of the concerns raised by local
residents a view has been sought from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager as to whether the proposed alterations to the building would adversely
affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Committee will
be updated orally once a response is received.
Impacts on Residential Amenity
Representations have raised concern, amongst other things, about potential noise
and disturbance from any external fans or refrigeration units and the potential for the
extension to have an overbearing impact on adjacent residents along Yarmouth
Road and Farman Avenue.
Development Committee
40
19 December 2013
Specifically at No.11 Yarmouth Road, the primary concerns relate to the visual
impact of the proposed white painted render along the southern existing elevation
and also the potential noise impacts from any fans/air conditioning units (a problem
of noise was only recently resolved through the intervention of Environmental
Health). Having visited this property Officers are of the understanding that a hedge
along the southern boundary of the application site has recently been removed and
replaced with a chain-link fence. This has had the effect opening up views of the
southern elevation of the supermarket building from No.11 Yarmouth Road and
therefore the visual impact of the proposed white painted render will increase. The
residents of No.11 Yarmouth Road have suggested that this boundary should be
replaced with a 2.4m high timber boarded fence which will help screen the white
render and also protect their privacy from the likely increase in pedestrian traffic
along the southern boundary of the site. Officers consider the request from the
neighbour to be reasonably justified and the applicant has been requested to include
provision of a 2.4m fence along the southern boundary with No.11 Yarmouth Road.
The eastern boundary of No.11 contains an existing mature laurel hedge which
would screen the proposal from No.11 Yarmouth Road. Officers consider that this
hedge should remain and this could be secured by way of planning condition.
In respect of No.1 Farman Avenue, this property does not share a boundary with the
supermarket but will have views of the extension from upper storey windows. The
primary consideration is impact from noise of mechanical extraction etc and this
could be controlled through the imposition of conditions.
In respect of Nos. 2-6 Farman Avenue, the proposed rear extension to the store
would be located on land formerly part of the rear gardens of Nos.2 and 3 Farman
Avenue. Whilst undoubtedly residents on Farman Avenue will see the extension from
upper floor windows and occupiers of Nos 2 and 3 will also likely see the extension
from ground floor windows, the applicant has proposed to erect a 2.4m high timber
fence along the boundaries with Nos.2 and 3 which will go some considerable way to
help screen the development and existing hedgerow boundaries between properties
along Farman Avenue will also soften the visual impact. In respect of concerns
regarding noise from mechanical extraction etc, this could be controlled through the
imposition of conditions.
Environmental Health has no objections subject to conditions.
On balance, Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, the proposed extensions will be unlikely to have a significant adverse
impact on the amenity of adjacent residents and refusal on grounds of potential
adverse impacts on amenity could not be reasonably justified.
Landscaping
The physical construction of the proposed rear (southern) extension would result in
the loss of a number of existing trees and hedgerows between the supermarket site
and adjacent residents on Yarmouth Road/ Farman Avenue. Officers understand that
the plans originally approving the supermarket set out this area to the south of the
store (including a reasonable area of planting within part of the garden of No.3
Farman Avenue) for landscaping and part of the area of the now proposed extension
was also subject of a landscaping condition and to be retained for at least five years.
Whilst some planting along the boundary with No.11 Yarmouth Road appears to
have been removed, landscaping does appear to still be in situ along the rear
gardens of Nos 2 and 3 Farman Avenue.
Development Committee
41
19 December 2013
The applicant has indicated that one Maple tree would be retained, however the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has informally advised that the
likelihood is that this tree would also have to be removed to facilitate the construction
of the extension. The trees to be removed are not subject to any protection and the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has informally advised that the trees
are not of sufficient quality to justify statutory protection. It is recommended that the
existing laurel hedge on the boundary with Number 11 Yarmouth Road is retained as
this provides substantial amenity benefits for the neighbouring property and The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has suggested that at least two
replacement trees to counter the inevitable loss of the maple tree should be provided
in the area next to the southern extension. Whilst the loss of landscaping is clearly
regrettable, subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the proposal
would nonetheless accord with Policy EN 2.
Highway Safety
The original planning permission (approved under planning ref: 01 20010060 PF)
provided 77 car parking spaces and parking for eight cycles. The proposed front
extension would result in the loss of 14 existing vehicle parking spaces but, in order
to partly address the shortfall in parking spaces the applicant has acquired additional
land and proposes to re-configure the car park layout so as to provide 74 car parking
spaces (including 3 disabled and 2 parent and child spaces). The plans are unclear
regarding the provision of cycle parking spaces, although application forms refer to 4
cycle spaces.
The Council's adopted parking standards require free-standing food superstores with
a gross floor area above 1,000sqm to provide 1 vehicle space for every 14sqm and 1
visitor and 1 Staff cycle space for every 100sqm. The proposed extended
supermarket would have a gross floor area of approximately 1,640sqm and therefore
would require 117 vehicle parking spaces and 33 cycle parking spaces to be fully
compliant. The proposal is therefore currently deficient in parking provision.
The Highway Authority has been consulted and, notwithstanding the parking
deficiency no objections have been raised subject to the imposition of a condition to
secure cycle parking spaces.
Representations have subsequently been received which raise concerns that the
deficiency in parking spaces will result in parking on surrounding residential streets,
to the detriment of residential amenity. The Highway Authority has been consulted in
respect of this further matter and the Committee will be updated orally.
In coming to its view on highway safety matters and parking provision, the Committee
will recognise the town centre location of the store which is accessible by means
other than motor vehicle. It is for these reasons that, notwithstanding the identified
parking deficiencies and subject to no further adverse comments from the Highway
Authority, Officers consider there would be no substantive grounds for objecting
based on the identified parking shortfall.
Summary
In summary, whilst the proposal has raised some concern with surrounding residents
relating to the impact of the store on residential amenity, subject to no objections
from outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it
is considered that an extension to the existing A1 (retail) store would accord with
relevant Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
42
19 December 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific conditions listed below:
Details of any further mechanical extraction or refrigeration to be installed
Time limits for deliveries, store openings etc same as ref: 01 20010060 PF
Provision of 2.4m high fencing
Retention of existing laurel hedge
provision of replacement planting
Provision of cycle parking
and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(7)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1297 - Continued use of former B1 (light industrial)
building and land for the sale of motor vehicles/trailer hire; 3 Laundry Loke for
Mr P Hurman
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 December 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
Employment Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761236 PF - Use of existing building for light engineering purposes
Temporary Approval 28/02/1977
PLA/19750351 PF - Use of existing buildings for light engineering purposes
Approved 19/05/1975
PLA/19921082 PF - Workshop & secure unit
Approved 23/09/1992
PLA/19850836 PF - Use of site for car sales and erection of sales office building
Approved 16/07/1985
PLA/19811800 PF - Small works building and yard
Approved 05/02/1982
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of a site on the industrial estate for the sale of motor
vehicles and trailer hire. The site has an existing use of B1 (light industrial). There
are two existing accesses to the site and the site benefits from a building which
appears to be being used for repair and maintenance of the trailers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning given the potential impact on the business
and employment
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
None
Development Committee
43
19 December 2013
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): Objects. It appears that there is a difference between the
two site plans provided with this application; the smaller scale plan indicating that the
site extends further to the south than the larger scale plan. My site inspection reveals
that the larger scale plan is correct with a different occupier being on the site to the
south.
This proposal is located approximately 50m from the sharp bend which is formed by
the intersection of the three sections of Laundry Loke from the North Walsham bypass (B1145). Vehicles when entering Laundry Loke from the B1145 tend to be
travelling at speeds more suited to the wide B1145 with its 50 Mph speed limit than
that which are appropriate on Laundry Loke which is a commercial estate with
numerous side accesses and junctions.
Immediately opposite the site, on the eastern side of the carriageway of Laundry
Loke, there is significant evidence of highway verge damage assumed to be caused
by parked vehicles. At the time of my recent site inspection a number of cars were
parked on the opposing western side of this road .
This small site consists of a small single storey building with a gravelled area to the
north which provides access to the buildings double width access doors with a further
gravelled area to the west being available for vehicular parking. At the time of my site
visit the area to the west of the building was completely full of parked cars (4) with
the area in front of the access doors being occupied by a trailer and four-wheel drive
vehicle. Without restricting vehicular access to the building I would find it very hard to
accept that further vehicles could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site.
It therefore appears, taking into account space required for trailers, staff and
customer vehicles etc, that the site is adequate only to cater for its existing use as
trailer hire company. The submitted information indicates that the applicant wishes to
sell cars from the site with no more than 10 being available for sale at any one time.
My site inspection indicates that the site would be unable to accommodate this
number of vehicles without interference with its permitted use.
The likelihood is that vehicles associated with either one or both uses would be
required to park and manoeuvre on the highway to the detriment of highway safety.
Evidence provided at my site inspection indicates that this parking would occur on
both sides of Laundry Loke this being at a location where vehicle speeds are
potentially unsuited to the carriageway alignment and at a location requiring access
by large (including HGV) commercial vehicles.
Therefore recommend refusal as the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site
vehicular parking and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required. The proposal if
permitted would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on-street
parking and manoeuvring at a point on Laundry Loke where detriment to highway
safety would result.
British Pipeline Agency: No objection
Environmental Health: No objection
Health & Safety Executive: According to our records the pipeline in question is
currently not a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline and therefore PADHI+ does not
apply.
Development Committee
44
19 December 2013
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
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 EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Employment
APPRAISAL
The application is retrospective seeking to continue using the site for a trailer hire
business and for the display and sale of motor vehicles, the established use is that of
B1 (light industrial). the site is triangular shaped with the main access at the northern
tip leading to the main doors of the building located towards the south eastern part of
the site. A further access is located at the south western corner. An approximately
1m high fence separates this site from the adjoining site and access. The outside
space at the site is proposed to be used for the display and sales of motor vehicles
and for the display of various types and sizes of trailer which are available for hire.
The building appears to be in use as office and workshop.
The site lies within a designated employment area where the principle of the proposal
is considered acceptable falling within the policy (SS5) definition of an employment
generating use. The Town Council has supported the proposal.
The County Highways Officer has raised objections; see above.
Notwithstanding the Highway Officer's reference to the existing use being trailer hire,
it is considered that both the trailer hire and the car sales require consent and
represent a change of use from B1 (light industrial). It is considered that the site is
too small to accommodate both of the proposed uses without causing detriment to
highway safety and that the site is not capable of accommodating the proposed 10
number of cars for sale. It is noted that there are no highway parking restrictions in
the vicinity of the site.
Given that the proposal is considered contrary to Policy CT6 refusal of this
application is recommended. If Members are minded to refuse the application,
authority for enforcement action (if necessary) will also be sought.
Development Committee
45
19 December 2013
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
(1) The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required. The proposal if permitted would
therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on-street parking and
manoeuvring at a point on Laundry Loke where detriment to highway safety would
result contrary to Policy CT6 of the development plan.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to serve an enforcement notice requiring
the unauthorised uses to cease within 18 months of the effective date of the notice.
(8)
RAYNHAM - PF/13/1166 - Installation of 49.9MW solar farm with plant housing
and perimeter fence; Former Airfield, West Raynham for Good Energy West
Raynham Airfield Solar Park (030) Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 January 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None relevant to the determination of the application
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 49.9MW set across
approximately 91 hectares of land on part of the former RAF West Raynham site. A
49.9MW solar farm equates to approximately 199,600 individual solar panels to be
installed on site. The panels would be sited predominantly on the former flying field
airfield but also includes part of the former technical area along the western part of
the site.
The panels would be ground mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the
panels rising to approximately 2.7 metres above ground level with rows typically 6m
apart. The site would be enclosed by 2.4m high security/deer fencing (colour to be
agreed). Within the fenced site the applicant proposes to house 42 inverter units in
total along a central access corridor, which convert the direct current generated by
the solar panels into alternating current to feed into the electricity grid. Each inverter
unit would be coloured grey and would measure approximately 6.5m in length x 2.5m
wide with a maximum height of approximately 3m.
The applicant has indicated that no CCTV system is proposed, although this may
change dependent upon any security issues and would be the subject of a separate
permission.
The application is supported by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, Ecological
Survey Report, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment, Traffic and Construction Plan and
Statement of Community Involvement.
Development Committee
46
19 December 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH COUNCILS
Helhoughton Parish Council - No objection
Raynham Parish Council - No objection
ADJACENT PARISH COUNCIL
Weasenham St Peter Parish Council - Support
REPRESENTATIONS
Two representations in support of the proposal have been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions - The development site lies on the disused airfield of
former RAF Raynham covering 91 hectares. Originally opened in 1930 the airbase
still holds numerous historically important structures dating back to its initial founding
in the 1930s and 40s.
The development involves the erection of some 199,600 solar panels supported on a
metal sub-frame standing 2.65m high covering the majority of the former airfield and
subsidiary landscape. Importantly the panels require no additional foundations for
their installation. Much of the former runway and concrete hard surfacing has already
been removed over the last seven years which potentially rules out the sites reuse as
an operational airfield.
The condition of many of the former airbase structures on the site have fallen into
decline and are in need of maintenance and repair.
The key heritage assets which lie within the setting of the airfield include:On the Airfield 0km
Control Tower Grade II Listed
Remains of the Bloodhound MK II missile launching pads undesignated asset
Approx 500m North
Painswhin House Grade II Listed
Approx 1km North-East
Helhoughton Conservation Area
Church of All Saints Grade II* Listed Building
Former Buck Public House Grade II Listed
61 Buck Yard Grade II Listed
Approx. 1.2km East
Raynham Park (Grade II Registered Park and Garden)
Raynham Hall Grade I Listed
Church of All Saints Grade II*Listed
Approx 1.3km East
West Raynham Conservation Area
Development Committee
47
19 December 2013
Approx 1.6km South
Weasenham St Peter Conservation Area
Approx 1.7km South
Listed Church of St Peter Grade II* Listed
Whilst there are some concerns over how accurately the visual impact of the
development on the setting of those heritage assets outside of the immediate base
confines has been assessed (in respect of adherence with Paragraph 128 of the
National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF) there appears to be relatively little
„inter-visibility‟ between the site and the nearby heritage assets due to the topography
of the landscape and the base itself being visually detached. There are relatively few
instances where heritage assets outside of the former base perimeters will be
immediately read in conjunction with the solar array. The proposed development is
considered to have minimal impact on the setting of Helhoughton and West
Raynham Conservation Areas (you are advised to obtain the comments of the
adjoining Local Planning Authority in respect of the Weasenham Conservation Area).
Of immediate concern are those heritage assets which remain on the site, the
settings of which will certainly be directly impacted upon by the development. The
panels will come up to approximately 10m [actually 25m away] from the south-west
elevation of the Grade II Listed Control Tower and will change its context and
perception within the historic setting and landscape. That said, due to the relatively
low lying nature of the panels the Control Tower will remain as the dominant feature
of the former airfield site both in the immediate and wider setting. The built fabric of
the Control Tower will be unaffected.
The physical condition of the Control Tower is particularly poor. It is understood that
at pre-application stage it was initially agreed that further investigations would be
undertaken with a view to seeing if a financial contribution could be made towards
the buildings upkeep and to make good the „look-out‟ room at the very top of the
tower, as well as making the rest of the building water-tight. £25K was initially
suggested for the repair and maintenance of the Control Tower. Unfortunately this
offer seems to have subsequently been withdrawn. Given the impact on the setting of
all the heritage assets on the site, it is considered that this contribution to the upkeep
and maintenance of heritage assets affected by the development should be rerequested, presumably through a Section 106 Agreement.
In terms of any actual physical impact to the fabric of structures on the site, the
proposed development would involve the removal of the „Bloodhound‟ service
buildings and one of the radar tower bases. The plans also indicate that a new
access road will be constructed through the middle of the Bloodhound site. These
assets are currently statutorily „undesignated‟ and have no protection. Their
significance requires further analysis. However it is not likely that a heritage objection
to the proposal could be substantiated on the basis of their loss.
The development is for 30 years temporary permission and given there are no
permanent foundations involved with the panel‟s erection the development can be
considered to be „reversible‟.
Conclusion
Overall and on balance and taking into account that the development would
constitute „less than substantial harm‟ (see Paragraph 134 of the NPPF), with the
public benefit of the 49.9MW of electricity production to the national grid being so
considerable the development cannot, on this occasion be resisted on built heritage
Development Committee
48
19 December 2013
grounds. The public benefits outweigh the harm to the setting of the designated and
non-designated heritage assets on the base and in the vicinity. Whilst some further
clarification and extra visual material may be helpful the conclusion, even from the
current information is that development is acceptable.
The comments above relate entirely to the built heritage aspects of the proposed
development. My colleague, the Landscape Officer will respond in respect of broader
landscape issues and any need to mitigate any impacts on the landscape and its
setting and any ecological matters.
The Council should seek some funding for the Control Tower, as previously
specified, and it should be agreed prior to the approval of any development. Subject
to the above and the comments of the Landscape Officer, from a heritage
perspective there is no overriding objection to the application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
subject to conditions - The proposed development has the potential to be compliant
with the relevant Core Strategy policies (EN2 and EN9) and the NPPF, subject to
securing a comprehensive Landscape and Ecological Mitigation and Management
Plan, and monitoring as part of a condition of planning. This approach is not without
risk as the quality of the final mitigation proposals will be dependent on reaching a
mutually acceptable scheme that has already in effect been given planning
permission (albeit with conditions) and relies of the applicant/developer being
„onboard‟ with the principle of substantial mitigation. It should also be noted that the
applicant may not be the final developer or constructor of the solar farm therefore the
principle of mitigation may change with owner. In order to monitor the effectiveness
of the mitigation monitoring will be required. The financial burden of monitoring
should be borne by the developer and secured via a unilateral undertaking or S106
agreement. (See full copy of comments at Appendix 3)
Director of Environment, Transport and Development - No objection subject to
the imposition of conditions - Once the development is built there will be very little
traffic associated with it and there is no objection to the development in principle.
However during the construction period which will be about 12 months there will be a
very large amount of construction traffic. Management of that traffic will be crucial to
avoid adverse impacts on the local roads and this is considered in the submitted
Traffic and Construction Plan (TCP).
The applicant is proposing to use Low Street as the access route to the site from the
A1065. The site access is some 2km from the A1065 along a single track lane. This
route is considered unsuitable to use without significant improvement which may be
impracticable due to land issues. The junction with the A1065 would need to be
improved to allow two HGVs to pass if one is waiting to leave Low Street. Additionally
passing bays should be provided at least every three hundred metres to allow two
HGVs to pass each other.
The historic route to RAF west Raynham is from the A148 through East Rudham
along the C101 Station Road to the airbase. It is considered that this is route should
be used as the road is generally wider than Low Street. As part of the redevelopment
of the airbase an improvement scheme in the form of passing bays for this access
route has been agreed. It clearly makes sense for the two developments to both
contribute to the one improvement scheme rather than have two separate
improvement schemes.
Development Committee
49
19 December 2013
I note that the CTP states that part of the hardstandings and buildings on the old
airbase may be used for storage of materials etc further strengthening the argument
that the appropriate access route is via the airbase access route from the A148.
I note that the power cable route crosses several public highways and the developer
needs to make sure that he gets all the appropriate licenses and permission for
installing cables under the adopted highway.
As the Highway Authority has no objection to the development in principle I will deal
with construction traffic by condition.
Therefore the Highway Authority recommends no objection subject to conditions
being placed on any permission granted including agreement of a Construction
Traffic Management Plan and Access Route and provision of wheel cleaning
facilities.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions - The Flood Risk
Assessment: Good Energy Generation Ltd, August 2013, Reference 030, correctly
identifies that the site lies within Flood Zone 1
The FRA states the site is of relatively flat land of concrete, aprons and grass verges
and that there is currently no formal drainage and surface water is infiltrating into the
ground. The concrete runways are to be removed and a wild flower meadow
established which we support as this will improve surface water management.
Paragraph 3.5 of the FRA states surface water management will be achieved through
infiltration and the panels will be drilled directly into the ground with no hard-standing.
Runoff from the panels will drain onto the permeable ground below. Any associated
roads will also be permeable. The 42 associated cabins will be on hard standing
bases. The FRA indicates that the total proposed impermeable surfaces is
approximately 1033m²; 0.1% of the site. There will be overall improvement in the
permeability of the site following the removal of the concrete airstrip and aprons and
no increased surface water run-off rates and volumes.
The impermeable areas are small; therefore no formal drainage is likely to be
required. However, the FRA has not adequately considered the effect of exceedance
flows and erosion as no intrusive ground investigation or percolation tests have been
conducted.
Whilst paragraph 3.3 suggests a desktop assessment established that the soils are
likely to be free draining. Paragraph 3.10 identifies that Lowestoft Formation glacial
till is likely to be present as a superficial deposit and this can aid permeability. We
suggest this may not be the case as glacial till is a highly variable, poorly sorted
deposit, possibly containing clay and is geotechnically uncertain.
Studies have shown that solar panels do not have a significant effect on runoff
volumes.
However, if the ground cover under the panels is bare, owing to design decisions or
lack of maintenance, the peak discharge could increase. Also the kinetic energy of
the flow that drains from the panels has been found to be greater than that of the
rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels and in some cases
ground instability.
Where panels are aligned at variance to the site topography then intensification of
the runoff into small channels could occur. It is recommended that the grass beneath
Development Committee
50
19 December 2013
the panels be well maintained and that a buffer strip or swale be placed after the
most down gradient row of panels. During construction unnecessary soil disturbance
and trafficking on soils when they are wet should be avoided as this will cause
compaction.
You may wish to discuss this with your building control team and the applicant. Due
to the possible variable nature of the superficial deposits you may wish to request the
applicant establishes the erodibility and permeability of the soils through intrusive
investigation and testing.
Our surface water mapping shows an area susceptible to surface water flooding
around NGR TF8514025140. This may be due to a localised depression in the
ground. The site layout should consider this potential flood source to ensure localised
flooding does not occur.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions -The applicant/developer
is advised that in view of the history of the site it could potentially be "contaminated"
(as defined in Part IIA of the Environmental Act 1990). It is understood the site was
previously associated with a military airfield between the approximate dates 19401961 and has subsequently been used for agricultural purposes. In view of this
advisory notes are suggested relating to potential contamination and unexploded
ordnance.
English Heritage - Objection - The construction of a 91 hectare solar farm in open
countryside that forms the setting of the historic church of Weasenhall and
Helhoughton Conservation Area has the potential to harm their significance in terms
of the NPPF. To fully assess this impact we would like to see further visualisations
depicting the settlement and churches in the wider landscape and views from them
with the proposed panels at their most prominent. We would also recommend further
consideration is given to the significance of and impact upon the Bloodhound missile
site at the airfield. We would welcome the chance to advise further once this
information is available, but as the application stands would recommend it is not
granted permission as insufficient information is available in terms of paragraph 128
of the NPPF. (See full copy of comments at Appendix 3)
Natural England - No objection - Based upon the information provided, Natural
England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily
protected sites or landscapes.
It is noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in
support of this proposal. Natural England does not object to the proposed
development. On the basis of the information available to us, our advice is that the
proposed development would be unlikely to affect European Protected Species.
Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters - Comments awaited
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Objection - The
application includes a “Heritage Desk Based Assessment” by Cotswold Archaeology
(report
13404), that attempts to describe the impact of this development on the historic
environment. The assessment was sent to the Historic Environment Service for
comment prior to the submission of the planning application, and we made a number
of recommendations for amendments to the assessment. Unfortunately, the
amendments were not done, and the Heritage Desk-Based Assessment does not
adequately describe the significance of the site, nor the impact of this development
on that significance.
Development Committee
51
19 December 2013
In summary, the assessment describes the former RAF West Raynham as being an
“airfield of local significance”, and predominantly discusses its context as a former
Second World War airfield. However, West Raynham was retained beyond the
Second World War, and its significance lies largely in its Cold War heritage: West
Raynham was home to the Central Fighter Establishment, went on to become one of
the primary Bloodhound sites in the country (as well as the HQ of the Missile
Maintenance Flight and Missile Training Flight), was a Rapier training site and was a
Royal Observer Corps training centre. Each of these factors alone raises the
significance of the airfield above “local” significance, and its central role in the
Bloodhound system renders the airfield as a whole of national importance.
The assessment contains a number of inaccuracies. For example, it describes the
purchase and building of the base in 1936. However, West Raynham was part of
Expansion Period Scheme F, which was passed by parliament in 1937, and hence
the date of foundation is unlikely to precede this. Similarly, undesignated yet
significant features such as the ADT3 are not mentioned.
The assessment contains a reference to a conversation with the English Heritage
Designations Team, stating that English Heritage “do not have any records of any
Listed or Scheduled features, or features which will potentially be Listed or
Scheduled, at West Raynham Airfield, other than the Very Heavy Bomber Control
Tower”. While this statement is factually correct, it is misleading: the Cold War assets
at West Raynham have yet to be assessed by English Heritage. Indeed, none of the
Bloodhound stations have been assessed as yet for designation (this is contra. the
statement in 6.2 and 6.3 of the assessment. My source is a discussion with the Cold
War expert at English Heritage, Wayne Cocroft, in July 2013. As the HQ of the
Bloodhound force, and with much of the Bloodhound site surviving, the Bloodhound
site at West Raynham is of designatable quality, and should be considered as if it
were already designated, in accordance with paragraph 139 of the NPPF.
The assessment concludes that the solar farm will have a limited effect on the setting
of the listed control tower. It is difficult to see how this conclusion has been reached,
as the proposed development in its current form will divorce the control tower from
the flying field (see, for example) the attached photo of the control tower at the former
RAF Wymeswold). Given the pivotal role of control towers on airfields, and their role
as focal points for veterans, the relationship between the control tower and the flying
field is crucial to its significance. The assessment states that the development is of
low level, but the panels are 2.65m in height, and hence will be above head height at
ground level. In effect, therefore, the control tower will be surrounded on three sides
by solar panels, visible as panels from the Visual Control Room as panels, and from
ground level as scaffold structures.
We recommend therefore that the applicant withdraw the current proposal and
redesign the solar farm with the above points in mind. The Historic Environment
Service are happy to advise on the impact of proposed redesigns. If the application is
not withdrawn. We recommend that it be refused, in accordance with paragraphs 132
and 139 of the NPPF.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Comments awaited
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - Comments awaited
King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council - Comments awaited
Development Committee
52
19 December 2013
Breckland District Council - Comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy 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. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. National Policy
3. Local Policy
4. Principle of the development
5. Landscape
6. Impact on Biodiversity
7. Impact on Residential Amenity
8. Light Pollution
9. Highway Safety
10. Impact on Footpaths
11. Flood Risk
12. Contamination
13. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
14. Renewable Energy and Community Benefits
15. Cumulative Impact Issues
Development Committee
53
19 December 2013
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. A Screening Opinion was produced upon receipt of this application concluding
that the solar proposal is not considered to be EIA development and the potential
impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard planning
process. Following the receipt of consultation replies, Officers remain of the opinion
that the proposed solar farm is not EIA development.
National Policy Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy,
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of
the previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework,
the wording is more condensed.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The CS was
adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the Framework
and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed
satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
Development Committee
54
19 December 2013
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for
commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the
proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.
The Department for Communities and Local Government published 'Planning
Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy' in July 2013 and which
superseded the 'Companion Guide to PPS22'. In specific relation to solar farms
paragraph 27 of the Practice Guidance states:
'Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:
encouraging the effective use of previously developed land, and if a proposal
does involve greenfield land, that it allows for continued agricultural use
and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays;
that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions
can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in
Development Committee
55
19 December 2013
use and the land is restored to its previous use;
the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on neighbouring uses and
aircraft safety;
the extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the
daily movement of the sun;
the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing
great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a
manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on
views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives
not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful
consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such
assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar
farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the
significance of the asset;
the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example,
screening with native hedges; and
the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons
including, latitude and aspect.'
Other relevant National Planning Guidance includes National Policy Statements for
Energy (NPS) published in July 2011 including:
Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) ; and
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)
Whilst the NPS are designed to guide decision makers in relation to nationally
significant infrastructure, the guidance can also be considered relevant in the
assessment of smaller schemes below 50MW capacity onshore.
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS
2 would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on
amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
Development Committee
56
19 December 2013
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not
be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are
not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken account of
advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within
Policy EN 2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character)
which states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach
to site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type
of development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered
acceptable subject to compliance with Core Strategy policies and relevant material
considerations such as Government advice.
LANDSCAPE
The site lies within the Rolling Open Farmland (Raynham Area ROF4) landscape
character type as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
(SPD June 2009). The broad characteristics of this landscape type are an open
character with long uninterrupted views, gently rolling with large domed-plateau
giving a feeling of height. The Raynham Area has a strong field boundary presence,
low underlying settlement density and higher than normal woodland density. The
presence of RAF West Raynham is a distinctive part of the character area.
Development Committee
57
19 December 2013
To the south of the site lies landscape described within the Breckland District
Landscape Character Assessment (2007) as River Nar Tributary Farmland (B7) and
Whissonsett Plateau (E9). Breckland District Council have been consulted and
comments are awaited in respect of the effect of the proposal on Breckland District.
To the north and west of the site lies landscape described within the King's Lynn and
West Norfolk Borough Landscape Character Assessment (2007) as Rolling Open
Farmland (Character type: I) giving way to Plateau Farmland (Character type: J)
above 60m AOD. King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (KLWN) have been
consulted and comments are awaited in respect of the effect of the proposal on land
within KLWN.
A key consideration is the effect of a large area of solar panels and associated
infrastructure on the character and appearance of this character type and also the
wider landscape. The proposed development would occupy approximately 91
hectares (approximately 225 acres) of non-agricultural land.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the development would have a Moderate/Minor
Adverse Significance of Effect on the landscape character at the start of the
operational phase. The report concludes that the opportunities for tree planting and
hedgerow planting within the scheme would re-establish and reinforce the underlying
landscape character and would change the effect from adverse to beneficial as the
proposed planting establishes over time. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has commented that 'Whilst this assessment is generally concurred with,
the detail of the landscape mitigation and enhancement planting has yet to be
established therefore the degree of impact of the solar farm still has the potential to
change depending on the quality of the planting. It is possible that this impact could
be lessened and secured through a condition of planning. However, the
applicant/developer must be understanding that the Authority would seek to ensure a
thorough and comprehensive planting plan that not only reinforces existing features
but establishes new features where this is beneficial to the landscape character and
biodiversity'.
In respect of visual impacts, the LVIA establishes the visual impacts of the
development as ranging from Minor to Major/Moderate and suggests that the
proposed landscape planting will help mitigate the effects of the development and in
time reduce the most significant impacts to Minor/Moderate. Furthermore, the LVIA
suggests that the actual zone of visibility of the proposed development will be limited
to around 0.3km to the north, east and west, and around 1km to the south. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has some reservations about the
optimism of this assessment and considers that views of the solar panels will be
gained at further distances than those suggested. However the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager still considers that the features of the landscape will reduce
the visual impact and that a comprehensive landscaping scheme will assist in that
reduction further.
Guidance at paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
which is material to the determination of the application, advises that 'Where
significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local
planning authorities should seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of a
higher quality.' In respect of loss of agricultural land, the Agricultural Land
Classification (ALC) map produced by Natural England identifies the former RAF
West Raynham site within the 'non-agricultural land' designation. Therefore
technically no loss of agricultural land would occur. Notwithstanding the ALC
designation the site has been used more recently for sheep grazing and the applicant
Development Committee
58
19 December 2013
has indicated that sheep grazing could take place under panels to manage the
wildflowers and grassland and therefore could be seen as a form of farm
diversification.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation
planting, biodiversity enhancements and landscape management, it is considered
that the landscape impact of the proposal would be broadly compliant with relevant
Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
An Ecological Survey Report prepared by Michael Woods Associates, dated August
2013 has been submitted and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considers the report to have been carried out to accepted guidelines and procedures.
The Ecological Report identifies the presence of the River Wensum Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) between 2 and
2.5km from the site to the north and east. Due to the relatively inert nature of the
solar panels and the expected construction methodology it is not envisaged by the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager that the development as submitted in
the application will have any impact on the conservation interests of the River
Wensum.
The report identifies a number of bird species present on the site that could be
targeted for the ecological enhancement work, such as skylark, lapwing, yellow
wagtail and linnet (all of which are red listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern
(BOCC) list) together with meadow pipit and kestrel (amber listed). Also, a hare was
noted on the survey which is a Species of Principle Concern (listed in Section 41 of
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 as amended) and which
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers should also be
featured in any enhancement works.
The ecological report recommends that a Landscape and Ecological Management
Plan is prepared to ensure the protection of existing habitats and wildlife during
construction of the solar farm and sets out how the habitat within and surrounding the
operation site should be managed to maximise the biodiversity value of the site.
Some of the recommendations of the report suggest enhancements to land that are
outside of the footprint of the array, and unless the land is in the ownership or within
the lease arrangements of the applicants then the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers these enhancements will be unable to be
implemented and should be incorporated with the area of the red line.
Beneath the solar panels, the ground is proposed to be seeded with a grass and
wildflower mix (chalk grassland mix), to be prepared by a specialist contractor, and
subsequently grazed by sheep on a rotation that benefits the establishment of the
wildflower meadow. Whilst this is approved of in principle, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager considers the actual benefits of the scheme for wildlife will
be dependent on the mosaic of habitats present (and the variety of species of
wildflowers, trees and hedgerows planted and the target beneficiary species), the
accessibility of the habitats to invertebrates, herpetofauna, birds and mammals, and
how the habitats are to managed and maintained in the long term (as indicated in the
Ecological Report).
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that all of these details
could be wrapped up in a condition to secure a Landscape and Ecological Mitigation
and Management Plan (LEMP). However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Development Committee
59
19 December 2013
Manager has stated that the applicant should be made aware that, as some of the
landscape character and visual impacts of the proposals are to be offset by the
benefits to biodiversity, in order to secure the biodiversity improvements suggested
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager would expect to see a
comprehensive scheme of enhancements prepared in discussion with the Authority
as part of the LEMP, particularly as a 'sub-standard' LEMP would not be acceptable
for a development of this scale. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
has noted that the Ecological Report recommends a variety of enhancement
measures that do not just centre on a wildflower meadow; ecological enhancements
are more complex than this and the Authority would want to have an input into the
final LEMP. In addition, the long term ownership and management of the solar farm
is not secure or could change in the future, therefore the condition will require
monitoring to ensure that the enhancements proposed are undertaken, and reviewed
on a regular basis to ensure that the maintenance and management
recommendations are being carried out for the period of the solar farm operation.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers there to be a number
of areas where further clarification is required relating to existing hedgerows and
landscape features to be retained. In particular the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager objects to the proposed removal of the small copses located in
the arable fields to the north of the former runway (at the northern end of the site)
and specifically referred to in the Ecological Survey (Target Note 2). These copses
relate to past marl pits and are illustrated on the historical OS maps. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers these landscape features
provide an important link to the past use of the site prior to the establishment of the
airbase. They are the only two remaining marl pit linked landscape features of many
(approximately twenty) that were scattered throughout the former RAF base and that
are now non-existent. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers
it important that these features are retained in the long term as they are not only a
historical landscape feature but are also likely to contain a diverse ecological seed
bank. The impact assessment included in the Ecological Report is based on the
retention of all existing trees and hedgerows therefore if the copse were removed the
ecological assessment would have to be updated to reflect the potential impacts.
The copses, specifically the large copse in the northeast of the site is also beneficial
in reducing the visual impact of the development from the Helhoughton direction.
In summary the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the
proposed development has the potential to be compliant with the relevant Core
Strategy policies (EN2 and EN9) and the NPPF, subject to securing a comprehensive
Landscape and Ecological Mitigation and Management Plan, and monitoring as part
of a condition of planning. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
consider this approach is not without risk as the quality of the final mitigation
proposals will be dependent on reaching a mutually acceptable scheme that has
already in effect been given planning permission (albeit with conditions) and relies of
the applicant/developer being „on-board‟ with the principle of substantial mitigation. It
should also be noted that the applicant may not be the final developer or constructor
of the solar farm therefore the principle of mitigation may change with owner. In
order to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers that monitoring will be required. The financial burden
of monitoring should be borne by the developer and secured via a unilateral
undertaking or S106 agreement.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions and a Unilateral
Obligation or S106 Obligation to secure monitoring, the proposal would not have a
significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would comply
Development Committee
60
19 December 2013
with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9. However, further clarification is
awaited from the applicant regarding the potential retention of the Copses referred to
by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and the Committee will be
updated orally once this further clarification is received.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The Committee has had the opportunity to view the development site from various
locations and therefore will be able to appreciate the relationship between residential
properties and the application site.
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest residential properties are
located approximately 75-100m away to the west of the site within a residential
estate known as 'The Kiptons' (part of the former airbase). Between 'The Kiptons'
housing estate and the airfield is a belt of trees approximately 13m wide and 158m
long together with a recently planted orchard. Whilst it is likely that the solar panels
and related development may be partly visible by residents within 'The Kiptons', it is
considered that the solar farm would not result in any overbearing impacts or loss of
daylight and sunlight and would not therefore have a significantly adverse effect on
the amenity of the closest residents.
To the north west of the site is Paxfield Farm, approximately 200m away from the
proposed solar farm. On the eastern boundary of Paxtons Farm is a maturing belt of
trees/hedges which help screen the airfield from the farm. It is considered that the
solar farm would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenity of the
residents of Paxfield Farm.
Helhoughton village and West Raynham village are both approximately 1,100m east
and north-east of the site.
Other dwellings in the area include a group of 44 former 'Officer' dwellings located
some 600m west of the proposed solar farm, Kipton Ash Farm, approximately 600m
south together with a number of interspersed dwellings to the south west of the site.
There are approximately 7 residential properties along Low Street which forms the
proposed access between the application site and the A1065 between Fakenham
and Swaffham. These properties lie within the Parish of Weasenham St Peter (part of
Breckland Council). The village of Weasenham St Peter lies approximately 1,600m
south of the site.
Whilst the proposed solar farm may be visible from a small number of properties,
given the distance between residential properties and the application site and having
regard to the height of the panels, it is not considered that the proposal solar farm
would in any way result in overbearing impacts or loss of daylight or sunlight. The
panels are designed to absorb sunlight and therefore glare is not likely to occur from
the panels themselves.
In respect of any CCTV systems to be installed on site, (which are generally required
for insurance purposes), the applicant has not provided details of the type and
number of cameras to be installed on site. Having learned from the experience of
systems on other sites within the District, Officers consider that, because of the
general distances from properties (predominantly in excess of 100m), appropriately
positioned cameras would not be likely to pose a significant risk to the amenity of
residents. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring
approval of the full details of any CCTV system prior to its installation to ensure that
Development Committee
61
19 December 2013
the CCTV to be installed is as unobtrusive as possible both in terms of visibility in the
landscape and impact of amenity.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements
of Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be
imposed to ensure, amongst other things, that noise impacts remain acceptable and
to ensure that the CCTV system to be installed is first approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants
are not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded
to approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent
external lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development, although large in scale, would not
pose a highway safety risk during its operational life with very few vehicle movements
associated with maintenance and repair of the panels once constructed and few
vehicles movements associated with the maintenance of the grassland. It is only
during the construction phase when a significant number of vehicle movements will
be generated and it is delivery of the panels and associated equipment and materials
to site that would be likely to create the most number of vehicle movements.
The applicant proposes to access the site with construction traffic from the south via
the A1065 turning onto Low Street (single-track) and travelling approximately 2km
along Low Street towards an access into the site through the eastern perimeter fence
(currently being used by vehicles carrying aggregate from the site in connection with
removal of the runways and perimeter tracks from the airfield).
The Highway Authority has raised concerns regarding the suitability of the proposed
access route and has indicated that 'this route is considered unsuitable to use
without significant improvement which may be impracticable due to land issues. The
junction with the A1065 would need to be improved to allow two HGVs to pass if one
is waiting to leave Low Street. Additionally passing bays should be provided at least
every three hundred metres to allow two HGVs to pass each other'.
The Highway Authority has noted that 'The historic route to RAF west Raynham is
from the A148 through East Rudham along the C101 Station Road to the airbase. It
is considered that this route should be used as the road is generally wider than Low
Street. As part of the redevelopment of the airbase an improvement scheme in the
form of passing bays for this access route has been agreed. It clearly makes sense
for the two developments to both contribute to the one improvement scheme rather
than have two separate improvement schemes'.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised, the Highway Authority have indicated that as
they have no objection to the development in principle, they would recommend the
Development Committee
62
19 December 2013
imposition of conditions to resolve their concerns regarding the suitability of the
proposed access route. Suggested conditions would include those required to secure
a Traffic and Construction Plan, Parking Plan, and details of wheel cleaning facilities.
The applicant has been made aware of the concerns raised by the Highway Authority
and any further comments from the applicant will be reported verbally to the
Committee as to their commitment to an alternative route. The applicant has
indicated that the construction works would take place for approximately six months
and not one year as stated by the Highway Authority.
Access to the site is a fundamental issue and the onus will rest with the applicant in
securing a satisfactory access route sufficient to discharge the conditions suggested
by the Highway Authority. However, on the basis that the Highway Authority has no
objection in principle to the development and subject to the imposition of conditions it
is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and
CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, it is considered that
the proposed development would not have any adverse impacts.
FLOOD RISK
The application site area is above 1 hectare in size and therefore the applicant needs
to consider surface water flooding issues. The Environment Agency have raised no
objections to the proposal but have nonetheless provided some comment on
measures that may be required to deal with surface water discharge, in respect of
which the applicant has responded indicating that he would not expect the nature of
the development to increase significantly the surface water run-off particularly as
grass and wildflowers are proposed to be grown under the panels.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the grass/wildflower across the site,
the proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the primary risk relates to the previous military use of the
site. In particular there is the risk of unexploded ordnance and the applicant would
need to carry out necessary checks before work commences to ensure the risk to
construction workers is minimised.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and notes attached to the permission, the
proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
The applicant has submitted a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment produced by
Cotswold Archaeology which suggests generally that the development would not
have an adverse effect on the overall value of any of the historic assets on site and,
where any harm exists, the applicant considers this would be less than substantial
and that the public benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable energy generation
would outweigh that harm.
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also Policy
EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment) which states:
Development Committee
63
19 December 2013
‘Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development
that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest
will not be permitted’.
In coming to its view the Committee should also take into account the advice
contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which
specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment at paragraphs 126 – 141.
Paragraph 132 states:
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should
require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II
listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade
I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional’.
Paragraph 133 states:
‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary
to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership
is demonstrably not possible; and
the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into
use’.
Paragraph 134 states:
‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
The former RAF West Raynham site contains one designated heritage asset; the
Grade II listed Very Heavy Bomber Control Tower which sits within a prominent
position east of the group of four large 'C' type hangers and within the former flying
field. (See copy of full listing description at Appendix 3). In considering whether to
grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its
setting, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 requires that the local planning authority shall have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special
Development Committee
64
19 December 2013
architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard to these
requirements, whilst the former control tower lies outside of the solar farm application
site and the structure of the control tower would not be physically affected, the
proposed development would be approximately 25m away from the listed building
and it is therefore considered that the development would likely result in harm to the
setting of the control tower. This harm would arise through the placing of
approximately 200,000 solar panels across a large part of the former flying field and
through the inclusion of ancillary structures and fencing which it is considered would
change the fundamental character of the airfield from one of generally open
uninterrupted views across the airfield to one partly masked by temporary low-level
structures whilst the solar panels and related equipment are located on site.
Nonetheless, whilst some harm would to setting would result, the control tower would
remain as a dominant feature on the airfield and the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers the proposal would result in less than substantial
harm to the Control Tower, a view which is shared by Planning Officers.
On the eastern side of the airfield site, amongst other things, there were
approximately 36 concrete pads which were understood to be launch-pads for the
Bloodhound II surface to air guided missiles in use at the base from the early 1960s
up until being stood down in the UK in 1991. Whilst no part of the site other than the
Control Tower is a designated heritage asset, comments received from both English
Heritage and Norfolk Historic Environment Services have highlighted the importance
of the site in relation to Cold War heritage. English Heritage have indicated that the
Bloodhound launch pads, radar tower bases, associated hardstandings, roadways,
service buildings and munitions stores should be considered as non-designated
heritage assets in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and conservation
of their fabric and setting given due weight. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the views
expressed by English Heritage and Norfolk Historic Environment Services, much of
the eastern part of the site has been demolished/dismantled as part of the removal of
aggregate from the site (including removal of the runways and taxiways) and
therefore much of the historic significance of the site has been lost. However, from
recent visits to the site it was apparent that some of the Bloodhound missile bases
remain in situ.
The applicant has commented: 'I note the differing advice between NCC and English
Heritage as opposed to the NDDC Conservation Officer and our expert at Cotswolds
Archaeology. As you area aware over the last seven years the runway has been
mostly taken up and many buildings and launch pads for the Bloodhound rockets
have been demolished and removed. Within the red-line of our site, there are no
buildings or launch pads and thus we are unable to incorporate them into our
scheme. We have spoken to the landowner of the area of the base to the east and
south-east of our site (and outside our site) which contained the launch pads and
buildings relating to the Bloodhound programme. It is understood that most have
been demolished in the previous years but they say they will be retaining a set of 4
missiles launch pads and five original buildings left on the Bloodhound rocket site.
These are four missile shelters and a workshop building and these are currently
being used for the housing of cattle. Our access route into the site as shown by the
red line on our drawing will now just be a temporary construction access route rather
than a permanent access. A temporary surface will be rolled out over the existing
surface and therefore no damage will result to the existing surface which may include
part of the missile launch pad concrete and trackways leading to them'.
In considering the effect of the proposed development on the Bloodhound launch
pads, radar tower bases, associated hardstandings, roadways, service buildings and
munitions stores, whilst much of the significance of these non-designated assets
Development Committee
65
19 December 2013
have been lost as described above, the development itself is not located on the
eastern part of the site where the Bloodhound II pads are/were located, save for the
proposed vehicular access which would cut across the location where two of the
Bloodhound pads are understood to have been located. The applicant has indicated
that the access track would be a temporary dressing and would not envisage the
need to remove pads to facilitate their development. Therefore, whilst the proposal
may result in some harm to non-designated heritage assets, including setting, this
harm may have already occurred from previous activities on the site. Officers
consider the proposal would amount to less than substantial harm and it is a matter
of planning judgement as to whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the
identified harm.
Outside and beyond the site are a number of listed buildings including the Church of
St Peter at Weasenham and the Conservation Areas of Helhoughton, West Raynham
and Weasenham (See Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager comments for
list of heritage assets near the site).
English Heritage have raised concerns that the proposal may have an impact on the
setting of the Church of St Peter at Weasenham and the Conservation Areas of
Helhoughton, West Raynham and Weasenham and requested further information to
demonstrate that no harm to the significance of these assets would result. Officers
have considered carefully the concerns raised by English Heritage and have visited
all of the assets they identified as requiring further information. The Committee will
also have visited the areas of concern raised by English Heritage.
Whilst the proposed solar development may be partially visible from the front
entrance of the Church of St Peter at Weasenham, given the distance between the
listed building and the application site (circa 2km) and the backcloth of the existing
RAF West Raynham site, it is considered that the view from the Church of the solar
farm would not amount to substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II*
building. In addition it is considered that key views of the setting of the Church of St
Peter at Weasenham would not be harmed by the proposed solar farm.
In respect of the effect of the development on Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty
on planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is coupled with
the requirements of Core Strategy policy EN8, which requires development to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Notwithstanding the comments of English Heritage, Officers are the opinion that, the
solar farm would not result in substantial harm to the Conservation Areas of
Helhoughton, West Raynham or Weasenham, partly as a result of geographical
distance, topography and landscape screening which would diminish the impact of
the development on these areas.
Taking account of the above policy advice it is therefore a matter of planning
judgement for the Committee as to whether or not the proposed solar farm would
result in harm/adverse impacts to designated heritage assets. However,
notwithstanding the adverse impact threshold within CS Policy EN 8, the threshold
test in CS Policy EN 7 (which is supported by the Framework) is whether or not the
proposed solar farm would have significant adverse impacts on heritage assets or,
using the Framework terminology, whether the „proposed development will lead to
substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset’.
Development Committee
66
19 December 2013
The asset most likely to be adversely affected is the Grade II listed Very Heavy
Bomber Control Tower, albeit that this harm is considered to be less than substantial.
At pre-application stage the applicant indicated a willingness to contribute financially
towards repair of the Very Heavy Bomber Control Tower, which is currently in
separate ownership and is in a dilapidated condition and requires attention. The
applicant has provided the following comments in relation to the issues of making a
financial contribution towards repair of the listed building:
'Firstly, we have previously discussed in the summer with the owners Investec bank
about the Control Tower but we understood then that they had other plans for the
building and then they did not want our donation….we have again contacted the
owner of the Control Tower….to discuss a potential financial donation from us for the
waterproofing...of this building but they are unwilling to accept this……We would like
to make it clear though that we would be happy to make a donation of up to £25k
towards the weather proofing of this listed building (perhaps limited to the first three
[or five] years of our development and that we are not held liable for any
building/refurbish works as this will be the liability of its owners)…. As explained in
our SCI we will be making financial contributions towards the local community of
£25k per year as well as providing a £25k fund for a new play area at The Kiptons
and also a contribution towards West Raynham Village school with their wildlife
project. This community contribution/benefit will be outside the decision making of
the planning application of course. We could also pledge separately as a community
contribution/heritage contribution of up to £25k towards the upkeep/maintenance of
the neighbours building (Control Tower) due to its close proximity to our site. We
could then allow Investec or any future owner of the control tower to apply to us for a
donation to be a maximum of £25k (perhaps limited to the first 5 years of the solar
park ) via/ through our community contributions offer. Thus in the first year of the
solar park, we would allocate this one-off £25k for the tower and also a separate
£25k for the community.... a Total of £50k in year one. After the five years if the £25k
money is not used or only partly used for [the] tower then it will be absorbed into the
community fund for the next 25 years of the solar park'.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to limit the time that the solar farm would be
permitted on site and subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106
Obligation to secure funding of at least £25k towards the upkeep/maintenance of the
Grade II listed Control Tower (which is in separate ownership but whose setting will
be adversely affected by the proposed solar farm) it is considered that the proposal
would accord with the general aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY & COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
The applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this
element of Policy EN 7 in their document titled 'Statement of Community Involvement
and proposed community benefits'. This sets out that the total sum of money that the
community would receive will be £625,000 (before inflation). This would include a
commitment to a Community fund of £25,000 annually, a contribution towards
equipment for the West Raynhams Forest School project, a children‟s play area at
the Kiptons and a contribution towards a memorial for the West Raynham airfield site
commemorating those who served during the war. Whilst these contributions are
commendable and will undoubtedly be welcomed by the local community,
consideration has to be given as to whether the suggested Community fund complies
with Government advice at paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework
Development Committee
67
19 December 2013
(the NPPF) and CIL Regulation 122 tests in respect that section 106 planning
obligations “should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Directly related to the development; and
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”
The applicant has indicated within their submitted application that they agree that the
Community fund cannot legally be considered as a material consideration in the
determination of the application and therefore the Committee should not give any
weight to the Community Fund when determining the application.
In respect of renewable energy benefits, the applicants have indicated that the
proposed solar farm would generate approximately 48.153GWh (48,153,000KWh) of
electricity per annum based on a stated capacity of the solar farm of approximately
49.9MW. Putting the predicted electricity generation into context and using the latest
Department for Environment and Climate Change (DECC) figures (approximately
4715.5 kWh of electricity were used per consumer (household) annually in North
Norfolk). Using this figure the proposed solar farm would generate enough electricity
to power approximately 10,212 homes annually. This would make the proposal one
of (if not) the largest solar farms in the country and would make significant
contribution towards meeting national renewable energy targets, to which significant
weight can be attached.
It is considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate
mitigation, the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policy EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND
PROJECTS IN THE AREA
At the time of writing this report it is understood that there are no other plans or
projects in the area which the Committee would need to be aware of in terms of
assessing cumulative impacts in relation to the proposed solar farm at West
Raynham. Comments are still awaited from Breckland District Council and King's
Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council in relation to the proposed development and
the Committee will be updated orally if any cumulative impact issues were to arise.
Based on the available evidence there is no reason to suggest that the Committee is
unable to determine this solar farm application.
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 49.9MW solar farm would, amongst other things, have
some adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, some adverse impacts
on the setting of the Grade II listed Very heavy Bomber Control Tower, and some
adverse highway impacts during the construction phase, it is considered that these
impacts are or can be made acceptable through the imposition of appropriate
conditions. It is considered that the proposal would not have a significant adverse
impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
and the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Obligation to secure funding
for the repair of the adjacent grade II listed building and to secure monitoring of the
effectiveness of required landscape and biodiversity mitigation, the proposal would
comply with relevant Development Plan policies.
In addition, the public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy
generation is a material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded
Development Committee
68
19 December 2013
in accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106
Obligation to secure at least £25k for the repair of the adjacent grade II listed
Control Tower and to secure monitoring of the effectiveness of required
landscape and biodiversity mitigation and subject to the imposition of specific
conditions listed below:
30 Year permission (including removal of equipment after this time);
Landscape and Biodiversity Enhancements (including a Landscape and
Ecological Management Plan) ;
Agreement of Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route;
No loudspeakers or CCTV systems to be installed unless permission granted;
No lighting to be installed unless permission granted
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(9)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0148 PF - Erection of first and second floor rear extensions to provide selfcontained unit of holiday accommodation
Refused 18/04/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation and installation of roof light.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of inadequate access, lack of amenity space and the lack of
parking.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
Development Committee
69
19 December 2013
Pedestrian access
Not adjacent to car park
Existing parking problems
Will result in noise, disturbance and detriment of neighbouring properties
Does not afford adequate privacy
Human Rights
Un-neighbourly
No vehicular access
No disabled access
Security issues with rear access
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies within the designated Sheringham Conservation Area. The building forms the
end property to the original terrace fronting onto Morris Street. Whilst the building is
not of special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing
character of the area.
With regard to the proposal, the buildings position being adjacent to the public car
park means the rear elevation is visible from the public domain. The previous
application submitted (PF/13/0148) was for a two-storey extension which carried
much more visual impact and was much bulkier in its massing the current proposal
being considered.
This revised scheme being single-storey is subservient and in terms of design is
much more in-keeping in terms of form and proportions. The use of render and tiles
raise no heritage cause for concern.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage asset,
Conservation, Design and Landscape raise no objection to the application.
County Highways - Whilst this development for holiday accommodation does not
provide any parking provision, given the sites proximity to public car parks and the
availability of suitable on street parking places, I find that I am unable to raise any
sustainable objection. Therefore, I am able to comment that in relation to highways
issues only that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
Building Control - It is not considered that compliance with Building Regulation B5
has been achieved as paragraph 11.2 requires access to "all points within the
dwelling" to be within 45m of the vehicle access and not just to the building face. An
alternative would be to provide the dwelling with a domestic sprinkler system.
Additionally, the windows in the rear wall of the existing dwelling, which overlook the
proposed unit, will be "unprotected areas" creating a fire risk between the buildings
and may need to be blocked up or protected in some way.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
70
19 December 2013
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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. Impact on neighbouring properties
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for a site visit to be
carried out.
This application follows the refusal of application reference 13/0148 which was for
first and second floor rear extensions to provide for a unit of holiday accommodation.
That application was not considered acceptable by Officers and was refused under
delegated authority for the following reasons:
"The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposal constitutes an
unacceptable form of development. It is considered that the proposed alterations
would result in a building out of proportion with the existing terrace form, and that the
overall scale and massing of the proposal is unsympathetic to its surroundings and
would result in a development that would be overbearing, overshadow and would
exacerbate overlooking and loss of privacy to the significant detriment of the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the immediate surrounding dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
policies."
However, since that refusal the current application has been submitted for
consideration (13/0851).The site is located within the Residential Policy Area and
Conservation Area. The High Street and designated Town Centre are located just to
the east of the site. There is on street parking along Morris Street as well as a public
car park. Given the location of the proposed development the principle is considered
to be acceptable, subject to appropriate scale, design and materials, relationship to
neighbouring dwellings and car parking.
The current application has quite significantly reduced the scale of the proposed
extension from the previous application to single storey only. The extension will
project approximately 0.5m further to the rear with the addition of a rear bay of
Development Committee
71
19 December 2013
approximately 1.3m x 3m. The width at ground floor has been increased for only part
of its length from 3.5m to 4.5m. A pitched roof will be added to the rear with highest
point to the ridge being some 4.3m, the gable ends would face south west and north
east. There is no change to the scale or form of the first floor from that which is
already there. In the existing south west first floor elevation instead of a window to a
bedroom and wc there will only be a single window to a bedroom. At ground floor
there are currently windows to a kitchen, utility/porch and back door. Under this
proposal the windows in this ground floor elevation will be to a bedroom and
bathroom and a door to the entrance hall. There is also a high level circular window
in the gable end of the extension. There will also be a roof light in this elevation to the
roof space in the loft. It is considered that the alterations to the fenestration are
minimal and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, the scale of the
single storey extension is also acceptable in this location and would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring dwellings.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection to the application. Whilst the building is not considered to be of
special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing character of
the area. However, the proposal under this application is subservient in terms of its
design and more in keeping with the form and proportion with the existing dwelling. It
is not therefore considered that the proposal would have significant harm on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The holiday accommodation proposed would be self-contained, and have its own
pedestrian access to the rear of the site. The existing dwelling of 8 Morris Street
would maintain its pedestrian access onto Morris Street. It should be noted that any
one of the dwellings along this road could be used for holiday accommodation and
this would not actually require planning permission. It is not therefore considered that
this proposal would cause any more noise or disturbance to residents than if it was a
dwelling.
With regard to car parking the existing dwelling has no on site car parking provision,
which is the same for the majority of dwellings along Morris Street. Parking for
dwellings in this location is on the road. Whilst one unit of holiday accommodation
would be created, if this application were to be approved, and would normally require
the provision of two car parking spaces the site is located within the Conservation
Area and in close proximity to the Town Centre where there is on street parking and
a public car park. The site is located within a Conservation Area where a reduced
provision may be appropriate. In this case the Highway Authority have been
consulted and have advised that whilst the proposal does not provide any parking
provision given the sites proximity to public car parks and the availability of on street
parking they are not able to raise an objection in this case. In view of this it is not
considered that there is sufficient justification to warrant a refusal on lack of parking
grounds.
Following a request for clarification on access to the site by the emergency services
and construction traffic a response has been received by the agent. Whilst the
District Council has no control over access to the site by construction traffic the agent
has confirmed that access by construction traffic would be gained via the alleyway to
the rear of the site which is referred to by the agent as a public right of way, and also
through the existing building itself at ground floor level from Morris Street. The
alleyway is not actually defined as a public right of way, but provides pedestrian
access to the rear of the dwellings along this side of Morris Street.
Development Committee
72
19 December 2013
With regard to access to the application site by emergency services the agent has
advised that this would again be via the alleyway to the rear of the site and that the
travel distances from the location of the pump appliance at the end of West
Cliff/Barchams Yard to the accommodation complies with the requirements of
Building Regulations B5 Volume 1. 11.2, which states that there should be "35
metres travel distance to the rear site boundary and 10 metres to the building face",
notwithstanding the provision of a self-contained fire alarm system and a full solid
fire/party wall between the units. Building Control have been consulted on this matter
and the Committee will note the comments of the Building Control Manager that
whilst it does not comply with Building Regulation B5 a sprinkler system can be
installed which would address this matter and be dealt with through a Building
Regulations application along with rear fire escape from the existing dwelling.
Whilst the objections of local residents and the Town Council have been taken into
consideration the Committee will note that the scale and design of the proposal is
considered acceptable and that no objections have been received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Highways Officer. It is not
therefore considered that a refusal can be justified in this instance. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policies for the reasons explained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including agreeing roof tiles prior to use, removal of permitted
development rights for alterations and extensions including insertion of further
windows and rooflights, holiday occupancy restriction, and a condition to
ensure that the existing dwelling which is currently sub-divided into two
dwellings reverts back to a single dwelling.
(10)
WEYBOURNE - PF/13/1067 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and attached
double garage to 25 Pine Walk; 25 Pine Walk for Mr T McCarthy
Minor Development
- Target Date: 08 November 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20041396 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling and double garage to serve
number 25
Withdrawn 07/09/2004
PLA/20041632 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling and double garage
Refused 24/12/2004 D 19/09/2005
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish the existing attached garage and divide the garden of number 25
Pine Walk to erect a single storey dwelling. The proposal also seeks the erection of a
replacement attached double garage to number 25.
Amended plan received to show the trees and hedges on the site.
Development Committee
73
19 December 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Young on the planning ground of overdevelopment
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects - The Parish Council feels that this site is not large enough for development
and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene.
REPRESENTATIONS
9 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
the irregular shaped plot will result in the building being sited far further forward
than other properties in Pine Walk
It will be in front of the building line
section 15 states that there are no hedges on the site - this is incorrect, there are
hedges to two sides of the site. There is a large tree opposite No.25 where the
turning area for the garage is to be built, this will cause complications for the
tree's survival
in the final sentence of section 1.4 of the supporting statement the applicant
states that they would accept a suitably worded planning condition to secure
hedge screening into the future. How would the Council ensure this continued
once the property was sold and in new ownership? Can the hedges have a
protection order put on them?
as the proposed design would be lower than in previous application by using the
natural slope of the site surface water drainage may affect properties to the
northern side of the site.
there have been problems with the main sewers in the past and an additional
property in Pine Walk may cause these to reoccur
the electricity sub-station in Pine Walk appears to have problems in supplying the
existing properties at times of high demand, is it intended to upgrade this as part
of the proposed development?
is there any likelihood that during construction there will be no damage to
neighbouring properties such as subsidence or instability?
can a buyer make changes to an approved plan such as additional windows
which would overlook neighbouring properties? How would the Council ensure
any such changes could not take place?
the proposal will be disruptive for many elderly residents in terms of site traffic
and parking, noise of excavation and building. Residents require unfettered
access at all times
proposal is unnecessary, unwanted, does not benefit the village or its residents
does not overcome the reasons for the previous refusal in that the site is too
small and irregularly shaped to accommodate the proposed dwelling
overdevelopment
concern for loss of privacy as building would be within 2m of my boundary
if hedges are removed they will see straight into my property
the new build will cause problems with the sewers if it goes ahead we will seek
legal advice so in the event of any problems the Council will be responsible for
any corrections
please do not let us have possibly another holiday home for wealthy incomer's as
Weybourne is already top heavy in that respect
all existing plots have both a bungalow and a garage, this proposal does not have
a garage as there is insufficient space
inconsistencies in the proposal; at one point it states highway access is changing
and at another it says it is not
only one parking space shown for the new dwelling but there should be two
Development Committee
74
19 December 2013
secure cycle spaces for the new property are not shown
the siting of fuel tanks for the new and proposed properties are not shown
owner is not on site regularly to review conditions
overlooking
will substantially change the views to the windmill and countryside and alter the
existing skyline
the present occupant on the site works at home and one can only imagine the
problems this will cause them
the owner lives in Canada and neither him nor his agents have contacted the
residents of Pine Walk to discuss the proposals
the hedge on the north east side of the site consists of conifers which are dying
from the base, once dead there will no longer be a 3m high hedge as proposed
the area has not changed since 2004 when a previous application was turned
down
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection; request conditions
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): Requested submission of
a Landscaping plan. Condition required for arboricultural method statement to be
submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development to ensure
neighbouring trees are not affected.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
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).
Development Committee
75
19 December 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on the street scene
4. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area where proposals of this type are
accepted in principle subject to compliance with the relevant Core Strategy policies.
The proposal seeks to sub-divide the garden of No.25 to provide a plot for a single
storey 3 bedroom dwelling. The sub-division would utilise additional space created by
the demolition of the existing attached single garage on the eastern elevation of
No.25. An attached double garage is proposed to the western elevation of the
existing dwelling which would be served by a new driveway running across the
frontage of that dwelling.
This proposal follows the refusal of an application for a single storey dwelling on this
site in 2004 (Ref: 20041632). That refusal was the subject of an appeal which was
dismissed. The Inspector considered that the appeal proposal would appear as a
cramped form of development of particular prominence in the street scene due to the
limited size and sloping nature of the site, concluding that the open nature of Pine
Walk and its surroundings would be unacceptably eroded harming the character and
appearance of the area. However, the Inspector also considered that the appeal
proposal would not unacceptably diminish the degree of privacy already enjoyed by
the neighbouring properties nor would it have introduced an overbearing form of
development into the outlook of neighbouring residents.
The Highway Authority has no objection.
In terms of the site, notwithstanding the objections raised, it is considered that the
proposal is in keeping with the scale of its surroundings. It is single storey and has
been reduced in height and bulk from the earlier proposal. The roof has been hipped
and lowered by approx. 1m. This has been achieved by lowering the floor level and
eaves. The proposed dwelling would be subordinate in height to the existing dwelling.
This reduction in height is considered to have addressed the previous reasons for
refusal such that the dwelling is not considered prominent in the street scene having
been suitably designed for the context within which it sits.
The proposal would introduce a blank wall approx 4.1m from a secondary (kitchen)
window of the existing dwelling on the site. Whilst this would be a shortfall in the
recommended distances of approx 4.4m it is considered that there would be no loss
of privacy/overlooking and given that the proposal would sit on lower ground and
have a hipped roof it is further considered that there would be no significant loss of
light. The application also proposes the erection of a 1.8m high boundary fence which
would sit between the new dwelling and the eastern elevation of the existing dwelling
further reducing any overlooking of the proposed dwelling. It is therefore considered
that the shortfall in recommended distances between dwellings would not in this
instance justify a refusal of the proposal.
It is also considered that the proposal would not introduce any significant detrimental
impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
An amended plan has been submitted which includes the trees/hedges on the site, it
is recommended that any approval should impose a condition for the retention of the
boundary hedges to the southern and north eastern boundaries. A condition is also
Development Committee
76
19 December 2013
recommended to secure the submission and approval of an arboricultural method
statement prior to commencement of development to ensure neighbouring trees are
not affected. In relation to drainage matters; it is proposed to connect to the mains
sewer/existing drainage system and there are no constraints to the site that suggest
this would not be possible.
Given the above the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
development plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 13.3239.066/03/Rev.B and 13.3239.066/01/Rev.A) received by the
Local Planning Authority on 29 October 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the dwelling hereby permitted shall take place unless planning
permission has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be widened to a minimum width of 4.5 metres in accordance with the
Norfolk County Council residential access construction specification for the first
2 metres as measured back from the near channel edge of the adjacent
carriageway. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the
site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge
from or onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any
Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates, bollard, chain or
other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access
unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
77
19 December 2013
6
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, levelled, surfaced and
drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available
for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
The existing hedgerow on the southern and north eastern boundaries of the
site shall be maintained at a height not less than 1.6 m above existing ground
level. Should the hedge die or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,
become seriously damaged or defective, another hedge, or other means of
enclosure shall be planted or constructed in its place in accordance with
details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of neighbouring residential amenities, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
The dwelling hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design
that replaces that scheme). The dwelling shall not be occupied until a Final
Code Certificate has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning
Authority certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an
alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
Before the development is started an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved
Arboricultural Method Statement.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(11)
WITTON - PO/13/1113 - Demolition of industrial building and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; Workshop at Ash Tree Farm, Well Street for
Mrs C Leggett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 15 November 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Outline Planning Permission
Development Committee
78
19 December 2013
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19891963 PO - Retirement bungalow & garage
Approved 14/06/1992
PLA/19981770
PF - Continuation of use for preparation and repair of motor
vehicles
Temporary Approval 11/05/1999 A 28/10/1999
PLA/19990055
EF - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of premises for
preparation of motor sport vehicles, repair of accident damaged vehicles and
occasional boat building
Withdrawn 31/12/2000
PLA/20001199 PF - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission reference
981770 - noise insulation scheme
Approved 01/11/2000 A 04/10/2001
PLA/20040763
EF - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of property as
residential dwelling without complying with agricultural occupancy restriction
Approved 07/10/2004
PO/11/0446 PO - Erection of 2 one and a half storey dwellings
Withdrawn by Applicant 21/06/2011
PO/11/0863 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused 16/09/2011 D 09/10/2012
PF/13/0677 PF - Change of use from B2 (vehicle repairs) to canine hydrotherapy
centre and boarding kennels
Withdrawn by Applicant 14/08/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is an outline application to replace a commercial building with a B2 commercial use
with two detached dwellings. No matters are included for determination.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Walker having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Due to the contentious nature of the site so the proposed houses offer a better use
than the workshop, and a planning gain for the area.
Should be supported under paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
PARISH COUNCIL
Witton Parish Council - Supports
Bacton Parish Council - Objects to the application because the location is quite
rightly in an area not deemed suitable for new residential development. The building
was originally an agricultural building and Ash Tree Farm originally an agricultural
exception dwelling. The general feeling amongst the neighbours appears to be that
planning permission for industrial use of the building should never have been granted
in the first place. The undesirability of future use is now being cited in favour of
change to residential.
Development Committee
79
19 December 2013
If the LPA is mindful to grant permission for residential use then it should be for no
more than one dwelling.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of support have been received from local residents on grounds;
1. There is a lack of affordable housing with the local area and this will assist with
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
that.
There have been a number of complaints about the industrial building so
replacing it with housing is the right thing to do.
The local economy would benefit from families moving into the houses.
A better use of the land.
The industrial use of this site has caused controversy and division in the village.
Two one and a half storey dwellings are attractive and appropriate within the
context of their setting and more in keeping with the area though might object if
the plans were changed.
The application would remove the possibility of another commercial venture
though concerned it would set a precedent for the land behind.
Demolition of the industrial unit would remove an unsightly structure at the end of
a garden.
Should be conditioned so no demolition takes place between April and October
when cottages are let for the summer season.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - request further details re klargester. The site has been
associated with light industrial activities, in view of this there may be a potential for
contamination to exist. So request condition E31.
National Grid - no objection
British Pipeline agency - no objection.
Highways - Given the previous generating potential of this site it would be difficult to
argue that any highway safety issues would arise from this proposal, therefore, no
objection. Request condition on the provision of visibility splays and parking and
turning provision.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - No objection to the application
subject to the imposition of conditions to protect trees in the adjacent gardens.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection providing any planning permission is
conditioned for a programme of archeological investigation prior to the
commencement of development.
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 and an individual who has supported
the application. However, having considered the likely impact and the general
interest of the public, refusal of the application for the reasons recommended is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
80
19 December 2013
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 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 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
Residential development within the Countryside policy area and other material
considerations.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies in the Countryside policy area within a sporadic group of
dwellings in the hamlet known as Pollard Street located about 1 km west from the
selected settlement of Bacton, though the site is within the parish to Witton. It is
situated within the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy in an area where Policies SS2, EN 2 and EN
3 are applicable. Policy SS2 states that in areas designated as Countryside
development will be limited to that which requires a rural location and includes
agriculture, forest and the re-use and adaptation of buildings for appropriate
purposes.
Whilst Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character).
The site is also in the Undeveloped Coast Policy Area EN3, which is only permissive
of development that requires a coastal location and is not detrimental to the open
coastal character. Any residential development has to be considered important to
the wellbeing of the coastal community.
Ash Tree Farm is located to the eastern side of Rectory Lane and consists of the
industrial unit, which is visible from the lane and also when approaching Bacton from
the west along the North Walsham Road. Whilst the dwelling associated with the
holding consists of a modern “T” shaped bungalow which is situated immediately to
the south of the industrial unit with a further 2.3 hectares of fields to the east.
Abutting the northern wall of the industrial unit are the rear gardens of a pair of
attractive semi-detached cottages which are some 30 metres from the building.
Development Committee
81
19 December 2013
Whilst further to the south along Rectory Lane is the Old Rectory which is set in
extensive grounds.
In 1999 retrospective planning permission was granted for a general industrial
building (B2) use of the building in what was previously an agricultural building.
However some of the conditions imposed at that time in the interest of protecting
residential amenity were overturned/varied as a result of public inquires in October
1999 and September 2001. As a result of the 2001 appeal it was agreed that the
building could be used for the preparation and repair of motor vehicles. However in
making this decision the Inspector commented that it was unusual in his experience
to have an industrial unit in the countryside so close to gardens and houses and in
the 1999 decision, attention was drawn to the possibly of future B2 general industrial
uses of the site and their impact on the residential amenity of the area.
The applicant has also indicated that; they have attempted to market the site since
2010 either in its entirety or as the bungalow and industrial unit sold separately.
Letters from two estate agents indicate that whilst there has been a high level of
interest and a number of viewings only one offer has been forthcoming. According to
the agent the prospective purchaser who made the offer was unwilling to progress
the sale unless the building was demolished. For the industrial unit the reasons cited
are because the unit and/or its access is not suitable for today's market, being either
too small for a serious growing business or “too large for a garage” in association
with a residential bungalow. They consider that the sale of the bungalow has so far
proven impossible because of concerns relating to the future use of the industrial
unit. Furthermore one agent stated that the “industrial unit has a detrimental impact
on the amenity and value of nearby houses and has made the sale of the bungalow
alone impossible”, even though it has been offered at a realist price in the current
market. The letters included valuations for the bungalow and for the industrial unit
as to whether those prices genuinely reflect the current market values is debatable
as no independent analysis of those property valuations has been undertaken
The applicant's submission concludes that whilst permission would not normally be
granted for residential development in this location the removal of this inappropriate
and unsightly building would in their view, constitute an enhancement of the visual
and residential amenity of the area and is a material consideration. This is a
brownfield site and as previously development land would not be an isolated
development in the Countryside. They state that this view is supported by
neighbours who support the dismantling of the unsightly building and considers that
its removal would alleviate their concerns in respect of the possible future uses of the
premises. In support of their submission they also cite paragraphs 17, 51, 55, 111,
123 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraphs 17 raises the issue of the reuse of brownfield land with paragraph 111
dealing with the strategic issue of setting targets for the redevelopment of brownfield
land. Its redevelopment has to be considered with the other strategic policies of the
Core Strategy. While this may be classed as brownfield its redevelopment with
market housing is not the most sustainable use of the site as set out in Policy SS2.
Paragraph 51 is in essence the reuse of empty housing and buildings where there is
a proven need for housing. The existing building is unsuitable for a change of use
and adaptation to housing. Moreover, the need within the area is for affordable
housing and this proposal does not meet the accepted definitions of affordable
housing nor does the applicant attempt to justify it as such. As regards paragraph 55
which deals with the justification for development in the Countryside the Core
Strategy Policies SS 2, EC 2 and HO 9, which are generally in line with the National
Development Committee
82
19 December 2013
Planning Policy Framework, set the criteria for the reuse of buildings and this
proposal does not meet those criteria.
Paragraph 123 is about avoiding noise from development; however, noise can
generally be most successfully mitigated by the occupier of the unit. The applicant
acknowledges there have been justifiable complaints about noise but that is not
justification or an overriding reason for redevelopment.
.
The local Member in referring the application to Committee has also quoted
Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework as relevant to this
application. Paragraph 187 states;
Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and
decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
The Council has an up to date, sustainably led, Core Strategy that is broadly in line
with the National Planning Policy Framework. With the adopted planning policy
being a clearly significant material consideration the ability to work proactively with a
proposal that is contrary to such a significant policy is very limited. Moreover, the
statement requires the developments should improve conditions for the area. The
benefit to the applicants is personal and clear. Whilst, there may be some benefits to
local residents if the commercial use were to cease, as well as possible
improvements to the appearance of the area, this is not considered to outweigh the
substantial policy objection.
Although the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration it
clarifies the primary status of the Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for
decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan
should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused
unless other material considerations indicate otherwise'. Furthermore, the National
Planning Policy Framework on the subject of rural housing emphasises the point that
new housing should be sustainable and in paragraph 55 states ' Local planning
authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are
special circumstances'.
It should be noted a previous application for a single dwelling was refused in
September 2011. The same arguments were put forward on that application and the
Committee considered there were no other material considerations which would
outweigh the conflict with adopted policies.
That remains the case here.
Furthermore on appeal the Inspector agreed that the proposal was contrary to Core
Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework concluding
'I acknowledge also that there is some local support for the proposal. Nevertheless,
none of the factors in favour of the proposal outweigh that the dwelling would be
contrary to the thrust of both local and national planning policy which seeks to restrict
new isolated homes in the countryside.'.
The full Inspector's appeal decision is attached as Appendix 4.
Essentially this application is no different to that which has already been considered
and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate except that there are two rather than one
dwelling proposed.
Whilst the removal of the industrial unit is considered acceptable its replacement with
two market dwellings in this Countryside location would clearly be contrary to
Development Committee
83
19 December 2013
Development Plan policies SS1 and SS2. There is also no requirement for a coastal
location and the development is not for the wellbeing of the coastal community. The
proposal is also therefore contrary to policy EN3. Furthermore whilst evidence would
suggest that the sale of the bungalow has proven impossible with the industrial unit is
situ clearly its removal would alleviate this situation enhancing the bungalow's value
and saleability. In addition the area currently occupied by the industrial unit could,
subject to the granting of planning permission form part of the existing dwelling's
curtilage, further increasing its market value. As such, whilst is accepted that there is
a cost implication in the removal of the industrial unit; this would be offset to a certain
extent by the increased value and marketability of the bungalow. Therefore whilst the
enhancement of the visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area is a
material consideration it is not considered that the applicant has provided sufficient
justification to warrant a departure from Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would result in the
erection of two new dwellings in the Countryside and Undeveloped Coast Policy
Areas which would be contrary to Development Plan policies including SS 1 and SS
2 and there are no material considerations to justify a departure from Development
Plan policy in this case or compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning
Policy Framework.
(12) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/1171 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extensions; The Barn, The Green for Mr & Mrs S Clark
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/1183 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5 Old
School Cottages, Thwaite Road for Mr & Mrs Wilson
(Householder application)
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/13/1240 - Erection of single-storey front and side
extensions; Chestnut Hollow, Rectory Road for Mr G Limehouse
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/1132 - Erection of replacement carport/hobbies workshop;
Orchard House, Rectory Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs D Beecroft
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - NMA1/13/0650 - Non material amendment request to permit
omission of one and re-positioning of approved rooflight window of north east
elevation, increase size of gable window in south east elevation and insertion of
roof window to north west elevation of detached garden room; 122 Fakenham
Road, Houghton St. Giles for Mrs T Ross
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BARSHAM - LA/13/1262 - Installation of replacement roof, chimney and fireplace
to garden room; Red House, Green Way, North Barsham for Mr F & Lady
Chapman
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
84
19 December 2013
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/1189 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension
and front dormer window to provide habitable accommodation in roof space;
Lynton Lodge, Britons Lane for Mr and Mrs A Toynton
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1186 - Demolition of garage and erection of two-storey
dwelling; Anvil Court, New Road for Mr & Mrs P Leane
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0875 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation,
re-facing of external walls and erection of first floor extension; Providence
House, 104 High Street for Dr D Sherwood
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1138 - Erection of 1.2m high chain link fence with attached
1.5m high willow screening; Moonrakers, Back Lane for Mrs S Rogerson
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/13/1269 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6 Cromer Road
for Mr P Suffolk
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/13/1121 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached cart shed
style garage; Land at Fakenham Road for Morrissey Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/0606 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
erection of detached building to provide two units of bed and breakfast
accommodation; 57 Reepham Road for Mr M Holden
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - NMA1/13/0850 - Non material amendment request to permit
omission of first floor side elevation window and insertion of side facing
rooflight; Galloway Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs Slater
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - PF/13/1109 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden and
erection of stables; Land at The Old Rectory, Banningham for Mrs Woolliams
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1185 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Suffield Park
Convenience Stores, 50 Mill Road for Suffield Park Convenience Stores
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1225 - Removal of parapet and installation of 1.1m high
handrail; Telephone Exchange, Louden Road for British Telecomunications Plc.
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1292 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 18 Burnt Hills
for Mr and Mrs I Turner
(Householder application)
Development Committee
85
19 December 2013
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/1243 - Erection of first floor side extension; Fairview, The
Street for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1241 - Erection of car port; 3 Peckover Road for Mr S
Dawson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1164 - Erection of rear extension and installation of roof
lights, construction of balcony and pitched roof to rear wing and erection of
front boundary wall and gates; The Star P H, 44 Oak Street for GCMD Ltd.
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - LA/13/1165 - Internal and external alterations including demolition
of store and erection of extension and construction of pitched roof to rear wing;
The Star P H, 44 Oak Street for GCMD Ltd.
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1285 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 17
Sculthorpe Road for Mr & Mrs P Hughes
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1303 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 50 Whitelands
for Mr & Mrs D Kaye
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1208 - Change of use from B8 (storage and distribution) to
B1 (business)/B2 (general industrial) and erection of security fence and gates;
11 George Edwards Road for A & B Management Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1181 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D1
(chiropodist/podiatrist clinic); Unit 1 at, Stratton Place, Bridge Street for Mrs K
Randell
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/1175 - Erection of front porch; 2 The Terrace, Aylsham
Road for Miss V Campbell
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/1122 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear
extension; Little Marsh Cottage, Little Marsh, Binham Road for Mr D Bennett
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/13/1133 - Erection of one and a half storey side/front
extension; Primrose Cottage, 21 Croxton Road for Mr J Henderson
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0755 - Erection of replacement vehicle repair workshop
with MOT testing bay; The Workshop, White House Farm, Cromer Road for Mr R
Neale
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
86
19 December 2013
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0781 - Variation of Conditions 1, 5, 6, 7 and 13 of planning
permission ref: 11/1255 to permit permanent residential occupancy; The
Granary, Hall Farm, Hall Road for Mr M Mayes
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/1154 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Oak Tree
Farm, Back Southrepps Road for Mr & Mrs Janes
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1024 - Erection of single-storey extension to clubhouse;
Holt Rugby Football Club, Bridge Road for Holt Rugby Football Club Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0312 - Retention of garden room as constructed for use
as temporary living accommodation/site office; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms G
Elwood
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/13/0997 - Erection of one two-storey dwelling and two
single-storey dwellings and detached garages (revised design); 3 Melton Road
for Orchard Development Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/1162 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 75/0487 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
occupancy restriction; 160 Wells Road for Mr C Cargill
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/13/1139 - Installation of window vinyl and retention of fascia and
three lanterns; Premier Store, 2 Market Place for Mr M Sherwood
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/13/1193 - Installation of replacement dormer windows; 9, 11 and 13
Drozier House, Market Place for Mrs Y Homan
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/13/1214 - Internal alterations to facilitate the construction of new
floor and underpin wall between lounge and kitchen; 7 Albert Street for Mr A
Vadhir
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/1064 - Erection of retail unit and car port; 2 Franklin's Yard, Bull
Street for Mr L Hagon
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LE/13/1065 - Demolition of outbuildings and garage; 2 Franklin's Yard,
Bull Street for Mr L Hagon
(Conservation Area Demolition)
HOLT - PF/13/1116 - Erection of sixth form building; Greshams School, Cromer
Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
87
19 December 2013
HORNING - PF/13/0832 - Refurbishment and extension of 24 bed-sit units to
provide 19 single-storey dwellings; 17 - 63 Leeds Way for Victory Housing Trust
(Householder application)
HOVETON - DP/13/1342 - Prior notification of intention to demolish hotel
building; Broads Hotel, Station Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
HOVETON - PF/13/1173 - Installation of roof-mounted108kw solar photo voltaic
power system; Roys (Wroxham) Ltd, Stalham Road, Hoveton, Norwich for Roys
(Wroxham) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/13/1283 - Erection of replacement borehole kiosk; Mundesley
Borehole Site, Knapton Road for Anglian Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/13/0871 - Conversion of barn to two-storey dwelling;
Laurel Farm, The Street, Little Barningham for Mr K Piggot
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0497 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (resubmission); Land at The Warren for Ms Redford
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/1228 - Erection of rear extension; 36 Broad Reaches for Mr and
Mrs Hastwell
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - NMA1/12/1242 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
window and door arrangements to north and east elevations to proposed
extension and to increase the depth of the therapy room; High Mill Hill Cott,
High Mill Hill, Yarmouth Road for Miss I Sale
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/1115 - Removal of condition 3 of planning
permission reference 03/0755 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Barns 2, 3, 4 and 5, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Oakmoor Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1155 - Erection of double garage; 38 Collingwood Drive for
Mr A Hunt
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1179 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission
reference: E2980 to permit all year holiday occupation; 21 Hillside for Mr P
Edwards
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/0633 - Removal of barn and erection of building to provide
one unit of holiday accommodation; Land at Beech Farm, Common Road, for Mr
M King
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
88
19 December 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1070 - Change of use from B1 (office) to tattoo and
piercing studio; 2 Mundesley Road for Mr D Richards
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1270 - Erection of single-storey side extension to
form annexe.; Oak Dene, Anchor Road, Spa Common for Mr C Baker
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1130 - Conversion of garage/home office to
residential annexe; 102 Norwich Road for Mr A Tartt
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1033 - Variation of condition 12 of planning
permission reference PO/12/1240 to permit permanent residential occupancy to
nine units and three holiday units; Ebridge Mill, Happisburgh Road, White Horse
Common for Mr T Briscoe
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/13/0235 - Removal of Conditions 3,4 & 5 of planning permission
reference: 11/1391 to permit full residential occupation; Green Farm Barns, The
Green for Green Farm Barns (Knapton) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/13/1174 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of garden
room; Old School House, Lower Common, East Runton for Mrs S Hipkin
(Householder application)
RUNTON - AI/13/0861 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; East Runton Stores, High Street, East Runton for East Runton
Stores
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SALTHOUSE - PF/13/1299 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/1135 to permit revised siting and design of garage; Marsh Rise,
Coast Road for Ms Crookenden
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1239 - Erection of 1.2m high boundary fence; Land rear of
Rob's Retreat, 11 Nelson Road for Mr R Page
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1256 - Change of use of part first floor to six guest
bedrooms; Sheringham Golf Club, Sweet Briar Lane for Sheringham Golf Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1203 - Continued use of land as car park from April to
October; Land at The Esplanade for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - HN/13/1184 - Notification of intention to erect replacement rear
conservatory which would project from the original rear wall by 4.3m and which
would have a maximum height of 3m and eaves height of 2.1m; 75 Lyndford
Road for Mr P Button
(Householder Prior Notification)
Development Committee
89
19 December 2013
TATTERSETT - PF/13/1261 - Retention of sectional garage; 30 Halifax Crescent,
Sculthorpe for Mr S Latham
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/13/1048 - Conversion of outbuildings to two units of bed and
breakfast accommodation; Pear Tree Cottage, Courtyard Barn, Hindolveston
Road for Mrs V Kerrison
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/13/1126 - Change of use from C3 (residential) to D1 (day
service) with overnight respite care for one person including external
alterations to door and window openings; Willowdene, Market Street for
Forward Housing
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0852 - Installation of replacement rear windows; 18
Knight Street for Mr Brooks
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/1176 - Installation of replacement door, windows and
render to front elevation; 16 Knight Street for Miss S Walsh
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1168 - Continued use of land for siting of mobile home;
Brick Kiln Farm, Edgar Road for Mr A Calton-Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1230 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1 (retail) and
C3 (residential) to C3 (residential); 33 Wells Road for MDD London Lane
Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/1210 - Internal and external alterations to
facilitate conversion of cellar to toilet facilities; Globe Inn, The Buttlands for The
Globe Inn
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - DP/13/1264 - Demolition of amenity blocks; Pinewoods
Holiday Park, Beach Road for Pinewoods Holiday Park
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1102 - Change of use from residential to a mixed
use of residential and A3 (coffee shop) and installation of shop front; Seaview
Cottage, 24 Freeman Street for Mr & Mrs R McCarton
(Full Planning Permission)
WEST BECKHAM - NMA2/13/0702 - Non material amendment request to permit
increase in width of link extension to allow pitch of roof to match existing.;
Three Bays, Sheringham Road for Mr R Wheeler
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - PF/13/1202 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
raising roof pitch to provide habitable accommodation in roof space; 1
Springfield Close for Mr & Mrs G Weston
(Householder application)
Development Committee
90
19 December 2013
WORSTEAD - PF/13/1187 - Erection of attached replacement garage; Orchard
Piece, Station Road, Briggate for Mr C Howlett
(Householder application)
(13) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/13/0765 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Village Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1118 - Installation of replacement windows; Flat 15a, Clevedon
House, Prince Of Wales Road for Mr B Knights
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1021 - Erection of 8 two-storey dwellings; Land to
rear of 45-55 Happisburgh Road for Ashford Commercial Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
(14) NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0687 - Erection of 0.9m high picket fence; 59 Priory
Close for Mr P Farquharson
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of dormer
windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The
Quay for Mr & Mrs Bertram
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
(15) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for McCarthy
and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
(16) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane, Beeston Regis for Mr T Field
Development Committee
91
19 December 2013
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0687 - Erection of 0.9m high picket fence; 59 Priory
Close for Mr P Farquharson
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Warren
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road for The Royal British Legion
SITE VISIT:- 09 December 2013
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
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
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road for Mr P
Brown
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 17 December 2013
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr D Gilligan
SITE VISIT:- 17 December 2013
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
(17) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0135 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extension; Greenside, The Green, Aldborough, Norwich, NR11 7AA for Mr P
Clark
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for an extension to a
cottage described by the Inspector as of “traditional appearance”. The application
had been recommended for approval by Officers.
The Inspector determined that the main issue was the effect of the proposal on the
living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings, with particular reference to
visual impact and loss of light.
The inspector noted that the proposed development would help to meet the
appellant‟s need for additional living accommodation and provide further family
accommodation in the village. He also noted that the proposed extension would not
cause harm to the character of the surrounding area. Whilst these factors weighted
in favour of the scheme, the Inspector concluded that the benefits would be
Development Committee
92
19 December 2013
outweighed by the unacceptable harm that would be caused to the living conditions
of neighbouring residents.
The development would therefore be contrary to Policy EN 4 of the Council‟s Core
Strategy. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0171 - Removal of wall to provide vehicular access and
erection of flood defence walls; South Granary, 9 The Quay, Blakeney, Holt,
NR25 7NF for Mr Meddle
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
The Council refused planning permission for “proposed vehicular access and parking
space” at the above property. The proposed development included the demolition of
a wall which the Inspector agreed forms part of the historic curtilage of The Red
House, a Grade II* Listed Building.
The Inspector determined that the main issues are whether or not the proposal would
preserve the listed building, its setting and any features of special architectural or
historic interest and whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the Conservation Areas.
In her detailed and comprehensive decision letter the Inspector analysed the
proposed development and concluded that it would result in material harm to both the
setting of the Listed Building and the Conservation Areas. The Inspector then went
on to undertake the balancing exercise required by paragraph 134 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). This requires that in the case of designated
heritage assets, the identified harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal. The Inspector considered that the main public benefit resulting from
the scheme would be enhanced flood protection. She gave significant weight to this
issue.
The Inspector also recognised that the proposal would provide on-site parking for the
occupiers of the dwelling which the appellant had suggested would ease parking
stress in the locality. The Inspector gave this issue limited weight. Having weighed
the competing issues, the Inspector concluded that the benefits of the development
would not outweigh the identified harm. The development would be contrary to
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road, Little Snoring for Norfolk Wildlife
Trust
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
The Wildlife Trust had applied for planning permission for a small visitors‟ car park
and associated access improvements. The application was considered by the
Committee on a number of occasions and was recommended for approval by
Officers at the Committee meeting held on 12 January 2013.
The inspector determined that the main issue was the effect of the proposed
development on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity
of the appeal site. The Inspector noted that the A148 is subject to a 60mph speed
limit at this point and is straight for some distance in either direction, affording good
visibility. He referred to the Highway Authority having no record of reportable
Development Committee
93
19 December 2013
incidents on this stretch of road; the County Council had not objected to the proposed
development.
The Inspector noted that there was an existing access from the A148 and considered
that the proposed car park would provide a safer and more appropriate arrangement
for visitor and volunteer parking than parking on the highway verge. He concluded
that the proposed development would comply with Policy CT 5 of the Council‟s
adopted Core Strategy and also with the NPPF, paragraph 32.
Under the heading “other matters” the Inspector noted local concerns around existing
sporting rights but concluded that these are civil matters for the relevant parties. He
also noted that the Police Liaison Officer had accepted that there would be only
limited risk of anti-social behaviour. He therefore allowed the appeal and granted
planning permission for the proposed car park subject to a number of conditions
specified in the decision notice.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road, Sheringham, NR26 8NN for Mr J
Perry-Warnes
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning application PF/12/1063 for a detached one and a half storey, three bedroom
dwelling was refused and an appeal against the decision has been dismissed.
The Inspector found that there were two main issues comprising the effect of the
proposed development on
a) character and appearance of the area
b) living conditions of nearby residents with regard to outlook.
The Inspector concluded that by reason of its scale, massing and elevated position
the proposed dwelling would be conspicuously taller than the majority of surrounding
development and therefore contrary to Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
On the second issue the Inspector concluded that there would be no unacceptable
impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residents.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal on grounds relating to the character
and appearance of the area only.
(18) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Matthew Champion v North Norfolk District Council and others (Crisp Maltings,
Great Ryburgh)
Court of Appeal refs 2013/1410 and 2013/1418
The Council’s decision to grant planning permission (reference PF/09/0966) for grain
silos, a lorry park and associated development at Crisp Maltings‟ site in Great
Ryburgh was quashed by the High Court (R. (Champion) v North Norfolk District
Council [2013] EWHC 1065). The judgment was given by James Dingemans QC
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 7 May 2013.
Leave to appeal the decision of the High Court was granted and the appeal was
heard in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on 26 November 2013. Judgment was
reserved and it is hoped that this will be issued before Christmas.
Development Committee
94
19 December 2013
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine,
maximum hub height 60m and maximum tip height 86.5m and associated
infrastructure was refused by the District Council on 30 August 2012. That decision
was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan
Novitzky, allowed the appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The
appeal
decision
letter
was
issued
on
8
April
2013
(reference
APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council has initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector’s decision under
section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This matter is listed for
hearing in the High Court on 22 January 2014.
Development Committee
95
19 December 2013